Contract Void Ab Initio: Key Insights into the KBR vs. Corps of Engineers Affirmative Defense
February 12, 2024 —
Matthew DeVries - Best Practices Construction LawIn a recent Board decision dated December 13, 2023, the United States Army Corps of Engineers sought to amend its answer in the case of APPEALS OF – KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT SERVICES, INC., under Contract No. W912GB-13-C-0011. The proposed amendment introduces an affirmative defense, contending that Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. (KBR) made material misrepresentations in its proposal, rendering the fully-performed contract void ab initio.
Background: The contract in question, executed on July 9, 2013, was for the construction of an Aegis Ashore Missile Defense System site in Deveselu, Romania, with a firm, fixed-price amount of $134,211,592. The Corps moved to amend its answer to allege that KBR’s material misrepresentations induced the Corps to enter the contract, justifying the voiding of the contract. The alleged misrepresentations include issues related to subcontractor quotes, firm fixed prices, subcontracting plans, and more.
Motion to Amend and Legal Defense: The Corps, despite delays in formally amending its answer, argued that KBR was aware of the potential affirmative defense before the conclusion of fact discovery. The proposed affirmative defense asserts that KBR made eight material misrepresentations in its proposal, upon which the Corps relied in awarding the contract and defending against a GAO protest.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Matthew DeVries, Burr & Forman LLPMr. DeVries may be contacted at
mdevries@burr.com
Colorado’s Federal District Court Finds Carriers Have Joint and Several Defense Duties
July 31, 2013 —
Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiAn issue that has plagued builders in Colorado construction defect litigation is the difficulty of getting additional insured carriers to fully participate in the builder’s defense, oftentimes leaving the builder to fund its own defense during the course of the litigation.
Many additional insurers offer a variety of positions regarding why they will not pay for fees and costs during the course of a lawsuit. Some insurers argue that, until after trial, it is impossible to determine its proper share of the defense, and therefore cannot make any payments until the liability is determined as to all of the potentially contributing policies. (This is often referred to as the “defense follows indemnity” approach.) Others may make an opening contribution to defense fees and costs, but fall silent as fees and costs accumulate. In such an event, the builder may be forced to fund all or part of its own defense, while the uncooperative additional insured carrier waits for the end of the lawsuit or is faced with other legal action before it makes other contributions.
Recent orders in two, currently ongoing, U.S. District Court cases provide clarity on the duty to defend in Colorado, holding that multiple insurers’ duty to defend is joint and several. The insured does not have to go without a defense while the various insurers argue amongst themselves as to which insurer pays what share.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred EyerlyTred Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
The Difference Between Routine Document Destruction and Spoliation
October 18, 2021 —
Steven A. Neeley - Construction ExecutiveIn today’s world, there is a tendency to believe that everything must be preserved forever. The common belief is that documents, emails, text messages, etc. cannot be deleted because doing so may be viewed as spoliation (i.e., intentionally destroying relevant evidence). A party guilty of spoliation can be sanctioned, which can include an adverse inference that the lost information would have helped the other side. But that does not mean that contractors have to preserve every conceivable piece of information or data under all circumstances. There are key differences between routine document destruction (when done before receiving notice of potential claims or litigation) and spoliation.
The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals decision in Appeal of Sungjee Constr. Co., Ltd., ASBCA Nos. 62002 and 62170 (Mar. 23, 2021) provides a good reminder. There, Sungjee challenged its default termination under a construction contract at Osan Air Base in South Korea. Sungjee argued that the government denied it access to the site for 352 days (out of a 450-day performance period) by refusing to issue passes that were needed to access the base. The government argued that it had issued the passes, but it could not produce them to Sungjee in discovery because they had been destroyed as part of a routine document destruction policy. The base security force issued hard copy passes and entered the information in a biometric system. The government was able to produce the biometric system data but not the hard copy passes because they were destroyed each year.
Sungjee argued the government was guilty of spoliation and moved for sanctions. It asked the Board to draw an adverse inference that the passes would have shown that the government had not issued proper passes on a timely basis, which delayed Sungjee’s performance. The Board denied Sungjee’s motion for several reasons.
Reprinted courtesy of
Steven A. Neeley, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Neeley may be contacted at
steve.neeley@huschblackwell.com
Governor Inslee’s Recent Vaccination Mandate Applies to Many Construction Contractors and their Workers
September 13, 2021 —
Brett M. Hill - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCThis month Governor Jay Inslee enacted COVID vaccination requirements that apply to certain construction contractors and their workers in Washington state. Inslee’s vaccine proclamation becomes effective October 18, 2021 and requires construction contractors, subcontractors, and their workers to be fully vaccinated to perform work onsite on certain covered projects.
The following are types of covered projects where the vaccine mandate applies:
- State agencies: All contractors working at projects for Washington state agencies (including WSDOT, DES, DNR, etc.) if the work is required to be performed in person and onsite, regardless of the frequency or whether other workers are present. The vaccine mandate applies to indoor and outdoor settings and there is no exemption even if social distancing requirements can be met.
- Education/Higher Education/Child Care: All contractors performing work onsite for K-12, higher education (community colleges, technical colleges, and 4-year universities), child care and other facilities where students or persons receiving services are present. New and unoccupied projects are exempt but it does apply to public and private projects.
- Medical facilities: All contractors performing work at a “healthcare setting” where patients receiving care are present. “Healthcare setting” is defined as any public or private setting that is primarily used for the delivery of in-person health care services to people. “Healthcare setting” includes portions of a multi-use facility, but only the areas that are primarily used for the delivery of health care, such as a pharmacy within a grocery store. Additional information is on the state’s Q&A page.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brett M. Hill, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Hill may be contacted at
brett.hill@acslawyers.com
Miami Building Boom Spreads Into Downtown’s Tent City
October 29, 2014 —
Nadja Brandt – BloombergA building boom that transformed Miami into a destination for the global elite left out the city core, better known for its empty lots filled at night with tents for the homeless. Now the area awaits a $2 billion face lift.
Worldcenter, a 27-acre (11-hectare) development that languished for almost a decade, won city approval last month and is slated to break ground next year near Miami’s business district. The project will include almost 1,000 luxury condominiums and apartments, a Marriott Marquis hotel with convention space, and stores such as Macy’s and Bloomingdale’s.
Developers CIM Group, Falcone Group and Centurion Partners are seeking to breathe life into a neighborhood often referred to as the “hole in the doughnut,” an area of blight and weedy lots surrounded by luxury properties that are attracting South American, European and Asian buyers. Its revival reflects both the strong investor demand in Miami and a national trend toward a mix of real estate in an urban center catering to people who want to live, work and play in close proximity.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nadja Brandt, BloombergMs. Brandt may be contacted at
nbrandt@bloomberg.net
Lewis Brisbois Ranked Tier 1 Nationally for Insurance Law, Mass Tort/Class Actions Defense by U.S. News/Best Lawyers
November 21, 2022 —
Lewis Brisbois(November 3, 2022) - Lewis Brisbois has once again been ranked Tier 1 nationally by U.S. News & World Report/Best Lawyers for ‘Insurance Law’ and ‘Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants,’ as well as ranking Tier 1 in 14 different practice areas across 15 metro regions.
In addition to Lewis Brisbois' national ranking, the firm also ranked Tier 1 for ‘Insurance Law’ in the Philadelphia, Reno, and Tampa metro areas, and Tier 1 for ‘Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants’ in the Los Angeles area. The firm was also ranked Tier 1 in the following regional categories:
- ‘Commercial Litigation’ in Akron;
- ‘Corporate Governance Law’ in San Francisco;
- ‘Corporate Law’ in Akron;
- ‘Environmental Law’ in Washington, D.C.;
- ‘Litigation - Health Care’ in Portland, Ore. and Roanoke;
- ‘Litigation – Municipal’ in Wichita;
- ‘Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants’ in Chicago and Roanoke;
- ‘Mergers & Acquisitions Law’ in Akron;
- ‘Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants’ in Chicago, Inland Empire, New York City, Orange County, Roanoke, and Seattle;
- ‘Product Liability Litigation – Defendants’ in Philadelphia;
- ‘Tax Law’ in Akron; and
- ‘Trusts & Estates Law’ in Akron.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
Court Finds No Occurrence for Installation of Defective flooring and Explains Coverage for Attorney Fee Awards
January 05, 2017 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. v. Moorefield Const. (No.G050759, filed 12/27/16), a California appeals court held that the knowing installation of flooring over a vapor-emitting slab was not an accident or occurrence, entitling the insurer to reimbursement of money paid as damages to settle a construction defect suit. But the court further held that there was no right of reimbursement for the portion of money payable under the policy’s supplementary payments coverage as costs for contractual prevailing party attorney’s fees.
Navigators insured Moorefield, the general contractor for a Best Buy store. Testing in construction revealed a vapor emission rate from the concrete slab above the approved standard for the flooring. The contractor’s personnel testified that it was normal to install the flooring regardless. Notwithstanding, the contractor’s personnel testified that they consulted the owner and were directed to proceed. In doing so, the contractor also expressly released the flooring subcontractor from any warranty claims.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Indicted Union Representatives Try Again to Revive Enmons
June 22, 2016 —
Wally Zimolong – Supplemental ConditionsThe
Boston Globe reports that the Massachusetts AFL-CIO has filed a friend of the court brief seeking to have the indictment of five members of the Teamsters Union in Boston dismissed. The Teamsters members are facing federal charges that they extorted non-union contractors and owners that employed non-union contractors. The Massachusetts AFL-CIO is arguing that under the Supreme Court’s 1972 decision in
U.S. v. Enmons the Teamsters alleged conduct was in furtherance of a legitimate union objective and, therefore, no illegal.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wally Zimolong, Supplemental ConditionsMr. Zimolong may be contacted at
wally@zimolonglaw.com
