While Starts Fall, Builder Confidence and Permits are on the Rise
June 17, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe National Association of Home Builders’ (NAHB) Eye on Housing reported that “the NAHB/Wells Fargo Housing Market Index and the expansion of housing permits, suggest more growth ahead.”
While the Census Bureau and HUD reported that housing starts in May declined 11.1%, Eye on Housing points to a positive sign in that building permits were up 11.8% in the same month.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Massachusetts High Court to Decide if Insurers Can Recoup Defense Costs
February 07, 2018 —
Craig O'Neill - Complex Insurance Coverage ReporterThe Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) is set to hear argument on February 6 in a case that will decide whether insurers can recoup defense costs if it is later determined that they owed no duty to defend an underlying claim. At issue in
Holyoke Mut. Ins. Co. v. Vibram USA, Inc., No SJC-12401, is
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig O'Neill, White and Williams, LLPMr. O'Neill may be contacted at
oneillc@whiteandwilliams.com
New York Restrictions on Flow Through Provision in Subcontracts
August 14, 2023 —
Bill Wilson - Construction Law ZoneMost subcontracts include a flow through provision (also called flow down and incorporation clauses) stating that the subcontractor and contractor are bound by the same obligations as set forth in the prime contract between the contractor and owner. Many jurisdictions interpret such provisions narrowly, as illustrated in a recent case out of New York. In Amerisure Insurance Company v. Selective Insurance Group, Inc., 2023 WL 3311879, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s interpretation of a flow through clause in a construction subcontract. The Amerisure case involved a dispute over insurance coverage for a personal injury to a subcontractor’s employee on a construction project. The owner of the project sought defense and indemnity from the general contractor (GC) and its insurance company, who in turn sought coverage for the owner as an additional insured under the subcontractor’s policy. The GC based its argument for coverage on the flow through provision in the subcontract.
The prime contract required the GC to procure commercial liability insurance including the owner as an additional insured for claims caused by the GC’s negligent acts or omissions. The subcontract likewise required the subcontractor to procure commercial general liability insurance but required only that the GC be named as an additional insured. However, the subcontract also included a flow through clause, binding the subcontractor to the terms of the prime contract and assuming toward the GC all the obligations and responsibilities that the GC assumed toward the owner. However, the subcontract did not expressly require that the subcontractor name the owner as an additional insured, and in order for the owner to qualify as an additional insured under the subcontractor’s insurance policy, the subcontractor must have agreed in the subcontract to name the owner as an additional insured.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLPMr. Wilson may be contacted at
wwilson@rc.com
California Federal Court Finds a Breach of Contract Exclusion in a CGL Policy Bars All Coverage for a Construction Defect Action
July 19, 2021 —
Robert Dennison - Traub LiebermanThe Southern District of California published a decision in May 2021 in Associated Industries Ins. Co. v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 2021 WL 1921016 (S.D. Cal. 5/12/21) concerning the scope of a breach of contract exclusion in a general liability insurance policy as applied to a construction defect action.
The suit was filed by Associated Industries Insurance Company against Mt. Hawley Insurance Company for equitable contribution for amounts spent to defend and indemnify the parties co-insured, referred to as JGCI in the decision. JGCI agreed to build a building for a third party pursuant to a written construction contract. The City of Davis issued a certificate of occupancy for the building on May 6, 2005. The City’s permits stated the building was final on that date. Mt. Hawley issued the first of several annual general liability insurance policies in September 2005.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Robert Dennison, Traub LiebermanMr. Dennison may be contacted at
rdennison@tlsslaw.com
Labor Under the Miller Act And Estoppel of Statute of Limitations
May 08, 2023 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIf you want a case that goes into history of the federal Miller Act, check out the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal’s opinion in U.S. ex rel. Dickson v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, 2023 WL 3083440 (4th Cir. 2023). While I am not going to delve into this history, it’s a worthwhile read. It is also a worthwhile read for two other points.
First, it discusses what constitutes “labor” under the Miller Act.
Second, it discusses doctrine of estoppel to prevent a surety from raising the statute of limitations to bar a Miller Act payment bond claim, which is a doctrine you do NOT want to rely on, as this case reinforces.
Both of these points applicable to Miller Act claims are discussed below.
This case dealt with a prime contractor renovating staircases that was terminated by the federal government. The prime contractor hired a professional engineer as its subcontractor to serve as its project manager and supervise labor on the project. The engineer/subcontractor also had “logistical and clerical duties, taking various field measurements, cleaning the worksite, moving tools and materials, and sometimes even watering the concrete himself.” Dickson, supra, at *1.
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
Keeping Detailed Records: The Best Defense to Constructive Eviction
October 24, 2023 —
Ben T. Welch & Ken Brown - Snell & WilmerInevitably, commercial property owners and managers will be faced with a claim by a tenant of constructive eviction. This article is intended to describe what constructive eviction is and to suggest what owners and managers can do to prepare for, and ward off, such claims.
Constructive eviction occurs where a tenant’s “right of possession and enjoyment” of the leasehold is disrupted by the landlord in a manner that renders the premises “unsuitable for the purposes intended.”i Put another way, it is interference that is so “substantial nature and so injurious as to deprive the tenant of the beneficial enjoyment of a part or the whole of the demised premises.”ii Although easy to describe in theory, constructive eviction can be devilishly difficult to determine in the real world. In litigation, determining when interference crosses over the line to constructive eviction is intensely fact-sensitive and resists sweeping generalizations.iii
For instance, Utah courts have held that tenants have been constructively evicted when they have been subjected to continual harassment or insults by the landlord or the landlord’s agent,iv prevented or impaired in their access to the leased premises during operating hours,v or when a landlord fails to provide an operable elevator (or other essential commercial amenities) necessary for a tenant’s business operations.vi By contrast, claims of “discomfort” or “inconvenience” have been rejected as a basis for constructive eviction.vii The same goes for claims that a landlord wrongfully served a three-day notice to pay or quit.viii
Generally, constructive eviction is an affirmative defense made in response to a landlord’s lawsuit for nonpayment of rent.ix It is not, as is commonly supposed, a basis for a tenant’s premature abandonment of the premises. In other words, the defense is raised after the tenant has vacated as a result of being effectively “evicted.”x Further, the defense requires the tenant to actually abandon the premises and do so within a “reasonable time” after the alleged interference.xi A tenant cannot stay in possession and simply refuse to pay rent on the basis of constructive eviction.xii
The key consideration in preparing for, and responding to, a claim of constructive eviction is keeping good records. A tenant claiming constructive evicting likely must prove that the issue was raised in a timely manner and, despite multiple entreaties, was never resolved.xiii As such, it is critical that landlords acknowledge tenant complaints as well as document in writing their efforts to ameliorate those complaints. While a landlord does not carry the burden of proof for constructive eviction, detailed documentation can thwart a tenant’s claim that a landlord has been inattentive or unwilling to address the tenant’s concerns.
Detailed records are also useful in disputes where a tenant claims substantial interference. “The whole point of constructive eviction is that the landlord basically drove the tenant out through the landlord’s action or inaction.”xiv As such, a landlord that is unable to document the steps taken in response to complaints will be grossly disadvantaged whereas the tenant, which had control and knowledge of the premises, will have a much easier time describing how the alleged interference deprived them of enjoying the premises.
Even with meticulous records, however, owners and managers may still face claims of construction eviction. In such instances, counsel should be retained to properly advise on compiling, preserving, and employing the evidence necessary to refute the tenant’s claims.
i Gray v. Oxford Worldwide Grp., Inc., 139 P.3d 267, 269 (Utah Ct. App. 2006).
ii Gray, 139 P.3d at 270 (citing Neslen, 254 P.2d at 850) (internal formatting omitted).
iii See Gray, 139 P.3d at 269–70 (citing Thirteenth & Washington Sts. Corp. v. Neslen, 254 P.2d 847, 850 (Utah 1953)); Brugger v. Fonoti, 645 P.2d 647, 648 (Utah 1982).
iv See Gray, 139 P.3d at 270–71.
v Thirteenth & Washington Sts. Corp. v. Neslen, 254 P.2d 847 (Utah 1953).
vi See Richard Barton Enterprises, Inc. v. Tsern, 928 P.2d 368, 375, 378 (Utah 1996) (citing Union City Union Suit Co. v. Miller, 162 A.D.2d 101, 556 N.Y.S.2d 864 (1990)).
vii See Myrah v. Campbell, 163 P.3d 679, 682–84 (Utah Ct. App. 2007).
viii Barton v. MTB Enterprises, 889 P.2d 476, 477 (Utah Ct. App. 1995); see also Brugger, 645 P.2d at 648 (stating that the tenant’s complaints revolved around standard problems commonly associated with building maintenance and did not rise to the level of substantial interference); viv Reid v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 776 P.2d 896, 898–900 (Utah 1989) (upholding trial court’s findings of fact concerning insufficiency of disruption so as to justify claim for constructive eviction).
ix See Kenyon v. Regan, 826 P.2d 140, 142 (Utah Ct. App. 1992).
x See Kenyon, 826 P.2d at 142.
xi See Kenyon, 826 P.2d at 142; see also Barton v. MTB Enterprises, Inc., 889 P.2d 476, 477 (Utah Ct. App. 1995); Brugger, 645 P.2d at 648.
xii See Kenyon, 826 P.2d at 142 (citing Fernandez v. Purdue, 518 P.2d 684, 686 (Utah 1974)).
xiii See Brugger, 645 P.2d at 648 (noting that while the tenant had raised legitimate issues concerning state of the premises, the landorld had taken steps to remedy the problems within a reasonable time) (citing 49 Am.Jur.2d, Landlord and Tenant, § 617).
xiv Barton, 889 P.2d at 477.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ben T. Welch, Snell & Wilmer and
Ken Brown, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Welch may be contacted at bwelch@swlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The General Assembly Seems Ready to Provide Some Consistency in Mechanic’s Lien Waiver
March 14, 2018 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsBack in 2015, the
Virginia General Assembly amended the mechanic’s lien statute (Va. Code 43-3) here in Virginia to preclude any contractual provision that diminishes a subcontractor or supplier’s “lien rights in a contract in advance of furnishing any labor, services, or materials.” However, this amendment was only applicable to subcontractors and suppliers. For political and other reasons, general contractors in Virginia were left out of this change. This omission by the legislature put Virginia general contractors in the position of potentially being forced by project owners to waive their mechanic’s lien rights without the ability to run that risk downstream to their subcontractors and suppliers.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Safe and Safer
May 01, 2023 —
Grace Austin - Construction ExecutiveThere’s always room for improvement” is a cliché that applies to nothing if not health and safety in the construction industry, where doing things differently—doing them better—means preventing injuries and saving lives. In that spirit, Construction Executive asked five industry safety advocates a simple question: What is one thing about construction safety you’d like to see change?
Ranging from sweeping to granular, their answers all focus on the people underneath the hard hats. As Miller & Long’s Frank Trujillo notes: “‘Safety first’ has been a mantra in the industry for decades, but I think companies have forgotten what that means. It’s about people—who they are, what they care about, who they love and their wellness.”
But each of our experts—all of them representing companies who participate in ABC’s STEP Safety Management System —has a different idea of how safety in the construction industry can and should evolve, and what needs to change. Their answers below have been condensed and edited for clarity.
Reprinted courtesy of
Grace Austin, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
