A Few Construction Related Bills to Keep an Eye On in 2023 (UPDATED)
February 20, 2023 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsThe annual General Assembly session is now well underway here in the Commonwealth of Virginia. As is always the case, those in our fine state legislature have introduced with varying success a few construction-related bills. This post will list just a few without comment, and a big one at the end that will likely spur a post or two down the road here at Construction Law Musings:
HB1490:
Virginia Public Procurement Act; certain construction contracts; performance and payment bonds. Allows localities to allow a contractor of indefinite-delivery or quantity contracts, defined in the bill, who is otherwise required to furnish performance and payment bonds in the sum of the contract amount to the public body with which he contracted to furnish such bonds only the dollar amount of the individual tasks identified in the underlying contract. Such contractors shall not be required to furnish the sum of the contract amount if the governing locality has adopted such an ordinance.
UPDATE: Passed the House and is being considered in the Senate
UPDATE 2: A
substitute bill has passed both the House and the Senate.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Pennsylvania Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C-" Grade
November 28, 2022 —
American Society of Civil EngineersPENNSYLVANIA. — The Pennsylvania Council of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) released the 2022 Report Card for Pennsylvania's Infrastructure today at three congruent news conferences across the state including Harrisburg, Lehigh Valley, and Pittsburgh, with 15 categories of infrastructure receiving an overall grade of a "C-". This is the same grade issued by the council in its 2018 report. A "C-" means Pennsylvania's infrastructure is in mediocre condition and requires attention. Pennsylvania's aviation and rail networks are helping to drive economic growth in the region and an improved roadway network is helping increase efficiency for the regional and national economies, but an aging infrastructure network and struggling water systems threaten the health, safety and welfare of the region. Civil engineers graded aviation (B-), bridges (D+), dams (C), drinking water (D), energy (C), hazardous waste (B-), levees (C), parks (C+), ports (C+), rail (C), roads (C-), solid waste (C+), stormwater (D), transit (D), and wastewater (D-).
"Considering Pennsylvania's aging infrastructure and its critical role in our state's economy, policy makers must continue to prioritize dedicated funding to update and improve all infrastructure assets," said Rep. Mike Carroll, D-118. "Failure to do so will seriously harm the quality of life for every citizen."
"This report shows that Pennsylvania's infrastructure has seen some noteworthy improvements and that our lawmakers are prioritizing the built environment, but out-of-sight, out-of-mind systems such as water and wastewater pipelines are lacking the necessary attention," said David DiGioia, chair, 2022 Report Card for Pennsylvania's Infrastructure. "With help from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, we could improve our communities for generations if we double down on investment and close our funding gaps across all sectors included in this report."
The Report Card was created as a public service to citizens and policymakers to inform them of the infrastructure needs in their state. Civil engineers used their expertise and school report card-style letter grades to condense complicated data into an easy-to-understand analysis of Pennsylvania's infrastructure network. ASCE State and Regional Infrastructure Report Cards are modeled after the national Infrastructure Report Card, which gave America's infrastructure an overall grade of 'C-' in 2021.
To view the report card and all five categories, visit https://infrastructurereportcard.org/state-item/Pennsylvania/.
ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS
Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 150,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Montana Supreme Court: Insurer Not Bound by Insured's Settlement
December 02, 2019 —
K. Alexandra Byrd - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.In Draggin’ Y Cattle Co., Inc. v. Junkermier, et al.1 the Montana Supreme Court held that where an insurer defends its insured and the insured subsequently settles the claims without an insurer’s participation, a court may approve the settlement as between the underlying plaintiff and underlying defendant, but the settlement will not be presumed reasonable as to the insurer. Therefore, an insurer who defends its insured cannot be bound by a stipulated settlement that the insurer did not expressly consent to.
The case involved Draggin’ Y Cattle Company (the “Cattle Company”), a ranching and cattle business that utilized the services of an accounting firm, Junkermier, Clark, Campanella, Stevens, P.C. (“Junkermier”), to structure the sale of real property to take advantage of favorable tax treatment. It was discovered that Junkermier’s employee misinformed the Cattle Company’s owners of the tax consequences of the sale. The Cattle Company’s owners subsequently filed suit against Junkermier and its employee and alleged nearly $12,000,000 in damages due to the error. Junkermier’s insurer, New York Marine, provided a defense for Junkermier and its employee.
The Cattle Company’s owners offered to settle the claims against Junkermier and its employee for $2,000,000, the policy limit of the New York Marine policy. New York Marine refused to give its consent or tender the policy’s limit. Subsequently, Junkermier, its employee, and the Cattle Company entered into their own settlement agreement for $10,000,000. The settlement was contingent upon a reasonableness hearing to approve the stipulated agreement.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
K. Alexandra Byrd, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Byrd may be contacted by
kab@sdvlaw.com
California Supreme Court Allows Claim Under Unfair Competition Statute To Proceed
October 16, 2013 —
Tred Eyerly — Insurance Law HawaiiThe California Supreme Court determined that insurance practices violating the state's Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA) could support a claim under the state's unfair competition law (UCL). Zhang v. Superior Court, 57 Cal. 4th 353 (2013).
Zhang purchased a CGL policy from California Capital Insurance Company. She sued California Capital in a dispute over coverage for fire damage to her commercial property. The complaint included causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the UCL. In her UCL claim, Zhang alleged that California Capital had "engaged in unfair, deceptive, untrue, and/or misleading advertising" by promising to provide timely coverage in the event of a compensable loss, when it had no intention of paying the true value of the insureds' covered claims.
Zhang specifically alleged unreasonable delays causing deterioration of her property; withholding of policy benefits; refusal to consider cost estimates; misinforming her as to the right to an appraisal; and falsely telling her mortgage holder that she did not intend to repair the property, resulting in foreclosure proceedings.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred EyerlyTred Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
How a Maryland County Created the Gold Standard for Building Emissions Reduction
May 24, 2021 —
Pam McFarland - Engineering News-RecordMontgomery County, Md. is generating significant buzz among U.S. municipalities aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from buildings.
Reprinted courtesy of
Pam McFarland, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bill Taylor Co-Authors Chapter in Pennsylvania Construction Law Book
October 26, 2017 —
William Taylor - White and Williams LLPBill Taylor, Co-Chair of the Construction and Surety Group, co-authored a chapter in the recently released third edition of Pennsylvania Construction Law: Getting Started, Getting Covered, Getting Paid. The book, published by the Pennsylvania Bar Institute, follows the development of a construction project through contracts, insurance and bonding, performance, claims, warranties and completion, and for troubled projects, termination. Bill's chapter focuses on surety bonds on construction projects in Pennsylvania.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William Taylor, White and Williams LLPMr. Taylor may be contacted at
taylorw@whiteandwilliams.com
Receiving a $0 Verdict and Still Being Deemed the Prevailing Party for Purposes of Attorney’s Fees
May 24, 2018 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesLow and behold, a party can be the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees even if that party is awarded $0. That’s right, even if the party is awarded a big fat zero, they can still be the prevailing party for purposes of being entitled to attorney’s fees. This is because a party is the prevailing party if they prevail on the significant issues in the case. A party can prevail on the significant issues even if that party is awarded $0. Whoa!
For example, in Coconut Key Homeowner’s Association, Inc. v. Gonzalez, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D1045a (Fla. 4th DCA 2018), a homeowner sued her homeowner’s association claiming the association breached its governing documents. There was a basis for fees under Florida’s homeowner’s association law (and there likely was a basis under the governing documents). At trial, the jury held that the association breached its governing documents, but awarded the homeowner nothing ($0). The trial court also issued injunctive relief in favor of the homeowner. The homeowner claimed she should be deemed the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees; however, this was denied by the trial court based on the $0 verdict and no fees were awarded to the homeowner.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
Courts Favor Arbitration in Two Recent Construction Dispute Cases
November 21, 2018 —
Jason Plaza - The Subrogation StrategistRecent court decisions have signaled the courts’ proclivity to prefer arbitration over full-fledged litigation when provisions in construction contracts are called into question. While the courts recognize a party’s constitutional right to a jury trial, the courts also lean strongly towards resolving disputes via arbitration as a matter of public policy, especially if a construction contract carves out arbitration as an alternative to litigation.
In Avr Davis Raleigh v. Triangle Constr. Co., 818 S.E.2d 184 (N.C. App. 2018), the North Carolina Appeals Court reviewed the issue of whether the contracting parties selected binding arbitration as an alternative to litigation. The contract at issue was an AIA A201-2007 form document. Under the terms of the contract, the parties elected to arbitrate claims under $500,000 but to litigate claims over this amount. However, if there were several claims under $500,000 but the aggregate of all claims exceeded $500,000, then the contract implied that all claims would be arbitrated. Since the claims involved were an amalgamation of the two, the contracting parties disagreed about whether the arbitration provision would apply. The plaintiff interpreted this provision to mean litigation was mandatory when at least one claim exceeded $500,000 and that arbitration was mandatory when no single claim exceeded this amount. In contrast, the defendant interpreted this provision as meaning that when there were several claims worth less than $500,000 individually, but more than $500,000 aggregately, then all claims must be arbitrated. The trial court agreed with the plaintiff’s interpretation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Plaza, White & Williams LLP
