Seyfarth Synopsis: In June 2024, Seyfarth published a blog article warning construction industry employers of recent anti-harassment guidelines issued by the EEOC. We predicted that the EEOC has “put the construction industry squarely in its sights.”[1] In this follow-up Alert, we discuss recent cases confirming the renewed regulatory focus on the construction sector, which demonstrate the need to put in place sound practices for non-discriminatory recruitment, hiring, and training of the work force in order to be prepared for this heightened risk of government scrutiny.

Recent EEOC Settlements
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has indicated, in no uncertain terms, that over the next five years it intends to prioritize the mitigation of systemic workplace problems and the historical underrepresentation of women and workers of color in the construction sector.[2] Two recent cases confirm that the EEOC is true to its word when it comes to tackling racial and gender disparities in the construction work force.

In August 2024, the EEOC secured two consent decrees with two separate construction firms in Florida, totaling nearly $3 million.

Reprinted courtesy of Anthony LaPlaca, Seyfarth, Dawn Solowey, Seyfarth, Andrew Scroggins, Seyfarth and Adrienne Lee, Seyfarth
Mr. LaPlaca may be contacted at alaplaca@seyfarth.com
Ms. Solowey may be contacted at dsolowey@seyfarth.com
Mr. Scroggins may be contacted at ascroggins@seyfarth.com
Ms. Lee may be contacted at aclee@seyfarth.com

US casualty has arguably been the hottest topic in the sector over the last year amid growing concerns over deteriorating loss trends. E&S Insurer talks to Kyle Sternadori, head of wholesale excess casualty at Navigators, a brand of The Hartford.

Featured in the July 2024 edition of E&S Insurer.

How are you approaching current E&S excess casualty market dynamics?
We are focusing on loss trends, such as rising loss costs, and staying ahead of those trends. As an excess market there are ways to do that: managing capacity and limits deployment across the portfolio; working internally amongst claims, actuarial, data science to stay ahead of that; and using your own data. Staying ahead of the curve is essentially what we're trying to do.

It started for us probably even before the market hardened. You saw towers of coverage that used to be maybe three markets and nowadays it could be 10 to 15 markets for similar coverage, with each market minimizing its downside.

Construction contracts in the energy sector involve unique challenges and risks, particularly with respect to bonds and mechanic’s liens.

Understanding how to navigate these challenges is key to protecting your projects from disputes with general contractors, subcontractors and suppliers.

In our recent webinar, “Construction Contracts: Bond and Mechanic’s Lien Primer for Energy Projects,” I was joined by my Sheppard Mullin colleagues Chris Kolosov and Emily Anderson to discuss navigating common contract pitfalls and negotiation strategies to protect your interests.

Here are our key takeaways.

1. Know Local Mechanic’s Lien Laws: Mechanic’s liens are statutory and vary significantly from state to state. It is critical to understand the local laws and regulations at play in your project’s jurisdiction.

Construing the policy language, the federal district court found that the policy's additional insured was the loss payee for damage caused by Hurricanes Laura and Delta. TCP Ryan St. LLC v. Weschester Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125529 (W.D. La. July 16, 2024).

Hurricanes Laura and Delta caused damage to TCP Ryan Street, LLC's (TCP) property. Westchester had issued a policy to MRI Heritage Brand, Inc. (MRI). MRI, as lessee, was obligated pursuant to the lease terms to "purchase and maintain . . . a policy of fire, extended coverage, vandalism and malicious mischief (or 'all risk') insurance coverage on all real property situated at the Lease Premises." The lease also required MRI to obtain coverage under a policy naming only the landlord as the sole insured and provided that the proceeds would be payable to the landlord.

The policy provided that no entity was covered unless Westchester had received identifying information for the entity during the application process or the entity was added by endorsement.

New York, N.Y. (August 23, 2024) – In Trujillo-Cruz v. City of New York, et al., New York Partner Inderjit Dhami, a member of New York Partner Meghan A. Cavalieri’s Construction Practice Team, recently obtained summary judgment and dismissal of the plaintiff's Labor Law §240(1), §241(6) and §200 claims dismissing the entire case against national developer and construction company clients.

The plaintiff alleged to have sustained injuries as the result of a construction site accident occurring on July 11, 2018, while in the scope of his employment as a laborer in connection with the construction/renovation of a residential apartment building in Brooklyn, New York. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that he was injured when he was coming down from a ladder and fell on a 2”x 4”, causing him disabling injuries. The plaintiffs’ counsel articulated a $3 million settlement demand.

Labor Law §240(1) imposes absolute liability on a defendant where an injured worker engaged in the performance of covered construction work establishes that a safety device proved inadequate to shield him from elevation-related harm, and that the defendant’s failure to provide an adequate safety device proximately caused the injuries alleged. The plaintiff first testified that he stepped on the 2” x 4” after he came down off of the ladder, but his counsel then prompted him to recalibrate his testimony by asking whether the accident arose when he was coming down the ladder or after he had come down off of the ladder. The plaintiff changed his testimony, alleging that the accident arose as he was coming down the ladder and that he remained partially on the ladder when he stepped on the piece of formwork and fell. Inderjit argued that the plaintiff’s reframing of his deposition testimony was immaterial for purposes of the Labor Law § 240 (1) analysis. Irrespective of whether the plaintiff was on solid ground or had one foot on the ladder at the time of the occurrence, his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was unavailing in that the accident did not arise as a result of the type of extraordinary elevation-related peril protected by Labor Law § 240 (1). Justice Maslow agreed and dismissed the plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240 (1) claims.

In our latest roundup, UBS to liquidate $2 billion real estate fund, hotel workers in San Francisco vote to strike, housing market to change after blockbuster settlement, and more!

• When it comes to buying and selling homes, new rules are about to be put in play, five months after the National Association of Realtors agreed to a settlement over how its 1.5 million agents across the U.S. are paid commissions. (Kate Gibson, CBS)
• Project abandonments tumbled in July in one of the largest monthly declines ever due to the anticipated interest rate cut. (Sebastian Obando, Construction Dive)
• Increases in energy prices drove most of the total rise in construction input costs over the past month. (Sebastian Obando, Construction Dive)

Traub Lieberman Partners Lisa Rolle, Erin O’Dea, and Nicole Verzillo won motion for summary judgment in a premises liability matter brought before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Westchester County. The Plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell in a pothole on the common driveway of five abutting properties and sustained an injury. The firm represented one of the multiple property owners. Traub Lieberman moved for summary judgment, asserting that the claims against the firm’s client should be dismissed as they did not own, operate, control or make special use of the driveway where the incident occurred. The firm also asserted that the alleged condition of the driveway that allegedly caused Plaintiff’s accident was a non-actionable, trivial defect. The firm also moved to dismiss the cross-claims asserted against them, contending that there was no evidence of negligence on behalf of the firm’s client. As such, the court found that the defect was a non-actionable, trivial defect. The firm secured dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against the firm’s clients and against all moving and non-moving Defendants.

Reprinted courtesy of Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman, Erin O’Dea, Traub Lieberman and Nicole Verzillo, Traub Lieberman

Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com
Ms. O'Dea may be contacted at eodea@tlsslaw.com
Ms. Verzillo may be contacted at nverzillo@tlsslaw.com

IRVINE, CA – Sep. 12, 2024 – Kahana Feld is pleased to announce that the firm received the 2024 Top Legal Organizations for DEI Award from the Orange County Coalition for Diversity in the Law (OCCDL). The firm will be recognized at an awards gala at The Westin South Coast Plaza on October 3.

Each year, the OCCDL recognizes individuals and organizations who have advanced diversity, equity, and inclusion in the Orange County legal community, whether through their excellence in the law or their direct efforts to promote DEI. Kahana Feld was recognized for programs such as its DEI book club and its regular webinars on topics like implicit bias. The firm supports various DEI organizations and initiatives in the Orange County area, including the Orange County Asian American Bar Association, the Orange County Women Lawyers Association, and the Jewish Federation of Orange County.

The OCCDL is a collaborative effort of professionals from leading Orange County law firms and other community partners promoting the advancement of diverse attorneys in Orange County. The OCCDL partners with local schools and organizations to increase community involvement and provides education focused on diversity to students and attorneys.