New Addition to the ASCE/SEI 7-22 Standard Protects Buildings from a 500-year Flood Event
June 05, 2023 —
The American Society of Civil EngineersReston, VA — The
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) released a new update to their most widely used standard today,
ASCE/SEI 7-22 Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Building and Other Structures. As the increasing frequency of severe storms puts strain on communities across the globe, the design standard's
new flood load provisions will protect against 500-year flood events, which is a significant improvement to the 100-year flood hazard referenced in the previous version. The update — which is available in a supplement as a free download — is a significant revision of the design provisions in Chapter 5 to strengthen building resilience against the flood hazard. The ASCE 7 national loading standard is an integral part of building codes in the United States and around the globe.
"For more than 30 years, the ASCE 7 standard has been the authoritative source for the specification of minimum design loads and related criteria in the civil engineering community," said Tom Smith, ASCE Executive Director. "To ensure structures continue to be safe for the public, it is imperative that the standards we rely on are updated to account for emerging risks to the built environment. This Supplement is the most significant change to the standard's flood load provisions since the inception of ASCE 7 and will improve the safety and reliability of structures across the globe."
ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS
Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 150,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Washington Supreme Court Rules that a Holder of a Certificate of Insurance Is Entitled to Coverage
March 09, 2020 —
Sally Kim & Kyle Silk-Eglit - Gordon & Rees Insurance Coverage Law BlogThe Washington courts have historically found that the purpose of a certificate of insurance is to advise others as to the existence of insurance, but that a certificate is not the equivalent of an insurance policy. However, the Washington State Supreme Court recently held that, under certain circumstances, an insurer may be bound by the representations that its insurance agent makes in a certificate of insurance as to the additional insured (“AI”) status of a third party. Specifically, in T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of America, the Supreme Court found that where an insurance agent had erroneously indicated in a certificate of insurance that an entity was an AI under a liability policy, that entity would be considered as an AI based upon the agent’s apparent authority, despite boilerplate disclaimer language contained in the certificate. T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of America, Slip. Op. No. 96500-5, 2019 WL 5076647 (Wash. Oct. 10, 2019).
In this case, Selective Insurance Company of America (“Selective”) issued a liability policy to a contractor who had been retained by T-Mobile Northeast (“T-Mobile NE”) to construct a cell tower. The policy conferred AI status to a third party if the insured-contractor had agreed in a written contract to add the third party as an AI to the policy. Under the terms of the subject construction contract, the contractor was required to name T-Mobile NE as an AI under the policy. T-Mobile NE was therefore properly considered as an AI because the contractor was required to provide AI coverage to T-Mobile NE under the terms of their contract.
However, over the course of approximately seven years, Selective’s own insurance agent issued a series of certificates of insurance that erroneously identified a different company, “T-Mobile USA”, as an AI under the policy. This was in error because there was no contractual requirement that T-Mobile USA be added as an AI. Nonetheless, the certificates stated that T-Mobile USA was an AI, and they were signed by the agent as Selective’s “authorized representative.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Sally S. Kim, Gordon & Rees and
Kyle J. Silk-Eglit, Gordon & Rees
Ms. Kim may be contacted at sallykim@grsm.com
Mr. Silk-Eglit may be contacted at ksilkeglit@grsm.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Buy America/Buy American, a Primer For Contractors
March 23, 2020 —
John P. Ahlers - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCPresident Trump has promoted his campaign agenda—bringing manufacturing jobs back to the United States (especially jobs relating or pertaining to the steel industry.) To do this, he has strengthened domestic preferences through the Buy America and Buy American Acts.[1]
1. Buy America Act:
The Buy America Act refers to a collection of domestic contract restrictions pertaining to the U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration projects (highway, mass transit and other transportation projects). The USDOT grants provided to state and local governments prohibit the federal government from obligating funds unless the steel, iron and manufactured products used in the projects are produced in the U.S. Generally, Buy America applies to projects where USDOT provides part of the funding, applies to steel, iron and manufactured products, and requires that “all manufacturing processes, including application of a coating, for these materials…occur in the United States.”
- Buy American:
Buy American is critical for construction contractors because FAR 52.225-9 requires that all federal construction contracts under approximately $7 million[2] contain a clause which mandates that contractors use “only domestic construction material in performing [the] contract.” [Note: This requirement is not limited to steel and steel products, as the Buy America Act is.]
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Ahlers may be contacted at
john.ahlers@acslawyers.com
Halliburton to Pay $1.1 Billion to Settle Spill Lawsuits
September 03, 2014 —
David Wethe, Margaret Cronin Fisk and Laurel Calkins – BloombergHalliburton Co. agreed to pay $1.1 billion to settle a majority of lawsuits brought over its role in the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history.
The agreement is subject to court approval and includes legal fees, the Houston-based company said in a statement today. Halliburton was accused by spill victims and BP Plc of doing defective cementing work on the Macondo well before the April 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Halliburton blamed the incident on decisions by BP, which owned the well.
The settlement comes as the judge overseeing oil-spill cases weighs fault for the disaster. An agreement now averts the company’s risk of a more costly judgment for some spill victims and removes much of the uncertainty that has plagued Halliburton for the past four years as investors waited to see the payout tally. With its biggest piece of liability resolved, Halliburton can refocus its attention on developing new oilfield technology that will help it boost profits worldwide.
Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg journalists
David Wethe,
Margaret Cronin Fisk and
Laurel Calkins
Mr. Wethe may be contacted at dwethe@bloomberg.net; Ms. Fisk may be contacted at mcfisk@bloomberg.net; and Ms. Calkins may be contacted at lcalkins@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Norfolk Southern Agrees to $310M Settlement With Feds Over 2023 Ohio Derailment
June 21, 2024 —
James Leggate - Engineering News-RecordNorfolk Southern Corp. has agreed to pay more than $310 million and implement safety improvements as part of a settlement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Dept. of Justice over the disastrous February 2023 train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, officials and the company announced May 23.
Reprinted courtesy of
James Leggate, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Business Insurance Names Rachel Hudgins Among 2024 Break Out Award Winners
April 22, 2024 —
Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogWe are pleased to announce that counsel
Rachel E. Hudgins has been recognized as one of Business Insurance’s 2024 Break Out Award winners. The magazine’s Break Out Awards honor 40 top professionals each year from a competitive field of nominees who have under 15 years’ experience in the insurance and risk management sector and are “on track to be the next leaders in the risk management and property/casualty insurance field.”
Clients describe Rachel as their “chief contact for high-exposure coverage work.” She meets clients where they are with a curiosity and interest in their business strategies, as well as an ability to distill complex insurance concepts into digestible terms. Rachel also has depth of experience in coverage litigation. She has litigated hundreds of insurance coverage and bad faith claims in state and federal courts across the country and US territories.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Cal/OSHA ETS: Newest Version Effective Today
January 17, 2022 —
Amy R. Patton, Matthew C. Lewis & Rana Ayazi - Payne & FearsThe newest version of the Cal/OSHA ETS goes into effect today, Jan. 14, 2022, and will expire on April 15, 2022. A redline of the recently expired Cal/OSHA ETS and the newest Cal/OSHA ETS is available HERE. The newest Cal/OSHA ETS, which was drafted prior to Dec. 16, 2021, is already partially out-of-date based on the California Department of Public Heath’s Guidance For the Use of Masks (released Jan. 5, 2022) and the CDPH’s Guidance for Local Health Jurisdictions on Isolation and Quarantine of the General Public (released Jan. 8, 2022); these changes have been addressed in the Cal/OSHA ETS FAQs.
With all of these changes occurring (not to mention all of the litigation surrounding the now-stayed federal OSHA ETS), California employers are asking: How do I comply with the current Cal/OSHA ETS and the updated CDPH Guidance? Here are the key points to ensure you are in compliance:
- New Shorter Isolation and Quarantine Periods
Isolation: When an employee has COVID-19 (even without symptoms).
- Day 0: First day of symptoms or the day a positive test specimen was collected. Begin isolation.
- Day 1: First full day after symptoms developed or positive test specimen was collected.
- Day 5: Recommended day to take COVID-19 test.
Reprinted courtesy of
Amy R. Patton, Payne & Fears,
Matthew C. Lewis, Payne & Fears and
Rana Ayazi, Payne & Fears
Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com
Mr. Lewis may be contacted at mcl@paynefears.com
Ms. Ayazi may be contacted at ra@paynefears.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment in Landis v. Fannin Builders
April 20, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFThe Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in Landis v. William Fannin Builders. Landis contracted Fannin Builders to build their home. The case involved staining problems on the T1-11 siding chosen by the plaintiffs.
After a year and a half of discussion on how to resolve the problem of uneven staining on the siding, Landis filed suit “against Fannin Builders, alleging claims for breach of contract, breach of the express limited warranty, and violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (“OCSPA”). Fannin Builders, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against 84 Lumber, alleging claims for breach of contract and indemnification. With the trial court’s leave, Fannin Builders also later amended its answer to add a counterclaim against appellees for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. In the counterclaim, Fannin Builders alleged that appellees still owed it $3,908.98 for the construction of appellees’ home.”
“In its decision, the trial court found in appellees’ favor on their breach of contract claim and against appellees on their claims for breach of the express limited warranty and violation of the OCSPA. Additionally, the trial court found in Fannin Builders’ favor on its counterclaim for breach of contract and against Fannin Builders on its third-party claims for breach of contract and indemnity. The trial court determined that appellees’ damages amounted to $66,906.24, and after setting off the $3,908.98 that appellees owed Fannin Builders under the construction contract, the trial court awarded appellees $62,997.26. The trial court reduced its decision to judgment on May 18, 2010.”
Fannin Builders appealed this judgment and assigned the following errors:
[1.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant Breached its Contract with Appellees when it provided a Semi-Transparent Oil-Based Stain that Simply did not Meet their Approval.
[a.] The Contract does not Contain a Satisfaction Clause.
[b.] Even if the Court Implies a Satisfaction Clause, the Court Should Apply an Objective Standard.
[2.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Failing to Consider Appellant’s Right to Cure.
[3.] The Trial Court committed Reversible Error by not Assessing Damages Using “Diminished Value Standard,” and by Creating a Remedy that Constitutes Economic Waste.
[4.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant is Barred from Seeking Indemnification When 84 [Lumber] Never Fulfilled its Obligations Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement Entered on August 2, 2005.
In response to the first assigned error, the Court of Appeals stated: “Because the failure to provide siding of a uniform color, not appellees’ displeasure, breached the contract, we reject Fannin Builders’ contention that the trial court implied a satisfaction clause into the contract and found a breach of that clause. Accordingly, we overrule Fannin Builders’ first assignment of error.”
The Court of Appeals overruled the second assignment of error and provided the following reasoning: “Although Fannin Builders depends upon a term of the limited warranty for its right to cure, the trial court concluded that no breach of the limited warranty occurred. Fannin Builders breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIA’s Quality Standards. Consequently, the limited warranty does not apply to this case, and thus, it does not prevent appellees’ recovery of damages.”
The Appeals Court found “the trial court’s award of damages” was “both reasonable and supported by competent, credible evidence,” and therefore concluded “that the trial court did not err in setting appellees’ damages at $62,997.26.” The Fannin Builders third assignment of error was overruled.
The fourth and final assignment of error was also overruled by the Court of Appeals. “While Fannin Builders correctly asserts that 84 Lumber never installed the replacement siding, it ignores the fact that it ordered 84 Lumber to remove the replacement siding from appellees’ property. Thus, Fannin Builders precluded 84 Lumber from completely performing under the August 2, 2005 letter agreement. […] Consequently, Fannin Builders cannot now claim that the letter agreement is unenforceable or that it is entitled to indemnification from 84 Lumber. Because Fannin Builders assumed all liability for the defective siding in the letter agreement, it is responsible for appellees’ damages.”
James A. Zitesman, Columbus, Ohio Business Attorney, compared the case to Jones v. Centex (Ohio App. 2010), which had a different verdict:
“The common thread is the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the Jones case, the Court found that the buyers had in fact waived all implied warranties, including the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the contract between Jones and Centex, the builder stated that it “…would not sell the property to Purchasers without this waiver.” Probably should have been a sign to the buyers.
In the Landis case, the Court stated, “Contracts for the future construction of a residence include a duty, implied by law, that the builder must perform its work in a workmanlike manner.” The Court gave significant weight to the concept of the implied warranty of good workmanship. The builder relied upon the BIA Warranty which limits builders’ liability and exposure to legal issues. The trial court concluded there was no breach of the limited warranty, rather the builder “breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIAs Quality Standards.”
The Supreme Court of Ohio has accepted the Jones v. Centex Homes case for review.
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
