Subcontractors Have Remedies, Even if “Pay-if-Paid” Provisions are Enforced
February 19, 2019 —
John P. Ahlers - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCIn a recent case in Kentucky[1], a sub-tier subcontractor sued the general contractor and owner for failure to pay for extra work. At the trial, the court held the subcontractor was entitled to recover under the theories of implied contracts and unjust enrichment, even though the subcontract contained a “pay-if-paid” clause. All parties appealed. In particular, the general contractor asserted that the pay-if-paid provision in the subcontract precluded recovery by the subcontractor. The issue was petitioned to the Supreme Court of Kentucky.
The question to be resolved by the Supreme Court of Kentucky was whether a pay-if-paid provision was enforceable as between a general contractor and subcontractor, and if so, whether the subcontractor could nevertheless pursue the owner directly for payment notwithstanding a lack of privity between the owner and subcontractor.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Ahlers may be contacted at
john.ahlers@acslawyers.com
Delaware Settlements with Minors and the Uniform Transfer to Minor Act
October 15, 2014 —
Stephen J. Milewski – White and Williams LLPAs a Delaware lawyer, one of the most frequently asked questions I get from insurance clients is: “Do all personal injury settlements with minors need to be approved by the Court?” The answer is and always has been yes. This is true regardless of the amount of the settlement. There have, however, been some recent changes under Delaware law which may help facilitate the process and even reduce the costs associated with settling small tort cases with minors. Traditionally, when settling cases with a minor, a Petition would be filed with the trial court (Superior Court) and then a hearing would be scheduled for the parties to present to the Court the terms of the settlement, explain the plaintiff’s injuries and itemize the fee breakdown. This would be the settlement approval process. After that, the plaintiff would be required to have a guardian appointed over the proceeds, which had to be approved by Chancery Court (Delaware’s Court of Equity). The purpose of this process was to ensure the settlement money going to the minor was managed properly; the net proceeds were generally placed into a bank account not to be used by the guardian or the minor until the minor reached the age of majority. To both the plaintiff, and the insurance carrier paying out the settlement, this process was burdensome and added disproportionate costs to small settlements.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stephen J. Milewski, White and Williams LLPMr. Milewski may be contacted at
milewskis@whiteandwiliams.com
Beyond the Disneyland Resort: Dining
May 03, 2018 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFFor fine dining experiences outside of the Disneyland Resort, try
Summit House Restaurant or the
Anaheim White House Italian Steak House .
A more unusual and upscale restaurant, try
The Hobbit in nearby Orange, California. They offer a seven-course, prix-fixe menu by reservation only. It’s a four-hour dining experience that begins in their Wine Cellar, then guests are taken to their tables in the dining room. Next, is an intermission where guests are encouraged to relax on the patios or visit the kitchen to chat with the chef. Guests then return to their table to finish their entrees and dessert.
If you’d rather spend your time in a unique lounge or bar, try
the Blind Rabbit, which calls itself Orange County’s speak easy. Located in the Anaheim Packing District, the Blind Rabbit’s tables are all reserved after 5pm, and you might want to brush up on their list of rules prior to visiting.
For something casual, try
Hollinghead’s Delicatessen in Orange, where you can purchase hand crafted sandwiches and beers.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Supreme Court Rights the “Occurrence” Ship: Unintended Harm Resulting from Intentional Conduct Triggers Coverage Under Liability Insurance Policy
June 13, 2018 —
Scott S. Thomas - Payne & Fears Legal AlertSUMMARY
In a ruling that bodes well for policyholders, the California Supreme Court provides much-needed clarity on the question of when a so-called "intentional act" may give rise to insurance coverage under a liability insurance policy. In Liberty Surplus Insurance Corp. v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction Co., Case No. S23765 (Cal. June 4, 2018), the Court holds that an employer's potential liability for negligent hiring, after its employee allegedly abused a 13-year old student, is the result of an "occurrence" and is thus covered under the employer's liability insurance policy.
COURT OPINION
The court's opinion dispels the misguided notion that an intentional act resulting in unintended harm is never an "occurrence" and can never trigger coverage. What matters, according to the Court, is that, from the insured's point of view, the consequences of its conduct are "unexpected, unforeseen, or undesigned" - even if the conduct is intentional. And in a concurring opinion, Justice Liu rightfully questions the legitimacy of the notion that intentional conduct cannot trigger coverage, even when it produces an unintended result, unless, in the words of a 1989 appellate court decision, some "additional, unexpected, independent, and unforeseen happening occurs that produces the damage." As Justice Liu explains, this intervening "happening" may be something as simple as the insured's mistaken belief that he was acting in self-defense, or that the victim had consented to the insured's conduct. This much-needed clarification restores vitality to the fundamental principle that injuries are "accidental" when they are "unexpected, unforeseen, or undesigned," regardless of their cause.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scott S. Thomas, Payne & FearsMr. Thomas may be contacted at
sst@paynefears.com
Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment in Landis v. Fannin Builders
April 20, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFThe Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in Landis v. William Fannin Builders. Landis contracted Fannin Builders to build their home. The case involved staining problems on the T1-11 siding chosen by the plaintiffs.
After a year and a half of discussion on how to resolve the problem of uneven staining on the siding, Landis filed suit “against Fannin Builders, alleging claims for breach of contract, breach of the express limited warranty, and violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (“OCSPA”). Fannin Builders, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against 84 Lumber, alleging claims for breach of contract and indemnification. With the trial court’s leave, Fannin Builders also later amended its answer to add a counterclaim against appellees for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. In the counterclaim, Fannin Builders alleged that appellees still owed it $3,908.98 for the construction of appellees’ home.”
“In its decision, the trial court found in appellees’ favor on their breach of contract claim and against appellees on their claims for breach of the express limited warranty and violation of the OCSPA. Additionally, the trial court found in Fannin Builders’ favor on its counterclaim for breach of contract and against Fannin Builders on its third-party claims for breach of contract and indemnity. The trial court determined that appellees’ damages amounted to $66,906.24, and after setting off the $3,908.98 that appellees owed Fannin Builders under the construction contract, the trial court awarded appellees $62,997.26. The trial court reduced its decision to judgment on May 18, 2010.”
Fannin Builders appealed this judgment and assigned the following errors:
[1.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant Breached its Contract with Appellees when it provided a Semi-Transparent Oil-Based Stain that Simply did not Meet their Approval.
[a.] The Contract does not Contain a Satisfaction Clause.
[b.] Even if the Court Implies a Satisfaction Clause, the Court Should Apply an Objective Standard.
[2.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Failing to Consider Appellant’s Right to Cure.
[3.] The Trial Court committed Reversible Error by not Assessing Damages Using “Diminished Value Standard,” and by Creating a Remedy that Constitutes Economic Waste.
[4.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant is Barred from Seeking Indemnification When 84 [Lumber] Never Fulfilled its Obligations Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement Entered on August 2, 2005.
In response to the first assigned error, the Court of Appeals stated: “Because the failure to provide siding of a uniform color, not appellees’ displeasure, breached the contract, we reject Fannin Builders’ contention that the trial court implied a satisfaction clause into the contract and found a breach of that clause. Accordingly, we overrule Fannin Builders’ first assignment of error.”
The Court of Appeals overruled the second assignment of error and provided the following reasoning: “Although Fannin Builders depends upon a term of the limited warranty for its right to cure, the trial court concluded that no breach of the limited warranty occurred. Fannin Builders breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIA’s Quality Standards. Consequently, the limited warranty does not apply to this case, and thus, it does not prevent appellees’ recovery of damages.”
The Appeals Court found “the trial court’s award of damages” was “both reasonable and supported by competent, credible evidence,” and therefore concluded “that the trial court did not err in setting appellees’ damages at $62,997.26.” The Fannin Builders third assignment of error was overruled.
The fourth and final assignment of error was also overruled by the Court of Appeals. “While Fannin Builders correctly asserts that 84 Lumber never installed the replacement siding, it ignores the fact that it ordered 84 Lumber to remove the replacement siding from appellees’ property. Thus, Fannin Builders precluded 84 Lumber from completely performing under the August 2, 2005 letter agreement. […] Consequently, Fannin Builders cannot now claim that the letter agreement is unenforceable or that it is entitled to indemnification from 84 Lumber. Because Fannin Builders assumed all liability for the defective siding in the letter agreement, it is responsible for appellees’ damages.”
James A. Zitesman, Columbus, Ohio Business Attorney, compared the case to Jones v. Centex (Ohio App. 2010), which had a different verdict:
“The common thread is the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the Jones case, the Court found that the buyers had in fact waived all implied warranties, including the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the contract between Jones and Centex, the builder stated that it “…would not sell the property to Purchasers without this waiver.” Probably should have been a sign to the buyers.
In the Landis case, the Court stated, “Contracts for the future construction of a residence include a duty, implied by law, that the builder must perform its work in a workmanlike manner.” The Court gave significant weight to the concept of the implied warranty of good workmanship. The builder relied upon the BIA Warranty which limits builders’ liability and exposure to legal issues. The trial court concluded there was no breach of the limited warranty, rather the builder “breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIAs Quality Standards.”
The Supreme Court of Ohio has accepted the Jones v. Centex Homes case for review.
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Catch 22: “If You’re Moving Dirt, You Need to Control Your Dust” (But Don’t Use Potable Water!)
February 18, 2015 —
Stephen McKae – California Construction Law BlogReturning from an Oregon vacation this past Summer along I-5, I found frequent reminders of the extraordinary drought conditions prevailing across California. A grey smoky gloom blanketed the California-Oregon border from Ashland to Weed from at least five wildfires. The prediction of rains in the north state was more curse than blessing as lightning threatened to touch off tender-dry fuel in the forests and start more fires. Farmers tilling fields produced massive dust clouds. And under the I-5 bridge along the Sacramento River arm of Lake Shasta, the lake had receded to the original streambed.
On NOAA’s Palmer Drought Severity Index, nearly all of California is listed as in a condition of extreme or severe drought, and the Governor has issued a Proclamation of Continued State of Emergency requiring water conservation measures affecting all California residents. Indeed, early August news reports indicate that hopes of relief from an El Nĩno year are waning. The State Water Resources Control Board’s Emergency Regulation No. 2014 issued July 15 mandates action to reduce water use and require larger water suppliers to activate their Water Shortage Contingency Plan. The emergency regulation will remain in effect until April 25, 2015 unless extended due to ongoing drought conditions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stephen McKae, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. McKae may be contacted at
smckae@wendel.com
COVID-19 Vaccine Considerations for Employers in the Construction Industry
July 11, 2021 —
Maggie Spell - ConsensusDocs1. Can employers in the construction industry require employees to receive a COVID-19 vaccine as a condition of employment?
In short, it depends. Back in December 2020, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) explained that, generally speaking (and under federal law), employers can require employees to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. However, there are a few caveats.
First, certain employees may need to be excused from a mandatory vaccination requirement as a reasonable accommodation unless it will present undue hardship. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), employers must provide reasonable accommodations to employees with a covered disability that prevents them from receiving the vaccine. (Fact sheets for the COVID-19 vaccines include examples of some of the underlying medical conditions that may result in an accommodation request.) And under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers are similarly required to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with sincerely held religious beliefs, practices, or observances that prevent them from getting the vaccine. Employers requiring the vaccination would be wise to consult with an experienced employment lawyer before denying an accommodation. Accommodation issues stemming from administration of the COVID-19 vaccine (and COVID-19 more generally) are likely to plague employers for a while, so getting ahead of this issue is key.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Maggie Spell, Jones Walker LLPMs. Spell may be contacted at
mspell@joneswalker.com
What Buyers Want in a Green Home—and What They Don’t
March 19, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFJennifer Goodman interviewed researcher Suzanne Shelton to find out what buyers want in a green home and what they do not. The questions and answers were published in Big Builder. Shelton has studied “Americans’ thoughts on environmental and energy issues” for the last ten years.
Goodman wrote that while the term “high-performance” is often used by “builders and their advisors,” the term doesn’t resonate with buyers. In fact, in last fall’s Energy Pulse study, eighty-four percent of Americans said no when asked “if they could confidently and correctly explain the term ‘high-performance home’ to a friend.”
Goodman and Shelton also discussed the best way to market green features. Shelton pointed out that in surveys “energy-efficient home… clobbered ‘green home’ year over year.” Furthermore, she found that “80 percent of prospective home buyers tell us…all other things being equal, energy efficiency would impact their home selection.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
