Keeping Up With Fast-moving FAA Drone Regulations
February 28, 2018 —
Dick Zhang – Construction Executive Magazine One of the biggest changes in recent years relating to commercial drone regulations has been FAA rule Part 107. Prior to 107, drone pilots were required to hold a current, manned aircraft pilot certificate, and had to pass a written, practical and oral exam to earn that credential. After 107 came into effect, a drone pilot was only required to pass a written exam to earn this commercial drone license.
The majority of people working at construction companies who take the Part 107 exam don’t have any type of aviation background, so it’s recommended that they give themselves at least two hours of study a day over two weeks to prepare for the exam. This commitment allows enough time for the student to both master any prepared test materials as well as do any additional research when necessary. The Part 107 certification is good for 24 months. While the FAA hasn’t posted anything about a recertification process yet, it will need to do so soon because everyone who took the exam when it was available in September 2016 will need to be recertified by August 2018.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dick Zhang, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.Mr. Zhang may be contacted at
contact@identifiedtech.com
Supreme Court of Kentucky Holds Plaintiff Can Recover for Stigma Damages in Addition to Repair Costs Resulting From Property Damage
August 15, 2018 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn Muncie v. Wiesemann, 2018 K.Y. LEXIS 257, the Supreme Court of Kentucky considered whether stigma damages[1] in a property casualty case are recoverable in addition to the costs incurred to remediate the actual damage. The court held that stigma damages are recoverable in addition to repair costs, but the total of the stigma damages and repair costs cannot exceed the diminution in the fair market value of the property. The court’s decision establishes that if the repair costs are insufficient to make the plaintiff whole, a recovery for stigma damages up to the amount of the diminution in the market value of the home is appropriate.
Appellants Cindy and Jim Muncie incurred significant property damage to their home as a result of an oil leak originating from a neighboring property owned by the Estate of Martha Magel. In 2011, Auto Owners Insurance Company (Auto Owners), the liability carrier for the Estate’s testatrix, Patricia Weisman, filed an impleader complaint in federal court to discharge its obligation to settle the third-party liability claims on behalf of Ms. Weisman. Auto Owners reached a settlement with the Muncies for $60,000 which represented the remediation costs for the actual damage to the property. The settlement release reserved the Muncies’ right to pursue a claim for stigma damages associated with the oil leak.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and Williams LLPMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@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
Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (12/07/22) – Home Sales, EV Charging Infrastructure, and Office Occupancy
December 26, 2022 —
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogThis week’s round-up explores decreasing home sales, electric vehicle charging stations, office occupancy levels, and more.
- With home sales dropping and more buyers abandoning their plans, forecasters have rarely disagreed as much as they are now regarding where the housing market is going next. (Nicole Friedman, Nick Timiraos, The Wall Street Journal)
- Contractors and construction technology firms are watching as skilled workers look for new jobs in a turbulent economy. (Matthew Thibault, Construction Dive)
- The ability to conveniently charge electric vehicles away from home is a top concern for many owners, indicating the strong need for an extensive and reliable external charging infrastructure. (Robert Charette, IEEE Spectrum)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team
Counterpoint: Washington Supreme Court to Rule on Resulting Losses in Insurance Disputes
September 01, 2011 —
Douglas Reiser, Builders Council BlogThis is the fourth installment of posts on Vision One v. Philadelphia Indemnity, a Washington Supreme Court case touching on Washington construction and insurance law. After Williams v. Athletic Field got so much coverage, I wished that I had provided a forum for argument on Builders Counsel. While we await that opinion from the Supreme Court, I decided to let a few good writers have at Vision One here on the blog. Last week, attorney Chris Carr weighed in. Today, insurance expert David Thayer returns to give his final impression. David provided an initial peak at the case earlier this year. Thanks to both Chris and David for contributing to the debate.
In August 2011 the Washington Supreme Court will rule on a pair of joined cases that involve critical insurance coverage issues. The outcome of the ruling will impact a large swath of policyholders in Washington State including builders, developers, and homeowners to name a few.
The cases are Vision One vs. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance and Sprague vs. Safeco. The Vision one case comes from Division Two of the Appellate Court which overturned a lower court decision in favor the plaintiff, Vision One. Division Two decided that the collapse of a concrete pour during the course of construction did not constitute a resulting loss due to faulty workmanship. They further went on to redefine efficient proximate cause in a way that is harmful to policyholders by broadening rather than narrowing the meaning of exclusionary language in Philadelphia’s Builders Risk Policy.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
After $15 Million Settlement, Association Gets $7.7 Million From Additional Subcontractor
November 07, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe stucco subcontractor for a condominium complex did not join in with the other defendants in a settlement of more than $15 million, preferring to take the case to a jury trial. That jury has found the stucco installer liable for $7.7 million to make repairs. Mark Wiechnik of Herrick Feinstein LLP wrote about the case on the Lexology web site. Mr. Wiechnik notes that the jury was shown “samples of rotted wood taken from the property as well as numerous pictures of damage resulting from the various defects.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Case Alert: Appellate Court Confirms Engineer’s Duty to Defend Developer Arises Upon Tender of Indemnity Claim
January 27, 2010 —
Steven M. CvitanovicIn the recent case of UDC-Universal Development, L.P. v. CH2M Hill, 2010 Cal.App.LEXIS 47 (filed January 15, 2010), the Sixth District Court of Appeal provided a stunning illustration of the far-reaching effects of the California Supreme Court’s holding in Crawford v. Weather Shield Manufacturing Inc. (2008) 44 Cal.4th 541. In Crawford, the Court held the duty to defend under an indemnity agreement arose upon the mere tender of defense of a claim covered by the indemnity.
In the UDC case, CH2M Hill provided engineering and environmental planning services to developer UDC on a project that ultimately wound up in a construction defect lawsuit by the homeowners association ( HOA ). UDC tendered its defense to CH2M Hill, the tender was rejected, and UDC filed a cross-complaint for negligence, breach of contract and indemnity against CH2M Hill and others. After the HOA’s construction defect claims were settled, UDC proceeded to trial against CH2M Hill. The jury found in favor of CH2M Hill on the claims for negligence and breach of contract. At the request of the parties prior to trial, the trial court ruled on the application of the indemnity agreement in light of Crawford and, in so doing, found that the defense obligation arose upon the tender and that CH2M Hill breached that duty despite the jury finding in favor of CH2M Hill.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, noting that the defense obligation arose as soon as the defense was tendered and did not depend on the outcome of the litigation, and that the HOA’s general description of the defects along with an allegation that Doe engineers were negligent triggered the duty to defend.
Although this case did not expand the crushing impact of Crawford’s holding, it is
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Clarifies Its Inverse Condemnation Standard
December 30, 2019 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn City of Oroville v. Superior Court, 446 P.3d 304 (Cal. 2019), the Supreme Court of California considered whether the City of Oroville (City) was liable to a dental practice for inverse condemnation damages associated with a sewer backup. The court held that in order to establish inverse condemnation against a public entity, a property owner must show that an inherent risk in the public improvement was a substantial cause of the damage. Since the dental practice did not have a code-required backwater valve — which would have prevented or minimized this loss — the court found that the city was not liable because the sewage system was not a substantial cause of the loss. This case establishes that a claim for inverse condemnation requires a showing of a substantial causal connection between the public improvement and the property damage. It also suggests that comparative negligence can be a defense to inverse condemnation claims.
In December 2009, a dental practice, WGS Dental Complex (WGS), located in the City, incurred significant water damage as a result of untreated sewage from the City’s sewer main backing up into WGS’ building. WGS submitted a claim to its insurance carrier, The Dentists Insurance Company (TDIC) and, in addition, sued the City for its uninsured losses, alleging inverse condemnation and nuisance. TDIC joined the litigation, alleging negligence, nuisance, trespass and inverse condemnation. Under California law, when a government entity fails to recognize that an action or circumstance essentially amounts to a taking for public use, a property owner can pursue an inverse condemnation action for compensation. The City filed a cross-complaint against WGS for failing to install a code-required backwater valve on their lateral sewer line, which would have prevented or minimized the backup.
The City filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court denied. WGS then sought a judicial determination on the issue of inverse condemnation. The City presented evidence that the sewage system was designed in accordance with industry standards, and that WGS failed to comply with the City’s plumbing code by failing to install a backwater valve on its private sewer lateral. The trial court found the City liable for inverse condemnation because the blockage that caused the backup originated in the City’s sewer line. The court held that the blockage was an inherent risk of sewer operation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, holding that the City would have had to prove that the WGS’s lack of a backwater valve was the sole cause of the loss in order to absolve itself of liability.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and WilliamsMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
