Sometimes a Reminder is in Order. . .
February 18, 2020 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsRecently, I was talking with my friend Matt Hundley about a recent case he had in the Charlottesville, VA Circuit Court. It was a relatively straightforward (or so he and I would have thought) breach of contract matter involving a fixed price contract between his (and an associate of his Laura Hooe) client James River Stucco and the Montecello Overlook Owners’ Association. I believe that you will see the reason for the title of the post once you hear the facts and read the opinion.
In James River Stucco, Inc. v. Monticello Overlook Owners’ Ass’n, the Court considered Janes River Stucco’s Motion for Summary Judgment countering two arguments made by the Association. The first Association argument was that the word “employ” in the contract meant that James River Stucco was required to use its own forces (as opposed to subcontractors) to perform the work. The second argument was that James River overcharged for the work. This second argument was made without any allegation of fraud or that the work was not 100% performed.
Needless to say, the Court rejected both arguments. The Court rejected the first argument stating:
In its plain meaning, “employ” means to hire, use, utilize, or make arrangements for. A plain reading of the contractual provisions cited–“shall employ” and references to “employees”–and relied on by Defendant does not require that the persons performing the labor, arranged by Plaintiff, be actual employees of the company or on the company’s payroll. It did not matter how the plaintiff accomplished the work so long as it was done correctly. The purpose of those provisions was to allocate to Plaintiff responsibility for supplying a sufficient workforce to get the work done, not to impose HR duties or require the company to use only “in house” workers. So I find that use of contracted work does not constitute a breach of the contract or these contractual provisions.
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
Homeowner Who Wins Case Against Swimming Pool Contractor Gets a Splash of Cold Water When it Comes to Attorneys’ Fees
February 05, 2024 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogLooking outside as of late it seems like the glorious, sun-drenched days of Summer are just a nostalgic memory of days long gone. So, to bring back some of those warm-weather memories, I have a swimming pool case for you. Although, like most of the things we write about here on the California Construction Law Blog it’s not all fun-in-the-sun.
The Lee Case
In Lee v. Cardiff, 94 Cal.App.5th 398 (2023), Homeowner Dianne Lee entered into a construction contact with contractor David Brian Cardiff doing business as Advantage Pools Bay Area for a swimming pool and landscaping project totaling $231,500. It must have been quite a pool.
As these things sometimes go, a dispute arose and Cardiff left the job before its was finished. Lee later sued alleging breach of contract, negligent construction and violation of the Contractor State License Law.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Illinois Supreme Court Limits Reach of Implied Warranty Claims Against Contractors
April 10, 2019 —
Thomas Cronin - Gordon & Rees Construction Law BlogIn a recent decision, the Illinois Supreme Court held that a purchaser of a newly constructed home could not assert a claim for breach of the implied warranty of habitability against a subcontractor where the subcontractor had no contractual relationship with the purchaser. Sienna Court Condo. Ass’n v. Champion Aluminum Corp., 2018 IL 122022, ¶ 1. The decision overruled Minton v. The Richards Group of Chicago, which held that a purchaser who “has no recourse to the builder-vendor and has sustained loss due to the faulty and latent defect in their new home caused by the subcontractor” could assert a claim of a breach of the warranty of habitability against the subcontractor. 116 Ill. App. 3d 852, 855 (1983).
In Sienna Court Condo. Ass’n, the plaintiff alleged that the condo building had several latent defects which made individual units and common areas unfit for habitation. 2008 IL 122022 at ¶ 3. The Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that privity should not be a factor in determining whether a claim for a breach of the warranty of habitability can be asserted. Id. at ¶ 19. The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that claims for a breach warranty of habitability should not be governed by contract law but should instead be governed by tort law analogous to application of strict liability. Id.
The Court reasoned that the economic loss rule, as articulated in Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. National Tank Co., 91 Ill. 2d 69, 91 (1982), refuted the plaintiff’s argument that the implied warranty of habitability should be covered by tort law. 2008 IL 122022 at ¶ 20. Under the economic loss rule, a plaintiff “cannot recover for solely economic loss under the tort theories of strict liability, negligence, and innocent misrepresentation.” National Tank Co., 91 Ill. 2d at 91. The Court explained that the rule prevented plaintiffs from turning a contractual claim into a tort claim. 2008 IL 122022 at ¶ 21. The Court further noted that contractual privity is required for a claim of economic loss, and an economic loss claim is not limited to strict liability claims. Id. Because the plaintiff’s claim was solely for an economic loss, it was a contractual claim in nature; therefore, the Court concluded that “the implied warranty of habitability cannot be characterized as a tort.” Id. at ¶ 22.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Thomas Cronin, Gordon & Rees Scully MansukhaniMr. Cronin may be contacted at
tcronin@grsm.com
Risk-Shifting Tactics for Construction Contracts
February 24, 2020 —
Nate Budde - Construction ExecutiveAnyone who has worked in the construction industry is familiar with the financial risks involved. With thin margins, cash flow issues and the litany of potential claims and damages that can arise, contractors need to be able to manage that risk properly.
There is the right way of going about it, and there's a wrong way. Unfortunately, the wrong way (which involves using leverage and shifting risk to other parties) is the more prevalent approach. There are different contractual tactics employed by owners and general contractors alike to shift financial risk to other parties.
Why is construction so financially risky?
There are a few different reasons there is so much risk involved. First and foremost, the construction payment chain itself is inherently risky. Owners and lenders release project funds and trust that the money will reach everyone on the job. But that can’t happen unless each link in the payment chain passes payment to the next. That's a lot of trust for an industry that's not particularly known for it.
Another reason is how construction projects begin. Upfront payment is rare in this industry. This leads to floating the initial costs, extending credit and potentially borrowing money to do so. And those who typically bear this burden, lower-tier subs and suppliers, are the least equipped for that level of risk.
Reprinted courtesy of
Nate Budde, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Budde may be contacted at
nate@levelset.com
New Change Order Bill Becomes Law: RCW 39.04.360
July 08, 2024 —
Brett M. Hill - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCA new statute (RCW 39.04.360) became effective on June 6, 2024, and it applies to extra work performed by contractors and subcontractors on public and private projects in Washington State. The intent of the original bill was to allow contractors and subcontractors to get paid sooner for undisputed additional work. The statute does not apply to private residential projects of 12 units or less. The statute allows for recovery of interest for contractors/subcontractors at 1% per month (12% per year) on the value of the additional work if the statute is violated.
Here are the requirements of the new statute:
- Public and private owners must issue a change order for the undisputed amount of additional work performed by a contractor, subcontractor, or supplier no later than 30 days after the work is satisfactorily completed and the change is requested by the contractor.
- General contractors, and subcontractors with lower-tier subs, must issue a change order to their subcontractors impacted by the change within 10 days after receipt of the approved change order from the owner/upper-tier contractor.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brett M. Hill, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Hill may be contacted at
brett.hill@acslawyers.com
Occurrence Found, Business Risk Exclusions Do Not Bar Coverage for Construction Defects
May 13, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe court determined that the supplier of cement for the construction of pools had coverage for alleged construction defects in the finished pools. Harleysville Worcester Ins. Co. v. Paramount Concrete, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43889 (D. Conn. March 31, 2014).
R.I. Pools sued Paramount, a manufacturer and supplier of shotcrete, after cracking appeared in nineteen pools built by R.I. Pools using Paramount's shotcrete. The jury awarded R.I. Pools compensatory damages of $2,760,000.
Paramount's insurer, Harleysville, defended under a reservation of rights. After the verdict, Harleysville filed for a declaratory judgment that there was no coverage under the CGL policy. Paramount filed for partial summary judgment.
Harleysville first argued there was no occurrence. The policy's definition of occurrence included the phrase, "continuous exposure." This broadened the term "occurrence" beyond the word accident to include a situation where damage occurred over a period of time, rather than suddenly or instantaneously.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Demonstrating A Fraudulent Inducement Claim Or Defense
May 18, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn a recent case, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court’s denial of a motion for a temporary injunction sought by an employer due to an independent contractor’s violation of a non-compete and non-solicitation provision in an employment / independent contractor agreement (“employment agreement”). You can find more on this case and the enforcement of the non-compete and non-solicitation clause
here.
A worthy discussion in this case centers on the independent contractor’s fraudulent inducement defense. Specifically, the independent contractor, as a defense to the injunction, claimed that he was fraudulently induced into entering into the employment agreement because the employer promised he would make a certain amount of money and he would work predominantly in one geographic location. The employment agreement contained NO such representations. Instead, the employment agreement contained a fee and services schedule and the independent contractor would be compensated based on that schedule. It stated nothing as to the independent contractor only having to work, or predominantly working, in one geographic location, or that the independent contractor would be guaranteed “X” amount of money working in that location. Why is this important?
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
Insured's Failure to Challenge Trial Court's Application of Exclusion Makes Appeal Futile
November 15, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's granting of summary judgment to the insurer because the appeal failed to challenge the exclusion under which the insurer found no coverage. Sosa v. Auto Club Indemn. Co., 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 6520 (Tex. Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2022).
Sosa's house was damaged during Hurricane Harry on August 26, 2017. Sosa filed a claim with Auto Club. She reported that two feet of floodwater had entered her home, her roof was missing shingles and was leaking, and she had sustained interior damage. An adjuster estimated the cost to prepare the roof damage was $1,191.96, less that her deductible. Auto Club determined that any remaining damage was caused by flood water, which was expressly excluded from coverage.
On November 11, 2020, Sosa filed suit against Auto Club for breach of the policy. Among other things, she argued the adjuster spent minimal time at her home inspecting and was inexperienced. In its answer, Auto Club asserted Sosa's claim was time-barred by the statute of limitations. Sosa then filed an amended complaint and changed the date of the loss from August 26, 2017, to June 28, 2019.
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
