Rhode Island Affirms The Principle That Sureties Must be Provided Notice of Default Before They Can be Held Liable for Principal’s Default
August 21, 2023 —
Dennis Cavanaugh & Tasnuva Islam - Construction Law ZoneMost bond forms in use today, including the standard form AIA A312-2010, contain express condition precedents that trigger a surety’s obligations under the bond. Under a performance bond, the bond obligee is required to provide formal notice to the surety that the principal has materially defaulted and that the surety must begin to perform under the terms of the bond. This principle is grounded in the idea that the surety should have an opportunity to address the default and investigate the claim so as to mitigate its own liability. Failure to provide sufficient notice will discharge the surety of its obligations under the bond.
Reprinted courtesy of
Dennis Cavanaugh, Robinson & Cole LLP and
Tasnuva Islam, Robinson & Cole LLP
Mr. Cavanaugh may be contacted at dcavanaugh@rc.com
Ms. Islam may be contacted at tislam@rc.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
BWB&O Expands to North San Diego
December 09, 2019 —
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’MearaBremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara is excited to announce our expansion to North San Diego County. Our new office location in Encinitas is strategically located between our Newport Beach and Downtown San Diego offices. The new North San Diego office will provide further resources to better serve our clients.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara
Earth Movement Exclusion Bars Coverage
March 19, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiDamage to the YMCA recreation center was not covered due to application of the earth movement exclusion. YMCA of Pueblo v. Secura Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 15249 (D. Colo. Feb. 6, 2015).
On October 11, 2013, the insureds discovered a leaking water line in the men's shower, where one of the shower's on/off valves had detached from the water pipe behind the wall. The leak was repaired the same day.
On October 13, 2013, the pool deck near the therapy pool and surrounding block walls shifted and collapsed. The insurer admitted there was damage to the property. Several leaks were discovered in the pipes under and near the therapy pool, and the pool lost several inches of water.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Second Circuit Clarifies What Must Be Alleged to Establish “Joint Employer” Liability in the Context of Federal Employment Discrimination Claims
March 14, 2022 —
Kevin J. O’Connor, Aaron C. Schlesinger & Lauren Rayner Davis - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.The “joint employer” doctrine has been used with increasing frequency by the plaintiffs’ bar to broaden the scope of target defendants in discrimination cases beyond those who would be traditionally regarded as the employer. This is true even in the construction industry, which has seen a rise in cases where general contractors or construction managers are being targeted when discrimination is alleged on a construction project, even when the GC or CM is far removed from the underlying events and had no control over the employees in question.
Until now, the Courts in the federal circuit which includes New York City (the Second Circuit) have been left to decipher a patchwork of case law to ascertain the scope and extent of joint employer liability in discrimination cases. This week, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Felder v. United States Tennis Association, et al., 19-1094, issued a comprehensive decision which provides a helpful summary of what must be pled and proven to broaden liability under the joint employer theory in discrimination cases.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kevin J. O’Connor, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.,
Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Lauren Rayner Davis, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. O'Connor may be contacted at koconnor@pecklaw.com
Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com
Ms. Davis may be contacted at ldavis@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court Rules on a Long List of Motions in Illinois National Insurance Co v Nordic PCL
May 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe case Illinois National Insurance Co. v Nordic PCL, et al. “involves a dispute about whether insurance benefits are available to a general contractor who built structures that allegedly have construction defects. Plaintiffs Illinois National Insurance Company (‘Illinois National’) and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (‘National Union’) (collectively, the ‘Insurers’), commenced this action for declaratory relief against Defendant Nordic PCL Construction, Inc., f/k/a Nordic Construction, Ltd. ("Nordic"), on August 23, 2011.”
The court was asked to rule on a long list of motions: “Counterclaim Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Their (1) Motion to Dismiss the Counterclaim and (2) Motion to Strike Portions of the Counterclaim, ECF No. 16 (‘Request for Judicial Notice’); Counterclaim Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim Filed October 24, 2011, ECF No. 14 (‘Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim’); Counterclaim Defendants’ Motion to Strike Portions of the Counterclaim Filed October 24, 2011, ECF No. 15 (‘Motion to Strike’); Third-Party Defendant Marsh USA, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Stay Proceedings in Favor of Pending State Action, ECF No. 33 (‘Marsh’s Motion To Dismiss Or Stay’); Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Nordic PCL Construction, Inc., f/k/a Nordic Construction Ltd.’s Substantive Joinder to Third-Party Defendant Marsh USA Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Stay Proceedings in Favor of Pending State Action, ECF No. 36 (‘Nordic’s Joinder’); and Third-Party Defendant Marsh USA, Inc.’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Counts V and VI of Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Nordic PCL Construction, Inc.’s Third-Party Complaint, ECF No. 29 (‘Marsh’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings’).”
In result, the court reached the following decisions: “The court GRANTS IN RELEVANT PART the Insurers’ Request for Judicial Notice to the extent it covers matters relevant to these motions; GRANTS IN PART the Insurers’ Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim, but gives Nordic leave to amend the Counterclaim in certain respects; DENIES the Insurers’ Motion to Strike; DENIES Marsh’s Motion To Dismiss Or Stay and Nordic’s Joinder; and GRANTS Marsh’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.”
The court provides a bit of background on the case: “This action arises out of alleged construction defects involving two projects on which Nordic acted as the general contractor. Nordic is a defendant in a pending state court action with respect to one of the projects and says it spent more than $400,000 on repairs with respect to the other project. Nordic tendered the defense of the pending state court action to the Insurers and sought reimbursement of the cost of repairs already performed. The Insurers responded by filing this action to determine their rights under the insurance policies issued to Nordic.”
Furthermore, the court presented a brief procedural history: “The Insurers commenced this declaratory action in this court on August 23, 2011. The Complaint asserts two claims, one seeking a declaration that the Insurers have no duty to provide a defense or indemnification regarding the Safeway Action, the other seeking such a declaration regarding the Moanalua Claims. Along with its Answer, Nordic filed a Counterclaim against the Insurers. The Counterclaim asserts breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, misrepresentations and omissions of material fact, and bad faith, and seeks declaratory relief against the Insurers.”
The procedural history continues: “Nordic also filed a Third-Party Complaint against Marsh, the broker that had procured the Policies from the Insurers for Nordic. Nordic alleges that it reasonably believed that the Policies would provide completed operations insurance coverage for the types of construction defects alleged in the Safeway Action and Moanalua Claims. The Third-Party Complaint asserts breach of contract, negligence, promissory estoppel, breach of fiduciary duties, implied indemnity, and contribution and equitable subrogation.”
In conclusion, “The court GRANTS IN RELEVANT PART the Insurers’ Request for Judicial Notice. With regard to the Insurers’ Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim, the court GRANTS the motion as to Count I (breach of contract), Count II (duty of good faith and fair dealing), Count III (fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation), the portion of Count IV (bad faith) premised on fraud, and Count IV (declaratory relief). The court DENIES the motion as to Count IV (bad faith) that is not premised on fraud. Except with respect to the "occurrence" issue, which the court disposes of here on the merits, and Count V, which concerns only a form of relief, Nordic is given leave to amend its Counterclaim within three weeks of the date of this order. The court DENIES the Insurers’ Motion to Strike, DENIES Marsh’s Motion to Dismiss or Stay and Nordic’s Joinder, and GRANTS Marsh’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings with respect to Counts V and VI of the Third-Party Complaint.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Consultant Says It's Time to Overhaul Construction Defect Laws in Nevada
February 07, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFRandi Thompson, a Republican political and media consultant, told the Reno Gazette-Journal what she wished Governor Brian Sandoval had said during his recent State of the State address in Nevada. Construction defect litigation was one of the issues that Ms. Thompson said that Governor Sandoval should have addressed. Thompson said that the governor "should have said it's time to get rid of Nevada's horrid construction defect laws." Ms. Thompson said that "these laws extort money from small business subcontractors who likely had nothing whatsoever do to with any real or perceived defect." She attributed the ongoing construction defect scandal in Las Vegas to "bad law."
Ms. Thompson said that these issues are unlikely to be addressed, because "the Democrats control both houses in the Legislature" and the issues are "sacred cows to the Democrats' constituents."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Be Careful in Contracting and Business
May 06, 2019 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsAfter an hour long phone conference with a client, I have had several thoughts, only a few of which I can share here (grin). The first is that my friends and clients in the construction industry are hurting, but need to work with an attorney to assure that the pain is lessened. The second is that more, not less, precision is needed in construction contracting these days.
The reason for the first thought is that the construction industry has taken a hit lately. The news is fraught with stories of the economic downturn and its impact on construction. While the money may be hard to part with, all construction professionals should get their contracts and business practices audited regularly to avoid risk and assure, as best as is possible, that they are protected. One place to get such triage is at my firm.
If you don’t use me, please use someone else.
On the second point, clients need attorney fees provisions, indemnity clauses and to assure that a scope of work is very specifically defined. Wiggle room is not available. In tough economic times. Owners will look for something closer to perfection when money is tight than when money is not. Contractors should also. Your contract is the first line of defense. While no contract can possibly cover every contingency and contracts are only as good as those who sign them when it comes right down to it, a good base contract is the best shield.
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
Federal Court Dismisses Coverage Action in Favor of Pending State Proceeding
October 12, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the coverage action that was parallel to a case pending in state court involving the same parties and same issues pending. Navigators Ins, Co. v. Chriso's Tree Trimming, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129711 (E.D. Calif. July 22, 2020).
Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) entered into a tree, brush and wood removal contract with Mount F Enterprises, Inc. Mountain F subsequently entered into a subcontractor agreement with Chriso Tree Trimming, Inc. for work to be performed for PG&E. In August 2017, Chriso attempted to remove a tree, but the tree accidentally fell in the wrong direction and knocked down nearby powerlines. The powerlines came into contact with surrounding brush and started the "Railroad Fire." The fire was eventually contained on September 15, 2017, after 12, 407 acres were burned and 7 structures and 7 homes were destroyed.
Five subrogation lawsuits were filed in state court against Chriso and Mountain F by various insurance companies that paid for the damage caused by the Railroad Fire. A policy limits demand to settle all claims against Chriso and Mountain F was made. Navigators insured Chriso for $9 million through a Commercial Excess Liability Policy, payable once all other insurance was exhausted. The policy included a "Professional Services Endorsement" (PSE Exclusion) that excluded coverage of "professional services." "Professional services" was defined through a list of 12 non-exclusive professions and services that generally referred to activities involving specialized knowledge or skill that was predominantly mental or intellectual in nature rather than physical or manual.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
