New Jersey’s Independent Contractor Rule
January 07, 2015 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsFor this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Musings, we welcome back Bennet Susser. Bennet is a founding member and shareholder of the New Jersey law firm, Jardim, Meisner & Susser, P.C. He has over 25 years’ experience in representing clients in all types of complex (and not so complex) litigation, including those involving construction actions. His Construction Law Practice Group has deep experience in the representation of property owners, developers, homeowners, design professionals, materials manufacturers, contractors and subcontractors in connection with construction of high-rise and other residential developments, condominium conversions of older rental properties, commercial property, mixed-use projects, and governmental buildings. Issues handled include: construction defects and deficiencies related to residential and commercial construction, including roofing defects, water intrusion, and structural life safety; construction delays; liens; hurricane recovery and rebuilding; insurance coverage disputes, including negotiation and resolution of insurance claims related to rebuilding; mold and mildew claims; and construction contracts and related documents, including loan documentation.
Construction litigation often seeks to foist the culpable conduct of contractors and subcontractors upon an owner or developer of commercial or residential real property. Sometimes, such conduct is warranted, especially when the owner/developer has a significant role in the manner in which the construction project work is to be conducted. However, there are times when the general contractor is the party calling the shots. Why should an owner/developer be charged with the conduct of other independent contractors over whom no control was exercised? Under certain circumstances, such party may be insulated from liability based on the “independent contractor rule.” Put another way, general contractors’ and subcontractors’ status as independent contractors do not impute liability to an owner/developer for their alleged wrongful conduct under the principles of respondeat superior and vicarious liability.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PCMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Arizona Supreme Court Confirms a Prevailing Homeowner Can Recover Fees on Implied Warranty Claims
November 21, 2017 —
Rick Erickson - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogOriginally published by CDJ on August 30, 2017
On August 9th, in Sirrah Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Wunderlich, the Arizona Supreme Court settled the question about recovery of attorneys’ fees after prevailing on implied warranty claims against a residential contractor. The simple answer is, yes, a homeowner who prevails on the merits can recover the fees they spent to prove that shoddy construction breached the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability. Why? Because, as Justice Timmer articulated, “[t]he implied warranty is a contract term.” Although implied, the warranty is legally part of the written agreement in which “a residential builder warrants that its work is performed in a workmanlike manner and that the structure is habitable.”
In other words, a claim based on the implied warranty not only arises out of the contract, the claim is actually based on a contract term. Since, in A.R.S. § 12-341.01, Arizona law provides for prevailing parties to recover their fees on claims “arising out of contract” and because the implied warranty is now viewed by the courts as a contract term, homeowners can recover their fees after successfully proving breach of the implied warranty.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rick Erickson, Snell & WilmerMr Erickson may be contacted at
rerickson@swlaw.com
Policy Renewals: Has Your Insurer Been Naughty or Nice?
December 26, 2022 —
Latosha M. Ellis & Jae Lynn Huckaba - Hunton insurance Recovery BlogA review of insurance policies at renewal should be on every business’s annual task list—and it should be checked twice! Just as your business grows and evolves every year, so should your insurance program. Together with staying proactive and preparing for renewal months before the policy expiration, there are a number of best practices to put your business in the best position to maximize insurance recovery, including shopping around, evaluating changes to your business, engaging the appropriate stakeholders, and performing a policy audit with a coverage attorney.
Shop Around
An early start to the renewal process allows for thorough decision-making and more time to engage in negotiations with the insurer. Even if the preference is to stay with the existing insurer, shopping around creates some buying power within the negotiation process.
Evaluate Operational or Business Practice Changes
Risk control and mitigation have a direct impact on your premiums and availability of coverage. Assess any changes in the business’s exposure to risk and make any necessary insurance coverage adjustments.
Reprinted courtesy of
Latosha M. Ellis, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Jae Lynn Huckaba, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Ms. Ellis may be contacted at lellis@HuntonAK.com
Ms. Huckaba may be contacted at jhuckaba@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Industry Groups Challenge DOL’s New DBRA Regulations
December 16, 2023 —
Bret Marfut - The Construction SeytLess than a month after taking effect, the Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) broad changes to the regulations implementing Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (“DBRA”) are facing legal challenges in two federal courts. These newly-filed lawsuits could change things for those trying to navigate the new regulatory landscape. Contractors on DBRA-covered contracts should keep an eye out for developments.
On October 23, 2023, DOL’s final rule updating the regulations implementing DBRA became effective. The first major overhaul of its kind in forty years, the final rule made sweeping changes to the regulations governing payment of prevailing wages on most federally-funded construction contracts.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bret Marfut, SeyfarthMr. Marfut may be contacted at
bmarfut@seyfarth.com
DC Circuit Rejects Challenge to EPA’s CERCLA Decision Regarding Hardrock Mining Industry
September 23, 2019 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelIn a decision that will likely be welcomed by the electrical power, chemical manufacturing, and petroleum and coal products manufacturing industries, on July 19, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held in the case of Idaho Conservation League et al., v. Wheeler, that EPA acted reasonably in deciding not to issue CERCLA financial responsibility regulations for the hardrock mining industry. CERCLA (a.k.a., Superfund) was enacted in 1980 and amended in 1986, and Section 108(b) of CERCLA provides that EPA shall promulgate requirements that classes of facilities establish and maintain evidence of financial responsibility “consistent with the degree and duration of risk” associated with the production, transportation, treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous substances. However, no action was taken to implement Section 108(b) until 2009, and then only as the result of litigation challenging EPA’s failure to act. EPA and the petitioners agreed to a schedule by which the agency would propose financial responsibility rules for the hardrock mining industry—which was the initial class of industry facilities selected for the possible application of these rules—and the DC Circuit approved this schedule in 2016, which contained the court’s caveat that EPA retained the discretion not to issue any rule at the conclusion of the rulemaking.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Are Construction Contract Limitation of Liability Clauses on the Way Out in Virginia?
March 11, 2024 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsRemember BAE Systems and Fluor? This post is the third here at Construction Law Musings relating to this case which is a seemingly never-ending source for content. In the prior post discussing this case, the Court found that Va. Code 1-4.1:1 which bars waiver of a right to payment before work is performed did not apply because Fluor had provided work before execution of the contract or any change orders.
In the most recent opinion in this long-running litigation, and after a motion to reconsider by Fluor that was granted, the Court re-examined this finding along with the contractual language found in the Limitation of Damages (LOD) clause and came to the opposite conclusion regarding certain change orders that remained unpaid by BAE.
The Court first looked to the language of the contract itself and specifically the language in the LOD provision that states “Except as otherwise provided in this Subcontract.” The Court then looked at the change order provision and its typical equitable adjustment language and the mandatory nature of the equitable adjustment language. The Court found that the LOD provisions did not apply to change orders both because price increases due to change orders are not “damages” and because of the exception language in the LOD provision itself.
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
Arizona Purchaser Dwelling Actions Are Subject to a New Construction
September 04, 2019 —
William L. Doerler - The Subrogation StrategistArizona recently amended its Purchaser Dwelling Action statute to, among other things, involve all contractors in the process, establish the parties’ burdens of proof, add an attorney fees provision, establish procedural requirements and limit a subcontractor’s indemnity exposure. The governor signed the bill—2019 Ariz. SB 1271—on April 10, 2019, and the changes go into effect and apply, retroactively “to from and after June 30, 2019.” The following discussion details some of the changes to the law.
Notice to Contractors and Proportional Liability
Under the revised law, a “Seller” who receives notice of a Purchaser Dwelling Action (PDA) from a residential dwelling purchaser pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1363* has to promptly forward the notice to all construction professionals—i.e. architects, contractors, subcontractors, etc., as defined in A.R.S. § 12-1361(5)—that the Seller reasonably believes are responsible for an alleged construction defect. A.R.S. § 12-1363(A). Sellers can deliver the notice by electronic means. Once construction professionals are placed on notice, they have the same right to inspect, test and repair the property as the Seller originally placed on notice. A.R.S. § 12-1362(B), (C).
To the extent that the matter ultimately goes to suit, A.R.S. § 12-1632(D) dictates that, subject to Arizona Rules of Court, construction professionals “shall be joined as third-party defendants.” To establish liability, the purchaser has the burden of proving the existence of a construction defect and the amount of damages. Thereafter, the trier of fact determines each defendant’s or third-party defendant’s relative degree of fault and allocates the pro rata share of liability to each based on their relative degree of fault. However, the seller, not the purchaser, has the burden of proving the pro rata share of liability for any third-party defendant. A.R.S. § 12-1632(D).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLPMr. Doerler may be contacted at
doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com
2022 California Construction Law Update
December 27, 2021 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIt’s been a trying year as we approach the end of 2021. From the pandemic approaching nearly two years to concerns regarding climate change to the impact of inflation on everything from the cost of groceries to housing affordability.
During the first half of the 2021-2022 legislative session, a total of 2,421 bills were introduced in 2021 of which 836 made it to the Governor’s desk and 770 were signed into law. This is up from the 2,223 bills introduced in 2020 of which 428 bills made it to the Governor’s desk and 372 were signed into law, due in large part, to the fact that legislators were not required to shelter-in-place as they were in 2020.
Not surprisingly, for the construction industry, many of the bills were focused on the hot topics of the year including housing affordability and climate change. However, there were also the typical changes to project delivery methods and a few changes to the Licensing Law.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
