Construction Managers, Are You Exposing Yourselves to Labor Law Liability?
February 22, 2021 —
Timothy P. Welch - Hurwitz & Fine, P.C.When dealing with construction site accidents, who a party is matters. Under Labor Law sections 200, 240(1) and 241(6) owners, contractors,
and their agents have a non-delegable duty to provide reasonable and adequate protection to workers from risks inherent at work sites, with a specific emphasis placed on elevation-related hazards. Given the near strict liability nature of Labor Law section 240(1), it is critical to identify whether a party is a proper Labor Law defendant from the get-go.
While identifying the owner (and usually the contractor) may be relatively straightforward, identifying “their agents” has proven to be a more complex undertaking. It should be noted that the requirements set forth in the Labor Law are non-delegable from the standpoint of the owner or contractor, however, the duties themselves can be assigned to “agents” of an owner or “agents” of a contractor. When such an assignment occurs, the same non-delegable duty held by the owner or contractor is imposed on the agents as well. Moreover, “once an entity becomes an agent under the Labor Law it cannot escape liability to an injured plaintiff by delegating the work to another entity.[1]”
An entity that often skirts the line between being an agent and not, is the Construction Manager. Traditionally, the Construction Manager has been found to be outside the purview of the Labor Law when its scope of work is narrowly focused on scheduling and general coordination of the construction process. However, when a Construction Manager’s scope expands, so does its risk that it may, in fact, become a proper Labor Law defendant.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Timothy P. Welch, Hurwitz & Fine, P.C.Mr. Welch may be contacted at
tpw@hurwitzfine.com
North Carolina Court Rules In Favor Of All Sums
July 13, 2020 —
Lorelie S. Masters & Patrick M. McDermott - Hunton Andrews KurthA North Carolina court recently ruled in favor of all sums allocation. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC v. AG Insurance SA/NV, No. 17 CVS 5594 (N.C. Sup. Ct.). In that case, Duke Energy is seeking coverage for “liabilities linked to coal combustion residuals (‘CCRs’), i.e., coal ash, at fifteen Duke-owned power plants in North and South Carolina.” In a recent summary judgment decision, the court resolved a dispute between Duke and TIG Insurance Company, as successor to Ranger Insurance Company, about whether all sums allocation or pro rata allocation applied.
The court found that “the non-cumulation provisions make plain” that all sums allocation applied. It also noted that “a large majority of the courts in other jurisdictions that have considered this issue have recognized that non-cumulation provisions such as those here compel all sums rather than pro rata allocation.” The decisions to the contrary, according to the court, had ruled “done so on public policy grounds” and not based on “the application of the rules of contract interpretation.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Patrick M. McDermott, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com
Mr. McDermott may be contacted at pmcdermott@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Texas Supreme Court: Breach of Contract Not Required to Prevail on Statutory Bad Faith Claim
June 06, 2018 —
Bethany L. Barrese - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.In USAA Texas Lloyds Company v. Menchaca, the Supreme Court of Texas clarified long-standing confusion regarding whether damages for bad faith are recoverable in the absence of a breach of contract under Texas law. The Menchaca case takes an in-depth dive into decades’ worth of Texas precedent and concludes that, under certain circumstances, an insured can recover policy benefits as damages for bad faith without finding that the insurer was in breach of contract.
The story of this case begins with Hurricane Ike in September 2008. Homeowner Gail Menchaca contacted her homeowner’s insurance company, USAA Texas Llloyds Company (“USAA”) to report that the storm had damaged her home. USAA sent an adjuster to investigate the claim, and USAA determined that although the policy covered some of the damage, no benefits would be paid under the policy because the repair estimate did not exceed the policy deductible. Five months later, at Ms. Menchaca’s request, another USAA adjuster inspected the property and reached the same conclusion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bethany L. Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Barrese may be contacted at
blb@sdvlaw.com
No Conflict in Successive Representation of a Closely-Held Company and Its Insiders Where Insiders Already Possess Company’s Confidential Information
August 02, 2017 —
Renata L. Hoddinott, David W. Evans, & Howard M. Garfield - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Beachcomber Management Crystal Cove, LLC v. Superior Court (Salisbury) (No. G054078, filed June 28, 2017; pub. and mod. order July 28, 2017), the Fourth Appellate District granted a writ of mandate vacating a trial court’s order disqualifying defendants’ counsel.
In Beachcomber, plaintiffs filed a shareholder derivative action against defendants Beachcomber Management and Douglas Cavanaugh (collectively, “defendants”) alleging defendants abused their position and mismanaged nominal defendant and similarly named Beachcomber at Crystal Cove (“Beachcomber”). Between 2009 and 2011, defendants and Beachcomber had each hired Kohut & Kohut LLP (“Kohut”) to represent them on at least four different occasions. In the underlying action, defendants hired Kohut again to represent them, while Beachcomber hired another law firm to represent it.
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys
Renata L. Hoddinott,
David W. Evans and
Howard M. Garfield Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Seven Coats Rose Attorneys Named to Texas Rising Stars List
March 12, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFSeven attorneys from Coats Rose were named to the “Texas Rising Stars list,” which is comprised of “the top up-and-coming attorneys in Texas for 2014,” according to a press release on PR Newswire. “Each year, no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state receive this honor. The selection for this respected list is made by the research team at Super Lawyers.”
The Coats Rose attorneys named include “Charles Conrad, Jon Paul Hoelscher, Ryan Kinder, Matthew Moore and Timothy Rothberg in Houston; Brian Gaudet in League City; and Mason Hester in San Antonio.”
According to PR Newswire, “For more than 30 years, Coats Rose attorneys have worked with clients in construction/surety law, real estate law, commercial litigation of all types, municipal law, public finance, affordable housing, insurance law, labor and employment law, and governmental relations. Coats Rose is comprised of over 90 attorneys, with offices in Houston, Clear Lake, Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, and New Orleans.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pennsylvania Mechanics’ Lien “Waivers” and “Releases”: What’s the Difference?
March 19, 2015 —
Thomas C. Rogers – White and Williams LLPIn the world of Pennsylvania mechanics’ liens there is much confusion about the interchangeable use of the words mechanics lien “waiver” and mechanics’ lien “release.” Many who work in the world of real estate in Pennsylvania, be they contractors, subcontractors, developers, lenders, or attorneys, use these terms interchangeably without understanding that there is a meaningful difference. Failure to understand the difference creates confusion when discussing issues and drafting documents regarding mechanics’ liens.
In Pennsylvania a mechanics’ lien “waiver” is the pre-construction waiver of liens that was historically executed by a general contractor and an owner and filed with the Prothonotary in the county in which construction is located. These pre-construction lien “waivers,” assuming they were properly prepared, signed by the contractor and owner and filed in accordance with applicable law, negated the ability of that contractor and its subcontractors to file a mechanics’ lien on the subject property. These pre-construction lien “waivers” were part of every construction loan closing up through the amendments to the Pennsylvania Mechanics’ Lien Act that went into effect in 2007. Since 2007, the Mechanics’ Lien Act has been amended twice to further address those circumstances in which pre-construction lien waivers still have vitality. Except with respect to those narrow situations specifically provided for in the statute, pre-construction lien “waivers” are against public policy in Pennsylvania.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Thomas C. Rogers, White and Williams LLPMr. Rogers may be contacted at
rogerst@whiteandwilliams.com
One Word Makes All The Difference – The Distinction Between “Pay If Paid” and “Pay When Paid” Clauses
April 06, 2016 —
David A. Harris – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPPayment clauses in California construction contracts are often complex and multi-layered. This is especially true in contracts between general contractors and their subcontractors. The general does not want to pay the subs until it receives funding from the owners. The subs, of course, want their progress and final payments as soon as possible.
Up until 1997, two different payment provisions were used in California contracts to manage payments by a general to its subcontractors. The first was called a “pay if paid” clause, and provided a contractor did not have to pay its subcontractors for work performed unless the subcontractor was first paid by the owner of the project. The second was the “pay when paid clause.” It required subcontractors to be paid for their work after the general was paid by the owner, or within “a reasonable time” after the subcontractors finished their work if the owner did not pay the general.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David A. Harris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPMr. Harris may be contacted at
dharris@hbblaw.com
New York Federal Court Enforces Construction Exclusion, Rejects Reimbursement Claim
August 03, 2020 —
Eric D. Suben - Traub LiebermanIn Crescent Beach Club, LLC v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2020 WL 3414697 (E.D.N.Y. June 22, 2020), the district court considered application of a CGL policy issued to a property owner containing the following exclusion:
"This policy does not apply to any ‘bodily injury’, ‘property damage’, ‘personal and advertising injury’, or any other loss, cost, defense fee, expense, injury, damage, claim, dispute or ‘suit’ either arising out of, or related to, any construction, renovation, rehabilitation, demolition, erection, excavation or remedition [sic] of any building and includes planning, site preparation, surveying or other other [sic] construction or development of real property. This exclusion, however, shall not apply to routine maintenance activities."
Plaintiff in the underlying action alleged injury while engaged in construction work at the insured’s premises. The information the insurer received was conflicting as to whether plaintiff was demolishing a pergola (excluded) or merely removing vines (not excluded). The insurer reserved its rights accordingly.
At his deposition in the underlying action, the plaintiff testified he was in a manlift performing demolition at the time he was injured. The insured’s property manager also testified that the pergola was being demolished. Approximately one month after the depositions, the insurer denied coverage based on the exclusion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Eric D. Suben, Traub LiebermanMr. Suben may be contacted at
esuben@tlsslaw.com
