Using Lien and Bond Claims to Secure Project Payments
March 01, 2021 —
Jonathan Cheatham - Construction ExecutiveWhile suing in court for payment on a construction project is nothing new, the very notion of non-payment tends evokes images of hard-working contractors and subcontractors, working with tight margins, owed payment for services rendered and materials. Fortunately, for general contractors and subcontractors in the construction industry, there are better remedies for securing payment on a project before it becomes a bigger issue.
Construction projects, especially large public ones, usually include a dizzying array of general contractors, subcontractors and independent contractors, sometimes numbering more than a hundred entities. The inter-connected groups of companies working toward the goal of project completion require competent construction management in order to stay on time and on budget for completion. One of the project owner’s key tools used to ensure the process runs smoothly is the use of payment bonds and surety bonds.
Payment Bonds
Payment bonds ensure that contractors and subcontractors get paid for work performed in accordance with contract conditions. Disputes can occur before, during and even after the completion of work. Injunctive lawsuits, which contemplate the stoppage of work, would be detrimental to completing a public or private construction project of substantial size. Rather than having such minor disputes derail the entire project, the aggrieved party’s remedy is to file a claim against the payment bond, which offers a solution designed to keep the issue separate from the project’s completion. The payment bond also allows the project owner to transfer risk.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jonathan Cheatham, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pay Loss Provision Does Not Preclude Assignment of Post-Loss Claim
July 30, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe court determined that a policy's loss payment provision did not bar a post-loss assignment. One Call Prop. Servs. v. Sec. First Ins. Co., 2015 Fl. App. LEXIS 7643 (Fla. Ct. App. May 20, 2015).
After One Cell performed emergency water removal for the insured, the insured assigned his rights to policy proceeds as payment. One Cell alleged that Security First refused to reimburse the insured adequately for the services provided. One Cell filed suit, and Security First moved to dismiss. The trial court granted the motion based upon the policy's non-assignment provision.
One Cell appealed. One Cell argued post-loss assignments were valid under Florida law even when the policy contained an anti-assignment provision, and the right to payment accrued on the date of the loss.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Granting Stay, Federal Court Reviews Construction Defect Coverage in Hawaii
January 06, 2012 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court ultimately stayed a construction defect case, but offered comments on the current status of coverage disputes for such defects in Hawaii. See National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Simpson Mfg. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128481(D. Haw. Nov. 7, 2011).
National Union filed a complaint for declaratory relief to establish it had no duty to defend or to indemnify Simpson Manufacturing Company in four actions pending in the Hawaii state courts. The state court actions concerned allegedly defective hurricane strap tie hold downs that were manufactured and sold by Simpson. The hurricane ties allegedly began to prematurely corrode and rust, causing cracking, spalling and other damage to homes.
National Union contended the underlying allegations did not constitute "property damage" caused by an "occurrence," as defined in the policies.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Illinois Appellate Court Addresses Professional Services Exclusion in Homeowners Policy
August 03, 2022 —
James M. Eastham - Traub LiebermanIn Stonegate Ins. Co. v. Smith, 2022 IL App (1st) 210931, the Insured was performing plumbing work at a multi-story townhouse when a fire ensued causing damage to the second story unit. Although a carpenter by trade, the Insured was performing plumbing work consisting of the replacement of a shower valve as a favor for a friend. To accomplish the task, the Insured utilized a small propane torch to attempt to remove the old water piping to the shower. In doing so, the insulation behind the bathroom wall caught fire and the flame spread upward to the neighboring unit. Stonegate had issued a homeowner’s policy to the Insured during the relevant time period. The homeowner's policy excluded coverage for property damage "[a]rising out of the rendering of or failure to render professional services." Subsequent to tender of the loss, Stonegate initiated a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that it owned no duty to defend or indemnity pursuant to the professional services exclusions.
In finding in favor of the Insured, the Court began its analysis by noting that the homeowner's policy did not define the term "professional services" such that it was the Court’s task to determine whether the Insured’s work qualified as a "professional service" for purposes of the exclusion. The Court further prefaced its holding by stating that for an exclusionary clause to effectively deny coverage, its applicability must be clear and free from doubt because any doubts as to coverage will be resolved in favor of the insured. Looking to Illinois case precedent, the Court found that the term "professional service" is not limited to services for which the person performing them must be licensed by a governmental authority. Rather, "professional services" encompass any business activity conducted by an insured that (1) involves specialized knowledge, labor, or skill, and (2) is predominantly mental or intellectual as opposed to physical or manual in nature.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James M. Eastham, Traub LiebermanMr. Eastham may be contacted at
jeastham@tlsslaw.com
Nevada Court Adopts Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine
February 10, 2012 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiAlthough the Nevada Supreme Court adopted the efficient proximate cause doctrine, it determined it did not apply to salvage coverage under an all-risk policy for a rain-damaged building. Fourth Street Place, LLC v. The Travelers Indemn. Co., 2011 Nev LEXIS 114 (Nev. Dec. 29, 2011).
Fourth Street owned an office building which was insured by an all-risk policy issued by Travelers. Fourth Street hired Above It All Roofing to repair the roof of the office building. Above It All removed the waterproof membrane on the roof and prepared to replace the membrane the following week. Over the weekend, however, substantial rain hit. On Sunday, Above It All returned to cover the exposed portions of the roof with tarps, but wind later blew the tarps away. The building suffered significant interior damage as it continued to be exposed to the rain.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Federal Miller Act Payment Bond Claim: Who Gets Paid and Who Does Not? What Are the Deadlines?
September 16, 2019 —
William L. Porter - Porter Law GroupWhen working on federal public works construction projects there are no Stop Payment Notice or Mechanics Lien remedies available to protect subcontractors’ and suppliers’ right to payment. Instead, unpaid subcontractors and suppliers must resort to making a claim for payment under a federal law known as the AMiller Act@ (40 USCS 3131 et seq.). Many claimants however, do not realize that the right to make a Miller Act claim is not available to all subcontractors and suppliers. Before committing to performing work on a federal project it is important for subcontractors and suppliers to understand whether or not a Miller Act claim will be available. For those who have no Miller Act rights, careful consideration must be given to whether it is worth the risk to take on the project. For those who have valid Miller Act claim rights, important deadlines must be considered.
Who Gets Paid Under a Miller Act and Who Does Not
For federal projects in excess of $100,000, contractors who have a contract directly with the Federal Government must obtain Miller Act Payment Bond intended for the protection of Subcontractors, laborers and material suppliers to the project.
As a general rule, every subcontractor, laborer, or material supplier who deals directly with the prime contractor and is unpaid may bring a lawsuit for payment against the Miller Act Payment Bond. Further, every unpaid subcontractor, laborer, or material supplier who has a direct contractual relationship with a first-tier subcontractor may bring such an action. The deadlines for these claims are described below.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Porter, Porter Law GroupMr. Porter may be contacted at
bporter@porterlaw.com
Developer’s Fraudulent Statements Are His Responsibility Alone in Construction Defect Case
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Texas Court of Appeals ruled on December 21 in the case of Helm v Kingston, a construction defect case. After purchasing what was described as “an extremely well-built” two-bedroom townhouse, Mr. Kingston made complaints of construction defects. Greenway Development did not repair the defects to Kingston’s satisfaction, and he filed notice of suit. In his suit, he claimed that GDI and its president, John Helm, had committed fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Kingston claimed that Helm “fraudulently induced Kingston to believe that the townhouse evidenced the highest quality of workmanship when in fact the quality of workmanship was atrocious.” Helms brought a counterclaim that Kingston’s suit was frivolous.
About four years after Kingston purchased the townhome, the suit proceeded to trial. The trial court determined that Helm was not “liable in his individual capacity,” but this was reversed at appeal.
A second trial was held ten years later on the question of whether Kingston’s unit was a townhome or an apartment. A jury found that Helm “engaged in a false, misleading or deceptive act or practice that Kingston relied on to his detriment.” Kingston was awarded $75,862.29 and an additional $95,000 in attorney fees by the jury. Helms made an unsuccessful appeal to the Appeals Court, after which Kingston was awarded an additional $10,000. Helms then made an unsuccessful appeal to the Texas Supreme Court, which lead to an additional $3,000 for Kingston. There was also a verdict of $48,770.09 in pre-judgment interest and “five percent post-judgment interest accruing from the date of the judgment until the time the judgment is paid. Helm appealed.
In his appeal, Helm raised seven issues, which the court reorganized into five Kingston raised one issue on cross-appeal.
Helms’ first claim was that Kingston “failed to satisfy the requirement of” Texas’s Residential Construction Liability Act and that by not filing under the RCLA, Kingston’s fraud and misrepresentation claims were preempted. Further Helms claimed that the RCLA limited Kingston’s damages. The court rejected this, as the RCLA deals with complaints made to a contractor and not only did Helm fail to “conclusively establish” his “status as a ‘contractor’ under the statutory definition,” Helm testified that he was “not a contactor” at the pre-trial hearing.
Helms’s second claim was that Kingston’s later claim of a misconstructed firewall should be barred, claiming that Kingston “‘had knowledge of a defect in the firewall’ as early as 1997 but did not assert them until 2007.” The court rejected this because Kingston’s claim was that “Helm ‘fraudulently induced Kingston to believe that the townhouse evidenced the highest quality of workmanship when in fact the quality of the workmanship was atrocious.’”
Helms also challenged whether his statements that the residence was of “good quality” constituted fraud and misrepresentation under Texas’s Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. The court concluded that Helm was in a position to make knowledgeable statements and further that “residential housing units are not artistic works for which quality is inherently a matter of subjective judgment.” Helm also claimed that Kingston could have avoided certain repair expenses through the “exercise of reasonable care.” Helms argued that the repairs could have been made for $6,400. The court disagreed, as these claims were cited only to invoke the DTPA, and that later petitions established additional defects.
Helms’s next claim was that he was not allowed to designate responsible third parties. The court rejected this because there GDI represented matters concerning the residence only through Helm’s statements. The court noted that “Helm is correct that?third parties may be liable for fraud if they ‘participated in the fraudulent transactions and reaped the benefits,’” but they note that “Helm never specifically alleged that GDI or CREIC participated in Helm’s alleged fraudulent transactions.
The final issue in the decision was about court costs, and here the court denied claims on both sides. Helm argued that the award of legal fees were excessive, as they exceeded the actual damages. The court noted that they “may not substitute our judgment for that of the jury,” and also that “the ratio between the actual damages awarded and the attorney’s fees is not a factor that determines the reasonableness of the fees.” But the court also rejected Kingston’s claim for post-judgment interest on $10,312.30 that Helm had deposited in the trial court’s registry. The court noted that the monies were to be paid out upon final judgment, but the mandate did not include any reference to interest.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Noteworthy Construction Defect Cases for 1st Qtr 2014
April 30, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFJohn A. Husmann and Jocelyn F. Cornbleet of BatesCareyLLP analyzed several noteworthy construction defect cases that have already occurred in 2014, as published in Law360. The cases involved “the ‘occurrence’ requirement, contractual liability exclusion and ‘other insurance’ clauses.” Husmann and Cornbleet summarized Owners Insurance Co. v Jim Carr Homebuilder LLC (Alabama), Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Snider (also Alabama), Woodward LLC v. Acceptance Indemnification Insurance Co. (Mississippi), and others.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
