Some Work Cannot be Included in a Miller Act Claim
June 28, 2021 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsThe Miller Act is close to my heart here at Construction Law Musings. Payment bond claims under the Miller Act help protect subcontractors on construction projects where the national government or its agencies are the owners of the property and therefore mechanic’s liens are unavailable. Even where you follow the proper claims process under this statute, the question remains as to what sorts of costs can be included in the claim.
A recent case out of the Eastern District of Virginia federal court in Alexandria, VA gives some insight into the limits of claims under the federal Miller Act. In Dickson v Forney Enterprises, Inc. et. al., the Court looked at the question of whether costs of a project manager’s purely clerical duties can be included and correspondingly whether performing those duties can extend the relevant one-year limitations period for filing suit.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
New Strategy for Deterring Intracorporate Litigation?: Delaware Supreme Court Supports Fee-Shifting Bylaws
May 13, 2014 —
Marc Casarino and Lori Smith – White and Williams LLPA fee-shifting bylaw of a Delaware non-stock corporation is not facially invalid according to the Delaware Supreme Court’s May 8, 2014 opinion in ATP Tour, Inc. v. Deutscher Tennis Bund.
In this case, ATP Tour, Inc., a non-stock membership corporation (“ATP”) governed by a seven member board, had adopted a bylaw provision which provided that current and former members of ATP would be responsible for the litigation costs arising out of any litigation initiated by any such member against ATP or any of the other members in which the initiating party did not obtain a judgment on the merits that substantially achieved in substance and amount the full remedy sought. The bylaw provision had been adopted, in accordance with ATP’s charter, by the Board unilaterally without any consent from the members. The members had agreed at the time they joined ATP to be bound by the bylaws, as amended from time to time. Two members of ATP initiated a suit against ATP relating to certain actions taken with respect the ATP’s tournament schedule and format alleging both federal antitrust claims and Delaware fiduciary duty claims but did not prevail on any of their claims. ATP then moved to recover its legal fees relating to such actions.
Reprinted courtesy of
Marc Casarino, White and Williams LLP and
Lori Smith, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Casarino may be contacted at casarinom@whiteandwilliams.com; Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Everyone's Moving to Seattle, and It's Stressing Out Sushi Lovers
July 16, 2014 —
Peter Robison and Alison Vekshin – BloombergSooner or later, everyone moves to Seattle, went one saying in the city’s 1990s heyday. The trouble residents face now: What happens after everyone does?
Known for hiking and the open spaces of the American West, Seattle is in the midst of another boom that’s made it the fastest-growing among the top 50 U.S. cities. That’s causing angst over density, affordability, crime and other issues more familiar to an East Coast metropolis. At the same time, pay is outpacing the national average and an already rich cultural life is thriving as new restaurants and nightspots open.
“It’s a blessing,” Seattle Mayor Ed Murray, a 59-year-old Democrat, said of the growth. “But with it comes some real challenges.”
Mr. Robison may be contacted at robison@bloomberg.net; Ms. Vekshin may be contacted at avekshin@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Peter Robison and Alison Vekshin, Bloomberg
BKV Barnett, LLC v. Electric Drilling Technologies, LLC: Analyzing the Impact of Colorado’s Anti-Indemnification Statute
December 23, 2024 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation BlogIn the recent case of BKV Barnett, LLC v. Electric Drilling Technologies, LLC, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado dealt with significant legal issues concerning indemnification and insurance obligations in construction agreements. The ruling, handed down on September 26, 2024, serves as a crucial reminder of the limitations imposed by Colorado’s Anti-Indemnification Statute, C.R.S. § 13-21-111.5, and its implications for contracts in the construction industry.
This case arose from a Master Service Contract (“MSC”) between BKV Barnett, LLC (“BKV”) and Electric Drilling Technologies, LLC (“EDT”), in which EDT provided electrical services and equipment to an oil and gas lease wellsite in Texas. Following a lightning strike in early 2022 that damaged electrical infrastructure at the site, EDT dispatched Turn Key Utility Construction to repair the damage. During the repair work, an arc flash occurred, causing significant injuries to one of Turn Key’s employees, Matthew Lara, leading to a personal injury lawsuit filed by Lara in Dallas County, Texas. BKV sought indemnification, defense, and additional insured status from EDT under the terms of their MSC, which EDT contested.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Brief Discussion of Enforceability of Anti-Indemnity Statutes in California
September 10, 2014 —
William M. Kaufman – Construction Lawyers BlogCalifornia Civil Code Section 2782 has been amended numerous times over the last several years. Essentially, Anti-indemnity statutes may not be fully effective for contracts entered into before January 1, 2009. Some developers and general contractors attempted to comply with the new law, and changed the indemnity provisions of their contracts post January 1, 2006. The time bracket, or zone of danger if you will, is between 1/1/06 and 1/1/09—during those three years California Civil Code §2782 was amended several times. After 1/1/09 Type I indemnity is gone in a residential construction context.
The 2005 amendment to Civil Code §2782 rendered residential construction contracts entered into after 1/1/06 containing a Type I indemnity provision in favor of builders unenforceable;
The 2007 amendment added contractors not affiliated with the builder to the list of contracting parties who could not take advantage of a Type I indemnity provision;
However, the 2008 amendment changed the effective date to 1/1/09, dropped any mention of 2006, and added GCs, other subs, their agents and servants, etc., to the list of possible contracting parties who could not take advantage of a Type I indemnity provision[.]
Reprinted courtesy of
William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP
Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Woodbridge II and the Nuanced Meaning of “Adverse Use” in Hostile Property Rights Cases in Colorado
November 23, 2020 —
Luke Mecklenburg - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogEarlier this year, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued an opinion addressing at length “whether the requirement that the use be ‘adverse’ in the adverse possession context is coextensive with adverse use in the prescriptive easement context.” See Woodbridge Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Lo Viento Blanco, LLC, 2020 COA 34 (Woodbridge II), ¶ 2, cert. granted, No. 20SC292, 2020 WL 5405376 (Colo. Sept. 8, 2020). As detailed below, the Woodbridge II court concluded that the meanings of “adverse” in these two contexts are not coextensive—while “hostility” in the adverse possession context requires a claim of exclusive ownership of the property, a party claiming a prescriptive easement is only required to “show a nonpermissive or otherwise unauthorized use of property that interfered with the owner’s property interests.” Thus, the Woodbridge II court reasoned a claimants’ acknowledgement or recognition of an owner’s title alone is insufficient to defeat “adverse use” in the prescriptive easement context.
This significant ruling is at odds with a prior division’s broad statement, while considering a prescriptive easement claim, that “[i]n general, when an adverse occupier acknowledges or recognizes the title of the owner during the occupant’s claimed prescriptive period, the occupant interrupts the prescriptive use.” See Trask v. Nozisko, 134 P.3d 544, 553 (Colo. App. 2006). Perhaps for that reason, Woodbridge II is currently pending certiorari review before the Colorado Supreme Court in a case that should provide some much-needed clarity on what constitutes “adverse use” in the context of a prescriptive easement. As we await the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision, I thought it worthwhile to provide a brief analysis of the Woodbridge II court’s deep dive into the nuances of “adverse use” in this field of Colorado law.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & WilmerMr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at
lmecklenburg@swlaw.com
Counterpoint: Washington Supreme Court to Rule on Resulting Losses in Insurance Disputes
September 01, 2011 —
Douglas Reiser, Builders Council BlogThis is the fourth installment of posts on Vision One v. Philadelphia Indemnity, a Washington Supreme Court case touching on Washington construction and insurance law. After Williams v. Athletic Field got so much coverage, I wished that I had provided a forum for argument on Builders Counsel. While we await that opinion from the Supreme Court, I decided to let a few good writers have at Vision One here on the blog. Last week, attorney Chris Carr weighed in. Today, insurance expert David Thayer returns to give his final impression. David provided an initial peak at the case earlier this year. Thanks to both Chris and David for contributing to the debate.
In August 2011 the Washington Supreme Court will rule on a pair of joined cases that involve critical insurance coverage issues. The outcome of the ruling will impact a large swath of policyholders in Washington State including builders, developers, and homeowners to name a few.
The cases are Vision One vs. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance and Sprague vs. Safeco. The Vision one case comes from Division Two of the Appellate Court which overturned a lower court decision in favor the plaintiff, Vision One. Division Two decided that the collapse of a concrete pour during the course of construction did not constitute a resulting loss due to faulty workmanship. They further went on to redefine efficient proximate cause in a way that is harmful to policyholders by broadening rather than narrowing the meaning of exclusionary language in Philadelphia’s Builders Risk Policy.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wall Street’s Palm Beach Foray Fuels Developer Office Rush
June 28, 2021 —
Natalie Wong - BloombergFirst came the pandemic migration of New York financiers to West Palm Beach. Now comes the investor rush for offices to accommodate them.
With the likes of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Steve Cohen’s Point72 Asset Management opening outposts in the Florida city, an area once known for snowbirds and retirees has suddenly become hot market for commercial real estate. At the forefront is Manhattan developer Related Cos., which has been accelerating investments in West Palm Beach and now controls about a third of its downtown office stock.
It’s a bet that even as Covid restrictions ebb and New York bankers are called back to their office towers, South Florida’s pandemic boom is here to stay. The region, with its relatively lax virus rules, no state income tax and comparatively cheaper homes, last year saw thousands of people flock to enclaves such as West Palm Beach -- a city that for now has just slightly more downtown office space than a single Empire State Building.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Natalie Wong, Bloomberg
