English High Court Finds That Business-Interruption Insurance Can Cover COVID-19 Losses
November 02, 2020 —
Lorelie S. Masters, Scott P. DeVries, Patrick M. McDermott & Jorge R. Aviles - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogIn a decision that will influence how policyholders and insurers around the world address business-interruption coverage for COVID-19 losses, the English High Court recently handed down its much-anticipated judgment in the “Test Case,” The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) v. Arch et al. The High Court’s comprehensive analysis will likely serve as an additional tool in policyholders’ arsenal in the ongoing battles over COVID-19 coverage.
The Panel, composed of two well-respected judges, one from the High Court (the UK’s trial court) and the other from the English Court of Appeal, analyzed 21 sample policy wordings in coverage extensions for business-interruption losses due to disease or the issuance of public authority orders. (Many of these wordings are also found in policies sold to US policyholders.) The High Court found that the COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing government actions fell within the coverage provided by the sample policy wordings.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth,
Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth,
Patrick M. McDermott, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Jorge R. Aviles, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com
Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com
Mr. McDermott may be contacted at pmcdermott@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Aviles may be contacted at javiles@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Superintendent’s On-Site Supervision Compensable as Labor Under Miller Act
March 13, 2023 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent Miller Act payment bond decision out of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, U.S. f/u/b/o Civil Construction, LLC v. Hirani Engineering & Land Surveying, PC, 58 F.4th 1250 (D.C. Circ. 2023), dealt with the issue of whether a subcontractor’s superintendent constitutes recoverable “labor” within the meaning of the Miller Act and compensable as a cost under the Miller Act that typically views labor as on-site physical labor.
The issue is that the Miller Act covers “[e]very person that has furnished labor or material in carrying out work provided for in a contract.” Civil Construction, supra, at 1253 quoting 40 U.S.C. s. 3133(b)(1). The Miller Act does not define labor. The subcontractor claimed labor includes actual superintending at the job site. The surety disagreed that a superintendent’s presence on a job site constitutes labor as the superintendent has to actually perform physical labor on the job site to constitute compensable labor under the Miller Act.
The subcontractor argued its subcontract and the government’s quality control standards required detailed daily reports that verified manpower, equipment, and work performed at the job site. It further claimed its superintendent had to continuously supervise and inspect construction activities on-site: “[the] superintendent had to be on-site to account for, among other things, hours worked by crew members, usage and standby hours for each piece of equipment, materials delivered, weather throughout the day, and all work performed. These on-site responsibilities reflected the government’s quality control standards, under which the superintendent as ‘the most senior site manager at the project, is responsible for the overall construction activities at the site…includ[ing] all quality, workmanship, and production of crews and equipment.” Civil Construction, supra, at 1253-54.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Duty To Defend Construction Defect Case Affirmed, Duty to Indemnify Reversed In Part
May 07, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's finding of a duty to defend, but reversed, in part, the insurer's duty to indemnify. Carithers v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5540 (11th Cir. April 7, 2015).
After discovering a number of defects in their home, the Carithers sued their homebuilder, Cronk Duch Miller & Associates. Cronk Duch's insurer, Mid-Continent Casualty Company, refused to defend.The parties entered into a consent judgment for $90,000 in favor of the Carithers. Cronk Duch then assigned to the Carithers the right to collect the judgment from Mid-Continent.
The Carithers then sued Mid-Continent. Florida law applied. Mid-Continent has issued four policies to Cronk Duch from March 2005 to October 2008. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the duty to defend issue. The underlying complaint alleged that the defects could not have been discovered until 2010, after the last policy period. The district court rejected Mid-Continent's argument that property damage occurred when it was discovered or when it reasonably could have been discovered. Therefore, summary judgment on the duty to defend was granted to the Carithers.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Contractors Liable For Their Subcontractor’s Failure To Pay Its Employees’ Wages And Benefits
November 01, 2022 —
Edward O. Pacer & David J. Scriven-Young - ConsensusDocsRecently, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker signed two House Bills that amend the Illinois Wage Payment & Collections Act, 820 ILCS 115 et. seq. (“Wage Act”), to provide greater protection for individuals working in the construction trades against wage theft in a defined class of projects. Pursuant to this new law, every general contractor, construction manager, or “primary contractor,” working on the projects included in the Bill’s purview will be liable for wages that have not been paid by a subcontractor or lower-tier subcontractor on any contract entered into after July 1, 2022, together with unpaid fringe benefits plus attorneys’ fees and costs that are incurred by the employee in bringing an action under the Wage Act. This new wage theft law follows several other states that have considered and passed similar legislation.
These amendments to the Wage Act apply to a primary contractor engaged in “erection, construction, alteration, or repair of a building structure, or other private work.” However, there are important limitations to the amendment’s applicability. The amendment does not apply to projects under contract with state or local government, or to general contractors that are parties to a collective bargaining agreement on a project where the work is being performed. Additionally, the amendment does not apply to primary contractors who are doing work with a value of less than $20,000, or work that involves only the altering or repairing of an existing single-family dwelling or single residential unit in a multi-unit building.
Reprinted courtesy of
Edward O. Pacer, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. (ConsensusDocs) and
David J. Scriven-Young, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. (ConsensusDocs)
Mr. Pacer may be contacted at epacer@pecklaw.com
Mr. Scriven-Young may be contacted at dscriven-young@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court Grants Summary Judgment to Insurer in HVAC Defect Case
August 04, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe US District Court in Colorado has determined in the case of RK Mechanical, Inc. v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America that Travelers did not breach its insurance contract when it refused to cover RK Mechanical.
RK Mechanical performed an HVAC installation for a residential project for which J.E. Dunn Rocky Mountain was the general contractor. As part of the work, RK “installed approximately one hundred seventy-one CPVC flanges, which were manufactured by Charlotte Pipe and Foundry Company.” Two of these flanges failed in June, 2009 leading to water damage. RK replaced the cracked flanges and engaged in water remediation. “Travelers paid Dunn and RK for the costs associated with the water damage associated with the Flange Failure.” The court notes that Travelers did not pay for the cracked flanges, however.
Subsequently, RK examined the remaining flanges, finding many cracked ones. These were replaced with new ones. Later, all the Charlotte flanges were replaced with ones from another manufacturer. RK applied for coverage.
All sides brought in their experts: “Microbac Laboratories, Inc. prepared a report on behalf of RK concluding that the Flange Failure was due, in part, to an assembly or workmanship defect in addition to manufacturing defects in the flanges. Higgins & Associates prepared a report on behalf of Travelers concluding that the flanges failed due to improper installation. Plastic Failure Labs prepared a report on behalf of the flange manufacturer concluding that the flanges failed due to improper installation by RK.”
At this point, Travelers denied coverage. RK sued alleging that the coverage for flange failure and water damage implicitly includes mitigation costs. The court rejected this claim, noting it would do so even if Travelers had paid for the replacement of the first two flanges. Nor did the court find that replacement of the faulty flanges is not "a covered cause of loss." RK also argued that as it was required to mitigate, Travelers was obligated to cover costs. However, the court found that “the mitigation costs expended by RK were not incurred in an effort to avoid damages from a potential breach of contract by Travelers.” The court additionally noted that despite RK’s claims, the Colorado courts have not found a common law duty to mitigate. Finally, the court found that the exclusions in the policy were not in violation of public policy.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Turning Back the Clock: DOL Proposes Previous Davis-Bacon Prevailing Wage Definition
April 19, 2022 —
David Chidlaw & Carina Novell - Sheppard Mullin Construction & Infrastructure Law BlogOn March 11, 2022, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) proposed reverting the definition of “prevailing wage” under the Davis-Bacon Act to a definition used over 40 years ago. According to the DOL, the proposal is meant to modernize the law and “reflect better the needs of workers in the construction industry and planned federal construction investments.”
[1]
Brief History Lesson
The Davis-Bacon Act was enacted in 1931 and requires the payment of locally prevailing wages and fringe benefits on federal construction contracts. The law applies to workers on contracts in excess of $2,000 entered into by federal agencies and the District of Columbia for the construction, alteration, or repair of public buildings or public works.[2]
From the 1930s to the early 1980s, the DOL used the following three-step process to define prevailing wage:
- Any wage rate paid to a majority of workers.
- If there was no wage rate paid to a majority of workers, then the wage rate paid to the greatest number of workers, provided it was paid to at least 30 percent of workers (i.e., the “30 percent rule”).
- If the 30 percent rule was not met, the weighted average rate.
Reprinted courtesy of
David Chidlaw, Sheppard Mullin and
Carina Novell, Sheppard Mullin
Mr. Chidlaw may be contacted at dchidlaw@sheppardmullin.com
Ms. Novell may be contacted at cnovell@sheppardmullin.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Where Breach of Contract and Tortious Interference Collide
January 11, 2022 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsClaims for breach of contract are numerous in the construction law world. Without these claims we construction attorneys would have a hard time keeping the doors open. A 2021 case examined a different sort of claim that could arise (though, “spoiler alert” did not in this case) during the course of a construction project. That type of claim is one for tortious interference with business expectancy.
In Clark Nexsen, Inc. et. al v. Rebkee, the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia gave a great explanation of the law of this type of claim in analyzing the following basic facts:
In 2018, Clark Nexsen, Inc. (“Clark”) and MEB General Contractors, Inc. (“MEB”) responded to Henrico County’s (“Henrico”) Request for Proposals (“RFP”) for the design and construction of a sport and convocation center (the “Project”). Henrico initially shortlisted Clark and MEB as a “design-build” team for the Project, but later restarted the search, issuing a second RFP. Clark and MEB submitted a second “design-build” proposal, but Henrico selected Rebkee Co. (“Rebkee”) for certain development aspects of the Project. MEB also submitted proposals to Rebkee, and Rebkee selected MEB as the design-builder for the Project. MEB, at Rebkee’s request, solicited proposals from three design firms and ultimately selected Clark as its design partner. From December 2019 to May 2020, Clark and MEB served as the design-build team to assist Rebkee in developing the Project. In connection therewith, Clark developed proprietary designs, technical drawings, and, with MEB, several cost estimates. In February 2020, MEB submitted a $294,334.50 Pay Application to Rebkee for engineering, design, and Project development work. Rebkee never paid MEB. Henrico paid MEB $50,000.00 as partial payment for MEB’s and Clark’s work. MEB then learned that Rebkee was using Clark’s drawings to solicit design and construction proposals from other companies. On July 23, 2020, Rebkee told MEB that Henrico directed it to cancel the design-build arrangement with MEB and Clark and pursue a different planning method. MEB and Clark sued and Rebkee for, among other claims, tortious interference with a business expectancy. Rebkee moved to dismiss the tortious interference claim.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
President Trump’s “Buy American, Hire American” Executive Order and the Construction Industry
June 05, 2017 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogOn April 18, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order No. 13788 implementing his “Buy American, Hire American” campaign promise.
Federal construction contractors familiar with “Buy American” clauses in federal contracts under the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR)–which require materials to be manufactured in the United States (or, depending on the clause, not manufactured in certain countries) unless a waiver is obtained–have waited anxiously to see what Trump’s “Buy American, Hire American” promise would mean for them.
Well . . . as it turns out, not much, at least not yet.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
