Use of Dispute Review Boards in the Construction Process
December 27, 2021 —
Sarah B. Biser - ConsensusDocsDispute Review Boards: Overview
Problems, disagreements and claims arise in most large and complex construction projects regardless of the project delivery method. These disputes can and do delay and significantly increase the cost of the project. Dispute Review Boards, also known as Dispute Resolution Board, Dispute Board, Dispute Avoidance Board or DRB, are often found in large construction projects to assist the parties to minimize, resolve or avoid disputes and mitigate adverse impacts to projects. To date, over $270 billion worth of construction projects have used the dispute review board process to avoid numerous disputes and achieve significant savings.[1]
Unlike mediation and arbitration, a DRB is convened at the very beginning of the project and conducts regular meetings and visits at the project site throughout, allowing the DRB to discuss, observe and monitor construction, progress and potential disputes. At these meetings, DRB members become familiar with many of the facts and acquaint themselves with the job site personnel. If a dispute is submitted to them, the panelists have a great deal of knowledge about the circumstances of the problem to aid them in reaching their recommendations or conclusions. DRBs also encourage open and honest communications among or between the parties during the project, which in turn, encourages avoidance or resolution of disputes before they become formal claims. In short, the DRP process involves real-time discussion of the dispute with highly qualified people who know the particular project from day one and can provide recommendations on how to resolve disputes.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sarah B. Biser, Fox Rothschild LLPMs. Biser may be contacted at
sbiser@foxrothschild.com
Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of Owner’s Claims Based on Contractual One-Year Claims Limitations Period
October 04, 2021 —
Cassidy Ingram - Ahlers Cressman & SleightIn a recent unpublished decision – Tadych v. Noble Ridge Construction, Inc.– the Washington State Court of Appeals, Division One, held that a one-year contractual claim limitations clause was valid and enforceable. The Tadych decision is important because it reiterates the strict approach courts will take to a claim limitations clause less than the statutory six years for breach of contract claims prescribed by RCW 4.16.040(1). In other words, when the parties agree to shorten the limitations period, the agreement will be enforced barring any procedural or substantive unconscionability.
In Tadych, plaintiff owners (the Tadychs) contracted with defendant contractor (Noble Ridge Construction, Inc., or NRC) for the construction of a custom home in 2012. The contract provided a one-year claim limitations clause in which claims could be raised, and that all claims not raised in the one-year period would be waived. In December 2013, as the project neared completion, the Tadychs met with NRC to identify any outstanding project issues. The Tadychs noted several, including rainwater pools at the landing at the bottom of the stairs and several nicks and cracks on the stucco exterior walls.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Cassidy Ingram, Ahlers Cressman & SleightMs. Ingram may be contacted at
cassidy.ingram@acslawyers.com
Claims against Broker for Insufficient Coverage Fail
May 10, 2021 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiAfter a coverage dispute for damage caused by Hurricane Harvey was settled, the insured's claims against its insurance broker for providing insufficient coverage were dismissed. Hitchcock Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57452 (S.D. Texas Feb. 26, 2021).
The School District suffered $3.5 million in property damage after Hurricane Harvey struck. Its insurers denied coverage and the School District sued. During the litigation, the School District learned that the policies contained an arbitration clause and a New York choice of law provision. Rather than pursue its claims in arbitration, the School District settled with its insurers and sued its broker for failing to obtain insurance without arbitration or choice of law provisions. The broker moved to dismiss
The School District claimed that it had to settle with the insurers for less than what it would have settled had the arbitration and choice of law provisions not been in its policies. The court found this novel theory to be based upon pure speculation
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
Famed NYC Bridge’s Armor Is Focus of Suit Against French Company
January 18, 2021 —
Joel Rosenblatt - BloombergFrench construction giant Vinci SA faces allegations it’s partly to blame for the degradation of the armor installed on New York City’s Kosciuszko Bridge to protect against terrorist attacks and accidents.
Hardwire LLC, a Baltimore company that bid unsuccessfully on the project, previously sued one of its former executives for allegedly stealing its proprietary technology for bridge armor so he could win the contract. On Tuesday, Hardwire sought permission to add two units of Vinci to the suit, which claims damages of more than $40 million.
The armor is “splitting, delaminating, and is in danger of falling off,” causing a “clear and present danger,” according to the proposed revised complaint filed in federal court in Maryland. The separation “leaves significant vulnerabilities for the bridge cable.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Joel Rosenblatt, Bloomberg
Committeewoman Requests Refund on Attorney Fees after Failed Legal Efforts
February 10, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFWest Deptford, New Jersey township redevelopment counsel Mark Cimino had spent a year arguing that the city should receive a $4 million reduction in construction costs due to “inadequate documentation provided by the bank, as well as receipts showing disbursement had ‘improperly’ been made toward uses other than construction,” according to a December 30th 2013 article in the South Jersey Times. However, a state appellate court upheld the ruling that “the township had no basis” to request the reduction.
Now, Committeewoman Denice DiCarlo is “seeking a $10,000 refund on the attorney fees paid” to Cimino, the South Jersey Times reported on February 6th. “This entire matter has been a monumental waste of tax dollars, and I am angry that the entire township committee was misled by Mr. Cimino and induced to believe we had any reasonable chance of recovering loan proceeds from this lawsuit,” DiCarlo stated in a letter to Mayor Raymond Chintall.
Not all committee members agree with DiCarlo. Committeeman Sam Cianfarini told South Jersey Times that “he still believed Fulton Bank owed it to West Deptford to answer for any funds put toward anything other than construction.”
Cimino declared “that both the lawsuit and appeal were valid,” according to the February 6th article. He “accused DiCarlo of ‘playing politics.’”
Read the full story, December 30th Article...
Read the full story, February 6th Article... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Prevailing Parties Entitled to Contractual Attorneys’ Fees Under California CCP §1717 Notwithstanding Declaration That Contract is Void Under California Government Code §1090
December 20, 2017 —
Zachary Price & Lawrence ZuckerIn California-American Water Co. v. Marina Coast Water District (Nos. A146166, 146405, filed 12/15/17), the First District Court of Appeal held that a prevailing party was entitled to an award of contractual attorneys’ fees under Code of Civil Procedure §1717 even though the underlying contracts were declared void under Government Code §1090.
Appellant Marina Coast Water District (“Marina”) and Respondent Monterey County Water Resources Agency (“Monterey”), both public water agencies, and Respondent California-American Water Company (“California-American”), a water utility, entered into several contracts to collaborate on a water desalination project. The parties agreed that the prevailing party of any action in any way arising from their agreements would be entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees.
Reprinted courtesy of
Zachary Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Lawrence Zucker, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Price may be contacted at zprice@hbblaw.com
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Commonwealth Court Holds That Award of Attorney's Fees and Penalties is Mandatory Under the Procurement Code Upon a Finding of Bad Faith
October 29, 2014 —
William J. Taylor and Michael Jervis – White and Willams LLPIn a decision regarding a payment claim by a highway contractor against the City of Allentown, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has held that an award of attorney's fees and penalties is mandatory under the terms of the Pennsylvania Procurement Code, 62 Pa.C.S. § 3901 et seq., upon a finding of bad faith by the non-paying government agency, even though the statute only states that a court “may” award such fees and penalties.
In A. Scott Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Allentown, Cmwlth. Ct. No. 2163 C.D. 2013, the plaintiff, A. Scott Enterprises, Inc. (Scott), won a contract with the City of Allentown (City) to construct a one mile roadway. Several weeks after commencing work, Scott learned that soil at the construction site was potentially contaminated with arsenic, and was instructed by the City to suspend its work. Because of the soil contamination, additional work would be required to complete the project and Scott submitted proposals for the additional work plus its suspension costs. However, the City never approved the additional work and the project was never completed. The City never paid Scott for costs incurred due to the suspension of the work and Scott filed suit to recover its losses. The jury found that the City had breached the contract with Scott and had acted in bad faith in violation of the Procurement Code, and awarded damages to Scott for its unreimbursed suspension costs. However, the trial court denied Scott’s request for an award of attorney's fees and penalty interest. Both Scott and the City appealed the final judgment to the Commonwealth Court, which reversed the trial court’s refusal to award attorney's fees and penalties.
Reprinted courtesy of
William J. Taylor, White and Williams LLP and
Michael Jervis, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Taylor may be contacted at taylorw@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Jervis may be contacted at jervism@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Diggin’ Ain’t Easy: Remember to Give Notice Before You Excavate in California
February 15, 2018 —
Matthew Peng – Construction Law Blog If you are reading this blog, my guess is that you know what excavation is and why it is important to the construction process. However, what you may not know is the complicated California law that governs this process. The statute for an excavation contractor to be familiar with is California Government Code section 4216,
et seq. However, like most things worth pursuing, that is easier said than done. Section 4216 contains several layers of prerequisites and requirements. This article will explore the notice requirement.
Section 4216.1 requires “every operator of a subsurface installation” to share costs of a regional notification center. This is necessary because Section 4216.2(b) requires “an excavator planning to conduct an excavation shall notify the appropriate regional notification center of the excavator’s intent to excavate” before beginning that excavation. The statute lists two regional notification centers: the Underground Service Alert—Northern California and the Under Ground Service Alert—Southern California.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Matthew Peng, Gordon & ReesMr. Peng may be contacted at
mpeng@grsm.com
