Revisiting Termination For Convenience Clauses In Uncertain And Ever-Changing Economic Times
February 27, 2023 —
Adam M. Tuckman & Brittney M. Wiesner - ConsensusDocsIn these times of persistent inflationary forces and efforts to tame the consequences through rising interest rates, economic uncertainty abounds in the United States and around the world. As an approximately $1 trillion contributor to the economy in the United States (4.2% of GDP in 2021) alone according to the Associated General Contractors of America, the health and the growth of the construction industry is certainly susceptible to these rapidly changing macroeconomic conditions.
Presently, an unanswered question is how project developers will react to unpredictable fluctuations in project costs and interest rates. Although it seems unlikely to be a prevalent response, it is possible that substantial increases in borrowing, labor, or material costs would cause owners to pull the plug on projects that are in the advanced stages of construction. For projects in the nascent stages of development or construction, however, the calculous for owners becomes more tenuous. Both public and private owners may find it more prudent to indefinitely suspend or cancel pending or ongoing projects due to any, or a combination of, forecasted increases in project costs, shrinking funding, higher borrowing costs, or macro-economic uncertainty. Facing this quandary, how would an owner already under contract with a constructor and design team suspend or cancel its project? One potential approach is to invoke a termination for convenience clause found in the parties’ contract.
Reprinted courtesy of
Adam M. Tuckman, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs) and Brittney M. Wiesner, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Mr. Tuckman may be contacted at atuckman@watttieder.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Does the Russia Ukraine War Lead to a Consideration in Your Construction Contracts?
April 04, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMaterial costs are still affecting the construction industry. Supply chain impacts too. The volatility started with COVID-19 (and, in certain cases, before with the imposition of tariffs) and has continued through present date.
But what about the war between Russia and Ukraine and the impact this has had or may have on the supply chain? I think the spillover from the war (with oil, gas, the energy sector, etc.), including the imposition of any sanctions, is not fully realized other than the concern exists in an economy that is already battling through material costs and supply chain disruptions.
How does this affect you?
It may not.
Or you may regularly enter into construction contracts in which you would be smart to address material costs and supply chain impacts. The reason being is that everything from a risk standpoint should begin with your construction contract. Not addressing an issue does not actually mitigate the risk. Confronting the issue does mitigate the risk because you are contractually addressing a concern and know where the other party stands relating to that concern so that business decisions can be made.
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
Where Breach of Contract and Tortious Interference Collide
January 11, 2022 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsClaims for breach of contract are numerous in the construction law world. Without these claims we construction attorneys would have a hard time keeping the doors open. A 2021 case examined a different sort of claim that could arise (though, “spoiler alert” did not in this case) during the course of a construction project. That type of claim is one for tortious interference with business expectancy.
In Clark Nexsen, Inc. et. al v. Rebkee, the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia gave a great explanation of the law of this type of claim in analyzing the following basic facts:
In 2018, Clark Nexsen, Inc. (“Clark”) and MEB General Contractors, Inc. (“MEB”) responded to Henrico County’s (“Henrico”) Request for Proposals (“RFP”) for the design and construction of a sport and convocation center (the “Project”). Henrico initially shortlisted Clark and MEB as a “design-build” team for the Project, but later restarted the search, issuing a second RFP. Clark and MEB submitted a second “design-build” proposal, but Henrico selected Rebkee Co. (“Rebkee”) for certain development aspects of the Project. MEB also submitted proposals to Rebkee, and Rebkee selected MEB as the design-builder for the Project. MEB, at Rebkee’s request, solicited proposals from three design firms and ultimately selected Clark as its design partner. From December 2019 to May 2020, Clark and MEB served as the design-build team to assist Rebkee in developing the Project. In connection therewith, Clark developed proprietary designs, technical drawings, and, with MEB, several cost estimates. In February 2020, MEB submitted a $294,334.50 Pay Application to Rebkee for engineering, design, and Project development work. Rebkee never paid MEB. Henrico paid MEB $50,000.00 as partial payment for MEB’s and Clark’s work. MEB then learned that Rebkee was using Clark’s drawings to solicit design and construction proposals from other companies. On July 23, 2020, Rebkee told MEB that Henrico directed it to cancel the design-build arrangement with MEB and Clark and pursue a different planning method. MEB and Clark sued and Rebkee for, among other claims, tortious interference with a business expectancy. Rebkee moved to dismiss the tortious interference claim.
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
Death of Subcontractor’s Unjust Enrichment Claim Against Project Owner
April 12, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn a previous article, I discussed a subcontractor’s
unjust enrichment claim against a project’s owner and the death of this equitable claim if the owner fully paid the general contractor or paid the general contractor for the subcontractor’s work. This can be best summarized from a very short 1995 opinion out of the Fourth District Court of Appeal: “Unjust enrichment is equitable in nature and cannot exist where payment has been made for the benefit conferred. [Owner] paid [General Contractor] the full amount of its contract for the construction project. Accordingly, there can be no unjust enrichment claim to support [Subcontractor’s] claim.” Gene B. Glick Co., Inc. v. Sunshine Ready Concrete Co., Inc., 651 So.2d 90 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Celebrities Lose Case in Construction Defect Arbitration
May 26, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFAn arbitration panel has ruled that problems with the Idaho home of actors Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson were not due to construction defects but rather to “poor design and bad architectural advice.” The couple had settled with the architectural firm, Lake Flato of San Antonio, Texas for $900,000 and was subsequently seeking $3 million from Storey Construction of Ketchum, Idaho.
Problems with the couple’s home “included leaking roofs, inadequate drainage, fireplaces that did not vent properly and an inadequate air-conditioning system. In 2003, sliding snow from the roof damaged kitchen windows and roof components.”
The arbitration panel, according to the report in the Idaho Mountain Express and Guide, noted that “Hanks and Wilson were responsible for the full $167,623 cost of arbitration, but further denied a Storey Construction counterclaim that alleged Hanks and Wilson filed their claim out of malice.”
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Maximizing Contractual Indemnity Rights: Insuring the Indemnitor's Obligation
December 02, 2015 —
William Kennedy – White and Williams LLPContracting parties can circumvent the limitations of common law tort doctrines by drafting contracts with language that details the allocation or shifting of the risk of tort loss. Properly composed, “broad form” contractual indemnity provisions can permit an Indemnitee to shift the full range of tort exposure – damages and defense fees and costs – if they have the kind of specificity set forth in Part Two of this series, "Maximizing Contractual Indemnity Rights: Components of an Effective Provision." In most business transactions, however, both the Indemnitee and the Indemnitor want the indemnity obligation to be insured.
Part Three: Insuring the Indemnitor's Obligation
“Insured Contract Coverage”
Although CGL policies do not typically cover an Insured’s breaches of contract, per se, most insurance policies do cover a policyholder’s “incidental contracts” or “insured contracts” under which the policyholder has an obligation to indemnify an Indemnitee. The business contract (as opposed to the insurance policy) should require the Indemnitor to take all steps necessary to have the Indemnitee identified as either a Covered Person, Insured, or Additional Insured on the Indemnitor’s applicable insurance policies. There are subtle, but potentially significant legal rights and responsibilities that hinge on whether an entity is a Covered Person, Insured, Additional Insured, or some other classification. Purported Indemnitees may need to consult insurance coverage counsel to ensure that they are seeking the appropriate status from the Indemnitor’s CGL insurer.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William Kennedy, White and Williams LLPMr. Kennedy may be contacted at
kennedyw@whiteandwilliams.com
Sacramento Army Corps District Projects Get $2.1 Billion in Supplemental Appropriation
September 04, 2018 —
Greg Aragon - Engineering News-RecordThe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District has received supplemental funding for five District projects, totaling an investment of more than $2.1 billion in flood risk management efforts.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Greg Aragon, ENRENR may be contacted at
ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Just Because I May Be An “Expert” Does Not Mean I Am Giving Expert Testimony
January 17, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesOn a construction project, it’s hard to argue that the involved parties — whether an architect, engineer, contractor, subcontractor, developer, etc. — are not experts in their field, i.e., they all some scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge or skill particular to their industry. However, this does NOT mean when they testify in trial, at an arbitration, or at a deposition regarding the construction project they are offering expert opinions / testimony as it pertains to that project. Testifying as to facts based on personal knowledge or involvement on a project makes you a fact witness and is different than evaluating and rending an after-the-fact opinion as to the work of others. This does not minimize your knowledge or expertise; it simply means that relative to the construction project you are involved with, your testimony is that of a fact witness and not of an expert. (It is possible to wear both the fact witness and expert witness hat, but that depends on your subsequent role in the litigation or arbitration.)
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
