Trends: “Nearshoring” Opportunities for the Construction Industry
July 22, 2024 —
Jerry P. Brodsky & Roberto Hernandez - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.“Nearshoring” is a hot topic throughout Latin America and is receiving increasing attention in the United States. We offer this introduction to “Nearshoring” and the opportunities it presents for your reference.
“Nearshoring” has become increasingly relevant in the context of the globalized economy. This phenomenon describes relocating production and service operations to countries geographically close to consumer markets, instead of opting for more distant locations as in traditional “offshoring”, considering, as dominant criteria, production conditions and costs.
Mexico, for example, given its strategic geographic closeness to the United States and its highly skilled labor force, is an attractive location for companies in a wide range of industries which are considering relocation or construction of new facilities and seeking to optimize costs, maintain efficiency and mitigate supply chain risks.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jerry P. Brodsky, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Roberto Hernandez, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Brodsky may be contacted at jbrodsky@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
OSHA/VOSH Roundup
August 19, 2015 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsIn an unusual flurry of occupational safety related activity, the Virginia courts decided two cases in the last week relating to either the review of occupational safety regulations themselves or their enforcement.
In Nat’l College of Business & Technology Inc. v. Davenport (.pdf), the Virginia Court of Appeals considered what constitutes a “serious” violation of the exposure to asbestos Virginia Occupational Safety & Health (VOSH) regulations. The facts found by the Salem, Virginia Circuit Court were that employees of the petitioner college were exposed to asbestos insulation when they were required to enter a boiler room to retrieve paper files. However, no evidence was presented regarding the length of time or level of exposure at the Circuit Court level. Despite the lack of evidence regarding the level or extent of exposure, the Circuit Court upheld the VOSH citation for exposure and the level of violation at a “serious” level with the attendant penalty.
The Virginia Court of Appeals disagreed with the second finding. The appellate court determined that the lack of evidence regarding the level of exposure (whether length or extent) made the serious level violation an error. The Court stated that merely presenting evidence that asbestos is a carcinogen is not enough given the number of carcinogenic materials in existence and then remanded the case back to Circuit Court to reconsider the penalty level.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PCMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Michigan: Identifying and Exploiting the "Queen Exception" to No-Fault Subrogation
May 13, 2014 —
Robert M. Caplan – White and Williams LLPIn Michigan, an employee’s entitlement to compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident is governed by both the Workers’ Disability Compensation Act of 1969, MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 418.801 et seq., and Chapter 31 of The Insurance Code of 1956, MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 500.3101 et seq., commonly referred to as the “no-fault act.” Polkosnik v. United Canada Ins. Co., 421 N.W.2d 241, 242 (Mich. App. 1988).
PIP1 benefits payable arising from a motor vehicle accident in Michigan include, principally, (1) medical benefits unlimited in amount and duration, and (2) 85% of lost wages for up to three years. See DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL SERVICES, Brief Explanation of Michigan No-Fault Insurance. As of October 2013, lost wages are capped at $5,282 per month. Id. Such benefits constitute an injured worker’s “economic loss.” See generally Wood v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 668 N.W.2d 353, 355 (Mich. 2003).
Michigan’s no-fault legislation is no different than other no-fault legislation in regard to its purpose: The automobile insurer pays without any right of reimbursement out of any third party tort recovery. Sibley v. Detroit Auto. Inter-Ins. Exch., 427 N.W.2d 528, 530 (Mich. 1988). Moreover, just like in New York, for example, “where benefits are provided from other sources pursuant to state or federal law, the amount paid by the other source reduces the automobile insurer’s responsibility.” Id. at 530.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Robert M. Caplan, White and Williams LLPMr. Caplan may be contacted at
caplanr@whiteandwilliams.com
AB5 Construction Exemption – A Checklist to Avoid Application of AB5’s Three-Part Test
February 18, 2020 —
Blake Dillion - Payne & Fears LLPConstruction companies have a unique opportunity to avoid the application of the restrictive new independent contractors law that took effect this year. This article provides a checklist that will help construction companies determine whether their relationships with subcontractors qualify for this exemption.
California’s Assembly Bill 5 (“AB5”), which went into effect Jan. 1, 2020, enacts into a statute last year’s California Supreme Court decision in
Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), and the Court’s three-part standard (the “ABC test”) for determining whether a worker may be classified as an employee or an independent contractor.
Certain professions and industries are potentially exempt from this standard, including the construction industry. The ABC test does not apply to the relationship between a contractor and an individual performing work pursuant to a subcontractor in the construction industry, if certain criteria are met. In order for the “construction exemption” to apply, the contractor must demonstrate that all of the following criteria are satisfied.
- The subcontract is in writing;
- The subcontractor is licensed by the Contractors State License Board and the work is within the scope of that license;
- If the subcontractor is domiciled in a jurisdiction that requires the subcontractor to have a business license or business tax registration, the subcontractor has the required business license or business tax registration;
- The subcontractor maintains a business location that is separate from the business or work location of the contractor;
- The subcontractor has the authority to hire and to fire other persons to provide or assist in providing the services;
- The subcontractor assumes financial responsibility for errors or omissions in labor or services as evidenced by insurance, legally authorized indemnity obligations, performance bonds, or warranties relating to the labor or services being provided; and
- The subcontractor is customarily engaged in an independently established business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.
The contractor must be able to establish each of the above criteria for the construction exemption to apply. If the contractor is successful, the long standing multi-factor test for determining independent contractor vs. employee status as described in
S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dep’t of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal. 3d 341 (1989) will apply.
You should review your processes and procedures for engaging subcontractors to ensure that you can satisfy the above criteria. If you have questions about the application of AB5, the construction exemption, or the
Borello factors, you should speak with an attorney.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Blake A. Dillion, Payne & FearsMr. Dillion may be contacted at
bad@paynefears.com
Insurer’s Broad Duty to Defend in Oregon, and the Recent Ruling in State of Oregon v. Pacific Indemnity Company
January 02, 2024 —
Keith Sparks - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCOregon law mandates a broad duty to defend, requiring insurers to provide legal representation to their policyholders whenever there is a potential for coverage under the policy. The significance of this broad interpretation means that an insurer has a duty to defend an insured even in situations where the alleged facts only imply a covered claim, and even in situations where the underlying claim is ultimately not covered by the policy. The insurer’s duty to defend is triggered if the allegations of the complaint, reasonably interpreted, could result in the insured being held liable for damages covered by the policy. This is referred to as the “four-corners” rule; it is also sometimes referred to as the eight-corners rule (for the four corners of the complaint plus the four corners of the policy). Oregon’s adoption of a broad interpretation of the duty to defend affirmatively places the onus on insurers to err on the side of coverage.
This broad duty to defend is based on the principle that an insured should not have to bear the expense of defending a lawsuit that the insurer may ultimately have to pay for. The duty to defend is also important because it helps ensure that insureds have access to legal representation when faced with a lawsuit.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Keith Sparks, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Sparks may be contacted at
keith.sparks@acslawyers.com
Wyoming Supreme Court Picks a Side After Reviewing the Sutton Rule
January 16, 2024 —
Ryan Bennett - The Subrogation StrategistIn a matter of first impression, the Supreme Court of Wyoming (Supreme Court), in West American Insurance Company v. Black Dog Consulting Inc., No. S-23-0052, 2023 WY 109, 2023 Wyo. LEXIS 111, examined whether a landlord’s insurer could pursue a subrogation claim against a tenant who caused a fire loss. The Supreme Court, applying a case-by-case approach, found that the insurer could not subrogate against the tenant.
West American Insurance Company (West) insured Profile Properties (Profile), which owned commercial property in Cheyenne, Wyoming. Black Dog Consulting Inc., d/b/a C.H. Yarber (Yarber) leased commercial space from Profile where it operated a metal fabrication business. The lease agreement between Profile and Yarber required Yarber to pay the full expense of Profile’s blanket insurance policy, which included general commercial liability insurance and fire and extended coverage insurance on the building.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ryan Bennett, White and Williams LLPMr. Bennett may be contacted at
bennettr@whiteandwilliams.com
Condo Developers Buy in Washington despite Construction Defect Litigation
October 22, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFMarc Stiles writing for Puget Sound Business Journal stated that “[t]he belief that contractors have been scared off by the legal liabilities that come with [condo] projects doesn't seem to hold water.” He interviewed Suzi Morris, of Lowe Enterprises, who plans on building a new condo tower in Seattle this November.
Morris stated that they didn’t have any problems getting construction bids for the 24-story tower. According to the Puget Sound Business Journal, “The development team is trying to head off construction defect claims by planning and documenting with photos their work.”
Stiles did admit that an unnamed “source in Seattle who consults on condo projects knows of two large general contracting companies that won't bid on condo projects because of” potential construction defect litigation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Eastern District of Pennsylvania Confirms Carrier Owes No Duty to Defend Against Claims for Faulty Workmanship
April 05, 2021 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia & Marianne Bradley - White and Williams LLPOn March 17, 2021, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued its decision in Estate Chimney & Fireplace v. IFG Companies & Burlington Insurance Company, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50360 (E.D. Pa. March 17, 2021), finding that an insurance carrier had no duty to defend its insured where the allegations in the underlying litigation involved claims of faulty workmanship.
Estates Chimney & Fireplace, LLC (Estates Chimney) had performed inspections and replaced chase covers for a number of chimneys in a condominium complex. Chase covers are pieces of metal, which are placed over chimneys in order to keep out environmental elements. Several condominium owners sued Estates Chimney, alleging that Estates Chimney had improperly installed, then improperly replaced, their chimney caps, which caused their chimneys to cease working properly. As a result, the underlying plaintiffs allegedly incurred costs to repair or replace the chimney caps and chimneys.
Estates Chimney sought coverage from its carrier, who denied coverage based upon its determination that the claims in the underlying lawsuits arose out of faulty workmanship, which did not result in damage to the property of a third party. Estates Chimney filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking a declaration that it was entitled to coverage under the policy. Both parties moved for summary judgment, and the Eastern District ruled in favor of the carrier.
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and
Marianne Bradley, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Bradley may be contacted at bradleym@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
