Where-Forum Art Thou? Is the Chosen Forum Akin to No Forum at All?
May 30, 2022 —
William Doerler - The Subrogation StrategistMany courts enforce forum selection clauses in contracts between parties. In W. Bay Plaza Condo. Ass’n v. Sika Corp., No. 3D21-1834, 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 1637 (W. Bay Plaza), the Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District (Court of Appeal) answered the question of whether a mandatory forum selection clause in a manufacturer’s warranty was enforceable as to a condominium association, who was a non-signatory. The trial court enforced the forum selection clause – calling for litigation in New Jersey rather than Florida – and the Court of Appeal affirmed the ruling.
As stated in W. Bay Plaza, in late 2013 and early 2014, West Bay Plaza Condominium Association (W.B. Plaza Condo. Ass’n) contracted with Built Right Installers International Corporation, R.J. Miranda Consultants, Inc. and UCI Engineering Inc. (collectively, the Construction Defendants) to have repairs done to the exterior of the property. In 2016, Sika Corporation (Sika), a New Jersey corporation, gave a five-year warranty to W.B. Plaza Condo. Ass’n for three sealant products used to repair the garage at the property. In 2019, W.B. Plaza Condo. Ass’n sued the Construction Defendants for breach of contract and professional negligence. Subsequently, W.B. Plaza Condo. Ass’n amended its complaint and filed a claim against Sika, alleging that Sika breached its warranty because its products failed to provide a watertight barrier. Sika filed a motion to dismiss the action, alleging that Florida was an improper venue because its’ warranty contained a mandatory forum selection clause. W.B. Plaza Condo. Ass’n argued that it was not bound by the forum selection clause because it was a non-signatory to the warranty and, even if it was bound by the clause, there were compelling reasons not to enforce it.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William Doerler, White and Williams LLPMr. Doerler may be contacted at
doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com
Potential Pitfalls Under the Contract Disputes Act for Federal Government Contractors
February 28, 2018 —
Sarah K. Carpenter – Smith Currie PublicationsThe Contract Disputes Act (CDA) governs monetary and non-monetary disputes arising out of contracts or implied-in-fact contracts between the federal government and contractors. Because the CDA is an exclusive remedy, it is important that contractors be wary of the many pitfalls that may be encountered by a contractor seeking to assert a claim against the government under the CDA.
The pitfalls faced by a contractor under the CDA can arise before a contractor becomes aware of a potential claim. Pursuant to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 43.204(c), a contracting officer should include in any supplemental agreement, including any change order, a Contractor’s Statement of Release which requires a contractor to execute a broad release of the government from any and all liability under the contract. As a result of this FAR provision, in executing a routine change order, a contractor may inadvertently release its right to pursue a potential claim under the CDA. A contractor should always review any release language prior to executing a supplemental agreement or change order with the government.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sarah K. Carpenter, Smith CurrieMs. Carpenter may be contacted at
skcarpenter@smithcurrie.com
Arizona Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Provision Relating to Statutory Authority for Constructing and Operating Sports and Tourism Complexes
June 18, 2019 —
Amanda Z. Weaver - Snell & WilmerIn an opinion published February 25, 2019, the Arizona Supreme Court held that Maricopa County’s surcharge on car rental agencies to fund a stadium and other sports- and tourism-related projects did not violate either the dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution or the anti-diversion provision of the Arizona Constitution, art. 9, § 14. Saban Rent-a-Car LLC v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue.
In 2000, the Arizona Legislature created the Arizona Tourism and Sports Authority (the Authority) to build and/or operate a variety of sports-related facilities, including Major League Baseball spring training facilities, and youth and amateur sports and recreation centers. Taxes and surcharges, approved by voters, are the sole funding for the Authority’s construction projects, including the challenged surcharge in Maricopa County. This surcharge is based on the income from car rental companies leasing vehicles to customers for less than one year, and is the greater of $2.50 per rental or 3.25% of the company’s gross proceeds or income. A.R.S. § 5-839. The state treasurer deposits $2.50 per rental transaction into the Maricopa County Stadium District, as it has since 1991, and the remaining amount of the difference between $2.50 per transaction and 3.25% of the company’s gross income or proceeds is distributed to the Authority. Rental car companies often pass this surcharge on to their customers.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Amanda Z. Weaver, Snell & WilmerMs. Weaver may be contacted at
aweaver@swlaw.com
Revisiting OSHA’s Controlling Employer Policy
December 21, 2017 —
Wally Zimolong - Zimolong LLCThe United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has been asked to review OSHA’s twenty year old “controlling employer” policy. As many contractors are surprised to learn, under OSHA’s controlling employer policy, you can be given an OSHA citation even when your own employee is not exposed to the alleged hazard.
A. The Controlling Employer Policy
OSHA’s current controlling employer policy has been effective since 1999. That policy applies to multi-employer worksites, which means virtually all construction sites. Under the policy, OSHA can cite the creating, exposing, correcting, or controlling employer. A creating employer is one who creates the hazard to which workers are exposed. The exposing employer is one who permits his employees to be exposed to the hazard, whether it created the hazard or not. The correcting employer is one who is responsible with correcting known hazards. Finally, the controlling employer is one “who has general supervisory authority over the worksite, including the power to correct safety and health violations itself or require others to correct them.” Most general contractors and CM’s are controlling employers.
Under OSHA’s policy, a contractor’s OSHA safety obligations hinges on whether it is a creating, exposing, correcting, or controlling employer. The creating, exposing, and correcting contractors obligations are fairly straightforward. However, the controlling contractors obligations are more nuisanced.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLCMr. Zimolong may be contacted at
wally@zimolonglaw.com
Top 10 OSHA Violations For The Construction Industry In 2023
February 26, 2024 —
Dominic Donato & Jeff Miragliotta - Kahana FeldEvery year, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) publishes their top violations in the construction industry. And typically, the most common violations are consistent year after year. What separates 2023 is the number of citations involving Fall Protection, Scaffolding, Ladders, and the failure to use personal protective equipment (PPE) or other life safety equipment (LSE). The following is the list of the Top Ten OSHA violations for 2023:
(10) Toxic and Hazardous Substances. There were 382 citations issued for “hazardous communication” and improper warnings issued to construction employees.
(9) Excavations. There were 395 citations issued for failure to provide proper and specific excavation requirements and instructions.
(8) Scaffolding – Aerial Lifts. There were 481 citations issued for improper lifting equipment and supports for building scaffolding.
Reprinted courtesy of
Dominic Donato, Kahana Feld and
Jeff Miragliotta, Kahana Feld
Mr. Donato may be contacted at ddonato@kahanafeld.com
Mr. Miragliotta may be contacted at jmiragliotta@kahanafeld.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Replacement of Defective Gym Construction Exceeds Original Cost
January 22, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFAustin, Texas has torn down a school gym, the Turner-Roberts Recreation Center at the Overton Elementary School, due to structural problems which became evident after the gym was completed four years ago. The cost of the new gym is $6.4 million, more than the cost of building the gym in the first place. The city is paying $3 million in repair costs with the rest of the money coming from the companies that designed and built the now demolished gym. According to the Austin Statesman, the total cost to the city will be about $8.6 million.
The Turner-Roberts Recreation Center cost $5.6 million to build, but soon after it opened, structural problems were discovered. Cracks formed in walls and glass doors buckled. The settlement with the designer, contractor, and engineering firm did not require the firms to admit fault as they paid $3.4 million to fix the situation. The Statesman was unable to get a breakdown of how much each firm paid. Tom Cornelius, president of the GSC, the architectural firm on the project told the Statesman that "the foundation issues were not caused by design defects."
Initially, the city sought to repair the gym, but early excavation determined that the defects were too extensive. In addition to the structural flaws, it was also determined that the HVAC system was faulty. Excavation also damaged plumbing work. Tearing down the gym turned out to be the most cost-effective response.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
When Your “Private” Project Suddenly Turns into a “Public” Project. Hint: It Doesn’t Necessary Turn on Public Financing or Construction
September 28, 2017 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIn 1931, during the Great Depression, the federal government enacted the Davis-Bacon Act to help workers on federal construction projects. The Davis-Bacon Act, also known as the federal prevailing wage law, sets minimum wages that must be paid to workers on federal construction projects based on local “prevailing” wages. The law was designed to help curb the displacement of families by employers who were recruiting lower-wage workers from outside local areas. Many states, including California, adopted “Little Davis-Bacon” laws applying similar requirements on state and local construction projects.
California’s current prevailing wage law requires that contractors on state and local public works projects pay their employees the general prevailing rate of per diem wages based on the classification or type of work performed by the employee in the locality where the project is located, as well as to hire apprentices enrolled in state-approved apprentice programs and to make monetary contributions for apprenticeship training.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
American Council of Engineering Companies of California Selects New Director
January 22, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFBrad Diede has been selected as the new executive director of the American Council of Engineering Companies of California, according to GlobeSt.com. “ACEC California is dedicated to strengthening the engineering and surveying professions, protecting the general public and promoting the use of the private sector in building a better California.” Paul Meyer is retiring after 32 years as the executive director. Diede brings over ten years’ experience as executive director of the California Professional Association of Specialty Contractors. He will begin work at ACEC California January 27th.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
