The Connecticut Appellate Court Decides That Construction Contractor Was Not Obligated To Continue Accelerated Schedule to Mitigate Its Damages Following Late Delivery of Materials by Supplier
April 11, 2022 —
Robert M. Barrack - Gordon & ReesIn United Concrete Prods. v. NJR Constr., LLC, 207 Conn. App. 551, 263 A.3d 823 (2021), the Connecticut Appellate Court has issued a decision that should be of interest to the Connecticut construction industry and the construction bar. The lawsuit arose out of the late delivery of materials on a construction project, which is a frequent problem on construction projects. In United Concrete Products, the defendant general contractor, NJR Construction, LLC (“NJR”) was retained by the State of Connecticut Department of Transportation (“DOT”) to replace a bridge over the Hockanum River (“Project”). Id. at 555-58 (2021). The Prime Contract provided that NJR with an eight-week time-frame to perform the work, at which time the road would be closed to traffic. Id. The Prime Contract also provided for a bonus of $3,000 for each day the road was opened to traffic prior to the eight week deadline of August 8, 2016, and for liquidated damages of $3,000 for each day the road remained closed beyond the deadline. Id.
NJR subsequently entered into a purchase order (“Subcontract”) with the plaintiff, United Concrete Products, Inc. (“United”), whereby United agreed to provide certain concrete components for the Project, including ten pre-stressed concrete beams. Id. The Subcontract required that United deliver the concrete beams by June 7, 2016, but, NJR did not actually schedule the delivery until June 29, 2016. Id. Nevertheless, even with that schedule NJR could have reopened the road by July 19, 2016, which would have allowed it to receive the full $60,000 incentive bonus. However, United did not deliver the concrete beams until July 26, 2016, which caused NJR to lose the incentive bonus, be assessed liquidated damages by the DOT, and to incur additional delay damages. Id. After deducting the amount of $179,500 in damages that it incurred due to United’s late delivery of the beams, NJR paid United the balance of $66,074.75. Id.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Robert M. Barrack, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLPMr. Barrack may be contacted at
rbarrack@grsm.com
Client Alert: Court of Appeal Applies Common Interest Privilege Doctrine to HOA Litigation Meetings
March 19, 2014 —
David W. Evans, Steven M. Cvitanovic, and Michael C. Parme - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Seahaus La Jolla Owners Assoc. v. Superior Court (No. D064567, March 12, 2014), the California Court of Appeal held a homeowners association’s (“HOA”) litigation meetings related to the HOA’s construction defect lawsuit were subject to protection under the attorney-client privilege. Specifically, the court concluded the common interest doctrine applied to the subject litigation meetings, thereby barring the defendants in the HOA’s lawsuit from seeking discovery related to the content and disclosures made during those meetings.
The plaintiff HOA initiated a construction defect lawsuit against a residential developer and builder, seeking damages for construction defects related to common areas. The defendants took the depositions of individual homeowners and inquired regarding the communications and disclosures made at informational litigation update meetings. The meetings were conducted by the HOA’s counsel with groups of homeowners, some of whom had filed their own, separate lawsuits against the same defendants. Motions to compel were filed after attorney-client privilege objections were asserted by counsel for the HOA. After the court-appointed discovery referee opined that the common interest doctrine applied and that the communications presented at the meetings were subject to the attorney-client privilege, the trial court rejected this recommendation and overruled the HOA’s privilege objections. The HOA filed a petition for a writ of mandate.
The defendants argued the privilege had been waived based on the presence of persons who were not the clients of the HOA’s attorney, that the subject communications were not “confidential communications” and that the individual homeowners and the HOA did not share common interests at the time. After setting forth a comprehensive discussion of the statutory principles underlying the attorney-client privilege and the bases for waiver, as provided in California Evidence Code §§ 912 and 952, and summarizing applicable decisional law, the court specifically analyzed the question of whether the common interest doctrine applied in the context of the disputed HOA litigation meetings. The common interest doctrine protects confidential communications made by counsel to third parties if the third parties are present to further the interest of the client or are those to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for the transmission of the information or the accomplishment of the purpose for which the lawyer was consulted.
Reprinted courtesy of
David W. Evans,
Steven M. Cvitanovic, and
Michael C. Parme of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com, Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com, and Mr. Parme may be contacted at mparme@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Jersey Supreme Court Rules that Subcontractor Work with Resultant Damage is both an “Occurrence” and “Property Damage” under a Standard Form CGL Policy
September 01, 2016 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to a client alert by the firm Peckar & Abramson, P.C. (P&A), “In a recent significant decision, the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that defective work of a subcontractor that causes consequential property damage is both an ‘occurrence’ and ‘property damage’ under the terms of a standard form commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance policy.”
Patrick J. Greene, Jr., and Frank A. Hess of P&A wrote that the Cypress Point Condominium Assoc., Inc. v Adria Towers, LLC, 2016 N.J. Lexis 847 (Aug.4,2016) “decision is important in New Jersey and in other jurisdictions that had relied upon the influential New Jersey case, Weedo v. Stone–E–Brick, Inc., 81 N.J. 233 (1979), that had determined that such claims involved non-insured ‘business risks.’”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Substitute Materials — What Are Your Duties? What Are Your Risks? (Law Note)
June 27, 2022 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North CarolinaIn managing a project as the design professional, you are called upon to wear many hats. One of those hats is that of material specifier and, at times, substitute material approver. What are your duties in looking at substitute materials?
As always, the legal answer is “it depends”. In part, it will depend on your role on the project and what, specifically, the contract says. However, at its most basic, you can be sued for accepting an out of spec substitute material. This is so even if you believed the spec met requirements based on information that the contractor gave you. So, tread carefully in this area.
Do not assume any information that the contractor presents to you– take the time to research for yourself, call the manufacturer, and otherwise ensure that the product will work.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale LiggettMs. Brumback may be contacted at
mbrumback@rl-law.com
Don’t Get Caught Holding the Bag: Hold the State Liable When General Contractor Fails to Pay on a Public Project.
January 31, 2018 —
Sean Minahan – Construction Contract AdvisorAccording to a quick Google search the term
“holding the bag” comes from the mid eighteenth century and means be left with the onus of what was originally another’s responsibility. Nobody wants to be left holding the bag. But that is the situation our client (subcontractor) found themselves in when upon completion of a public project the general contractor went out of business before paying the remaining amount due and owing to our client.
Under Nebraska law, liens are not allowed against public projects. Instead the subcontractor is to make a claim on the payment and performance bond secured by the general contractor at the start of the project. In our case, the general contractor never secured a bond on which to make a claim; consequently, leaving our client holding the bag.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sean Minaham, Lamson, Dugan and Murrary, LLPMr. Minahan may be contacted at
sminahan@ldmlaw.com
OSHA/VOSH Roundup
August 31, 2020 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIn an unusual flurry of occupational safety related activity, the Virginia courts decided two cases in the last week relating to either the review of occupational safety regulations themselves or their enforcement.
In Nat’l College of Business & Technology Inc. v. Davenport (.pdf), the Virginia Court of Appeals considered what constitutes a “serious” violation of the exposure to asbestos Virginia Occupational Safety & Health (VOSH) regulations. The facts found by the Salem, Virginia Circuit Court were that employees of the petitioner college were exposed to asbestos insulation when they were required to enter a boiler room to retrieve paper files. However, no evidence was presented regarding the length of time or level of exposure at the Circuit Court level. Despite the lack of evidence regarding the level or extent of exposure, the Circuit Court upheld the VOSH citation for exposure and the level of violation at a “serious” level with the attendant penalty.
The Virginia Court of Appeals disagreed with the second finding. The appellate court determined that the lack of evidence regarding the level of exposure (whether length or extent) made the serious level violation an error. The Court stated that merely presenting evidence that asbestos is a carcinogen is not enough given the number of carcinogenic materials in existence and then remanded the case back to Circuit Court to reconsider the penalty level.
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
No Indemnity Coverage Where Insured Suffers No Loss
November 05, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe insured subcontractor sought coverage under its Builder's Risk policy for loss despite already being paid under contract the amount sought under the policy. MKB Constr. v. Am Zurich Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136096 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 24, 2014).
MKB contracted with the Lower Yukon School District (LYSD) to place gravel fill for a new building pad upon which a school building would be placed in Emmonak, Alaska. The project site was built on tundra that melted in the summer, becoming marshy and pocketed by pools of standing water. LYSD provided the bidding contractors with information stating that settlements of 3 to 9 inches could be expected in areas with 30 inches of fill.
The contract was awarded to MKB, who subsequently realized it had under bid the amount of gravel fill that would be required. The estimated difference in the amount bid and the amount that would be needed was 6,583 cubic yards. LYSD refused to increase the contract price.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
2019 Legislative Changes Affecting the Construction Industry
July 09, 2019 —
Melinda S. Gentile & Cadian T. Baker - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.The 2019 Florida Legislative Session recently concluded and a number of important construction-related House Bills (HB) and Senate Bills (SB) were presented during the Session. Below is a summary of those construction-related bills set to become law in 2019.
Bills Becoming Law in 2019
HB 1247: Relating to Construction Bonds. This bill passed both the House and the Senate and is awaiting the Governor’s signature. Once the Governor has approved the bill it becomes effective as of October 1, 2019.
This bill addresses how to properly perfect a claim against a contractor’s payment bond.
(1) The Notice of Nonpayment that must be served on the contractor and the surety, must be made under oath and include the following provisions:
The nature of the labor or services performed or to be performed;
The materials furnished or to be furnished;
The amount paid on the account; and if known, the amount owed and the amount to become due.
A Notice of Nonpayment that includes the sums for retainage must specify the portion of the amount claimed for retainage.
(2) A subcontractor, laborer, or material supplier (claimant) who files a fraudulent Notice of Nonpayment loses their rights under the bond. The filing of a fraudulent notice is a complete defense to claimant’s claim against the bond. A notice is fraudulent if the claimant willfully exaggerated the amount due, willfully included a claim for work not performed or materials not furnished or prepared the notice with willful and gross negligence, which resulted in willful exaggeration. However, a minor mistake in the notice, or a good faith dispute as to the amount due, is not considered fraudulent. Please note that this provision mirrors the existing statute relative to a fraudulent lien.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melinda S. Gentile, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Ms. Gentile may be contacted at
mgentile@pecklaw.com
