Jason has extensive experience representing clients from the construction, real estate, financial services, and railroad industries. He appears in federal and state court on behalf of design-build firms, general contractors, architects, engineers, specialty contractors, suppliers, property management companies, real estate owners, and lenders. A portion of Jason's practice also involves representing a Class I U.S. railroad in disputes in Minnesota and North Dakota.

Jason has been ranked every year since 2016 in Chambers USA for his work in construction law. A graduate of the University of Minnesota Law School, he joined Maslon in 2002.

The Power List is a feature that examines the power brokers who lead and influence the Minnesota legal community, with a focus on those "whose mere presence on a case signifies the stakes, who have influenced the direction of the law, whose leadership in the community is pervasive, and whose respect within the bar is undeniable."

To read the features, go to: Minnesota Lawyer, "The Power List: David Suchar" and "The Power List: Jonathan Septer" (subscription required).

David is a skilled trial attorney and former federal prosecutor who regularly represents clients in construction and insurance coverage disputes and a variety of commercial litigation. He is a Fellow of the American College of Construction Lawyers and the American College of Coverage Counsel—one of three lawyers in the U.S. invited to join both organizations. Who's Who Legal/Lexology named David one of eight U.S. 2025 Global Elite Thought Leaders in the category of Client Choice-Construction and described him as "an impressive trial lawyer whose practice spans the spectrum of construction matters from insurance to payment claims."

David was recognized by Lawdragon in its 500 Leading Litigators in America ranking (2025), by Thomson Reuters® as a Stand-Out Lawyer (2025) based on its survey of more than 2,000 senior in-house counsel, and by Chambers USA as one of seven Minnesota lawyers ranked Band 1 for Construction (2024). David has developed a niche national practice representing commercial policyholders in insurance coverage disputes, including on many of the largest construction projects and claims across the United States.

Jon is one of the preeminent real estate attorneys in Minnesota as ranked in Chambers USA and has a proven track record as an exceptional transactional attorney, negotiator, and dealmaker. He represents developers, investors, and businesses in all aspects of the commercial and agricultural real estate life cycle, including acquisitions and dispositions; borrower-side financing and refinancing transactions; commercial leasing; real estate development, land use, and construction projects; 1031 exchanges; title and survey due diligence review; and environmental and regulatory compliance matters.

With years of experience under his belt, Jon excels at crafting practical, results-oriented solutions tailored to each client’s unique objectives. Whether structuring complex property deals or resolving intricate land use disputes, Jon’s sharp negotiation skills and ability to cut through the noise and deliver tangible outcomes makes him a go-to expert for anyone seeking a strategic partner in real estate law. Jon also partners frequently with the firm's litigators to enforce clients' rights, including in construction litigation, mechanics' liens disputes, commercial lease disputes, condemnation and eminent domain matters, receivership actions, and more.

Deregulation

Trump’s pro-business bent will likely mean reduced regulations and streamlined permitting processes for new construction, making it easier and faster to start large projects. Trump has also supported energy policy that favors fossil fuels, and is likely to put reduced focus on renewable energy projects. He has advocated for defunding the Inflation Reduction Act, which in part addresses greenhouse gas emissions but also provides tax credits for green energy projects.[1]

Infrastructure Investments That Favor Private Sector–Driven, Traditional Projects

Trump’s infrastructure policies favor private sector–driven projects and public-private partnerships (PPPs), as well as more traditional projects such as roads, bridges, power plants, and industrial and fossil fuel facilities. Based on his campaign statements, Trump may seek to defund Biden administration infrastructure programs like the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act ("ILJA"), which authorized $1.2 trillion for construction projects and other investments over a five-year period.

Proposed Tariffs Could Result in Near-Term Increases for Raw Material Costs

The domestic construction industry relies significantly on imported wood, iron, and steel.[2] Lumber imports, for instance, are expected to continue rising to 16.1 billion board feet in 2025.[3] These imported materials could be subject to Trump’s "America First" economic policy, which includes a proposed 10-20% across-the-board tariff on imports.[4] He has floated a separate 60% tariff on goods from China as well.

Immigration Policies Could Impact Labor Costs

Trump’s stricter immigration policies could impact the availability of labor in the construction industry, which relies on immigrant workers. While in office the first time, he suspended the H-2B visa program in the midst of the pandemic.[5] He has very publicly advocated for the increased deportation of undocumented workers. Such immigration enforcement measures could lead to labor shortages for portions of the industry.

Overall Impact

A second Trump term will likely mean less regulation, emphasis on the private sector, and more funding for and focus on traditional infrastructure and energy projects. It could also mean reduced focus on renewable energy projects, potential labor impacts due to stricter immigration policies, and potentially near-term higher costs associated with tariffs on imported goods.

We Can Help

Please contact Maslon’s Construction & Real Estate Litigation Group if you have questions regarding legal implications of the election for the construction industry.

Jonathan Septer, partner and chair of Maslon's Real Estate Group, will moderate two panel discussions on opportunities in the downtown commercial real estate market, and on commercial real estate for the state's cannabis industry.

The program is pending approval by the Minnesota Department of Commerce for 2.0 hours of real estate credit.

For more information or to register, go to Finance & Commerce: Twin Cities Commercial Real Estate Outlook.

Jon has deep experience practicing in all facets of the commercial real estate life cycle, including real estate acquisitions and dispositions, commercial and agricultural leasing, title and survey due diligence review, real estate financing, and land use, entitlement, and permitting projects—with particular depth in the agribusiness and manufactured housing industries. Jon serves as general counsel to a broad array of clients, including several institutional investors, equipment manufacturers, lenders, farmers, manufactured housing community owners in connection with complex farmland and manufactured housing community acquisitions.

Agenda:

8 a.m. Networking Breakfast

8:30–9:30 a.m. Session One: Opportunities in the Downtown Commercial Real Estate Market
The Downtown Minneapolis commercial real estate market has changed significantly in the last five years. While the traditional downtown market has been disrupted due to a number of factors, this panel will feature the perspectives of the president of the downtown council, a developer, a commercial real estate attorney, and a longtime former broker, now developer, who will provide attendees with valuable insights on the unique opportunities currently available in the downtown real estate market.

• (Moderator) Jon Septer, Partner and Chair of Real Estate Group, Maslon LLP
• Erin Fitzgerald, Founder & CEO, Willow Peak
• Adam Duininck, President and CEO, Minneapolis Downtown Council
• Ben Krsnak, Executive Vice President, Hempel

9:30–9:40 a.m. Break

9:40–10:40 a.m. Commercial Real Estate for Minnesota’s "Budding" Cannabis Industry
Minnesota’s approval of the use and sale of adult-use cannabis has permanently altered the landscape of commercial real estate across the state. With an eye towards lessons learned in other states with legal recreational use, this panel will provide current and potential industry participants with an overview of the unique issues related to zoning regulations and city-imposed moratoriums, lending and property investment strategies, security, the real estate components necessary to qualify for a cannabis license, and the anticipated impact of cannabis businesses on local economies.

• (Moderator) Jon Septer, Partner and Chair of Real Estate Group, Maslon LLP
• Matt Schwandt, Chair of the Board of Directors, Bauhaus Brew Labs
• Joe Roby, City Administrator, City of Le Sueur
• Andrew Boyens, CEO, Pretty Major, Inc.

The United Heroes League works to ensure that children of military service members across the U.S. are afforded the opportunity to participate in sports, thereby helping these families heal, build friendships, and engage in their communities. Their new outdoor ice rink in Hastings will host Hockey Day Minnesota in 2026.

To learn more, go to: United Heroes League.

Jon advises clients on matters involving agricultural and commercial real estate sales and dispositions, agricultural and commercial leasing, commercial development, financing transactions, and zoning and land use matters. He serves as general counsel to a broad array of clients, including several institutional investors, equipment manufacturers, lenders, farmers, and manufactured housing community owners in connection with complex farmland and manufactured housing community acquisitions.

With an interest in sports from an early age, Jon went on to play high school hockey at Breck School in suburban Minneapolis and college hockey at the University of Colorado.

1. the names of all employees and independent contractors of the subcontractor on the project, and, when applicable, the name of the contractor's subcontractor with whom the subcontractor is under contract;
2. the anticipated contract start date;
3. the scheduled duration of work;
4. when applicable, local unions with which such subcontractor is a signatory contractor; and
5. the name and telephone number of a contact for the subcontractor.

Union Exemption

The CWWPA does not apply to contractors or subcontractors if they are signatories to a collective bargaining agreement with a building and construction trade labor union and that agreement:

1. contains a grievance procedure that can be used by workers to recover unpaid wages; and
2. provides for the collection of unpaid contributions to fringe benefit trust funds.

What You Can Do & How We Can Help

Regarding the wage theft law, we recommend you choose subcontractors carefully and monitor their payments to their employees.

More broadly, it is advisable that you consult an attorney to evaluate any 2023 construction contracts to ensure that they comply with updated Minnesota law. Maslon’s construction and insurance litigation attorneys are available to help their clients stay up to date on changes in Minnesota law that may affect their legal strategies. Please contact us for assistance.

For more information or to register, go to: MSBA: Are We Covered? A Panel Discussion on New Insurance Issues in the Construction Industry

Peter is a business litigator focused on resolving construction and insurance coverage disputes. He provides practical advice to help his clients navigate all phases of their construction projects, from contract negotiations to asserting or defending claims. He has represented a variety of participants in the construction industry, including owners, general contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, design professionals, and sureties in matters such as construction and design defect claims, delay and extra work claims, performance and payment bond claims, mechanics liens, and bid protests. He also advises clients on federal and state compliance issues.

Jevon is a trial lawyer who focuses on construction, insurance coverage, and appellate litigation. He has taken numerous complex matters to jury verdict, and helps both Fortune 500 companies and "mom and pop" operations to navigate all phases of the litigation process. Jevon has significant experience in contract disputes, policyholder insurance coverage claims, construction defect and mechanic’s lien claims, and shareholder disputes. He also regularly handles appeals in the Eighth Circuit and Minnesota appellate courts.

The event will be held at the St. Thomas Opus College of Business in Minneapolis. It has been approved for two hours of real estate credits with the Minnesota Department of Commerce.

For more information, go to Finance & Commerce: Mid-Year Real Estate Update 2022

Jon has significant experience practicing in all facets of the commercial real estate life cycle, including real estate acquisitions and dispositions, commercial and agricultural leasing, title and survey due diligence review, real estate financing, and land use, entitlement, and permitting projects—with particular depth in the agribusiness and manufactured housing industries. Jon serves as general counsel to a broad array of clients, including several institutional investors, equipment manufacturers, lenders, farmers, manufactured housing community owners in connection with complex farmland and manufactured housing community acquisitions. Across all, he aims to add maximum value to his clients by focusing on their key needs, providing creative solutions, and delivering deadline-driven results.

To learn more, go to: The Trial Network.

David, a partner at Maslon, is a skilled trial attorney and former federal prosecutor who regularly represents clients in construction and insurance coverage disputes, government and internal investigations, and a variety of commercial litigation. Who's Who Legal has consistently ranked David as one of the top three under-45 construction lawyers in the United States (2019-22), describing him in their annual "Future Leaders" guide as "an impressive trial lawyer whose practice spans the spectrum of construction matters from insurance to payment claims." Chambers USA published client commentary describing David as “an excellent attorney who comes up with creative ways of resolving complicated disputes while getting things accomplished that other attorneys could not manage to do."

David has acted as first-chair trial counsel for a variety of bench and jury trials in courts across the country. In addition to his work in the areas of construction and insurance coverage litigation and government and internal investigations, David has successfully litigated various high-end contract and commercial litigation matters.

One hour of Real Estate Credits have been applied for with the Minnesota Department of Commerce.

To register, go to: Commercial Real Estate Forum.

Those who are unable to attend the live forum are urged to register; organizers will send a recording and accompanying slides after the presentation.

Jon is a partner with significant experience practicing in all facets of the commercial real estate life cycle, including real estate acquisitions and dispositions, commercial and agricultural leasing, title and survey due diligence review, real estate financing, and land use, entitlement, and permitting projects—with particular depth in the agribusiness and manufactured housing industries. Jon serves as general counsel to a broad array of clients, including several institutional investors, equipment manufacturers, lenders, farmers, manufactured housing community owners in connection with complex farmland and manufactured housing community acquisitions. Across all, he aims to add maximum value to his clients by focusing on their key needs, providing creative solutions, and delivering deadline-driven results.

As litigation attorneys, Jason and Cyri represent railroads, real estate companies, design professionals, contractors, suppliers, owners, financial institutions, and other public and private entities in a variety of real estate and construction litigation matters. Both regularly appear on behalf of clients in state and federal courts, arbitrations and administrative proceedings in Minnesota and nationwide.

To read the full article, go to: Finance & Commerce – "Three Considerations for Post-Pandemic Real Estate and Construction Litigation."

To Take Property, the Government Must Pay Just Compensation.

The government's power of condemnation, or eminent domain, has been called the government's most awesome power, and for good reason. So long as the government can satisfy the low burden to show that it is taking private property for a public purpose, the private property owner cannot stop the taking. For example, a road authority (such as a county) can condemn private property to build a public road. In exchange for allowing this power, the constitution requires that the government pay the property owner just compensation. Generally speaking, this compensation is measured as the price that a hypothetical buyer would pay to a hypothetical seller for the property at the date the property is taken. And when the road authority takes a portion of the property, leaving a remainder to the property owner, just compensation includes the damage done to the remaining, untaken property.

For example, a road authority may take a strip of private land in order to widen a road, or take a temporary portion of property for the construction of an adjacent public project, and leave the remainder of the property not taken. (Often, a road authority will take both a permanent strip of land and also a temporary adjacent strip.) In such a case, the owner loses the value of the land that has been taken, but that owner has also suffered damages to the remaining property, such as noise and construction dust, loss of visibility, or construction workers' littering and loitering on the untaken property. These damages reflect the real-life harm to property owners. Businesses lose customers during an adjacent highway construction; the enjoyment of a private home is lessened by the adjacent construction zone.

The Issue in Laechelt.

Perhaps it's an obvious point, but a property owner can't prove the amount of construction-related interference unless they can present evidence of the construction and how it affected their property. And that evidence doesn't arise until after the date of taking, and after the government has finished its construction. In Laechelt, for example, the property owner submitted photographs and testimony of how the construction project impacted her property.

The evidence did not come into existence until after the taking of the owner's property, because it was evidence of what actually occurred during the construction project.

Both during trial and on appeal, the government argued that it was improper to consider such evidence. The government's argument was that, because the "before and after rule" required a measurement of the difference in market value on the date of taking, only evidence that existed on the date of taking should be considered.

The Minnesota Supreme Court rejected the government's argument. The Court noted that construction-related interference damages do arise at the date of taking—after all, the public purpose in taking land is for a construction project, and there would be no such damages but for the government's project. A hypothetical buyer would pay less for the property, knowing the property would soon and certainly be impacted by an adjacent construction project. But the hypothetical buyer may not know the actual amount of such an impact. Thus, the Court held, using evidence that comes into existence after the date of taking "simply provides the benefit of hindsight." Such evidence "may shed light on what a willing buyer and seller might reasonably expect" as of the date of taking. Therefore, the Court held, such evidence is relevant and should be considered.

Before Laechelt, property-owner attorneys have long submitted construction-related interference evidence in condemnation proceedings. The Court did not break any new ground with its holding, but it did help to clarify that this longstanding practice is proper. In certain cases, such evidence is vital to the property owner's ability to receive the just compensation promised by the constitution.

Bottom Line: If your land is partially taken by the government in a condemnation action, you may be able recover the value of the land that is taken and also compensation for damages to the portion of the land that is not taken.

We Can Help

Please contact Maslon's Construction & Real Estate attorneys if you have any questions, or if you own property that the government has threatened to take in a condemnation proceeding. We're happy to help!

Jon has significant experience practicing in all facets of the commercial real estate life cycle, including real estate acquisitions and dispositions, commercial and agricultural leasing, title and survey due diligence review, real estate financing, and land use, entitlement, and permitting projects—with particular depth in the agribusiness and manufactured housing industries. Jon serves as general counsel to a broad array of clients, including several institutional investors, equipment manufacturers, lenders, farmers, manufactured housing community owners in connection with complex farmland and manufactured housing community acquisitions. Across all, he aims to add maximum value to his clients by focusing on their key needs, providing creative solutions, and delivering deadline-driven results.

To read the full article, go to: Finance & Commerce – "Critical Next Steps for Landlords as the Pandemic’s Impact Unfolds."

Jon practices in the area of commercial real estate with significant experience in all facets of the commercial real estate life cycle, including real estate acquisitions and dispositions, commercial and agricultural leasing, title and survey due diligence review, real estate financing, and land use, entitlement, and permitting projects—and has particular depth in the agribusiness and manufactured housing industries.

Jon serves as general counsel to a broad array of clients, including several institutional investors, equipment manufacturers, lenders, farmers, manufactured housing community owners in connection with complex farmland and manufactured housing community acquisitions. Across all, he aims to add maximum value to his clients by focusing on their key needs, providing creative solutions, and delivering deadline-driven results.

Available for Viewing: Complimentary Webcast — "2020 Finance & Commerce Commercial Real Estate Forum."

Policyholders will likely be receiving denial letters from insurers soon (if not already) in response to insurance claims made in March and April, including those made seeking coverage for business interruption, delay in completion, and site cleanup costs. With particular attention to the issues that will be raised in such denial letters, a helpful road map of coverage issues policyholders should be aware of currently is provided below:

Top Issues In Play
The top issues currently in play involve first-party liability policies that insure against damage to an insured's property, projects, and work, as opposed to third-party policies that primarily cover physical injury or damage to other parties and their property. The three types of policies that most commonly fall into the category of first-party policies responsive to COVID-19 claims are:

1. Builder's Risk Insurance (BRI) policies for projects under construction;
2. Property policies; and
3. Pollution policies or pollution coverage as a portion of other policies.

As of May 12, 2020, various jurisdictions are considering legislation that would mandate COVID-19 business interruption coverage. Focusing on traditional insurance vehicles that may respond to COVID-19 insurance claims, the following represents the most significant issues to consider in pursing these claims.

BRI & PROPERTY POLICY CLAIMS ISSUES

(1) Physical loss or damage requirements.
Under BRI and property policies—the typical first-party policies with business interruption, delay in completion, or equivalent coverage—policyholders generally must demonstrate some "physical loss or damage" to get coverage. Insurers will argue that COVID-19-contaminated job sites or those shut down by government order, do not satisfy the "physical loss..." requirement, and thus, they will argue, there is no trigger for coverage.

Policyholders will have ample ammunition to fight against coverage denials based on a lack of "physical loss." Arguments advocating for coverage are stronger here:

• if there are documented COVID-19 exposures related to the insured project, building, or local area;
• if state law in the relevant jurisdiction allows for this element to be satisfied by contamination, "loss of use," or other conditions which make use of property impossible for its intended purpose; and
• potentially in states where government actors have made statements regarding damage to business and property caused by COVID-19 exposure.

All policyholders will be able to argue that the unique nature of the coronavirus, including the fact that it can survive on surfaces for days at a time, makes a compelling case for physical loss or damage to property. The language in some policies may also make "loss of use" arguments easier to support as an independent basis for coverage.

(2) Choice of law issues related to physical loss or damage requirements.
Precedent varies wildly from state to state on what constitutes physical loss or damage under these policies. Given the disparity between states on this issue, fights over which state's law applies may be outcome determinative. Similarly, courts in different states employ a variety of tests for determining which state's law applies. As a result, developing a choice of law approach in cases where more than one state's law may apply is crucial.

A policyholder in this situation may need to employ an effective strategy to frame issues favoring a particular state's law and to understand where to file suit to maximize the probability that the most favorable state's law will apply. [For further guidance on choice of law, view "Whose Law Is It Anyway?"]

(3) Differences in policy language.
First-party policies are typically not written on a single industry-wide standard form in the way many third-party policies (like CGL policies) are. Many BRI and property policies proudly declare themselves to be "manuscript" forms, and language differs a great deal from insurer to insurer and policy to policy. Insurance spokespeople have recently made statements in the press about the blanket non-applicability of certain insurance coverages, including business interruption coverage, in response to COVID-19.

The varying non-standard language in policies, particularly concerning physical loss requirements as well as virus and other exclusions, means any blanket declaration like this is simply untrue. Some policies and some sets of facts will allow for covered claims. It will all depend on the particular language in each policy.

(4) Civil authority coverage may not require direct physical loss.
"Civil authority" coverage and civil authority coverage extensions under first-party policies cover losses where access to property is prevented or limited as a result of a government order. This coverage may or may not be tied to the "physical loss or damage" or similar requirements in the policy. Arguments abound on either side regarding civil authority claims, and results will again be based on the specific policy language and which state's law applies.

Policyholders will be able to argue that government shut-down orders prevent access to offices, construction projects, and other sites such that some resulting damages may be covered.

(5) Pay attention to sub-limits and deductibles.
BRI policies in particular are notorious for limiting coverage by way of numerous coverage sub-limits. It is common to find pages of separate sub-limits, each dealing with a specific item under which policyholders can obtain coverage, but only up to a specified amount. Differing deductible payments may be associated with each respective "bucket" of sub-limited coverage.

Policyholders will want to pay attention to sub-limits and deductibles when framing their claims. Policyholders may reasonably characterize certain costs in multiple ways, and they may want to spread costs across sub-limits to maximize their overall coverage.

POLLUTION POLICIES

(6) The definition of "pollutant" is key.
The threshold question for policyholders seeking insurance coverage for COVID-19 losses under pollution policies and policy extensions (including Contractors Protective Professional Indemnity Insurance and similar policies), such as site cleanup costs, will be whether the presence of coronavirus constitutes a "pollutant" under each policy's language. Pollution policies respond by offering first-party coverage for cleanup costs and third-party coverage for bodily injury or property damage claims asserted against the policyholder. There is a wide range of threshold definitions under these policies, and much depends here on which insurer's proprietary form is used. Contrast this with most CGL policies, for example, which typically use ISO standard pollution exclusion forms.

The result of inconsistent definitions between policies is that the coronavirus may not be excluded as a "pollutant" under a CGL or other policy (and hence policyholders may be entitled to coverage under that policy), but may also be deemed a "pollutant" under a pollution policy, entitling policyholders to an additional avenue of insurance recovery.

(7) Pay attention to date limitations when framing claims.
Policyholders should pay careful attention to date limitations for noticing claims and for the extent of coverage under any given policy. While true for the BRI and property policies above as well, these limitations are particularly important for pollution policies. For example, some pollution policy forms require notice to the insurer within a certain number of days of a triggering pollution incident, and some only provide coverage for a certain number of days of cleanup costs after the claim is made or after the incident qualifying for coverage occurs. A comprehensive insurance coverage strategy should include consideration of the time frame for notice and coverage in response to any triggering event.

ISSUES IMPACTING ALL POLICIES

(8) Lack of a virus exclusion.
Policies with comprehensive well-written virus exclusions will make it more difficult for policyholders to establish coverage. Where policies do not contain such an exclusion, coverage is not automatically established, and many other considerations are in play, but policyholders will at least be able to argue that insurers could have specifically excluded this type of risk and chose not to do so. Insurers have, after all, included such exclusions in other policies. Further, some policies have virus exclusions that do not impact all aspects of the policy.

(9) Manuscript or proprietary exclusions.
Fortunately for policyholders, many first-party policies will have non-ISO exclusions, including those purporting to be "virus" or similar exclusions, and some of these policies—even those purporting to contain "virus" exclusions—will have language that arguably allows for successful claims. The only way to assess this issue is to review the actual language of the policy, including the exclusions.

(10) Other non-problematic exclusions raised to deny coverage.
Insurers have issued denial letters based on other exclusions, which in the end should not stand in the way of establishing coverage for policyholders. The most common are separate bacterial and biological exclusions. Without further specifics about viruses, these exclusions should not act to bar coverage for COVID-19 claims. For example, a bacterial exclusion should not bar coronavirus claims because…viruses are not bacteria. Bacteria are living cells; viruses are non-living particles that require other living cells or tissue in which to grow.

(11) Failure on "notice" arguments.
Some responses from insurers argue that policyholders did not give sufficient notice of COVID-19 insurance claims because a host of very specific information was allegedly not provided in the initial notice of claim. Policy language will largely determine when a successful notice of a claim has been made; however the rules don't change now simply because insurers are under pressure to respond to the weight of COVID-19 losses.

Policyholders must remain vigilant in pursuing claims even if the initial response from insurers is that they have not provided enough information and therefore have not yet made a "claim." Doing so will ensure that insurers are not afforded additional grounds for denying coverage down the road.

(12) Documenting claims.
Claim documentation, including gathering and calculating costs and expenses under each responsive coverage, will be a crucial factor in whether COVID-19 claims are ultimately accepted and paid. While policy language, state law, and the operative facts will determine the success of any given claim, quantifying the loss remains a fundamental step in establishing a policyholder's right to payment.

We Can Help
Maslon's Insurance Coverage Group has extensive experience in advising policyholders regarding insurance coverage for catastrophic losses and events, and representing them in maximizing their insurance recoveries in these situations. Please contact Maslon's insurance attorneys if you have questions or would like assistance—we stand ready to help.

Construction Sites Exempted from Minnesota's "Stay at Home" Order

On March 25, 2020, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz issued Emergency Executive Order 20-20. Effective beginning Friday, March 27, 2020, at 11:59 pm, all persons currently living within the State of Minnesota are ordered to stay at home or in their place of residence in an effort to slow the spread of COVID-19. Workers in "Critical Sectors" as defined in the Order who can work from home must do so, but are exempt from the Order's restrictions to the extent they cannot. Workers who fit into any of the U.S. Department of Homeland Securities' Guidance on the Essential Critical Infrastructure Workforce ("CISA Guidance") categories qualify for a Critical Sector worker exemption. Included in the list of "Critical Sectors" is the following:

Construction and Critical Trades. This category includes workers in the skilled trades such as electricians, plumbers, HVAC and elevator technicians, and other related construction workers of all kind. This category also includes exterminators, cleaning and janitorial staff for commercial and governmental properties, moving and relocation services, security staff, operating engineers, and all other service providers who provide services that are necessary to maintain the safety, sanitation, and essential operation of homes and residences and the Critical Sectors listed in this Executive Order.

Although the Order places no additional restrictions on construction companies or site operations, certain provisions may affect access to certain project sites as well as the availability of materials needed for construction. Additionally, the response to the COVID-19 pandemic is constantly shifting, and it will be essential to monitor future developments to determine whether additional restrictions are added.

Operations in Other States May Be Affected

Many states have similarly identified construction operations and other critical trades as exempt from "shelter in place" orders. Some state and local governments, however, have limited or suspended construction activities. For example, the City of Boston suspended all non-emergency construction projects, and Pennsylvania has suspended transportation projects apart from emergency maintenance. Several counties in central California, including San Francisco County, have limited construction projects to "essential public infrastructure." Most statewide executive orders related to COVID-19, including "shelter in place" orders, can be found at: COVID-19 Resources for State Leaders—Executive Orders. However, it is also important to examine county and municipal orders that may affect construction operations.

We Can Help

Other aspects of your construction business may be affected by recent executive and legislative actions, including required changes to employee leave policies. Check your contracts for force majeure or other "emergency related" clauses as well as your insurance policies for potential coverage, and develop a strategy to combat business disruptions or potential performance issues. Please contact Maslon's Construction attorneys with any questions.

To receive future COVID-19-related legal alerts, please email us.

TOPICS:

• Most Recent
• Corporate
• Mergers & Acquisitions
• Labor & Employment
• Product Liability Litigation
• Construction
• Insurance Coverage
• Cybersecurity
• Estate Planning
• Supporting the Effort
   

Most Recent:

• January 14, 2022 — Supreme Court Halts OSHA's COVID-19 Vaccine and Testing Mandate
• December 20, 2021 — OSHA's COVID-19 Vaccine and Testing Mandate Is Back in Business After Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Lifts Stay
• November 8, 2021  — Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Stays OSHA's COVID-19 Vaccine and Testing Mandate: Next Steps for Employers
• November 5, 2021 — What Employers Need to Know About OSHA's New Vaccine and Testing Requirements
• November 1, 2021 — 5 New Legal Risks for Product Manufacturers During COVID-19
• September 10, 2021 — Path Out of the Pandemic: Biden Administration Will Require Employers with 100+ Employees to Mandate COVID-19 Vaccination or Weekly Testing
• August 24, 2021 — Updated COVID-19 Guidance from OSHA and the CDC: What It Means for Your Business

Corporate:

• February 16, 2022 — Can You Spot a Liar? Key Factors for Determining Credibility in Internal Investigations
• January 8, 2021 — New SBA Guidance Released: Interim Final Rules on the Revived Paycheck Protection Program
• December 28, 2020 — Coronavirus Relief Under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021
• June 5, 2020 — CARES Act PPP Reform: Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020
• April 27, 2020 — New SBA Guidance Released: PPP Loan Certification Requirements for Good Faith
• April 16, 2020 — CARES Act: Paycheck Protection Program Loan Forgiveness
• April 10, 2020 — CARES Act: The Main Street Lending Program Offers Relief for Small and Mid-Sized Businesses
• April 2, 2020 — CARES Act: Paycheck Protection Program - Proactive Steps to Apply
• March 30, 2020 — COVID-19: Key Business Resources Under the CARES Act
• March 26, 2020 — COVID-19: Key Business Considerations for Minnesota Emergency Executive Order 20-20
• March 20, 2020 — COVID-19 Business Update: Tax Deadline and Proposed CARES Act
• March 16, 2020 — COVID-19: Force Majeure Contract Clauses
   

Mergers & Acquisitions:

• April 18, 2020 — Video: COVID-19 Business Owner's Survival Guide—M&A After COVID-19 (29:00), Presented by Terri Krivosha
   

Labor & Employment:

• February 16, 2022 — Can You Spot a Liar? Key Factors for Determining Credibility in Internal Investigations
• January 14, 2022 — Supreme Court Halts OSHA's COVID-19 Vaccine and Testing Mandate
• December 20, 2021 — OSHA's COVID-19 Vaccine and Testing Mandate Is Back in Business After Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Lifts Stay
• November 8, 2021  — Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Stays OSHA's COVID-19 Vaccine and Testing Mandate: Next Steps for Employers
• November 5, 2021 — What Employers Need to Know About OSHA's New Vaccine and Testing Requirements
• November 1, 2021 — 5 New Legal Risks for Product Manufacturers During COVID-19
• September 10, 2021 — Path Out of the Pandemic: Biden Administration Will Require Employers with 100+ Employees to Mandate COVID-19 Vaccination or Weekly Testing
• August 24, 2021 — Updated COVID-19 Guidance from OSHA and the CDC: What It Means for Your Business
• May 24, 2021 — What Employers Need to Know Now That the CDC Has Relaxed Mask Recommendations for Those Who Are Fully Vaccinated
• March 24, 2021 — The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021—Key Implications for Employers
• December 30, 2020 — New Year, New Rules: Employer Implications of the New COVID-19 Relief Legislation
• December 22, 2020 — Employers: EEOC Releases New Vaccine Guidelines to Address Five Key Concerns
• September 14, 2020 — FFCRA Update: Department of Labor Revises Regulations, Largely Rejects SDNY Court Ruling
• August 5, 2020 — Key FFCRA Regulations Vacated by Federal Court, Dramatically Expand FFCRA Leave Eligibility
• July 24, 2020 — #MaskUpMN: Key Employer Re