Indirect Benefit Does Not Support Unjust Enrichment Claim Against Prime Contractor
July 05, 2023 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent case out of the Northern District of Florida dealing with a federal project provides an interesting discussion about a sub-subcontractor asserting a claim against the prime contractor for unjust enrichment. The prime contractor argued any benefit to it was indirect which does not support an unjust enrichment claim as the actual direct benefit flowed to the owner of the project – the government. The federal district court agreed and dismissed the sub-subcontractor’s unjust enrichment claim against the prime contractor because an indirect benefit does NOT support an equitable unjust enrichment claim. See U.S.A f/u/b/o Eco Universe Contracting, LLC v. Calvary Construction Group, Inc., 2023 WL 3884642 (N.D.Fla. 2023).
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
Will They Blow It Up?
March 28, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe issues concerning the Harmon Towers building in Las Vegas continue to make their way through the courts. As we noted in a previous piece, Cook County building officials stated that the building could be a hazard if Las Vegas were struck by an earthquake. The question of whether the building will continue to stand is just one of the issues in front of a judge.
MGM Resorts International argued at a March 13 hearing for permission to implode the Harmon hotel building. They claim that more than 1,700 defects have been discovered in the building and that the building is a public safety hazard. Arguing against demolition, Perini Building Company, the general contractor for the hotel, and its subcontractors are claiming that imploding the building would destroy evidence and prejudice juries in the ongoing construction defect claims. They claim that MGM Resorts wishes to abandon the building due to the economic slowdown. Perini Corp, the contractor for the project, claims that the building can be fixed. Perini claims that MGM’s position in the construction trial would be improved if the building is demolished.
After Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez heard the four days of testimony on the Harmon Towers building and whether it should be demolished, she scheduled more testimony, with two days in April and an entire week in July. Judge Gonzalez will be deciding whether the building will be torn down, imploded, or left in place.
Read the full story…
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New York State Legislature Reintroduces Bills to Extend Mortgage Recording Tax to Mezzanine Debt and Preferred Equity
March 15, 2021 —
Steven E. Coury & Marissa Levy - White and WilliamsCompanion bills in the New York State Legislature, Assembly Bill No. A3139 and Senate Bill No. S3074, if enacted, would subject mezzanine loans and preferred equity investments to the same recording and taxation requirements placed on mortgages.
The bills were reintroduced last month after similar bills (S7231/A9041) were introduced in the 2019-2020 legislative session. The prior bills died in committee when last year’s legislative session adjourned.
As discussed in our prior alert, the proposed bills would require: (1) a financing statement evidencing any mezzanine debt and/or preferred equity investments related to real property to be filed in the county in which the real property is located and (2) a recording tax, at the same rate as the applicable mortgage recording tax rate (2.80% for commercial mortgages over $500,000 in New York City), to be imposed on the amount of the debt and/or investment at the time the financing statement is filed. The bills contain a limited carve-out for owner-occupied residential cooperatives.
Reprinted courtesy of
Steven E. Coury, White and Williams and
Marissa Levy, White and Williams
Mr. Coury may be contacted at courys@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Levy may be contacted at levmp@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
One Shot to Get It Right: Navigating the COVID-19 Vaccine in the Workplace
January 18, 2021 —
Natale DiNatale, Stephen W. Aronson, Britt-Marie K. Cole-Johnson, Emily A. Zaklukiewicz, Kayla N. West & Abby M. Warren - Construction ExecutiveThe Food and Drug Administration has granted Emergency Use Authorization for Pfizer and Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines. As COVID-19 cases continue to rise, employers across all industries may be considering whether to adopt a vaccination policy requiring vaccination as a condition of working and/or accessing the workplace or jobsite. The FDA’s recent authorization of the COVID-19 vaccine raises several legal and practical issues that employers may wish to consider as they prepare for widespread distribution and availability of the vaccine in 2021.
Mandating the COVID-19 Vaccine in the Workplace
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently issued guidance suggesting that employers may mandate that employees receive the COVID-19 vaccination, subject to certain limitations. The EEOC has taken the position that administration of the COVID-19 vaccine does not implicate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because administration of the vaccine is not a medical examination. Under the EEOC’s guidance, employers, regardless of the industry, may require that employees receive the COVID-19 vaccine without having to justify that the mandate is job related and consistent with business necessity. Beyond that, construction employers should be aware of numerous issues and risks associated with mandatory vaccine policies.
Reprinted courtesy of Natale DiNatale, Stephen W. Aronson, Britt-Marie K. Cole-Johnson, Emily A. Zaklukiewicz, Kayla N. West & Abby M. Warren of
Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insured's Motion for Reconsideration on Denial of Coverage Unsuccessful
September 28, 2017 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe insured's motion to reconsider an order granting the insurer summary judgment challenges the insured's theory it was an additional insured was rejected by the federal district court. Hanover Ins. Co. v. Superior Labor Servs., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133127 (E.D. La. Aug. 21, 2017).
The court previously granted Lexington Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment, finding Allied Shipyard, Inc. was not an additional insured and was not entitled to a defense in the underlying actions. On reconsideration, Allied argued the court ruled it was not a "certificate holder" under the Lexington policy, but Allied was not given the opportunity to conduct discovery with respect to whether it was a "certificate holder." Summary judgment was granted before Allied answered Lexington's amended complaint in intervention. Allied submitted its answer could have raised a genuine issue of material fact because it was entitled to coverage under the policy if it was a certificate holder.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Motions to Dismiss, Limitations of Liability, and More
January 23, 2023 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsRemember BAE Sys. Ordnance Sys. V. Fluor Fed. Sols? I examined that case on two occasions previously here at Construction Law Musings. Previously the discussions were about the
mix (or lack thereof) between fraud and contract and about how
careful contract drafting is key.
In the
most recent opinion in this ongoing litigation from March of 2022, the Court examined various motions to dismiss the Complaint and Counterclaim in the matter. As a reminder, the basic facts are as follows.
The US Army Joint Munitions Command (“Army”) contracted with BAE Systems OrdnanceSystems, Inc. (“BAE”) to operate and maintain the Radford Army Ammunition Plant (“RFAAP”)under a basic ordering agreement (“BOA”). Under BOA Task Order 002, BAE contracted to replace the legacy NC facility at the RFAAP with a newer one (the “NC Project”). Initially, BAE subcontracted the NC Project to Lauren Engineers & Constructors (“Lauren”), but later terminated Lauren. Despite terminating Lauren, BAE’s timeline to complete the NC Project remained unchanged and BAE was required to use Lauren’s design for the NC Project. BAE gave interested bidders access to the Lauren design and other related documents and required the selected subcontractor to perform in accordance with the 85% complete Lauren design, that the Lauren design could be relied on for accuracy, and the selected subcontractor only had to complete the unfinished parts. Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC (“Fluor”) submitted a request for information (“RFI”) asking BAE about the standards referenced in the SOW. Fluor was unable to determine the completeness of the Lauren design but relied on BAE’s assertion that the design was 85% complete. BAE rejected Fluor’s initial bid as being too high given what BAE had already paid Lauren for its design and told Fluor to lower its bid because the design was close to complete. Fluor lowered its price and submitted another bid proposal that outlined a firm-fixed-price design/build that forecasted 32 months to complete the NC Project. BAE awarded Fluor an Undefinitized Contract Action (“UCA”) in the amount of $9 million dollars, later increased to $32 million. Under the UCA, Fluor began procuring materials and physical construction before a formal subcontract was agreed upon. On December 17, 2015, BAE and Fluor agreed to a fixed-price design and build subcontract (the “Subcontract”) in which Fluor agreed to design, construct, and partially commission the NC Project for $245,690,422.00, which included money spent already in the UCA. When this litigation began, Fluor was scheduled to complete its work by December 2020, 2.5 years beyond the originally agreed-upon completion date.
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
Ready, Fire, Aim: The Importance of Targeting Your Delay Notices
November 08, 2021 —
Bradley Sands, Jones Walker LLP - ConsensusDocsProviding written notice of delay to subcontractors when a project is behind schedule is a regular part of good project documentation practices. A properly targeted delay notice is an important, project correspondence that is an appropriate response to a subcontractor’s specific delay or ongoing delays. However, when a project falls behind schedule and the project management team is in the fog of war, it could seem like a good idea to start firing off project delay notices to any and every subcontractor. While these delay notices may provide a short term burst of productivity, you could find that those same notices are aimed back at you in a future litigation.
This article identifies two potential unintended consequences of sending delay notices that a contractor should keep in its sights and then provides recommendations for properly calibrating future delay notices in light of these potential consequences.
Acceleration: You Might Get What You Ask For
A delay notice to a subcontractor could be interpreted as—or expressly state—direction to the subcontractor to accelerate its work. When a subcontractor is directed to accelerate its work, it may incur additional costs for premium, extended, or overtime labor, additional crews, increased supervision costs, increased overhead costs, and losses due to productivity impacts from the acceleration (e.g., stacking of trades and fatigue). A subcontractor may be entitled to recover these increased costs that are caused by a direction to accelerate.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bradley Sands, Jones Walker LLPMr. Sands may be contacted at
bsands@joneswalker.com
Insured's Claim for Replacement Cost Denied
December 02, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the insured was only entitled to the actual cost value of his loss, not the replacement cost. Lytle v. Country Mutual Ins. Co., 2015 Ill. App. LEXIS 756 (Sept. 30, 2015).
The insured's home was built around 1903. On June 21, 2011, the insured discovered damage to his home because of a severe storm. He made a claim with his insurer, Country Mutual.
The policy contained a depreciation holdback provision. The provision said the insurer would not pay more than the actual cash value until the actual repair or replacement was complete. If the insured elected to accept actual cash value, he would have one year from the date of the loss to repair or replace the damaged property and request the difference between the actual cash value and the replacement cost.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
