Columbus Ohio Building Expert Directory

Can General Contractors Make Subcontractors Pay for OSHA Violations?

March 05, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
OSHA has long held the opinion that general contractors may be held liable for subcontractor’s OSHA violations and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, overseeing the Midwest, has agreed since 2009. To combat this risk, general contractors would be well served to incorporate targeted indemnity provisions into their subcontracts that require subcontractors to pay for all claims and costs associated with subcontractor caused OSHA violations. OSHA’s Multi-Employer Policy OSHA’s Multi-Employer Policy, a/k/a OSHA Instruction CPL 02-00-124, allows OSHA to cite multiple employers at a single worksite for creating a hazard, or for failing to prevent or correct a hazard, even if their own workers are not exposed to the hazard. A ‘‘controlling’’ or ‘‘correcting’’ employer is liable for hazards that it did not take ‘‘reasonable care’’ to detect and prevent. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

What Will the 2024 Construction Economy Look Like?

January 02, 2024 — Grace Calengor - Construction Executive
CE just wrapped its "2024 Economic Update and Forecast" webinar, which revealed some interesting insights for 2023 and projections for next year. Anirban Basu, chief economist for ABC and CEO of Sage Policy Group, began his presentation by stating auspiciously: “The economy has been much stronger along more dimensions than I expected.” Polling: good news for the supply chain Not only did Basu's own research reveal strong construction growth in a majority of sectors, a decent number of construction job openings and wage increases, as well as supply-chain improvement and a stagnating federal rate—but webinar attendees who answered Basu's polling questions felt similarly. Reprinted courtesy of Grace Calengor, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Arezoo Jamshidi Selected to the 2023 San Diego Super Lawyers List

April 03, 2023 — Arezoo Jamshidi - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Congratulations to Arezoo Jamshidi who has been selected to the 2023 San Diego Super Lawyers list. Each year, no more than five percent of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor. Super Lawyers, part of Thomson Reuters, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area. The result is a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys. The Super Lawyers lists are published nationwide in Super Lawyers magazines and in leading city and regional magazines and newspapers across the country. Super Lawyers magazines also feature editorial profiles of attorneys who embody excellence in the practice of law. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Arezoo Jamshidi, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Jamshidi may be contacted at ajamshidi@hbblaw.com

Do You Have the Receipt? Pennsylvania Court Finds Insufficient Evidence That Defendant Sold the Product

December 23, 2024 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Coway USA, Inc., No. 22-cv-3516, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192849, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (District Court) considered whether the plaintiff produced sufficient evidence to establish that the defendant sold and/or marketed a product and, thus, could be held liable for an alleged defect in the product. The plaintiff, a subrogating insurance carrier, brought strict product liability and breach of warranty claims against the defendant—the installer of a bidet in its insured’s home—claiming that the defendant also marketed and sold the bidet. The sole evidence to support a finding that the defendant sold the bidet was the homeowner’s testimony that she bought the product from the installer. The court found that the insured’s testimony, without any documentation or other corroborating evidence, was insufficient to establish that the defendant sold the product. Since proof of a sale is a required element for strict product liability and breach of warranty claims, the District Court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case. This case involved a water loss to the Pennsylvania residence of Mikyung Kim and her husband Adrian Kim (collectively, the Kims) that was discovered in April 2021. An investigation revealed that the water loss originated from the failure of a bidet for a toilet in the second-floor bathroom. The Kims alleged that defendant, Coway USA, Inc. (Coway), sold the bidet and installed it around 2010. An employee of the plaintiff’s liability expert, a materials engineer, opined that a T-connector—a plastic valve that regulates the flow of water to and through the bidet—failed due to overtightening of the connector during the manufacturing process. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

Is It Time to Revisit Construction Defects in Kentucky?

December 11, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Kentucky Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that faulty workmanship on a construction project could not be considered an accident under a commercial general liability policy. The first reason they cited, according to Carl A. Salisbury of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, was that a majority of states had concluded that “claims of faulty workmanship, standing alone, are not ‘occurrences’ under CGL policies.” Mr. Salisbury points out a problem with that: “an overwhelming majority of state Supreme Courts that have considered the question have held that faulty workmanship can be (and usually is) accidental and, therefore, is a covered ‘occurrence.’’ He also notes that in four states, the legislatures have passed laws confirming that faulty workmanship is an occurrence. The “majority viewpoint” cited by the Kansas Supreme Court is currently held by four other states, while twenty states hold the view that construction defects are accidents and thus occurrences. Since 2010, five states have reversed their stance, coming to what is now the clear majority view, including South Carolina. The Kansas court relied on a South Carolina decision that Mr. Salisbury described as “since repudiated” by “both the legislature and Supreme Court of that state.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Developer Pre-Conditions in CC&Rs Limiting Ability of HOA to Make Construction Defect Claims, Found Unenforceable

August 16, 2021 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
The Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (Civ. Code §4000, et seq.), also known simply as “Davis-Stirling,” is a statute that applies to condominium, cooperative and planned unit development communities in California. The statute, which governs the formation and management of homeowners associations or HOAs, also governs lawsuits filed by HOAs for construction defects. In the next case, Smart Corners Owner Association v. CJUF Smart Corner LLC, Case No. D076775 (May 20, 2021), the 4th District Court of Appeal addressed the pre-litigation voting requirements of Davis-Stirling and the impact of recent amendments to the Act. The Smart Corners Case In 2004, CJUF Smart Corner LLC contracted with Hensel Phelps Construction Company for the construction of the Smart Corner condominium project, a 19-story mixed-use development with 301 residential units and common areas, in San Diego, California. As part of the development an HOA was formed, the Smart Corner Owner Association. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

New Mexico Holds One-Sided Dispute Resolution Provisions Are Unenforceable

November 05, 2024 — Bill Wilson - Construction Law Zone
Dispute resolution provisions that grant one party the unilateral right to choose either litigation or arbitration to resolve disputes are common in the construction industry. The main difference between the two forums is that courts are more likely to strictly enforce contract terms as written as well as the applicable law, while arbitrators make decisions on more equitable considerations, untethered to the contract terms and—to some degree—the law. The party with the sole discretion to select the dispute resolution procedure can select the process most beneficial to its interests based on the nature of the dispute, regardless of who brings the claims. In Atlas Electrical Construction, Inc. v. Flintco, LLC, 550 P.3d 881 (N.M. Ct. App. 2024), the Court of Appeals of New Mexico recently held that an arbitration provision in a subcontract, under which the contractor retained the exclusive right to choose whether disputes arising under the subcontract were litigated in court or arbitrated was unreasonably one-sided, substantively unconscionable, and unenforceable. The Atlas Electrical case involved two sophisticated entities with equal bargaining strength to negotiate the terms of a subcontract. The parties agreed to a subcontract provision which provided in the relevant part:

In the event [contractor] and [subcontractor] cannot resolve the dispute through direct discussions or mediation … then the dispute shall, at the sole discretion of [contractor], be decided either by submission to (a) arbitration … or (b) litigation …

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLP
Mr. Wilson may be contacted at wwilson@rc.com

Court Denies Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Collapse Claim

January 20, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Facing yet another collapse claim based upon alleged poorly mixed cement, the Federal District Court in Connecticut denied the insurer's motion to dismiss. Oliveria v. Safeco Ins Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147256 (D. Conn. Aug. 29, 2019). In 1993, the insureds' purchased their home that had been built in 1986. Safeco insured the property. In February 2017, the insureds noticed that the basement walls had a series of cracks. They consulted professionals and learned that the cracking was due to a chemical compound found in certain concrete walls constructed in the late 1980s with concrete most likely from the J. J. Mottes Concrete Company. The insureds submitted a claim to Safeco for the substantial impairment to the structural integrity of their basement walls. Safeco denied the claim. The insureds filed suit. Safeco moved to dismiss. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

COLUMBUS OHIO BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES