NY Appeals Court Ruled Builders not Responsible in Terrorism Cases
January 13, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ StaffIn a ruling on a case related to the September 11, 2001 attacks, New York federal appeals court stated that builders and developers could not be held responsible for losses linked to terrorism, Reuters reports. Circuit Judge Rosemary said the building “would have collapsed regardless of any negligence ascribed by plaintiffs' experts.”
Scott Sweeney writing for the Schinnerer's RM Blog explained, “This decision should make it harder for constructors and designers to be held responsible for damages resulting from major acts of terrorism and unforeseeable events that can be nearly impossible to prepare for.”
Read the full story at Reuters...
Read the full story at Schinnerer's RM Blog...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tick Tock: Don’t Let the Statute of Repose or Limitations Time Periods Run on Your Construction Claims
February 28, 2022 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn Wascher v. ABC Ins. Co., No. 2020AP1961, 2022 Wisc. App. LEXIS 110 (Feb. 9, 2022), the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin considered whether the plaintiffs were barred — by Wisconsin’s 10-year statute of repose for improvements to real property claims and the six-year statute of limitations for breach of contract claims — from bringing a lawsuit against the original builders of their home. The plaintiffs alleged negligence and breach of contract against the masonry subcontractors, asserting that they improperly installed the exterior stone cladding. The court found that the plaintiffs’ claims against the original builders were time-barred.
In 2005, the plaintiffs, Thomas and Pamela Wascher (the Waschers) retained Mathwig Builders (Mathwig) as the general contractor for the construction of their home in Greenville, Wisconsin. Mathwig subcontracted defendants Natural Surfaces, LLC (Natural Surfaces) and Carved Stone Creations (CSC) to install the stone cladding on the exterior walls and patio for the home. On November 3, 2008, the Township of Greenville inspected the home and granted the Waschers permission to occupy the residence. The Waschers moved into the home within the next few weeks. In early 2009, the Waschers discovered efflorescence on the stone cladding for the patio. In 2010, the Waschers hired CSC to repair the stone cladding. CSC removed some stone, which revealed that flashing had not been installed behind the stone, which caused water to infiltrate the stone and patio.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and WilliamsMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
Federal Contractors – Double Check the Terms of Your Contract Before Performing Ordered Changes
July 08, 2019 —
Jonathan Schirmer - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCAs federal contractors may be aware, the general rule when performing a contract for the federal government is that only the contracting officer (“CO”) can bind the government. Often, the CO delegates responsibility to a contracting officer’s representative (“COR”). While in some cases a COR may be able to bind the federal government, the contract may limit that ability exclusively to the CO.
Important for our clients, it is the responsibility of the contractor to determine whether the COR can legally bind the federal government when ordering changes to the scope of work. [1] This is true even when a COR possesses apparent authority to order changes to the work, and when the project is almost exclusively overseen by COR’s. [2]
A recent case highlights the dangers of a contractor relying on the orders of a COR when performing work outside the scope of a contract. In Baistar Mechanical Inc., a contractor was awarded a maintenance and snow removal contract with the federal government. The contract expressly stated that only the CO had contracting authority regarding additional or changed work. [3] However, Baistar, the contractor, argued it was directed by the contracting officer’s representatives to perform work outside of the contract.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jonathan Schirmer, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Schirmer may be contacted at
jonathan.schirmer@acslawyers.com
Two Things to Consider Before Making Warranty Repairs
January 21, 2019 —
David McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation BlogIn my last article, “What a construction defect ‘win’ looks like for a builder,” I made the point that builders should go to great lengths to work with homeowners to resolve legitimate problems through the entire statute of repose, in order to prevent the homeowners from involving attorneys. Again, happy homeowners do not call attorneys and do not bring construction defect claims. In this article, I want to address the ramifications of this strategy that builders should consider.
First, builders must be aware that any repairs performed will likely start anew the statutes of limitation and repose for the repairs. Second, builders should inform and involve their insurers in this process so as to avoid running afoul of their carriers’ “voluntary payments” clauses. In the long run, keeping homeowners happy is well worth the cost, especially if you keep in mind these additional considerations.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
General Contractor’s Ability to Supplement Subcontractor Per Subcontract
July 10, 2018 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesAs a subcontractor, you need to appreciate that the subcontract you (more than likely) sign is going to have you bear risk associated with furnishing manpower to maintain the prime contractor’s schedule and progress. A subcontractor can factor some of this risk into the lump sum amount it agrees to in the subcontract. But, from the general/prime contractor’s perspective, it is very important that this risk is borne by the subcontractor because there is no such thing as a schedule written in stone. The baseline schedule, whether attached to the subcontract or not, will change. Activities will be re-sequenced. Activities will be added. Activities will overlap. Activity start dates and finish dates will change. It is the nature of construction. As a subcontractor, you know all of this because it is the same no matter the project. Schedules are never written in stone — they change on a regular basis.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
White and Williams Obtains Reversal on Appeal of $2.5 Million Verdict Against Electric Utility Company
September 03, 2014 —
Edward Koch, Mark Paladino, Luke Repici, & Andrew Susko – White and Williams LLPPPL Electric Utilities successfully argued on appeal that the $2.5 million plaintiff’s molded verdict awarded to an injured painting subcontractor should be vacated because the alleged evidence was legally insufficient and therefore the utility was not liable.
In Nertavich v. PPL Electric Utilities, the plaintiff argued that although the utility was a landowner out of possession of the worksite, the utility was liable because it controlled the work of the subcontractor both by contract and by conduct. PPL argued on appeal before the Superior Court of Pennsylvania that the alleged evidence of the utility company’s control was insufficient as a matter of law to constitute control over the means and methods of the subcontractor’s work, and thus, PPL was not liable as a landowner out of possession.
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys
Edward Koch,
Mark Paladino,
Luke Repici and
Andrew Susko
Mr. Koch may be contacted at koche@whiteandwilliams.com;
Mr. Paladino may be contacted at paladinom@whiteandwilliams.com;
Mr. Repici may be contacted at repicil@whiteandwilliams.com;
and Mr. Susko may be contacted at suskoa@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
History of Defects Leads to Punitive Damages for Bankrupt Developer
March 01, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe South Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled that evidence of construction defects at a developer’s other projects were admissible in a construction defect lawsuit. They issued their ruling on Magnolia North Property Owners’ Association v. Heritage Communities, Inc. on February 15, 2012.
Magnolia North is a condominium complex in South Carolina. The initial builder, Heritage Communities, had not completed construction when they filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11. The remaining four buildings were completed by another contractor. The Property Owners’ Association subsequently sued Heritage Communities, Inc. (HCI) alleging defects. The POA also sued Heritage Magnolia North, and the general contractor, BuildStar.
The trial court ruled that all three entities were in fact one. On appeal, the defendants claimed that the trial court improperly amalgamated the defendants. The appeals court noted, however, that “all these corporations share officers, directors, office space, and a phone number with HCI.” Until Heritage Communities turned over control of the POA to the actual homeowners, all of the POA’s officers were officers of HCI. The appeals court concluded that “the trial court’s ruling that Appellants’ entities were amalgamated is supported by the law and the evidence.”
Heritage also claimed that the trial court should not have allowed the plaintiffs to produce evidence of construction defects at other Heritage properties. Heritage argued that the evidence was a violation of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence. The court cited a South Carolina Supreme Court case which made an exception for “facts showing the other acts were substantially similar to the event at issue.” The court noted that the defects introduced by the plaintiffs were “virtually identical across all developments.” This included identical use of the same products from project to project. Further, these were used to demonstrate that “HCI was aware of water issues in the other projects as early as 1998, before construction on Magnolia North had begun.”
The trial case ended with a directed verdict. Heritage charged that the jury should have determined whether the alleged defects existed. The appeals court noted that there was “overwhelming evidence” that Heritage failed “to meet the industry standard of care.” Heritage did not dispute the existence of the damages during the trial, they “merely contested the extent.”
Further, Heritage claimed in its appeal that the case should have been rejected due to the three-year statute of limitations. They note that the first meeting of the POA was on March 8, 2000, yet the suit was not filed until May 28, 2003, just over three years. The court noted that here the statute of limitation must be tolled, as Heritage controlled the POA until September 9, 2002. The owner-controlled POA filed suit “approximately eight months after assuming control.”
The court also applied equitable estoppel to the statute of limitations. During the time in which Heritage controlled the board, Heritage “assured the unit owners the construction defects would be repaired, and, as a result, the owners were justified in relying on those assurances.” Since “a reasonable owner could have believed that it would be counter-productive to file suit,” the court found that also prevented Heritage from invoking the statute of limitations. In the end, the appeals court concluded that the even apart from equitable tolling and equitable estoppel, the statute of limitations could not have started until the unit owners took control of the board in September, 2002.
Heritage also contested the jury’s awarding of damages, asserting that “the POA failed to establish its damages as to any of its claims.” Noting that damages are determined “with reasonable certainty or accuracy,” and that “proof with mathematical certainty of the amount of loss or damage is not required,” the appeals court found a “sufficiently reasonable basis of computation of damages to support the trial court’s submission of damages to the jury.” Heritage also claimed that the POA did not show that the damage existed at the time of the transfer of control. The court rejected this claim as well.
Finally, Heritage argued that punitive damages were improperly applied for two reasons: that “the award of punitive damages has no deterrent effect because Appellants went out of business prior to the commencement of the litigation” and that Heritages has “no ability to pay punitive damages.” The punitive damages were upheld, as the relevant earlier decision includes “defendant’s degree of culpability,” “defendants awareness or concealment,” “existence of similar past conduct,” and “likelihood of deterring the defendant or others from similar conduct.”
The appeals court rejected all of the claims made by Heritage, fully upholding the decision of the trial court.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Deadline Nears for “Green Performance Bond” Implementation
December 03, 2024 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsFor this weeks Guest Post Friday at Musings, we welcome Surety Bonds.com, a leading online surety provider. SuretyBonds.com specializes in educating current and prospective business owners about local surety requirements. To keep up with surety bond trends, follow and Surety Bonds Insider blog and @suretybond on Twitter.
Professionals who work in the construction industry know the laws that regulate the market change constantly. Unfortunately, even government agencies are flawed, which means they sometimes establish nonsensical, arbitrary regulations that leave construction professionals even more confused as to how they’re expected to do their jobs.
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
