New Orleans Reviews System After Storm Swamps Pumps
August 17, 2017 —
Pam Radtke Russell - Engineering News-RecordThe city of New Orleans will hire an independent team of engineers to evaluate the problems that led to severe flooding following an Aug. 5 rainfall of up to 10 in. The decision followed the revelation that 16 of the city’s pumps were not working, despite claims the system was at capacity. Further, the power system that operates those pumps was severely crippled.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pam Radtke Russell, ENRMs. Russell may be contacted at
Russellp@bnpmedia.com
How to Challenge a Project Labor Agreement
May 24, 2018 —
Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions Building and Construction Trades Council of Metropolitan District v. Associated Builders and Contractors of Massachusetts Rhode Island, Inc Massachusetts Water Resources Authority v. Associated Builders and Contractors of Massachusetts Rhode Island, Inc, 507 U.S. 218, 113 S.Ct. 1190, 122 L.Ed.2d 565 (1993) , affectionately knows as Boston Harbor, is the seminal Supreme Court decision that held that the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) does not preempt government mandated project labor agreements (“PLAs”) if the government entity is acting as a market participant rather than a market regulator. Boston Harbor has led to many believing that virtually all PLAs are legal when the government agency is a project owner or if the PLA involves a private project. However, does Boston Harbor really cut that far?
In short, no. The primary issue in Boston Harbor was one of preemption. The Supreme Court addressed whether the NLRA preempted state and local laws and ordinances mandating PLAs. On that narrow issue, the Supreme Court said there is no preemption if the government is acting as a market participant. What the Court did not address is whether other federal statutes invalidate PLAs. Specifically, whether PLA’s can run afoul of Section 8(e), the so called “hot cargo” provisions, of the NLRA.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLCMr. Zimolong may be contacted at
wally@zimolonglaw.com
David M. McLain to Speak at the CLM Claims College - School of Construction - Scholarships Available
July 28, 2016 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction LitigationI am happy to have been asked to serve as an instructor at this year's CLM Claims College – School of Construction, to be held at the Marriott Baltimore Waterfront in Baltimore, Maryland on Wednesday, September 7, 2016 through Saturday, September 10, 2016.
Overview of the 2016 School of Construction
Construction claims present myriad complexities in claim handling. Construction defect lawsuits are often multi-party cases with cross claims and third-party claims between and among the numerous defendants. Insurance coverage is intertwined and complex due to the interplay of primary, excess, wrap, and additional insurers for the numerous defendants. All this is further complicated by statutes and regulations, inconsistent case law and procedural peculiarities throughout the United States. The economic stakes are high as the damages claims can be in the multi-millions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
California Supreme Court Finds that When it Comes to Intentional Interference Claims, Public Works Projects are Just Different, Special Even
November 21, 2017 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogOriginally published by CDJ on April 20, 2017
Earlier, we reported on a California Court of Appeals decision – Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. v. American Asphalt South, Inc. – which held for the first time that a second-place bidder on a public works contract could sue a winning bidder who failed to pay its workers prevailing wages, under the business tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage.
Fast forward nearly two years, several amicus briefs, and “one doghouse”* later and the California Supreme Court has . . . reversed.
The Roy Allan Slurry Seal Case
To catch you up, or rather, refresh your recollection . . .
Between 2009 and 2012, American Asphalt South, Inc. was awarded 23 public works contracts totaling more than $14.6 million throughout Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and San Diego counties. Two of the losing bidders on those projects – Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. and Doug Martin Contracting, Inc. – sued American in each of these counties for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage as well as under the Unfair Practices Act (“UPA”) (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17000 et seq.) and the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) (Bus. & Prof. Code §17200).
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
New Jersey Court Washes Away Insurer’s Waiver of Subrogation Arguments
May 27, 2019 —
William L. Doerler - The Subrogation StrategistSubrogating insurers often address waiver of subrogation clauses in the form contracts drafted by the American Institute of Architects. In ACE Am. Ins. Co. v. Am. Med. Plumbing, No. A-5395-16T4, 2019 N.J. Super. LEXIS 45 (App. Div.), ACE American Insurance Company (ACE) argued that the waiver clause in the AIA General Conditions form A201-2007 did not extend to the post-construction loss at issue. Adopting what the court termed the “majority” position, the Appellate Division held that, by reading §§ 11.3.5 and 11.3.7 together, the waiver applied to bar the insurer’s subrogation claim. The Appellate Court’s ruling makes pursuing subrogation against New Jersey contractors using AIA contract forms more difficult.
In this matter, Equinox Development Corporation (Equinox Development), ACE’s insured, contracted with Grace Construction Management Company, LLC (Grace Construction) to build the “core and shell” of a new health club (the Work). Grace Construction subcontracted the plumbing work to American Medical Plumbing, Inc. (AM Plumbing).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLPMr. Doerler may be contacted at
doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com
New Home Construction Booming in Texas
October 24, 2022 —
Jason Daniel Feld & Ron Raydon - Kahana FeldWith the rapid relocation trends of families moving to Texas, it was reported that new residential construction permits in Texas grew to a total value in excess of $2 billion and over 7,500 new construction permits in September 2022 alone. D.R. Horton lead the way with 1,139 new permits, while Lennar Homes clocked 696 new permits. Other leading homebuilders including KB Homes (239 permits) and Pulte Homes (253 permits) remained active heading into the 4th Quarter of 2022. The following is a breakdown of new permits and average home values in the 4 largest cities in Texas (Houston, Dallas, Austin and San Antonio) for September 2022:
Houston
Last month, there were approximately 340 home builders with new permits on record in the Houston area, and the following ranked as the top five total new permits:
| Builder | Total Permits | Average Value |
|---|
| 1-D.R. Horton |
483 |
$ 129,812.00 |
| 2-Camillo Properties |
190 |
$ 147,790.00 |
| 3-Lennar Homes |
188 |
$ 195,503.00 |
| 4-Meritage Homes |
124 |
$ 248,597.00 |
| 5-Wan Pacific Real Estate Development |
117 |
$ 165,044.00 |
Dallas
In Dallas, there were more than 290 contractors with new residential construction activity on record with HBW last month, and the following ranked as the top five for total new permits:
| Builder | Total Permits | Average Value |
|---|
| 1-D.R. Horton |
555 |
$ 179,430.00 |
| 2-Lennar Homes |
232 |
$ 202,318.00 |
| 3-Trophy Signature Homes |
111 |
$ 274,016.00 |
| 4-Bloomfield Homes |
97 |
$ 405,235.00 |
| 5-Meritage Homes |
92 |
$ 267,425.00 |
Austin
Last month, there were nearly 125 home builders with new construction activity on record in the Austin area, and the following ranked as the top five for total new permits for the one-month period:
| Builder | Total Permits | Average Value |
|---|
| 1-Lennar Homes |
150 |
$ 154,390.00 |
| 2-KB Homes |
147 |
$ 253,606.00 |
| 3-D.R. Horton |
99 |
$ 200,416.00 |
| 4-Taylor Morrison Homes |
79 |
$ 365,183.00 |
| 5-David Weekley Homes |
64 |
$ 436,978.00 |
San Antonio
In San Antonio, there were nearly 120 contractors with new residential construction activity on record last month, and the following ranked as the top five for total new permits:
| Builder | Total Permits | Average Value |
|---|
| 1-Lennar Homes |
126 |
$ 174,315.00 |
| 2-KB Homes |
55 |
$ 254,109.00 |
| 3-Pulte Homes |
52 |
$ 241,012.00 |
| 4-M/I Homes |
51 |
$ 237,283.00 |
| 5-LGI Homes |
30 |
$ 202,760.00 |
The residential construction boom is Texas does not appear to be slowing down anytime soon. With new corporations relocating corporate offices to the Lone Star State each year, we expect this trend to continue for the foreseeable future. And with increased home production, we will closely monitor the increase in construction related litigation over the next five to ten years.
The increase in market activity attracts new or inexperienced builders and tradesman, making the importance of a proactive approach to construction management all the more important. Given the labor shortages and supply chain issues. It is imperative that Texas homebuilders take extra precautions to ensure quality construction practices and oversight to minimize potential litigation.
Reprinted courtesy of Jason Daniel Feld, Kahana Feld and Ron Raydon, Kahana Feld
Mr. Feld may be contacted at jfeld@kahanafeld.com
Mr. Raydon may be contacted at rraydon@kahanafeld.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Challenging and Defending a California Public Works Stop Payment Notice: Affidavit vs. Counter-Affidavit Process
October 21, 2019 —
William L. Porter - Porter Law GroupOne of the most effective collection procedures available to subcontractors and suppliers to California Construction projects is the “stop payment notice” procedure found under California Civil Code sections 9350 – 9364. Under this procedure, the unpaid subcontractor or supplier may serve the stop payment notice on the public entity and the direct or “prime” contractor and cause the public entity to withhold from the direct contractor 125% of the funds identified in the stop payment notice. Thereafter, funds will not generally be released unless the parties reach a settlement agreement or the issue is decided through litigation, arbitration or mediation. There is however an alternative procedure available to direct contractors to expedite the determination of whether a stop payment notice is valid and to possibly obtain an early release of the funds withheld by the public entity. This “summary proceeding” process could result in release of funds to the direct contractor in less than 30 days. The summary proceeding can also be challenged by the unpaid subcontractor or supplier. All public works contractors, subcontractors and suppliers should be aware of the process. The process for direct contractors to release a stop payment notice and for subcontractors and suppliers to challenge the process works as follows:
After a California stop payment notice has been served and the public entity has withheld funds accordingly, the direct contractor may challenge the stop payment notice by serving an “affidavit” (basically a sworn statement showing why the stop notice is not valid) on the public entity, demanding that the public entity release all funds withheld. Upon receipt of such an affidavit, the public entity will serve the subcontractor or supplier who served the stop payment notice with a copy of the affidavit, along with a “demand for release of funds”. If the stop payment notice claimant does not respond with a “counter-affidavit” by the date stated on the notice sent by the public entity (“not less than 10 days nor more than 20 days after service on the claimant of a copy of the affidavit”), then the public entity will be within its rights to release the withheld funds to the direct contractor, and the stop payment notice claimant will relinquish its stop payment notice rights.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Porter, Porter Law GroupMr. Porter may be contacted at
bporter@porterlaw.com
Colorado Requires Builders to Accommodate High-Efficiency Devices in New Homes
December 14, 2020 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction LitigationStarting in 2009, the Colorado Legislature began adding requirements that builders offer certain options to accommodate high-efficiency devices. These requirements started with solar prewire options in 2009, then water-smart home options in 2010. In 2020, the Legislature added requirements for electric vehicle charging and heating systems. These sections apply to unoccupied homes serving as sales inventory or a model home or manufactured homes, as defined by Colorado law. While the Legislature has only required builders to include options to accommodate these devices, it may be just a matter of time until builders must install the prescribed devices themselves.
In 2009, the Legislature passed C.R.S. 38-35.7-106, which was amended this year by HB 20-1155. As it now reads, Colorado law requires every builder of single-family detached residences to offer to have the home’s electrical or plumbing system, or both, include:
- A residential photovoltaic solar generation system or a residential thermal system, or both;
- Upgrades of wiring or plumbing, or both, planned by the builder to accommodate future installation of such systems; and
- A chase or conduit, or both, constructed to allow ease of future installation of the necessary wiring or plumbing for such systems.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
