Source: https://www.lexology.com, October 3, 2017
By: James P. Bobotek, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
In the world of construction, whether you’re a lender, owner, contractor or subcontractor, your success hinges largely on risk management. While there’s no substitute for sound business and construction practices (such as proper preconstruction planning, proven construction means and methods, use of experienced personnel, and stringent safety programs), among the most important project risk allocation tools are the contracts governing the various parties’ rights and obligations. Within those contracts, risk is primarily allocated through indemnity and insurance requirement provisions. When preparing insurance requirements for construction-related contracts, it is crucial to ensure these pieces are well-fitted and comfortable, like a good piece of tailoring. This requires the indemnity and risk obligations associated with each project discipline to be clearly identiﬁed and addressed.
Design professional contract requirements should include auto and commercial general liability, workers’ compensation/employer’s liability and, most importantly, professional liability coverages. Pay particular attention to the limits of the professional liability coverage; requiring excess limits for this coverage may be appropriate depending on the project’s size. Consider requiring that the coverage be “project speciﬁc,” either through a separate project policy or sublimits applicable only to the project. For large projects, a lender may consider requiring, or an owner may consider obtaining, owner’s protective professional insurance coverage, which indemniﬁes the owner directly for losses arising out of professional negligence of architects/engineers exceeding the limits available under the architects’/engineers’ own professional liability policies.…
Source: https://www.winnipegfreepress.com, April 23, 2017
By: Jeff Hamilton
Triple B Stadium Inc., the company that owns and manages Investors Group Field, says it doesn’t believe taxpayers should be footing the bill for ongoing repairs at the stadium, which have now hit $21.4 million.
Those costs, said Triple B chairman Andrew Konowalchuk, should be the responsibility of the architect and contractor, a belief reflected in Triple B’s lawsuit against the two parties (builder Stuart Olson and architect Ray Wan) that is still open in the courts.
“As that lawsuit is ongoing, Triple B will limit its public comments on the issues that are before the court,” Konowalchuk said in an email Thursday. “We are confident that those issues will be resolved appropriately through an open and transparent judicial process.”
Konowalchuk was responding to a Free Press request for an update on ongoing repairs at IGF, and information on current and projected costs of the work. The Free Press reported the details of a public tender — dated last July — for extensive work to be done, much of which Konowalchuk has confirmed.…
Source: http://www.cbc.ca, April 13, 2017
By: Bartley Kives
Repairs to the faulty concrete and drainage at Winnipeg’s Investors Group Field will take two more years to complete, but the stadium’s owner is promising there will be no conflicts with events at the four-year-old football stadium.
Construction crews working on deficiencies at the 33,500-seat stadium will wrap up their latest round of repairs in May, the non-profit entity Triple B Stadium said in a statement Thursday.
The home of the Winnipeg Blue Bombers has been plagued with concrete, drainage and other issues since it opened in May 2013. The problems spawned a lawsuit between Triple B Stadium — which represents the city, province, University of Manitoba and Winnipeg Football Club — and both stadium contractor Stuart Olson and architect Ray Wan.
It also led the province to guarantee $35 million worth of loans to begin repairs. To date, $21.4 million has been spent on this work, Triple B Stadium chair Andrew Konowalchuk said in a statement.…
Source: http://www.jdsupra.com, September 28, 2017
Energy Insurance Mutual Limited v. ACE American Insurance Company
Court of Appeal, First District (July 11, 2017)
This case involves an insurance coverage dispute arising from an explosion that occurred when an excavator struck an unmarked petroleum pipeline.
Kinder Morgan, Inc. owns and operates oil and gas pipelines. Comforce Corporation is a staffing company that supplied two temporary employees to work as construction inspectors for Kinder Morgan. Kinder Morgan selected and trained the inspectors.
On November 9, 2004, an excavator punctured a high-pressured petroleum line owned by Kinder Morgan. An explosion occurred and killed five individuals and injured four others. Cal/OSHA conducted an investigation and concluded the primary cause of the accident was a failure to properly mark the petroleum pipeline. Cal/OSHA issued two “serious willful” citations to Kinder Morgan due to its employee’s failure to mark the location of the pipeline prior to excavation. Numerous wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits were filed against Kinder Morgan and Comforce, alleging that the explosion was caused by the parties’ negligence in failing to mark the location of the Kinder Morgan pipeline, and failing to properly supervise contractors.…
Source: http://www.orlandosentinel.com, September 29, 2017
By: Mary Shanklin
The University of Central Florida’s football stadium has some problems, according to a construction-defect lawsuit the school filed against architects and contractors.
Nicknamed the Bounce House when it opened a decade ago because it shifted slightly as fans jumped in unison, the venue’s metal framing for seating now has “defects and deficiencies” according to the university’s complaint filed this month. in Orange County Circuit Court. The school cited defects with “other framing accessories” in the stadium, too, although it did not elaborate on those in the lawsuit.
“UCF has filed a lawsuit to hold the companies involved in constructing the stadium accountable for their role in creating premature wear of the steel,” spokesman Chad Binette said. “We contend that it is requiring more maintenance than it should for its age and use.”
UCF owns Spectrum Stadium and oversaw construction of the 45,000-seat arena together with the Golden Knights direct support group.…
Source: http://www.star-telegram.com, September 29, 2017
By: Sandra Engelland
It was a few years ago when maintenance workers and staff at Trinity Meadows Intermediate School began to notice problems.
Cracks in the walls. Doors that would stick. Heaving sidewalks and widening gaps and cracks in visible parts of the concrete slab.
Now, 11 years after the Keller district’s school opened in north Fort Worth, officials say the problems are much worse than the structure’s age and have filed a lawsuit against the firms that designed and built the $23 million school.
The culprit, according to the lawsuit, is a faulty foundation.
No extensive repairs have been required to date at Trinity Meadows, said Hudson Huff, director of facilities services for the Keller school district. But some work may be needed in the next five years, Huff said.
Officials say it was necessary to file a suit to protect the school district’s interests.…
Source: http://www.constructiondive.com, September 6, 2017
By: Mary Tyler March
Source: https://www.lexology.com, September 18, 2017
By: Jeffrey S. Crowe and Jennifer Hoffman, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
Energy Insurance Mutual Limited v. Ace American Insurance Company, 14 Cal.App.5th 281 (2017); First Appellate District Court of Appeal, Division Four, Case No. A140656 (July 11, 2017). In Energy Insurance Mutual Limited v. Ace American Insurance Company, the California Court of Appeal held that a “professional services” exclusion applied to bar coverage for claims made against an oil pipeline owner, Kinder Morgan, and its temporary staffing agency, Comforce, following an explosion at a construction site. Kinder Morgan had hired two temporary employees from Comforce to work as construction inspectors on a water supply line project. As a result of Kinder Morgan’s alleged failure to properly mark the oil pipeline, an excavator punctured a high-pressured petroleum line and caused the explosion.…
Source: https://www.constructionrisk.com, September 2017
By: J. Kent Holland, Jr.
Where a housing developer won a jury verdict for more than $9.5 million against a geotechnical engineer, the court applied the limitation of liability (LoL) clause in the geotech’s contract to cap the liability at $550,000. The developer attempted to avoid the LoL by arguing that the geotech’s conduct was willful and wanton. The trial court allowed evidence in that regard, but the jury found the conduct was not willful and wanton. Therefore, the LoL clause withstood the challenge. Taylor Morrison of Colorado, Inc. v. Terracon Consultants, Inc., 2017 WL 2180518, 2017 COA 64 (2017).
Of note was the fact that the court allowed the plaintiff’s expert witness to describe in detail the actions of the geotech it deemed to be at fault, but it excluded testimony by the expert that this conduct was “willful and wanton” because that is “not an engineering concept” but rather a “legal concept” for which an engineer cannot testify.
There was a question of whether the geotech’s deposit of $550,000 into the court registry, and an email to counsel for the developer addressing a “mutual dismissal” constituted a statutory “offer of settlement” that would have allowed the geotech to recover an award of its costs and fees of litigation. The court held it did not.…
Source: http://www.businessinsurance.com, August 23, 2017
By: Judy Greenwald
A federal appeals court has upheld Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Co. Inc.’s denial of an insurance claim for a claims-made policy by a construction firm because the claim was not submitted within the policy period, even though it was submitted during the policy’s subsequent renewal period.
Morristown, New Jersey-based Crum & Forster issued a professional errors and omissions liability claims-made policy to Anchorage-based Alaska Interstate Construction L.L.C. with an initial policy period of Dec. 1, 2011, to May 1, 2013, and then a renewal policy with a policy period of May 1, 2013, to May 1, 2014, according to Tuesday’s ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco in Alaska Interstate Construction L.L.C. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Co. Inc.
A claim against the policy was made by a wine producer on Jan. 10, 2013, during the initial policy period. But Alaska Interstate did not report the claim until June 19, 2013, during the renewal policy period, according to the ruling.
After Crum & Forster denied coverage, Alaska Interstate filed suit in U.S. District Court in Anchorage, which granted the insurer summary judgment.
A three-judge appeals court panel unanimously upheld the lower court. Alaska Interstate argues “‘policy period’ can reasonably be interpreted as encompassing both the initial and renewal policy periods,” said the ruling. “Under this interpretation, (Alaska Interstate) would have made and reported the claim within the single continuous policy period.”
But this proposed interpretation of “policy period” is not reasonable, said the ruling. “According to the plain language of the policies, a claim must be made and reported within a single policy period, as stated in the Declarations for a given policy,” it said.
“An insured cannot reasonably expect coverage under such circumstances,” the ruling said, in upholding the lower court.…