Contractor’s Burden When It Comes to Delay
October 26, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen a contractor is challenging the assessment of liquidated damages, or arguing that it is entitled to extended general conditions, the contractor bears a burden of proof to establish there were excusable delays that impacted the critical path and, in certain scenarios, the delays were not concurrent with contractor-caused delay:
When delays are excusable, a contractor is entitled to a time extension, such that the government may not assess liquidated damages for those delays. The government bears the initial burden of proving that the contractor failed to meet the contract completion date, and that the period of time for which the government assessed liquidated damages was correct. If the government makes such a showing, the burden shifts to the contractor to show that its failure to timely complete the work was excusable. To show an excusable delay, a contractor must show that the delay resulted from “unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Contractor.” “In addition, the unforeseeable cause must delay the overall contract completion; i.e., it must affect the critical path of performance.” Further, the contractor must show that there was no concurrent delay.
Ken Laster Co., ASBCA No. 61292, 2020 WL 5270322 (ASBCA 2020) (internal citations omitted).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Claim Preclusion: The Doctrine Everyone Thinks They Know But No One Really Knows What it Means in Practice
April 25, 2023 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogGenerally, I think restraint in litigation is a good thing. Don’t go crazy on your claims, don’t go nut-so in your discovery, and don’t present your case at trial in a way that causes the judge and/or jury to raise their eyebrows or shake their heads in disbelief. But, as with nearly everything, there’s always an exception. One of which is: don’t hold back on a claim because you “think” you might be able to bring it later, because you might not be able to as the next case, 5th and LA v. Western Waterproofing Company, Inc., 87 Cal.App.5th 781 (2023), demonstrates.
The 5th and LA Case
At the outset, let me first say how much I enjoyed reading this case based on the writing alone. The case, as the 2nd District Court of Appeals states, involves “a second lawsuit about an increasingly leaky roof.”
In 2012, property owner 5th and LA hired roofing contractor Western Waterproofing Company, Inc. to remove and recoat a parking lot that served also served as the roof over retail and office space below. Western completed its work in July 2012 and almost immediately 5th and LA noticed water that the coating was failing causing water leaks to the interior of the building.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Kansas City Airport Terminal Project Faces Delays, Rising Costs
February 06, 2019 —
Kansas City Star - Engineering News-RecordCosts have long since blown past initial estimates, prompting an independent review of the price tag. Its opening is eight months behind schedule and mounting delays drew heated questions from local officials last year.
Sounds like the continuing saga of Kansas City's planned airport terminal, overwhelmingly approved by voters in November 2017 . It's actually about the new international arrivals facility under construction at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport , or Sea-Tac.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Engineering News-RecordENR may be contacted at
ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
EPA Threatens Cut in California's Federal Highway Funds
October 14, 2019 —
Tom Ichniowski - Engineering News-RecordIn a new salvo against the state of California, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has threatened to restrict uses for some federal highway aid to the state unless it moves to withdraw what EPA terms “backlogged and unapprovable" plans that outline steps the state would take to reduce pollution and meet Clean Air Act standards.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tom Ichniowski, ENRMr. Ichniowski may be contacted at
ichniowskit@enr.com
Subcontractor Allowed to Sue Designer for Negligence: California Courts Chip Away at the Economic Loss Doctrine (Independent Duty Rule)
August 30, 2017 —
John P. Ahlers - Ahlers & Cressman PLLCAn architect may have to pay over $1 million to a subcontractor who was contractually obligated to rely on the designer’s plans – even though the architect was not a party to the contract.[1] That was the ruling in U.S. f/u/b/o Penn Air Control, Inc. v. Bilbro Constr. Co., Inc.[2]
The dispute involved a $7.3 million design-build contract award to Bilbro Construction (“Bilbro”) to renovate a facility for the Naval Facilities Engineering Command in Monterey, California. Bilbro hired an architect (“FPBA”) to serve as the designer of record and provide all the architectural design services. FPBA’s design team included an acoustical sub-consultant (Sparling). The general contractor (design builder) also retained Alpha Mechanical (Alpha) as the mechanical electrical and plumbing (“MEP”) design/build subcontractor. Alpha, in turn, subcontracted the MEP design to Shadpour Consulting Engineers. During the design phase of this project, Alpha’s MEP design was reviewed by FPBA, Bilbro, and Sparling at the 35, 75, and 100 percent design completion levels. Alpha demonstrated that it regularly received direct communications during design development from Sparling and FPBA, including comments, changes, and revisions. One example Alpha cited was it raised some concerns about anticipated noise level in eight rooms. Sparling made several recommendations to Alpha and Shadpour that were implemented.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John P. Ahlers, Ahlers & Cressman PLLCMr. Ahlers may be contacted at
jahlers@ac-lawyers.com
Construction Litigation Roundup: “Builder’s Risk Indeed”
October 24, 2023 —
Daniel Lund III - LexologyA contractor for a hotel in Seattle was tasked with constructing the hotel utilizing premanufactured modular hotel rooms. The modular unit portion of the project was the subject of a $15.8 million subcontract between the general contractor and the manufacturer. The manufacturer was also responsible to the GC for shipping and installing the modular units.
Shipping was to be “DDP,” or “Delivery Duty Paid” – which, according to a New York federal court, “is an international shipping term meaning that the seller assumes all responsibilities and costs for delivering property to the named place of destination, including export and import clearance, fees, duties, and taxes.” Additionally, per the subcontract, the manufacturer was responsible for “ensur[ing] all modular units [were] covered, secured[,] and protected from damage during the shipping process….” The modular units were shipped from Poland to Seattle. In the shipping process, the units spent some time in the Port of Everett in Washington state, where the units sustained water damage while sitting in port.
A related damage claim made by the subcontractor against the general contractor’s builder’s risk policy. On the face of the policy, the policy covered subcontractors as “additional insured” parties, covered all manner of materials and the like to be used on the project, and would provide that coverage in the process of transporting the materials insofar as “inland or coastal waters” were concerned. Yet, the builder’s risk insurer refused to cover the claim for the damages to the modular units which occurred while sitting in port in Everett.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
Insurer Motion to Intervene in Underlying Case Denied
August 10, 2021 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Colorado Supreme Court determined that the insurer defending under a reservation of rights could not intervene in the underlying case after the insured assigned its rights to any bad faith claim against the insurer. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Ass'n, Inc., 2021 Colo. LEXIS 365 (Colo. May 24, 2021).
Bolt Factory initiated a construction defects lawsuit against various contractors. Several defendants filed third-party complaints against subcontractors, including Sierra Glass Company. Auto-Owners agreed to defend its insured, Sierra Glass, under a reservation of rights. Auto-Owners declined to settle with Bolt Factory for $1.9 million, within policy limits. Sierra Glass then retains independent counsel and entered into a settlement with Bolt Factory. The settlement allowed Sierra Glass to assign its bad faith claims to Bolt Factory in exchange for the right to pursue the insurer for payment of the excess judgment rather than Sierra Glass. Instead of entering into a stipulated judgment, Bolt Factory and Sierra Glass proceeded to an abbreviated trial.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Replacement of Defective Gym Construction Exceeds Original Cost
January 22, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFAustin, Texas has torn down a school gym, the Turner-Roberts Recreation Center at the Overton Elementary School, due to structural problems which became evident after the gym was completed four years ago. The cost of the new gym is $6.4 million, more than the cost of building the gym in the first place. The city is paying $3 million in repair costs with the rest of the money coming from the companies that designed and built the now demolished gym. According to the Austin Statesman, the total cost to the city will be about $8.6 million.
The Turner-Roberts Recreation Center cost $5.6 million to build, but soon after it opened, structural problems were discovered. Cracks formed in walls and glass doors buckled. The settlement with the designer, contractor, and engineering firm did not require the firms to admit fault as they paid $3.4 million to fix the situation. The Statesman was unable to get a breakdown of how much each firm paid. Tom Cornelius, president of the GSC, the architectural firm on the project told the Statesman that "the foundation issues were not caused by design defects."
Initially, the city sought to repair the gym, but early excavation determined that the defects were too extensive. In addition to the structural flaws, it was also determined that the HVAC system was faulty. Excavation also damaged plumbing work. Tearing down the gym turned out to be the most cost-effective response.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
