Clarifying the Confusing World of Indemnification, Hold Harmless, and Defense Clauses

by Kent Holland | Aug 11, 2014 | indemnification clause, Newsletter Article

By: Sarah E. Swank O B E R | K A L E R We often get the all too familiar question from our clients, “What is the hold up on that contract?” When the answer is the indemnification, defense, or hold harmless provision, the authors have found a lack of resources for...

No Duty To Defend under CPL Policy for Natural Gas Pipe Explosion

by Kent Holland | Aug 11, 2014 | duty to defend, Newsletter Article

By J. Kent Holland, Esq. and James N. Rhodes, Esq.ConstructionRisk Counsel, PLLC Published on IRMI.com A Wisconsin appeals court found that an insurer’s duty to defend under a contractors pollution liability (CPL) policy was not triggered by an explosion caused...

Multi-Employer Worksite Doctrine Inapplicable in Utah

by Kent Holland | Aug 11, 2014 | Newsletter Article

By J. Kent Holland, Esq ConstructionRisk Counsel, PLLC The Utah Supreme Court rejected the multi-employer worksite doctrine as incompatible with the governing Utah statute, holding, “The responsibility for ensuring occupational safety under the governing statute is...

Insurance Broker not Liable to its Client When Insurance Program Failed and was Put into State Receivership

by Kent Holland | Jul 8, 2014 | Newsletter Article

Where an insurance broker marketed and sold a self-insured workers compensation program for contractors (the Contractors Access Program of California (CAP)) that subsequently became financially insolvent and failed, leaving the contractors exposed to considerable...

Differing Site Conditions: Trial Necessary to Determine if Federal Contractor Entitled to Relief

by Kent Holland | Jul 8, 2014 | differing site conditions, Newsletter Article

A contractor on a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers project filed a complaint with the U.S. Claims Court, claiming it was entitled to equitable adjustment to its contract for additional costs and time due to encountering differing site conditions while dredging the Miami...

Prime Designers in California Held to Owe Duty to Future Purchasers

by Kent Holland | Jul 8, 2014 | Newsletter Article

Dion N. Cominos, Esq. Gordon & Rees LLP    The Supreme Court of California has now published its decision in Beacon v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (211 Cal.App.4th 1301 (2014)).  In short, the Court concluded that prime architects designing residential...