Surveys: Hundreds of Design Professionals See Big COVID-19 Business Impacts
April 27, 2020 —
Bruce Buckley & Debra K. Rubin - Engineering News-RecordAs more states, counties and cities call on non-essential businesses to shut down to help ease the effects of the coronavirus pandemic, design professionals already see major workload impacts from the economic slowdown, according to three new association surveys of members and one of CEOs by a financial consulting firm.
Reprinted courtesy of
Bruce Buckley, Engineering News-Record and
Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
COVID-19 Likely No Longer Covered Under Force Majeure
February 01, 2023 —
Rachel E. Pelovitz - Construction ExecutiveA recent decision by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has shaken up construction contracts. While companies could claim “force majeure” to exempt themselves from contractual obligations during much of the pandemic, this decision challenges ongoing validity of those claims.
The decision was based on the Army Corps of Engineers deeming a bid from Boulder, Colorado–based American Mine Services (AMS) as nonresponsive because it included a COVID-19 force majeure clause. In reviewing the Corps’ decision, GAO—referencing the Federal Acquisition Regulation—found that “epidemics” and “quarantine restrictions” were already included in the contract between the Corps and AMS. Although AMS claimed that “COVID-19 is considered a force majeure event along with any other similar disease, epidemic or pandemic event,” the GAO concluded that this interpretation limited the rights of the government too much.
Reprinted courtesy of
Rachel E. Pelovitz, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ms. Pelovitz may be contacted at
pelovitz@abc.org
Construction Defect Suit Can Continue Against Plumber
June 28, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Kansas Court of Appeals has reversed a district court ruling that a homeowner’s suit against a plumber was barred under the economic loss doctrine. However, subsequently the Kansas Supreme Court “refused to extend the economic loss doctrine to homeowner claims against construction contractors.” In light of this, the appeals court sent the case back to the lower court.
The case, Coker v. Siler, was brought by Gregory Coker, who had bought a home from J.M.C. Construction. JMC purchased an unfinished house from Michael D. Siler in August 2006. As part of the completion process, John M. Chaney, the president of JMC, installed the water line into the residence. Mr. Coker bought the home in September 2007.
Starting in April 2008, Mr. Coker noticed that his water bills had increased. Mr. Coker could find “no evidence of a leak above the ground,” so he contacted JMC Construction. Mr. Chaney had R.D. Johnson Excavation dig up the water line, after which a gap was discovered that had been allowing water to flow under the foundation. In addition to the higher water bills, an engineer determined that the water “resulted in cracks in the wall and uneven doors.”
Mr. Coker sued, Siler, J.M.C. and Chaney for negligence, breach of implied warranty, strict liability, and breach of express warranty. J.M.C. and Chaney requested a summary judgment. The court dismissed Mr. Coker’s claims of negligence, strict liability, and breach of implied warranty on the basis of the economic loss doctrine, rejecting a petition from Mr. Coker to reconsider. The court, however, allowed Mr. Cocker to proceed with his claim of express warranty. In December, 2011, Mr. Coker accepted an offer from J.M.C. of $40,000.
Mr. Coker then appealed the summary judgment, making the claim that while the court’s decision was based on Prendiville v. Contemporary Homes, Inc., this has now been overruled by David v. Hett. In this case, “the court ultimately found the rationale supporting the economic loss doctrine failed to justify a departure from a long time of cases in Kansas that establish a homeowner’s right to assert claims against residential contractors.” The appeals court concluded that “although the district court properly relied on the law as it existed at the time of its ruling, the intervening change in the law necessarily renders the conclusion reached by the district court erroneous as a matter of law.”
In sending this case back to the district court, the appeals court noted that the lower court will need to determine if the “defendant accused of negligence did not have a duty to act in a certain manner towards the plaintiff,” in which case “summary judgment is proper. Mr. Coker claims that Mr. Chaney did indeed have this duty.
Further, Mr. Coker claimed that Mr. Chaney had a duty arising out of implied warranty. The appeals court questioned whether the district court properly applied the economic loss doctrine to this claim, because despite being president of the construction company, Mr. Chaney “in his individual capacity as a plumber performing work for Coker, was not a party to the J.M.C. contract.” The court found that “Coker’s claim that Chaney breached an implied duty within such a contract fails as a matter of law.”
However, the court did uphold Cocker’s claim of a contractor liability for injury to a third party, noting that “Chaney owed Coker a legal duty independent of Coker’s contact with J.M.C.” The appeals court left it to the district court to determine if the defect that caused the damage was present when the house left J.M.C.’s possession.
The case was reversed and remanded “with directions to reinstate Coker’s claim of negligence against Chaney in his individual capacity as a plumber.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Illinois Appellate Court Address the Scope of the Term “Resident” in Homeowners Policy
April 11, 2022 —
James M. Eastham - Traub LiebermanIn Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Cheekati, 2022 IL App (4th) 210023, the 4th District Court of Appeals for the State of Illinois addressed whether the term “resident” in a homeowners policy included a tenant leasing the insured premises. The Insureds owned property which was insured through Farmers under a homeowner’s policy. Unable to sell the property, the Insureds entered into a two-year lease agreement with a tenant. Several months after entering into the lease agreement, the tenant allegedly sustained physical injuries inside of the rented premises when a staircase collapsed. The tenant sued the Insureds and the matter was tendered to Farmers. Thereafter, Farmers denied coverage based on an exclusionary provision in the homeowner’s policy. Specifically, the policy contained a "Liability Exclusions" section, which provided:
"Coverage E (Personal Liability) *** and personal injury coverage, if covered under this policy, do not apply to: Any insured or other residents of the residence premises. We do not cover bodily injury or personal injury to: (a) any insured; or (b) any resident of the residence premises, whether resident in the dwelling or a separate structure." (Emphases in original.)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James M. Eastham, Traub LiebermanMr. Eastham may be contacted at
jeastham@tlsslaw.com
No Additional Insured Coverage Under Umbrella Policy
March 12, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe additional insured was not covered under a property policy for an injury occurring after work was completed. Lewark v. Davis Door Servs., 2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 341 (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 10, 2014).
Public Storage, Inc. hired Davis Door Service Inc. to perform work at its facilities. The master agreement required Davis Door to maintain a CGL policy that insured Public Storage "during the entire progress of the work." Davis Door secured a CGL policy with American Economy. It also took out an umbrella liability policy with American States.
After Davis Door completed work on a door, Terrie Lewark injury her back opening the door. She sued Public Storage and Davis Door. Lewar and Public Storage settled. Public Storage assigned to Lewark its rights under the umbrella policy with American States. Lewark then sued Davis Door and American States. The trial court found that Public Storage was not an additional insured under the American States umbrella policy.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
The Basics of Subcontractor Defaults – Key Considerations
February 15, 2021 —
Gerard J. Onorata - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.The success of general contractors in completing a construction project is often dependent upon the performance of their subcontractors. General contractors have frequently said exactly this. Traditionally, the key subcontractors on a project are the electrical, plumbing, HVAC and structural steel subs. Due to the fundamental nature of the work performed by these trades, the risk of defaulting and terminating one or more of them is likely to have a substantial impact on the project, more so than with the trade contractors that perform their work after a building is made weather tight (i.e., drywall, tile, painting).
Most general contractors have, over a period of years, established longstanding relationships with certain subcontractors that they have come to depend upon. The risk of having to default and terminate one of these subs is minimal. Nevertheless, there will inevitably arise occasions when even a once reliable subcontractor fails to perform and it becomes necessary to invoke the remedies of default and termination. Areas ripe for controversy with subcontractors that often can lead to default and termination often involve disputes over change orders and the scope of work, the installation of defective work and the back-charges that ensue therefrom, and, to a lesser extent, conflicts that arise from ambiguous plans and specifications and the extra work and delays caused by the discovery of unforeseen site conditions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gerard J. Onorata, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Mr. Onorata may be contacted at
gonorata@pecklaw.com
White and Williams Announces Lawyer Promotions, Four Attorneys Promoted to Partner and One Attorney Promoted to Counsel
January 23, 2023 —
White and Williams LLPPHILADELPHIA -- White and Williams LLP is very pleased to announce the promotion of the following attorneys: Michael J. Ciamaichelo, Russell P. Lieberman, Tanya A. Salgado and Brett N. Tishler, who have become members of the firm’s partnership. All four attorneys are promoted from counsel to partner. The firm has also promoted Zachery B. Roth from associate to counsel. The partnership concluded in elevating these attorneys that each have made significant contributions to the firm and their respective practices.
“All of our new partners and counsel enrich the firm both internally and externally. They have a demonstrated, deep commitment to client service excellence and through their dedication, personal sacrifice and leadership warranted elevation to partnership and counsel at White and Williams,” said firm Managing Partner Andy Susko. “We are proud to welcome these four lawyers to our partnership and look forward to their continued contributions to the firm’s success.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams LLP
A Contractual Liability Exclusion Doesn't Preclude Insurer's Duty to Indemnify
November 05, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP's blog, "[I]n Crownover v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20737 (5th Cir. October 29, 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit withdrew its prior ruling and held that the contractual liability exclusion did not preclude an insurer’s duty to indemnify its insured for an award resulting from the insured’s defective construction."
The case involved the Crownovers who were awarded damages for "Arrow's breach of paragraph 23.1 of the construction contract." However, Arrow then filed for bankruptcy. Mid-Continent, Arrow's insurer, denied Crownovers' demand for recovery, stating that "the contractual liability exclusion applied because the arbitrator’s award to the Crownovers was based only on Arrow’s breach of paragraph 23.1 of the construction agreement." The court agreed with Mid-Continent.
Subsequently, the fifth court of appeals "reversed the district court’s ruling and awarded summary judgment in favor of the Crownovers."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
