Construction Trust Fund Statutes: Know What’s Required in the State Where Your Project Is Underway
June 22, 2020 —
Christopher D. Cazenave - ConsensusDocsConstruction trust fund statutes have been around for decades. At least 15 states have passed similar statutes. Other states, but not all, do not have an express statute but have interpreted state law to hold that payments received by a general contractor and deposited in a business account establishes a “trust fund.” See e.g., Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 7108.
The purpose of these laws is straightforward—protect contractors and suppliers against nonpayment for the labor and materials provided for the construction or repair of property. But while the purpose is straightforward, each state’s law differs by imposing different requirements, different privileges, and different remedies. This article provides an overview of how these statutes work as well as a sampling of important requirements and potential pitfalls that you should look out for when a construction trust fund statute applies to your project.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher D. Cazenave, Jones Walker LLPMr. Cazenave may be contacted at
ccazenave@joneswalker.com
Chambers USA 2020 Ranks White and Williams as a Leading Law Firm
June 15, 2020 —
White and Williams LLPWhite and Williams is once again recognized by Chambers USA as a leading law firm in Pennsylvania for achievements and client service in the area of insurance law. In addition, four lawyers received individual honors – two for their work in insurance, one for his work in banking and finance and another for his work in commercial litigation.
White and Williams is acknowledged for its renowned practice offering expert representation to insurers and reinsurers across an impressive range of areas including coverage, bad faith litigation and excess liability. The firm is recognized for its notable strength in transactional and regulatory matters, complemented by its adroit handling of complex alternative dispute resolution proceedings and is described as "reasoned and respectful." Chambers also acknowledged the firm's broad trial capabilities, including handling data privacy, professional liability and toxic tort coverage claims as well as its experience in substantial claims arising from bodily injury and wrongful death suits. White and Williams' cross-disciplinary team is also highlighted, characterized for "work[ing] well together and provid[ing] exceptional representation."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams LLP
COVID-19 Information and Resources
May 04, 2020 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq. & Brian D. Kahn, Esq. – Chapman Glucksman Dean & Roeb BulletinINTRODUCTION
The current COVID-19 health crisis has greatly impacted nearly every aspect of our business and personal lives. The constant flow of rapidly evolving, and often contradictory information creates its own challenges for those who are responsible for ensuring compliance with relevant regulations and best practices while still moving forward with their business and family activities.
This bulletin differs from most Chapman, Glucksman, Dean & Roeb bulletins in that it does not highlight a recent case, statute or a single development, but rather acts as a resource and “links” to provide you with needed information and to simplify your search for critical information during this unusual and challenging time.
CIVIL LITIGATION: CLOSURES AND RESTRICTIONS
The State and Federal Court systems in California have drastically reduced their operations. The Governor issued Executive Order N-38-20, this suspends certain limitations on the Chief Justice’s authority, making it possible for orders to be issued adapting the Court’s operations to address the COVID-19 health crisis. As of this time, the most recent statewide order from the Chief Justice is the March 30, 2020 Order which allows Courts to utilize remote technology when possible. The March 30, 2020 Order also clarifies a prior Order suspending all trials for 60 days. As many of you are aware, civil trials in California must commence within five years of the initiation of the action, this is commonly referred to as the “five year rule”. While the five year time period was initially extended by the Chief Justice for 60 days, the Judicial Council subsequently adopted a series of Emergency Rules, including one which extends this to six months for all civil actions filed on or before April 6, 2020. The Judicial Council also adopted rules tolling the statutes of limitation for civil causes of action are tolled from April 6, 2020 to 90 days after the state of emergency has ended.
In addition to the statewide orders and rules, counties have enacted their own rules. Los Angeles Superior Court, for instance, has closed some locations while others remain open on a limited basis. On March 17, 2020 an Order was issued limiting the Court to “essential functions” through April 16, 2020. However, on April 15, 2020, a further Order extended the closure through May 12, 2020. While truly urgent Ex Partes may go forward, all regularly set hearings will be continued until after June 22, 2020. Trials will begin after June 22, 2020 with non-priority trials anticipated to start in later August or September. Notably, any deadlines imposed by current trial or hearing dates still stand until the specific dates are continued.
As with other aspects of the COVID-19 health crisis, the impact upon Civil Litigation continues to evolve, for the most up to date information we include the following links to the California Courts. The first page includes links to all the State and County Orders, the second page is for the Judicial Council Rules.
Links:
https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/court-emergency-orders-6794321
https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/judicial-branch-emergency-actions-criminal-civil-and-juvenile-justice
STATE AND LOCAL STAY AT HOME ORDERS
The State of California declared a state of emergency on March 4, 2020. On March 13, 2020 the President declared a national state of emergency. On March 19, 2020 Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-33-20, also known as the “Stay at Home” order. This orders all Californian’s to stay at home, unless they are part of an essential businesses are exempt which generally includes construction and insurance. Generally, Californians are allowed to run essential errands, but they are not to congregate with those outside of their household.
In addition to the State, many cities and counties have enacted additional orders regarding whether certain types of businesses can remain open, use of parks, trails and other public amenities as well as what type of protective measures must be adhered to such as covering your face in public. As with Civil Litigation, the State and Local Government regulations continue to evolve. A link to the State’s COVID-19 page is below and we also encourage you to check your local City and County sites for additional information.
https://covid19.ca.gov/
BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL GUIDELINES
The impact of COVID-19 is unprecedented. While “essential businesses” may remain open for customers, steps must be taken to protect the health of both employees and customers. There are both State and, in many instances, Local Government regulations addressing these precautions. In addition to taking safety measures to protect the health of all involved, there are a multitude of financial concerns to be addressed. While most people have already heard about the moratorium on residential and commercial evictions, this does little to address how property owners will receive funds to pay their financial obligations, how tenants can pay their other obligations, how either can make payroll and most importantly, how employees who can no longer work due to their “non-essential” business being closed can put food on their tables.
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES” act) may provide financial relief for many business by means of loans, some of which may be forgivable, and tax credits. The CARES act also modifies the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) to provide paid leave for those who cannot work due to COVID-19 as well as other benefits. The IRS has extended the deadline to file and pay taxes to July 15, 2020. Additionally, there are other Federal and State benefits which may be available for those whose jobs are impacted.
The financial impacts of COVID-19 are far reaching and continue to evolve. The Department of Insurance ordered insurance companies to return premiums for at least the months of March and April. This applies to certain lines of insurance where the risk of loss has fallen substantially. However, business interruption, environmental and pollution claims have increased exponentially. While most such policies require some physical damage in order to trigger an occurrence, there has been some discussion of legislation deeming the COVID-19 pandemic to fulfill the physical damage requirement.
If your business has been closed or impacted by COVID-19 we encourage you to review your insurance policies and key contracts to ascertain what your rights and obligations are as well as whether you may have any coverage for your losses. Just as importantly, speak with your business partners including vendors, customers and employees to ascertain their capabilities and willingness to work through this crisis.
US Department of Labor OSHA Guidelines:
https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/covid-19/
California Labor & Workforce Development Agency Resource Page:
https://www.labor.ca.gov/coronavirus2019/
California Employment Development Department:
https://www.edd.ca.gov/about_edd/coronavirus-2019.htm
CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES
Many of our clients are involved in the construction industry. Construction has been deemed an essential activity and is exempt from many of the “stay at home” orders but certain protections and regulations still apply. In addition to the general workplace guidelines discussed above certain jurisdictions are providing guidance as to how to provide a safe construction site workplace. We have included a link the Los Angeles Department Building and Safety guidelines below.
However, in some instances work on a project may be delayed or may not be able to progress due to the project owner stopping work or the inability of subcontractors or suppliers to continue as originally intended. In this case one should review their contracts to see what justifies delay and inability to perform by either party and the impact thereof. Contracts should also be evaluated to ascertain whether the costs associated with compliance with the new COVID-19 regulations are a recoverable cost under the contract. As with the general business discussion above, contractors should review all available insurance, including builder’s risk to ascertain the existence of possible coverage.
LA DBS guidelines:
https://ladbs.org/docs/default-source/publications/misc-publications/construction-site-guidance.pdf
SUMMARY
The COVID-19 health crisis has had and, for the foreseeable future, will have a broad and severe impact on our society. The variety of evolving regulations on the Federal, State and Local Government levels make it challenging to comply, especially for businesses in operation. There are also a variety of resources available to help ensure compliance with these regulations as well as the financial and physical viability of our communities’ companies and employees. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you need any assistance in navigating these rules and resources.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean & Roeb and
Brian D. Kahn, Chapman Glucksman Dean & Roeb
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrlaw.com
Mr. Kahn may be contacted at bkahn@cgdrlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Prospective Additional Insureds May Be Obligated to Arbitrate Coverage Disputes
September 07, 2020 —
Danielle S. Ward - Balestreri Potocki & HolmesThe Court of Appeal closed out 2019 by ruling that an additional insured can be bound to the arbitration clause in a policy when a coverage dispute arises between that additional insured and the carrier. (Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. SMG Holdings, Inc. (2019) 44 Cal. App. 5th 834, 837.)
In 2009, Future Farmers of America (“Future Farmers”) entered into a license agreement with SMG Holdings Incorporated (“SMG”) to use the Fresno Convention Center. As part of the agreement, Future Farmers was required to secure comprehensive general liability (“CGL”) coverage and name SMG and the City of Fresno as additional insureds (“AI”) on its policies.
Future Farmers purchased a general liability policy from Plaintiff Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (“Philadelphia”). Neither SMG nor the City of Fresno were added as AIs, but the policy contained a “deluxe endorsement” which extended coverage to lessors of premises for “liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that part of the premises leased or rented” to the named insured. The policy also contained an endorsement that extended coverage where required by a written contract for liability due to the negligence of the named insured. Philadelphia’s policy also stated that if the insurance company and insured “do not agree whether coverage is provided . . . for a claim made against the insured, then either party may make a written demand for arbitration.”
A patron to Future Farmer’s event at the Fresno Convention Center was seriously injured after he tripped over a pothole in the parking lot and hit his head. He sued both Fresno and SMG. In turn, Fresno and SMG tendered their defense to Philadelphia. Philadelphia denied coverage finding that the incident did not arise out of Future Farmer’s negligence, and that SMG had the sole responsibility for maintaining the parking lot. Consequently, Philadelphia concluded that neither Fresno nor SMG qualified “as an additional insured under the policy” for the injury in the parking lot.
The coverage dispute continued, and in 2016, Philadelphia issued a demand for arbitration which was rejected by SMG. Philadelphia then petitioned the state court to compel arbitration arguing that SMG could not avoid the burdens of the policy while seeking to obtain policy benefits. SMG used Philadelphia’s conclusion that it did not qualify as an AI under the policy to argue that Philadelphia was “estopped from demanding arbitration”. In other words, SMG argued that it could not be held to the burdens of the policy without being provided with the benefits of the policy.
The trial court sided with SMG finding that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties. The court noted that while third party beneficiaries can be compelled to arbitration there was no evidence that applied here, and Philadelphia could not maintain its inconsistent positions on the policy as its respects SMG.
Disagreeing with the trial court, the Court of Appeal concluded that SMG was a third-party beneficiary of the policy. The AI obligations in the license agreement and the deluxe endorsement in the Philadelphia policy collectively establish an intended beneficiary status. The Court saw SMG’s tender to Philadelphia as an acknowledgement of that status.
Relatedly, the Court found that SMG’s tender to Philadelphia – its demand for policy benefits – equitably estopped them from avoiding the burdens of the policy. The Court stated it defied logic to require a named insured to arbitrate coverage disputes but free an unnamed insured demanding policy coverage from the same requirement. Conversely, the Court found no inconsistency in Philadelphia’s denial of coverage to SMG and its subsequent demand for arbitration. Philadelphia did not outright reject SMG’s status as a potential insured, but rather concluded that there was no coverage because the injury occurred in the parking lot. In other words, the coverage determination turned on the circumstances of the injury not SMG’s status under the policy.
In short, the Court concluded that the potential insured takes the good with the bad. If one seeks to claim coverage as an additional insured, they can be subject to the restrictions of the policy including arbitration clauses even if they did not purchase the policy.
Securing additional insurance has become increasingly more difficult and limited over the years, and this holding presents yet another hurdle to attaining AI coverage. For those seeking coverage, it is important to note that the Court’s ruling may have turned out differently had the carrier outright denied SMG’s AI status, rather than concluding that the injury was not covered.
Your insurance scenario may vary from the case discussed above. Please contact legal counsel before making any decisions. BPH’s attorneys can be reached via email to answer your questions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Danielle S. Ward, Balestreri Potocki & HolmesMs. Ward may be contacted at
dward@bph-law.com
Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Denied
June 29, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court found there was no coverage for the insureds' alleged negligent failure to construct a building. Evanston Ins. Co. v. DCM Contracting, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63977 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 28, 2020).
Turning Point Church sued DCM Contracting for faulty workmanship on a construction project. Turning Point sent a demand letter to DCM on August 18, 2017 and filed suit in December. Evanston did not receive notice of Turning Point's claims and the lawsuit until May 15, 2018.
Evanston filed suit for a declaratory judgment and moved for summary judgment. The court first considered the late notice. The policy required notice "as soon as practicable" DCM was also required to provide copies of demands, notices, or legal papers to Evanston. Here, DCM did not give notice to Evanston until nine months after receipt of Turning Point's demand. A phone communication with DCM's agent between August 2017 and May 2018 was insufficient. DCM provided no documents, including the summons and complaint, to the agent. DCM waited five months to forward the underlying lawsuit. This was a breach of the policy.
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
Board of Directors Guidance When Addressing Emergency Circumstances Occasioned by the COVID-19 Pandemic
May 11, 2020 —
Marc Casarino, Lori Smith & Gwenn Barney - White and Williams LLPThe COVID-19 pandemic has sent massive shockwaves throughout the global economy. This crises requires business leaders to confront a host of deleterious effects on an emergency basis – the likes of which many companies have never experienced. Boards of directors must remain cognizant of their oversight responsibilities in these trying times. This post offers guidance to directors of Delaware companies for addressing emergency circumstances occasioned by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Board Oversight – Lessons from Marchand V. Barnhill
Directors should consider the lessons learned from the recent Delaware Supreme Court case Marchand v. Barnhill, a ruling we addressed in a previous blog post, when considering board oversight during the COVID-19 pandemic. Marchand centered on a lawsuit brought by shareholders in an ice cream manufacturing company against the company’s board of directors. The shareholders claimed that the directors violated their duty of loyalty[1] to the company when they failed to provide sufficient oversight and compliance-monitoring during a listeria outbreak that led the company to recall all products, temporarily cease product production at all plants and lay off more than one-third of the company’s workforce.
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys
Marc Casarino,
Lori Smith and
Gwenn Barney
Mr. Casarino may be contacted at casarinom@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Barney may be contacted at Barneyg@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Emergency Paid Sick Leave and FMLA Leave Updates in Response to COVID-19
April 06, 2020 —
Yvette Davis & Kyle R. DiNicola - Haight Brown & BonesteelThe Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”) was signed by the President on March 18, 2020 and will become effective no later than April 2, 2020. The law contains numerous updates to the country’s employment regulations in response to the Coronavirus pandemic of which employers should be familiar.
Of particular note, the FFCRA makes limited amendments to the Family and Medical Leave Act. Now, pursuant to the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act (“EFMLEA”) employees may take up to 12 weeks of family and medical leave after having worked with the employer for 30 calendar days if the employee is unable to work (or telework) due to the employee’s need to care for a son or daughter under 18 years of age due to the child’s school closure or unavailability of a childcare provider due to a public health emergency, i.e., COVID-19. Unlike the FMLA, which does not apply to many small employers, this requirement applies to any employers with 500 or fewer employees. No mileage radius requirement exists under the EFMLEA.
When an employee utilizes leave pursuant to EFMLEA, the first 10 days of that leave may consist of unpaid leave, but the employee may elect to substitute any accrued paid vacation leave, personal leave, or medical or sick leave, including the Emergency Paid Sick Leave provided for by the Act and described below). All subsequent days of leave taken by the employee after the tenth day must be paid by the employer at a rate of not less than two thirds of the employee’s regular rate of pay and the number of hours the employee would otherwise normally be scheduled to work. The cap is $200 per day or $10,000 in the aggregate.
Reprinted courtesy of
Yvette Davis, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and
Kyle R. DiNicola, Haight Brown & Bonesteel
Ms. Davis may be contacted at ydavis@hbblaw.com
Mr. DiNicola may be contacted at kdinicola@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Class Action Certification by Association for “Matters of Common Interest”
August 24, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesAssociations have authority to pursue as a class, on behalf of all of their respective members, lawsuits “concerning members of common interest to the members.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.221. This includes, but is not limited to, the common property or the areas in which the association is responsible. But, what about matters or elements for which the association is not responsible or does not own? For example, issues or damages relative to a specific unit or owner that are prevalent throughout?
The Third District Court of Appeal addressed this question in Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. Latitude on the River Condominium Association, Inc., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D1518a (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) when in affirmed a class certification by a condominium association relating to the removal and replacement of the condominium building’s defective fire sprinkler system. In affirming the class certification by the condominium association, the Third District maintained:
Rule 1.221 expressly authorizes condominium associations to “institute, maintain, settle, or appeal actions or hearings in its name on behalf of all association members concerning matters of common interest to the members.” “[A]s to controversies affecting the matters of common interest . . ., the condominium association, without more, should be construed to represent the class composed of its members as a matter of law.” “[T]he common interest provision of the rule has been interpreted to permit a class action by the association for a construction defect located physically within a unit, rather than in the common elements, if the defect is prevalent throughout the building.” We, therefore, cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in finding that damages resulting from the replacement of the fire-sprinkler system throughout the building were a matter of common interest for purposes of certification at this stage of the litigation.
Allied Tube and Conduit Corp, supra (internal citations omitted).
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
