Be Mindful Accepting Payment When Amounts Owed Are In Dispute
August 29, 2022 —
Nicholas Korst - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCAfter completing work on a project, or even during a project, it is not uncommon for some portion of the contract balance and/or a claim to be in dispute. As a contractor or subcontractor, it is important to be careful what is signed (or not signed) upon receipt of any payment both during and after completion of work on a project. One of the most common documents signed related to a receipt of payment is a lien/claim release document. This can be in the form of a conditional, unconditional, progress and/or final release. The language included in the release document is critically important, especially as it pertains to disputed amounts. As a contractor or subcontractor, if there are known disputes related to amounts owing, whether it be contract balance, disputed change order(s), a delay or inefficiency claim, or any other amounts believed to be owed, it is important to include language in the lien release that expressly carves out the disputed amounts. The same should be done for disputes related to extensions of time. This allows the contractor to accept the payment and release rights for the undisputed work, but continue to reserve its right to pursue the amounts in dispute later. If disputed amounts are not carved out, those amounts may effectively be waived and the subcontractor or contractor may lose all rights to recovery.
As a subcontractor in Alaska recently learned, there are potentially other ways a contractor may waive or lose its rights to recover amounts in dispute – without even signing a waiver or release document. In Smallwood Creek, Inc. v. Build Alaska General Contracting, LLC et al., the general contractor sent the subcontractor a check described as “final payment.” The subcontractor believed it was owed more than what the general contractor had sent and refused to accept the check. Months later, the subcontractor deposited the check. The subcontractor reversed course again and attempted to repay the general contractor the amount deposited. The general contractor refused, claiming the subcontractor’s acceptance of payment constituted satisfaction of all amounts owing to the subcontractor.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nicholas Korst, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Korst may be contacted at
nicholas.korst@acslawyers.com
New York Establishes a Registration Requirement for Contractors and Subcontractors Performing Public Works and Covered Private Projects
January 17, 2023 —
Christopher B. Kinzel, K. Greer Kuras, Aaron C. Schlesinger - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.By December 30, 2023, contractors and subcontractors bidding on public contracts and performing work on covered private projects in New York must register with the NYS Department of Labor, Bureau of Public Works, pursuant to the newly enacted Labor Law Section 220-i. The DOL has until June 28, 2023 to establish regulations to carry out the new law. There will be an online system where registrations and disclosures are publicly available.
The stated purpose of the law is to help enforce New York’s prevailing wage and other worker protection laws. The DOL will create an online system through which contractors and subcontractors will have to answer questions and submit documents about:
- the business entity and its owners and officers
- unemployment and workers’ compensation insurance
- any outstanding wage assessments
- debarment under New York or federal law, or any other state’s laws
- final determinations of a violation of any labor laws, employment tax laws, or workplace safety standards (including OSHA)
- association or signatory to an apprenticeship program
If the DOL approves the submission, the contractor will receive a registration certificate that remains valid for two years.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher B. Kinzel, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.,
K. Greer Kuras, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Kinzel may be contacted at ckinzel@pecklaw.com
Ms. Kuras may be contacted at gkuras@pecklaw.com
Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mitigating the Consequences of Labor Unrest on Construction Projects
February 14, 2023 —
Cameron Lukas, Alan Winkler & Gregory Begg - ConsensusDocsUntil this past year, we have enjoyed an era of relative labor stability. It’s true, however, that labor unrest frequently coincides with inflationary pressure on prices, something that we are currently experiencing. The recent nationwide rail workers strike was averted only through the extraordinary intervention of the federal government. More recently, thousands of academic workers in the University of California system went on strike. Underscoring this development was a November 2022 New York Times article reporting that polls showed the highest level of support for organized labor since the 1960s. The same article also quoted a professor of labor relations warning that the current economy presents a high potential for strikes. This recalls the sixties and seventies when increased costs due to inflation led to a multitude of strikes.
The construction industry has been historically strike-prone with approximately 22% of all strikes during the 1960s involving construction projects, contrasted with the fact that construction workers themselves accounted for only roughly 5% of the nation’s nonagricultural labor force. Incredibly, in 1969 alone, a record number of nearly 1,000 construction strikes occurred nationwide with 20 million worker days lost, more than five times the lost working time of the rest of the economy.
[1]
Reprinted courtesy of
Cameron Lukas, Peckar & Abramson, P.C,
Alan Winkler, Peckar & Abramson, P.C and
Gregory Begg, Peckar & Abramson, P.C
Mr. Lukas may be contacted at clukas@pecklaw.com
Mr. Winkler may be contacted at awinkler@pecklaw.com
Mr. Begg may be contacted at gbegg@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Critical Materials for the Energy Transition: Of “Rare Earths” and Even Rarer Minerals
September 12, 2022 —
Robert A. James, Ashleigh Myers, Shellka Arora-Cox & Amanda G. Halter - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogAs the world pursues ambitious net-zero carbon emission goals, demand is soaring for the critical materials required for the technologies leading the energy transition. Lithium may be the most well-known of these inputs due to its usage in batteries for vehicles and consumer electronics, but roughly 50 other minerals are central to energy transition technologies. During the coming years, producers, manufacturers and end-users will be increasingly exposed to the roles played by “rare earth” elements (roughly, atomic numbers 57 to 71), platinum group metals, and other materials.
The reasons for this heightened interest are simple—even if the underlying environmental, political and technological forces at play are complex:
- Lower-carbon technologies use different materials than carbon-intensive technologies.
The mineral requirements of power and mobility systems driven by renewable, nuclear, hydrogen and fusion energy are profoundly different from those forming the backbone of fossil fuel systems. Minerals such as lithium, nickel, copper, cobalt, and rare earth elements are vital for electric vehicles (EVs), batteries, fuel cells, electricity grids, wind turbines, smart devices, and many other essential and proliferating civilian and military technologies. For example, an offshore wind plant needs 13 times more mineral resources than a gas power plant of a similar size.
Reprinted courtesy of
Robert A. James, Pillsbury,
Ashleigh Myers, Pillsbury,
Shellka Arora-Cox, Pillsbury and
Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury
Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Arora-Cox may be contacted at shellka.aroracox@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment in Landis v. Fannin Builders
April 20, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFThe Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in Landis v. William Fannin Builders. Landis contracted Fannin Builders to build their home. The case involved staining problems on the T1-11 siding chosen by the plaintiffs.
After a year and a half of discussion on how to resolve the problem of uneven staining on the siding, Landis filed suit “against Fannin Builders, alleging claims for breach of contract, breach of the express limited warranty, and violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (“OCSPA”). Fannin Builders, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against 84 Lumber, alleging claims for breach of contract and indemnification. With the trial court’s leave, Fannin Builders also later amended its answer to add a counterclaim against appellees for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. In the counterclaim, Fannin Builders alleged that appellees still owed it $3,908.98 for the construction of appellees’ home.”
“In its decision, the trial court found in appellees’ favor on their breach of contract claim and against appellees on their claims for breach of the express limited warranty and violation of the OCSPA. Additionally, the trial court found in Fannin Builders’ favor on its counterclaim for breach of contract and against Fannin Builders on its third-party claims for breach of contract and indemnity. The trial court determined that appellees’ damages amounted to $66,906.24, and after setting off the $3,908.98 that appellees owed Fannin Builders under the construction contract, the trial court awarded appellees $62,997.26. The trial court reduced its decision to judgment on May 18, 2010.”
Fannin Builders appealed this judgment and assigned the following errors:
[1.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant Breached its Contract with Appellees when it provided a Semi-Transparent Oil-Based Stain that Simply did not Meet their Approval.
[a.] The Contract does not Contain a Satisfaction Clause.
[b.] Even if the Court Implies a Satisfaction Clause, the Court Should Apply an Objective Standard.
[2.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Failing to Consider Appellant’s Right to Cure.
[3.] The Trial Court committed Reversible Error by not Assessing Damages Using “Diminished Value Standard,” and by Creating a Remedy that Constitutes Economic Waste.
[4.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant is Barred from Seeking Indemnification When 84 [Lumber] Never Fulfilled its Obligations Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement Entered on August 2, 2005.
In response to the first assigned error, the Court of Appeals stated: “Because the failure to provide siding of a uniform color, not appellees’ displeasure, breached the contract, we reject Fannin Builders’ contention that the trial court implied a satisfaction clause into the contract and found a breach of that clause. Accordingly, we overrule Fannin Builders’ first assignment of error.”
The Court of Appeals overruled the second assignment of error and provided the following reasoning: “Although Fannin Builders depends upon a term of the limited warranty for its right to cure, the trial court concluded that no breach of the limited warranty occurred. Fannin Builders breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIA’s Quality Standards. Consequently, the limited warranty does not apply to this case, and thus, it does not prevent appellees’ recovery of damages.”
The Appeals Court found “the trial court’s award of damages” was “both reasonable and supported by competent, credible evidence,” and therefore concluded “that the trial court did not err in setting appellees’ damages at $62,997.26.” The Fannin Builders third assignment of error was overruled.
The fourth and final assignment of error was also overruled by the Court of Appeals. “While Fannin Builders correctly asserts that 84 Lumber never installed the replacement siding, it ignores the fact that it ordered 84 Lumber to remove the replacement siding from appellees’ property. Thus, Fannin Builders precluded 84 Lumber from completely performing under the August 2, 2005 letter agreement. […] Consequently, Fannin Builders cannot now claim that the letter agreement is unenforceable or that it is entitled to indemnification from 84 Lumber. Because Fannin Builders assumed all liability for the defective siding in the letter agreement, it is responsible for appellees’ damages.”
James A. Zitesman, Columbus, Ohio Business Attorney, compared the case to Jones v. Centex (Ohio App. 2010), which had a different verdict:
“The common thread is the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the Jones case, the Court found that the buyers had in fact waived all implied warranties, including the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the contract between Jones and Centex, the builder stated that it “…would not sell the property to Purchasers without this waiver.” Probably should have been a sign to the buyers.
In the Landis case, the Court stated, “Contracts for the future construction of a residence include a duty, implied by law, that the builder must perform its work in a workmanlike manner.” The Court gave significant weight to the concept of the implied warranty of good workmanship. The builder relied upon the BIA Warranty which limits builders’ liability and exposure to legal issues. The trial court concluded there was no breach of the limited warranty, rather the builder “breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIAs Quality Standards.”
The Supreme Court of Ohio has accepted the Jones v. Centex Homes case for review.
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Connecticut Court Clarifies a Limit on Payment Bond Claims for Public Projects
May 15, 2023 —
Bill Wilson - Construction Law ZoneIn All Seasons Landscaping, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co., No. DBD-CV21-6039074-S, 2022 WL 1135703 (Conn. Super. Ct. April 4, 2022) the plaintiff, a subcontractor on a state project, commenced a lawsuit against the surety who issued a payment bond on the project two years after the subcontractor last performed any original contract work on the project. The defendant surety moved to dismiss the action based on the one-year statute of limitation in Connecticut General Statute § 49-42. The plaintiff countered that it complied with that deadline because it also performed warranty inspection work after the contract was completed and within the limitation period in section 49-42. The issue of whether warranty work or minor corrective work can extend the limitations period in section 49-42 had not previously been addressed by a Connecticut court.
Section 49-42(b) governs the limitation period on payment bond claims on public projects. It provides in relevant part that “no … suit may be commenced after the expiration of one year after the last date that materials were supplied or any work was performed by the claimant.” Section 49-42 provides no guidance on what “materials were supplied or any work was performed” by the claimant means, nor is there any direct appellate-level authority in Connecticut on this issue. What is clear under well-established law in Connecticut is that the time limit within which suit on a payment bond must be commenced under Section 49-42 is not only a statute of limitation but a jurisdictional requirement establishing a condition precedent to maintenance of the action and such limit is strictly enforced. If a plaintiff cannot prove its suit was initiated within this time constraint, the matter will be dismissed by the court as untimely.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLPMr. Wilson may be contacted at
wwilson@rc.com
Construction Industry on the Comeback, But It Won’t Be the Same
November 20, 2013 —
CDJ STAFF“The majority of contractors have readjusted and there’s cautious optimism, but there’s a new normal in construction,” Cam Dickinson, senior vice president of the construction group of Woodruff-Sawyer. But he cautioned that “it’s not going to come back like it was in the good old days.”
Some places, like the Miami or New York City areas are doing well, although New York City has the perhaps unique advantage of its market. Brian Schofeld, Crystal & Co.’s senior managing director and construction practice leader noted that for one New York City project, “the penthouse went for the full value of the gut renovation and that left the other 17 floors as a profit.”
Further signs of life are that “the residential private side is going gangbusters in the Bay Area and downtown San Francisco,” according to Bret Lawrence, vice president of construction for Woodruff-Sawyer, but he notes that “it’s nothing like it was.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New OSHA Rule Creates Electronic Reporting Requirement
June 22, 2016 —
John K. Baker & Kevin Conrad – White and Williams LLPThe United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued a
Final Rule revising portions of its Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illnesses regulations (Recording and Reporting Regulations). The revisions take effect August 10, 2016.
Employers subject to the new requirements have until July 1, 2017 to submit electronically the required information for calendar year 2016. OSHA will make electronically-submitted workplace-safety data for each reporting employer available publicly in an online database.
Reprinted courtesy of
John K. Baker, White and Williams LLP and
Kevin Conrad, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Baker may be contacted at bakerj@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Conrad may be contacted at conradk@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
