Volume 2 - Number 10 | March 8, 2004 - Construction Claims Advisor

Sample Issue

Bookstore

Editorial Board

Construction Law Sites

Past Issues

Press Releases

Forums

You are here: Home » Volume 2 - Number 10 | March 8, 2004

Volume 2 - Number 10 | March 8, 2004

EDITOR'S NOTES | Issue 2-10: Most of the cases we try to cover in Construction Claims Advisor involve contract disputes, payment issues, liens, bonds and jurisdictional issues. This week, we take a look at two safety-related cases and an insurance case. Jobsite safety is everyone’s concern, and all of us can learn things from these cases to improve safety and reduce injuries. These cases also show that courts on the district and appellate levels can differ as much as the parties involved can on the interpretation of contract language.
In Tips and Techniques, construction attorney Jayne Czik expands on our coverage of reservation of rights from two weeks ago, with the focus on progress payments.

SUBCONTRACTOR LIABLE FOR ITS EMPLOYEE’S INJURIES – PRIME AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGER OFF THE HOOK: The Circuit Court of Cook County dismissed the claims of a subcontractor’s employee against the prime contractor and construction manager for a personal injury sustained at the worksite. The appellate court affirmed the Circuit Court’s decision, rejecting common exceptions to the "oversight" rule and the plaintiff's assertion that the beam that caused the accident was a defective "product."

SCAFFOLDING DEATH TRIGGERS MULTIPLE OSHA VIOLATIONS – APPELLATE COURT AFFIRMS: AJP appeals a decision of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission affirming citations for violations related to scaffolding safety. The Court of Appeals, applying an abuse of discretion standard of review, affirmed the Commission’s decision, finding the contractor willfully violated the law.

INSURANCE COMPANY DOESN’T HAVE TO COVER COMPANIES LIES: This case involves an appeal from a federal district court decision requiring two insurance companies to cover damages that the insured contractor incurred due to defective steel. The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s decision, finding the insurance policy excluded coverage for property damage to the product that arose from the product itself.