Eleventh Circuit Reverses Attorneys’ Fee Award to Performance Bond Sureties in Dispute with Contractor arising from Claim against Subcontractor Performance Bond
February 27, 2019 —
CDJ STAFFOn October 26, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (the “Eleventh Circuit”) issued a decision which reversed an award of prevailing party attorneys’ fees to performance bond sureties in their dispute with a contractor arising from the contractor’s claim against a subcontractor’s performance bond. Had the lower court’s decision been affirmed, the performance bond sureties would have been able to recover prevailing party attorneys’ fees against the contractor even though they were not parties to the underlying subcontract and the subcontract did not contain a prevailing party attorneys’ fee provision.
The underlying case is complicated and arose from the construction of Brickell CityCentre in Miami. Americaribe-Moriarty JV (the “Contractor”) asserted a claim against a performance bond procured by a defaulted subcontractor and issued by International Fidelity Insurance Company and Allegheny Casualty Company (collectively, the “Sureties”). The Sureties filed a declaratory judgment action against the Contractor in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “District Court”), seeking a declaration that the Contractor failed to perfect its claim against the performance bond.
Reprinted courtesy of
Gary M. Stein, Peckar & Abramson and
K. Stefan Chin, Peckar & Abramson
Mr. Stein may be contacted at gstein@pecklaw.com
Mr. Chin may be contacted at kschin@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
NYC’s First Five-Star Hotel in Decade Seen at One57 Tower
July 02, 2014 —
Heather Perlberg – BloombergHyatt Hotels Corp. (H) is seeking to make its Park Hyatt New York, opening next month at the base of the ultra-luxury One57 condominium tower, Manhattan’s first new five-star hotel in more than a decade.
The 25-floor property is making its debut on West 57th Street in the area known as Billionaires Row for its residential skyscrapers with apartments costing tens of millions of dollars. Plans for the Park Hyatt call for 210 guest rooms starting at $795 a night, spa-treatment suites with private balconies, and amenities such as an indoor pool with underwater speakers that pipe in music from neighboring Carnegie Hall.
Hyatt is seeking a competitive edge in Manhattan, where it already operates seven properties, none rated five stars, said Steve Haggerty, global head of real estate and capital strategy for the Chicago-based company. The new Park Hyatt would be the city’s first hotel with the coveted distinction since 2003, when the Mandarin Oriental opened in the nearby Time Warner Center. Since then, most growth in the city’s lodging market has been in the select-service category, hotels that offer few amenities and cost less to operate.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Heather Perlberg, BloombergMs. Perlberg may be contacted at
hperlberg@bloomberg.net
Construction is the Fastest Growing Industry in California
May 20, 2015 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogWe wrote earlier about why construction workers are the happiest employees on Earth, and pointed to one possible factor: That construction, which was one of the hardest hit industries during the 2008 real estate collapse, has since bounced back.
This past month, the California Employment Development Department (“EDD”) released data putting some numbers to that hypothesis. And the result: According to the EDD, over the past 12 months, construction was the fastest growing industry in California, adding more than 46,000 jobs within the last year, an increase of 6.9% from 667,000 workers in March 2014 to 713,000 workers in March 2015.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
Bert L. Howe & Associates Returns as a Sponsor at the 30th Annual Construction Law Conference in San Antonio
January 13, 2017 —
Don MacGregor - Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc. is proud to join with the Texas Institute of CLE, and return for the third year as a sponsor and exhibitor at the 30th Annual Construction Law Conference to be held March 2nd & 3rd, 2017 at the La Cantera Resort and Spa in San Antonio.
With offices in San Antonio and Houston serving all of Texas, Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc. (BHA) offers the experience of over 20 years of service to carriers, defense counsel, and insurance professionals as designated experts in nearly 6,500 cases. BHA’s staff encompasses a broad range of licensed and credentialed experts in the areas of general contracting and specialty trades, as well as architects, and both civil and structural engineers, and has provided services on behalf of developers, general contractors and sub-contractors.
BHA’s experience covers the full range of construction and construction defect litigation, including single and multi-family residential (including high-rise), institutional (schools, hospitals and government buildings), commercial, and industrial claims. BHA specializes in coverage, exposure, premises liability, and delay claim analysis as well.
As the litigation climate in Texas continues to change, and as the number of construction defect and other construction related cases continues to rise, it is becoming more important for contractors and builders to be aggressive in preparing for claims before they are made, and in defending against those claims once they are filed. Since 1993, Bert L. Howe & Associates has been an industry leader in providing construction consulting services, and has been a trusted partner with builders and insurance carriers, both large and small, across the Western and Southern United States. Here in Texas, we have been providing construction defect and construction-claims related forensic expert services for the past decade with a proven track record of successful results. To-date, we have participated in the successful defense of claims involving thousands homes here in Texas alone.
For those of you planning on attending the conference, or those who may know someone who will be, we encourage you to stop by the BHA booth and we welcome the opportunity to discuss further the broad range of services provided by BHA.
For your convenience, here is a link to the information page for the 30th Annual Construction Law Conference: https://www.clesolutions.com/store.aspx?categoryid=2
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Don MacGregor, Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.Mr. MacGregor may be contacted at
dmac@berthowe.com
The Ghosts of Projects Past
December 17, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorSean Minahan, one of my partners, and I were discussing a construction dispute the other day and we commented again and again about the significant organization required to get a construction project to completion. From the contracts, to the schedule, to the funding—everything has to be in lock step or there will be problems that could bring the project to a halt, or worse yet litigation.
The same is true of construction claims. To present a claim effectively, it has to be simple. But, to make it simple will require substantial documentation and organization of all aspects of a claim.
This point was driven home this week when I received Long International’s Construction Claims Analysis Checklist Long International. The Checklist is 11 pages long and identifies various aspects of a claim, from the simple to the complicated.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
One More Mechanic’s Lien Number- the Number 30
March 06, 2023 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsI’ve spoken here often about the numbers
90 and 150 as they relate to
Virginia mechanic’s liens. These numbers are important for all mechanic’s liens in Virginia, whether commercial or residential (meaning liens for 1 and 2-family homes). There is another number, 30, that is important for those construction contractors that perform work on single and two-family homes. Where a mechanic’s lien agent is named on the building permit (or possibly just named if not stated on the permit), and
among other requirements,
Va. Code 43-4.01 requires that, in order to have lien rights at the project, the contractor must provide notice to the mechanic’s lien agent within 30 days of beginning work that it is performing work and shall seek payment for the work.
Further, the mechanic’s lien agent notice must contain the following:
(i) the name, mailing address, and telephone number of the person sending such notice, (ii) the person’s license or certificate number issued by the Board for Contractors pursuant to Chapter 11 (§ 54.1-1100 et seq.) of Title 54.1, if any, and the date such license or certificate was issued and the date such license or certificate expires, (iii) the building permit number on the building permit, (iv) a description of the property as shown on the building permit, and (v) a statement that the person filing such notice seeks payment for labor performed or material furnished.
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
A Court-Side Seat: Waters, Walls and Pipelines
August 03, 2020 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelSeveral interesting decisions have recently been made by federal and state courts.
FEDERAL APPELLATE COURTS
The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals – ARCO Shifts from State to Federal and No Vigor for VIM
On June 18, 2020, the court decided the case of Baker, et al. v. ARCO, holding that the revised federal removal statutes authorize the removal to federal court of a state-filed complaint against several defendants by the former residents of an Indiana housing complex who contended that the defendants were responsible for the industrial pollution attributed to the operations of a now-closed industrial plant. The housing complex was constructed at the site of the former U.S. Smelter and Lead Refinery. During the Second World War, the plant produced products for the use of the government war effort, thus triggering the applicability of the federal removal statutes.
On June 25, 2020, the court decided the case of Greene, et al. v. Westfield Insurance Company. As the court notes, this is a matter that “began as a case about environmental pollution and evolved into a joint garnishment action.” An Indiana wood recycling facility, VIM Recycling, was the subject of many complaints by nearby residents that its operations and waste disposal activities exposed then to dust and odors in violation of federal law and triggered state tort law claims. VIM was sued in state court, but neglected to notify its insurer, as required by its insurance policy with Westfield Insurance. One thing led to another, and a default judgment in the amount of $ 50 million was entered against VIM. Since VIM at that point had no assets, the plaintiffs and later VIM sought recovery from Westfield. When this dispute landed in federal court, the court, after reviewing the policy, concluded that there was a provision excluding coverage when the insured knew it had these liabilities when it purchased the insurance. As a result, the lower court dismissed the lawsuit, and this decision has been affirmed by the Seventh Circuit.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
An Additional Insured’s Reasonable Expectations may be Different from the Named Insured’s and Must be Considered to Determine whether the Additional Insured is Entitled to Defense from the Insurer of a Commercial Excess & Umbrella Liability Policy
June 12, 2014 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq., Jon A. Turigliatto, Esq. and Kacey R. Riccomini, Esq. – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & BargerThe Second District Court of Appeal’s recent decision, Transport Insurance Company v. Superior Court (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1216, immediately affects builders and contractors (collectively “builders”) who are often named as additional insureds (AIs) to contractors’ general liability policies. The decision is an important tool for builders’ counsel because the builder’s reasonable expectations can alter the interpretation of ambiguous terms in policies issued to subcontractors. Essentially, the builder’s intent is relevant to the interpretation of policy terms because the subcontractor’s intent in requesting additional coverage depends on the agreement it made with the builder. The salient aspects of the facts, the Appellate Court’s reasoning, and practical considerations are discussed below.
Transport Insurance Company (Transport) issued a commercial excess and umbrella liability policy (Policy) to Vulcan Materials Company (Vulcan), naming R.R. Street & Co., Inc. (Street) as an AI for its distribution of a solvent. The Policy provided that Transport would indemnify and defend the insured for loss caused by property damage if (1) it was not covered by “underlying insurance” but was within the terms of coverage of the Policy, or (2) if the limits of liability of the “underlying insurance” were exhausted during the Policy period due to property damage. The Policy included a Schedule of Underlying Insurance (Schedule) that listed policies issued to Vulcan. Thereafter, Vulcan and Street were named as defendants in several environmental contamination actions (Underlying Actions).
Transport brought a declaratory relief action against Vulcan regarding Transport’s duty to defend. (Legacy Vulcan Corp. v. Superior Court (Legacy Vulcan) (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 677). The trial court found the term “underlying insurance” ambiguous as it was not expressly defined to include only the policies on the Schedule and could be interpreted to include all primary policies in effect. Vulcan challenged the trial court’s decision by petition for writ of mandate, contending “underlying insurance” only included policies listed on the Schedule. The Court of Appeal found “underlying insurance” ambiguous because it was an expressly qualified term under other Policy provisions but not in the umbrella coverage provision and, thus, it was a generic term that was not limited to policies listed in the Schedule or inclusive of all primary insurance.
Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys
Richard H. Glucksman,
Jon A. Turigliatto and
Kacey R. Riccomini
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com; Mr. Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com, and Ms. Riccomini may be contacted at kriccomini@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
