Robinson+Cole’s Amicus Brief Adopted and Cited by Massachusetts’s High Court
July 31, 2024 —
Erica Whaley - Construction Law ZoneEarlier this year, the
Associated Subcontractors of Massachusetts hired Robinson+Cole attorney
Joseph Barra to submit an amicus brief to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for consideration in the appeal pending before it in
Business Interiors Floor Covering Business Trust v. Graycor Construction Co., Inc. In its June 17, 2024 decision in that case, the Court interpreted the Massachusetts Prompt Pay Act, which applies to private construction projects and “requires that parties to a construction contract approve or reject payment within” an allotted time period and in compliance with certain procedures else such payments will be deemed approved. Two years ago, the Massachusetts Appeals Court, in
Tocci Building Corp. v. IRIV Partners, LLC, decided that an owner who fails to timely advise its general contractor of the reasons as to why it was withholding payment, coupled with failure to certify that such funds are being withheld in good faith, violates the Prompt Pay Act and makes the owner liable for funds owed.
[1] However, the Tocci Building Court left open the question of whether one who violates the Prompt Pay Act forfeits its substantive defenses to non-payment, such as fraud, defective work, or breach of material obligation of the contract.
The facts of Business Interiors involve a general contractor, Graycor, which subcontracted Business Interiors to perform certain flooring work for a movie theatre in Boston’s North End. When Graycor failed to formally approve, reject, or certify, in good faith, its withholding of payment of three of Business Interiors’ applications for payment as prescribed by the Prompt Pay Act, Business Interiors brought suit alleging, among other things, breach of contract. Business Interiors then moved for summary judgement arguing that Graycor’s failure to comply with the Act rendered it liable for the unpaid invoices.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Robinson + Cole
Three Recent Cases Strike Down Liquidated Damages Clauses In Settlement Agreements…A Trend Or An Aberration?
November 01, 2021 —
Adam M. Tuckman - ConsensusDocsBeginning more than one century ago, owners and contractors generally have adopted the convention of including liquidated damages in their contracts to fix potential liability for delay (and other losses) at the inception of the project. The proliferation of liquidated damages clauses in modern contracts can be attributed to economic and legal factors. From the owner’s standpoint, it may be exceedingly difficult to prove the actual cost impact of a delayed completion of the project. A properly calculated liquidated damages rate would save the owner the significant expense of quantifying its delay damages. On the contractor’s side, a reasonable amount of liquidated damages may be preferable to uncapped or unknown liability, allowing the contractor to more accurately price its bid and efficiently allocate risk.
Coinciding with, or perhaps a leading cause of, the industry’s embrace of liquidated damages provisions, was the shift in courts throughout the country from disfavoring such clauses to accepting them (within limits) as an appropriate exercise of contract rights. While some variation exists among the states, courts have generally recognized that liquidated damages clauses are a viable alternative to proof of actual loss so long as (i) actual losses were difficult to quantify, and (ii) the stipulated sum bears a reasonable relationship to the anticipated loss at the time of contracting. See, e.g., Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 356. Conversely, a clause that penalizes the breaching party rather than serving as an estimate of probable loss is likely to be found unenforceable.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Adam M. Tuckman, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLPMr. Tuckman may be contacted at
atuckman@watttieder.com
Rhode Island District Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Case for Spoliation Due to Potential Unfair Prejudice to Defendant
September 04, 2018 —
Lian Skaf - The Subrogation StrategistIn Amica Mutual Ins. Co. v. BrassCraft Mfg., Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88986 (D.R.I. May 29, 2018), the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island addressed the question of whether the defendant was so unfairly prejudiced by the subrogating insurer’s spoliation of evidence that dismissal of the plaintiff’s case was the appropriate Rule 37(b)(2)(a)(i)-(vi) sanction. The court, focusing on the potential for undue prejudice to the defendant, granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lian Skaf, White and Williams, LLPMr. Skaf may be contacted at
skafl@whiteandwilliams.com
Jason Smith and Teddie Arnold Co-Author Updated “United States – Construction” Chapter in 2024 Legal 500: Country Comparative Guides
May 28, 2024 —
Jason Smith & Edward (Teddie) Arnold - The Construction SeytJason Smith and
Teddie Arnold, partners in Seyfarth’s Washington, DC office, have co-authored an updated “United States – Construction” chapter in the 2024 edition of The Legal 500: Country Comparative Guides. Seyfarth continues to participate as an exclusive contributor for this comprehensive overview of construction-specific laws and regulations in the United States. Topics covered include, but are not limited to, requirements and obligations, permits and licencing, procurement, financing and security, and disputes, as well as insight and opinion on current challenges and opportunities. To access and download a copy of the chapter, click
here.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jason N. Smith, Seyfarth and
Edward V. Arnold, Seyfarth
Mr. Smith may be contacted at jnsmith@seyfarth.com
Mr. Arnold may be contacted at earnold@seyfarth.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Arezoo Jamshidi Selected to the 2023 San Diego Super Lawyers List
April 03, 2023 —
Arezoo Jamshidi - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPCongratulations to Arezoo Jamshidi who has been selected to the 2023 San Diego Super Lawyers list. Each year, no more than five percent of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor. Super Lawyers, part of Thomson Reuters, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area. The result is a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys. The Super Lawyers lists are published nationwide in Super Lawyers magazines and in leading city and regional magazines and newspapers across the country. Super Lawyers magazines also feature editorial profiles of attorneys who embody excellence in the practice of law.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Arezoo Jamshidi, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPMs. Jamshidi may be contacted at
ajamshidi@hbblaw.com
California Supreme Court Rejects Third Exception to Privette Doctrine
July 03, 2022 —
Lewis BrisboisWalnut Creek, Calif. (May 25, 2022) - In Gonzalez v. Mathis (August 19, 2021) 12 Cal. 5th 29, the California Supreme Court considered whether to create a third exception to the Privette Doctrine specific to known hazards on a worksite, when a contractor cannot remedy the hazard by taking reasonable safety precautions to protect against it.
Privette Background
Under the Privette Doctrine, the hirer of an independent contractor generally cannot be liable for injuries sustained by the independent contractor or its employees while on the job. This is due to the “strong presumption” that the hirer delegates all responsibility for workplace safety to the independent contractor. See Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 689. Since the Privette ruling in 1993, the California Supreme Court has identified two circumstances in which the presumption may be overcome. First, the hirer may be liable when it retains control over any part of the independent contractor’s work and negligently exercises that retained control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the injury. Hooker v. Dept. of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal. 4th 198, 213. Second, a landowner who hires an independent contractor may be liable if the landowner knew, or should have known, of a concealed hazard to the property that the contractor did not know of and could not have reasonably discovered, and the landowner failed to warn the contractor of the hazard. Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. (2005) 37 Cal. 4th 659, 664. Here, in the Gonzalez case, the court considered whether a landowner could be liable for known hazards on the property.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
Professional Liability Alert: California Appellate Courts In Conflict Regarding Statute of Limitations for Malicious Prosecution Suits Against Attorneys
April 28, 2014 —
David W. Evans & Stephen J. Squillario – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn conflict with an earlier decision by a different division within the same District, and with a prior decision of another District which followed the earlier case, Division Three of the Second Appellate District has concluded, contrary to established precedent, that the general two-year limitations period set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1 (“Section 335.1”) applies to malicious prosecution claims against attorneys, rather than the specific one-year statute of limitations for claims against attorneys codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 (“Section 340.6”).
In Roger Cleveland Golf Co., Inc. v. Krane & Smith, APC (filed April 15, 2014, Case No. B237424, consolidated with Case No. B239375), Roger Cleveland Golf Co., Inc. (“Cleveland Golf”), filed a malicious prosecution action against Krane & Smith (“the Attorneys”), who had unsuccessfully prosecuted the underlying breach of contract matter for their client against Cleveland Golf. In that action, on April 26, 2010, the trial court entered its order granting a motion for nonsuit and dismissing the complaint in favor of Cleveland Golf. On May 24, 2011, or approximately 13 months after the trial court had dismissed the underlying complaint, Cleveland Golf commenced a malicious prosecution action against the Attorneys. In the interim, the Attorneys initiated an appeal of the underlying judgment, which was eventually dismissed approximately seven months later. In response to the complaint, the Attorneys filed a special motion to strike, commonly referred to as an anti-SLAPP motion, which included the argument that the malicious prosecution claim was time-barred under the one-year limitations period of Section 340.6. The trial court granted the Attorneys’ motion based on the statute of limitations (and Cleveland Golf’s failure to demonstrate a probability of success on the merits) and dismissed the case. Cleveland Golf’s appeal followed.
Reprinted courtesy of
David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com, Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Georgia Supreme Court Limits Damages Under Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act
March 01, 2017 —
Chadd Reynolds – Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLPOn January 27, 2017, the Supreme Court of Georgia issued a decision determining whether the Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act (“GCSPA”) provides for punitive damages. While not directly related to construction, the GCSPA can be a potential mechanism for asserting claims against former employees that use company information stored in computers.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Chadd Reynolds, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLPMr. Reynolds may be contacted at
reynolds@ahclaw.com
