Ashburn Virginia Construction Expert Witness Directory

Court Reminds Insurer that the Mere Possibility Of Coverage at the Time of Tender Triggers a Duty to Defend in a Defect Action

October 04, 2021 — Jatin Patel - Newmeyer Dillion
It has long been the law in California that an insurer’s duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify and that the mere possibility of coverage triggers a duty to defend. Nevertheless, insurers still periodically ignore this clear principle and attempt to narrow the scope of the duty to defend. Recently, a Federal District Court issued a reminder to a wayward insurer. In Pacific Bay Masonry, Inc., v. Navigators Specialty Insurance Company, (N.D. Cal., Sept. 16, 2021, No. C 20-07376 WHA, 2021 WL 4221747 (“Pacific”)), the Court was asked to assess whether a tender of defense by a concrete masonry subcontractor to its insurer for a construction defect action required a defense. Pacific Bay Masonry, Inc. (“PBM”) installed concrete masonry units (also known as “CMUs”) at a new retail shopping center in Oakland, California. The subsequent owner of the retail center filed suit against the general contractor for alleged construction defects, including “efflorescence of roof deck at CMU wall” and “improper waterproofing and flashing of the CMU block wall." The general contractor filed a cross-complaint against PBM. PBM tendered the defense of the case to Navigators Specialty Insurance Company (“Navigators”) along with copies of a preliminary defect list, a description of defects, interrogatory responses and an expert witness damage analysis. Navigators denied coverage and a duty to defend citing to the work product exclusion of the policy. PBM asked Navigators to reconsider. Navigators held firm on its denial. Two years later, PBM filed suit. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jatin Patel, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Patel may be contacted at jatin.patel@ndlf.com

It’s Not Just the Millennium Tower That’s Sinking in San Francisco

December 06, 2021 — Beverley BevenFlorez – CDJ Staff
Much has been reported over the years regarding the sinking Millennium Tower in San Francisco, but now new reports are emerging regarding sinking sidewalks in the Mission Bay neighborhood and images from space demonstrating that the entire Downtown San Francisco area may also be sinking. According to CBS SF BayArea, some sidewalks in Mission Bay have sunk “as much as a foot and more in some spots.” The neighborhood is built upon a landfill, which requires the buildings to be anchored to bedrock—the streets and sidewalks, however, are the property owners’ responsibility. Engineers for the UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay “took a proactive approach.” CBS SF BayArea alleges, however, that many surrounding condo developers did not. SFGate reported that the sidewalk issue may be difficult to solve “as any fixes to the surface only serve to increase the weight of the pavement, speeding its descent into the landfill.” It may not just be sidewalks and streets that are sinking. U.S Geological Survey research geophysicist Tom Parsons “says earth-based and space-based observations confirm the entire downtown area around it is sinking as well.” According to the NBC Bay Area story, Parsons “estimated settlement of three inches across the entire Bay Area.” The Millennium Tower weighs an estimated 686 million pounds, making it the third heaviest building in San Francisco. However, it is the only one that’s significantly leaning. San Francisco building officials told NBC Bay Area that there are plans in place “to shore up the seawall that protects the Embarcadero.” Read the full story at CBS SF BayArea... Read the full story at SFGate... Read the full story at NBC Bay Area...

Working Safely With Silica: Health Hazards and OSHA Compliance

January 17, 2022 — Rick Pedley - Construction Executive
About 2.3 million American workers are exposed to silica, including those in construction, oil and gas, agriculture and manufacturing. Silica is commonly found in a range of construction materials and when this material breaks apart, small particles are released into the air, creating what’s known as respirable crystalline silica. These particles can get into a person’s respiratory tract, which can lead to a range of serious and potentially fatal illnesses including silicosis, lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and kidney diseases. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has set clear regulations for working with this substance, so construction workers and managers can know the risks of inhaling this substance and protect themselves on the job site. What is Silica? Crystalline silica is a mineral that forms naturally in the earth. Raw construction materials such as sand, stone, concrete and mortar often contain deposits of crystalline silica, which can put employees at risk. Silica becomes a danger to workers when it is released into the air and breathed in. Reprinted courtesy of Rick Pedley, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...

4 Ways the PRO Act Would Impact the Construction Industry

October 24, 2021 — Andrew M. MacDonald - ConsensusDocs
The Protecting the Right to Organize Act (the “PRO Act”) is a proposed law that would dramatically rewrite the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). Breathtakingly broad in scope, the PRO Act targets several longstanding features of existing law perceived by unions and labor activists to be unfair to labor and too favorable to employers. The proposed legislation is essentially a grab-bag of grievances that the labor movement has compiled over decades and sought to change through legislation and before the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) without success in the past. While the PRO Act would affect virtually all private sector employers, it would alter the labor dynamic in the construction industry in four major ways: 1. Removing the current prohibitions on secondary, jurisdictional, and other forms of picketing. Current law attempts to balance the rights of employers to operate their businesses without unnecessary interference with the rights of unions to protest concerning wages and working conditions. As part of this balancing act, the NLRA prohibits unions from picketing under certain conditions or with certain aims. These restrictions include the prohibition on “secondary” picketing by unions of neutral employers, which are employers with which the union does not have a direct labor dispute, and “jurisdictional” picketing by unions to force an employer to assign certain work to a specific trade or group of employees. The elimination of these restrictions in the PRO Act would have a significant impact on the construction industry. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Andrew M. MacDonald, Fox Rothschild LLP
Mr. MacDonald may be contacted at amacdonald@foxrothschild.com

An Insurance Policy Isn’t Ambiguous Just Because You Want It to Be

December 20, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When it comes to insurance contracts, there is a rule of law that states, “where interpretation is required by ambiguity in insurance contracts[,] the insured will be favored.” Pride Clean Restoration, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D2584a (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (citation and quotation omitted). Stated another way: ambiguities in insurance contracts will be interpreted in favor of the insured and against the insurer. With this rule of law in mind, insureds oftentimes try to argue ambiguity even when there is not one. This was the situation in Pride Clean Construction. In this case, the property insurance policy contained a mold exclusion that stated the policy did NOT insure for “a. loss caused by mold, mildew, fungus, spores or other microorganism of any type, nature, or description including but not limited to any substance whose presence poses an actual or potential threat to human health; or b. the cost or expense of monitoring, testing, removal, encapsulation, abatement, treatment or handling of mold, mildew, fungus, spores or other microorganism as referred to in a) above.” Not only did the policy not insure for loss caused by mold, it went further to state it was NOT insuring for any mold testing or abatement. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Best Lawyers Honors 48 Lewis Brisbois Attorneys, Recognizes Four Partners as 'Lawyers of the Year'

August 30, 2021 — Lewis Brisbois
Best Lawyers has selected 48 Lewis Brisbois attorneys across 27 offices for inclusion in its list of 2022 Best Lawyers in America. It has also recognized four Lewis Brisbois partners as "Lawyers of the Year": Cleveland/Akron Partner John F. Hill (Bet-the-Company Litigation); San Diego Partner Marilyn R. Moriarty (Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants); Portland Managing Partner Eric J. Neiman (Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants); and Sacramento Partner Eric J. Stiff (Corporate Law). Please join us in congratulating these four partners and the following attorneys on their Best Lawyers recognition. Seattle Partner Randy J. Aliment: Commercial Litigation

Reno Managing Partner Jack G. Angaran: Insurance Law, Litigation - Construction, Litigation - Real Estate

Los Angeles Partner Brian G. Arnold: Litigation - Intellectual Property, Litigation - Patent

Los Angeles/Orange County Partner John L. Barber: Employment Law - Management, Litigation - Labor and Employment

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

SFAA Commends Congress for Maintaining Current Bonding Protection Levels in National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)

December 20, 2021 — The Surety & Fidelity Association of America
December 15, 2021 (WASHINGTON, DC) – The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA), a nonprofit, nonpartisan trade association representing all segments of the surety and fidelity industry, commends the U.S. Senate and House for passing the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2022, and including Section 877, which exempts the Miller Act from periodic indexing for inflation. SFAA would like to thank Miller Act exemption bill sponsors, Representatives Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) and Byron Donalds (R-FL), as well as Senators Robert Portman (R-OH), Gary Peters (D-MI) and Mazie Hirono (D-HI), for their leadership and commitment on the passage of this bill. Exempting the Miller Act from periodic indexing for inflation ensures essential payment protections remain in place for subcontractors, suppliers, and workers on all federal construction contracts subject to the Miller Act. The exemption also ensures performance protections for taxpayers will remain in place on federal construction contracts of $150,000 and more. For over 80 years, the federal Miller Act has protected taxpayers against risk of loss by requiring payment and performance bonds on federal construction contracts. President Biden is expected to sign the NDAA into law in the coming days. The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan trade association representing all segments of the surety and fidelity industry. Based in Washington, D.C., SFAA works to promote the value of surety and fidelity bonding by proactively advocating on behalf of its members and stakeholders. The association’s more than 450 member companies write 98 percent of surety and fidelity bonds in the U.S. For more information visit www.surety.org.

Duty To Defend PFAS MDL Lawsuits: Texas Federal Court Weighs In

August 10, 2021 — Gregory S. Capps & Lynndon K. Groff - White and Williams LLP
Few courts have yet decided insurance coverage issues in litigation involving per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). But yesterday, in Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company v. Chemicals, Inc., No. H-20-3493, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146702 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2021), the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas found Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company (Crum & Forster) had a duty to defend Chemicals, Inc. against firefighters’ allegations that they were injured by PFAS contained in aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF). The AFFF claims are consolidated in the multi-district litigation (MDL) in South Carolina, and you can read more about that here. Turning to the decision from August 5, 2021, Crum & Forster issued commercial general liability insurance policies to Chemicals, Inc. for liability arising from bodily injury, to the extent that injury “first occur[ed] during the ‘policy period[.]’” Further, a “Continuous or Progressive Damage or Injury” condition in the policies stated, “If the date cannot be determined upon which such ‘bodily injury’ … first occurred[,] then, … such ‘bodily injury’ … will be deemed to have occurred or existed, … before the ‘policy period’.” The Crum & Forster policies were issued between 2011 and 2019. The complaints in the MDL do not specify when the firefighters were allegedly exposed to PFAS-containing AFFF or when the firefighters first allegedly manifested symptoms of such exposure. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory S. Capps, White and Williams LLP and Lynndon K. Groff, White and Williams LLP Mr. Capps may be contacted at cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Groff may be contacted at groffl@whiteandwilliams.com Read the full story...

ASHBURN VIRGINIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES