How is Negotiating a Construction Contract Like Buying a Car?
January 04, 2018 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsOriginally Published by CDJ on March 1, 2017
I know, you’re probably looking for a punchline, and likely thinking something along the lines of “only a construction attorney would be sitting in his office and come up with such an analogy,” but I really do think it’s a good one.
When you are buying a car, you look for priorities. Is the color what you want? Is the motor a hybrid or a v-6? Does it have Android Auto? What is the fuel mileage? All of these things may be more or less important to you. If you can get your priorities for a price that is attractive, you will likely let some other less important items, e. g. trunk space or rear seat leg room, slide and purchase the car anyway. Furthermore, you may use these minor items as negotiating points to either get one of the priorities or a lower price. Of course the dealership will want to get its priorities, likely a sale and a profit, when negotiating and will have certain items that it won’t move on just as you have terms that you won’t move on.
Much like when you walk onto the car lot, and particularly as a subcontractor looking at a contract from a general contractor, or a GC looking at the contract from the owner of a project, a construction contract presented to you is the starting point. When looking at the contract, be sure to have some non-negotiable items in mind when taking a critical eye to the terms of that contract. Some of these terms may be more or less negotiable depending on your experience with the other party to the construction contract. For instance, striking a pay if paid clause may be less important with a paying party with whom you have a 10 year history without payment problems. On the other hand, if it is your first contract with the other party, a stricter list may be required. So, much like a dealer that you know will stand behind its cars, you may be more willing to take more “risk” in entering a construction contract with a trusted/known owner or GC.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Georgia Passes Solar CUVA Bill
April 20, 2017 —
David R. Cook Jr. - Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLPGeorgia House Bill 238 authorizes the withdrawal of property from a conservation use covenant for purposes of developing a solar generation plant. Before the law was passed, subject to certain limited exceptions, properties under a conservation use covenant generally could not be developed without breaching the covenant. The new law permits the removal of a portion of the property to be used for solar development without breaching the covenant for the rest of the property.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David R. Cook, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLPMr. Cook may be contacted at
cook@ahclaw.com
9 Basic Strategies for Pursuing Coverage for Construction Accident Claims
September 05, 2022 —
William S. Bennett - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Construction accidents happen all the time. Accidents involving worker injuries or damage to property can shut down a job site and cause significant losses. Contractors should be diligent and aggressive in examining all of the available options for recovery under their different insurance policies and bonds. This article will provide a refresher on some basic tips to help policyholders improve claims practices with respect to construction accidents.
1. Identify relevant insurance policies:
Identifying what policies exist that might cover the loss can sometimes be easier said than done. Construction accidents come in many different forms and can involve many different parties who suffer various types of losses. The general contractor, owner, subcontractors, and vendors could all be involved or affected in some way. Each of these parties has its own insurance coverage and will have promised each other various forms of risk transfer through those policies and through their contracts.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Bennett may be contacted at
wsb@sdvlaw.com
BHA Announces New Orlando Location
September 30, 2019 —
Donald MacGregor - Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc., one of the country’s leading construction forensics and consulting firms has just announced the opening of their second Florida office. Located in Orlando, this new office will join BHA’s existing Miami location, expanding BHA’s presence in the state and increasing the firm’s ability to provide the highest level of services and logistic support to their clients in Central and North Florida, and in particular, the Orlando, Tampa, Jacksonville and Tallahassee markets.
Since 1993, BHA has been an industry leader in providing construction consulting and forensic services and has been a trusted partner with builders and insurance carriers, both large and small, across the United States. In Florida, BHA has been providing construction defect, storm, and general construction-claims related forensic expert services for the past decade with a proven track record of successful results.
With the addition of new offices in Orlando, Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc. offers the experience of over 20 years of service to carriers, defense counsel, and insurance professionals as designated experts in over 7,000 claims. BHA’s staff encompasses a broad range of Florida-licensed and credentialed experts in the areas of general contracting and specialty trades, as well as architects, and both civil and structural engineers, and has provided services on behalf of carriers, developers, general contractors and sub-contractors alike.
BHA’s new Orlando office is located in the Regions Bank Tower, 111 North Orange Avenue, Suite 800, Orlando FL, 32801.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Donald MacGregor, Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.Mr. MacGregor may be contacted at
donm@berthowe.com
Stormy Seas Ahead: 5th Circuit to Review Whether Maritime Law Applies to Offshore Service Contract
July 26, 2017 —
Richard W. Brown & Afua S. Akoto - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Earlier this year, the 5th Circuit applied the Davis factors to determine the validity of an indemnity clause in a Master Services Contract. In Larry Doiron Inc. et al., v. Specialty Rental Tool & Supply LLP et al., the court affirmed the notion that if a contract provides services on navigable waters aboard a vessel, a maritime contract exists, even if the contract calls for incidental or insubstantial work unrelated to the use of a vessel. With this decision, plaintiffs were granted indemnification for a crane injury and all was well on the open seas.
The 5th Circuit made waves, however, on July 7, 2017, when it agreed to rehear the case en banc. In its petition for rehearing, defendant STS argued that: (1) the original opinion conflicted with Supreme Court precedent by applying tort law principles to a contract case; (2) the court misapplied the Davis factors and the decision was contrary to Davis because the historical treatment of specialty well service work has been established as non-maritime; (3) the court needed to address whether a contract is subject to maritime or land-based law in the context of offshore mineral exploration.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Afua S. Akoto, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Brown may be contacted at rwb@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Akoto may be contacted at asa@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Landmark Contractor Licensing Case Limits Disgorgement Remedy in California
November 09, 2020 —
Candace Matson - Construction & Infrastructure Law BlogContractors performing work in California are required to be licensed by the California State License Board (“CSLB”). Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §7065. Except for sole proprietors, contractors are typically licensed through “qualifiers,” i.e., officers or employees who take a licensing exam and meet other requirements to become licensed on behalf of the contractor’s company. Contractors who perform work in California without being properly licensed are subject to a world of hurt, including civil and criminal penalties (see, e.g., Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 7028, 7028.6, 7028.7, 7117, and Cal. Labor Code §§ 1020-1022), and the inability to maintain a lawsuit to recover compensation for their work. Cal. Bus & Prof. Code § 7031(a); Hydra Tech Systems Ltd. v. Oasis Water Park, 52 Cal.3rd 988 (1991).
But arguably the worst ramification of not being property licensed is that established in Business & Professions Code Section 7031(b), which provides that any person who uses the services of an unlicensed contractor may bring an action for the return of all compensation paid for the performance of the work, commonly known as “disgorgement.” This remedy is particularly harsh (often described as “draconian”) because it makes no allowance for the fact that an unlicensed contractor will likely have already paid out the bulk of its compensation to its subcontractors, suppliers and vendors, but nevertheless can be ordered to disgorge all compensation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Candace Matson, Sheppard MullinMs. Matson may be contacted at
cmatson@sheppardmullin.com
Duty to Defend Broadly Applies to Entire Action; Insured Need Not Apportion Defense Costs, Says Maryland Appeals Court
January 27, 2020 —
Michael S. Levine & Kevin V. Small - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogIn a recent decision, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals reiterated that the duty to defend broadly requires a liability insurer to defend an entire lawsuit against its insured, even where only some of the allegations are potentially covered. The court further held that the insured has no obligation to apportion defense costs among multiple implicated policies. The decision, Selective Way Insurance Company v. Nationwide Property and Casualty Insurance Company, et al., can be found here.
The coverage litigation arose out of a construction defect case against a general contractor. The general contractor tendered the action to its insurer, Nationwide, which, in turn, filed a declaratory judgment action against the various insurers of construction project subcontractors that had named the general contractor as an additional insured. Ultimately, the court granted a summary judgment motion declaring that all of the subcontractors’ insurers had a duty to defend the general contractor “because the allegations in the underlying lawsuit raised claims that potentially arose from the [s]ubcontractors’ work at the [construction site].” All of the subcontractors’ insurers settled with Nationwide except for one, Selective Way; and the parties proceeded to a jury trial on various issues. The jury found for Nationwide on all issues. Selective Way appealed.
Selective Way argued on appeal that even if some of the allegations were covered under its policy, it had no obligation to defend the general contractor because its insureds, the subcontractors, could not have been responsible for all of the losses given the nature of their work. Further, Selective Way contended that if it was responsible for defending the general contractor, it was not responsible for the entire defense, and the general contractor was responsible for apportioning the costs among the various subcontractors. The panel disagreed on both points.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Kevin V. Small, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Small may be contacted at ksmall@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
MBIA Seeks Data in $1 Billion Credit Suisse Mortgage Suit
June 26, 2014 —
Chris Dolmetsch and Jody Shenn – BloombergMBIA Inc. (MBI) asked a judge to order Credit Suisse Group AG (CSGN) to turn over internal records that the bond insurer says bolster its contention the bank lied about how it processed loans packaged into mortgage-backed securities.
MBIA said in a court filing today that Credit Suisse has withheld evidence about how the bank’s actual practices diverged from its representations -- including documents identified as exhibits in other lawsuits based on the same allegations.
The bond insurer asked Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan to force the bank to search documents and e-mails on its policies and practices including those related to loan underwriting and origination, due diligence and post-acquisition quality-control review.
Mr. Dolmetsch may be contacted at cdolmetsch@bloomberg.net; Ms. Shenn may be contacted at jshenn@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Chris Dolmetsch and Jody Shenn, Bloomberg
