Project Delivery Methods: A Bird’s-Eye View
November 01, 2021 —
Levi W. Barrett, Nathan A. Cohen & Stewart Shurtleff - ConsensusDocsFor centuries the ability to construct sophisticated structures has been the yardstick for measuring civilizations. Naturally, as our knowledge and capacity to build has evolved and developed over the ages, the methods of project delivery have similarly progressed.
From Design-Bid-Build to CM-at-Risk and Design-Build to Integrated Project Delivery, each method developed to fit a very specific need—but each carries its own set of inherent risks and rewards. In this article we explore key aspects and differences among the various delivery methods that are commonly used in today’s construction industry, and provide guidance related to the obligations and risk profiles of the parties involved. Ideally, contractors and construction managers may refer to the advice provided herein when determining whether a proposed delivery method properly fits the requirements of the project under consideration.
Reprinted courtesy of
Levi W. Barrett, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.,
Nathan A. Cohen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Stewart Shurtleff, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Barrett may be contacted at lbarrett@pecklaw.com
Mr. Cohen may be contacted at ncohen@pecklaw.com
Mr. Shurtleff may be contacted at sshurtleff@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Application of Frye Test to Determine Admissibility of Expert
April 03, 2019 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesFlorida went back to the Frye test/standard, instead of the Daubert test utilized in federal court, to determine the admissibility of expert testimony. The Frye test is more favorable to plaintiffs because it applies when an expert renders an opinion based on new or novel scientific principles. See D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Heron’s Landing Condominium Ass’n of Jacksonville, Inc., 44 Fla.L.Weekly D109b (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (“The supreme court has described the Frye test as one in which the results of mechanical or scientific testing are not admissible unless the testing has developed or improved to the point where the experts in the field widely share the view that the results are scientifically reliable as accurate. Stated differently, under Frye, the proponent of the evidence has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence with the general acceptance of the underlying scientific principles and methodology. However, as stated, the Frye standard only applies when an expert attempts to render an opinion that is based upon new or novel scientific principles.”).
In D.R. Horton, Inc., a condominium association sued the developer and general contractor (same entity) for construction defects that included claims in negligence, violation of building code, and breach of statutory warranties. The developer/general contractor moved in limine / to strike the association’s experts under, at the time, a Daubert analysis, but which became a Frye analysis during the pendency of the appeal. The expert opined as to construction defects and damage and the appropriate repairs – really, no different than any construction defect dispute, from what it appeared. The trial court denied the motion and during trial the experts testified and a sizable damages judgment was entered against the developer/contractor prompting the appeal. One issue on appeal was the admissibility of the expert’s opinion. The appellate court noted that a Frye analysis is not necessary because the experts used a scientifically reliable and peer-reviewed methodology.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Labor Shortages In Construction
December 04, 2023 —
Jason Feld & Chris Bates - Kahana FeldSimilar to other industries, the ongoing labor shortage crisis in the United States is detrimentally impacting construction activities in both the residential and commercial sector. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the turnover rate for the construction industry since 2021 has risen to 56%. And while the national unemployment rate ranges between 0.4% to 7.5%, the unemployment rate for construction is roughly four times the national average (See, Associated Builders and Contractors, Markenstein Advisors Report dated July 28, 2023). 73% of workers preferred to stay in a remote work environment, and another 40% of the global workforce has elected to voluntarily remove themselves from the workplace. (See, 2021 Microsoft Work Index). In particular with the construction industry, employment rates have returned to pre-pandemic levels hovering around 12% unemployment in 2020 to 6% in 2022. (See, Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University, Carlos Martin).
So where did all the workers go? During the height of the 2020 Covid-19 Pandemic and for the next few years, the county experienced what most people are calling “The Great Resignation”. May people took jobs with better pay and better alignment with their values. Approximately 40% stated a new business. Many elected to become stay-at-home parents forgoing a paycheck to raise their families while the other spouse works, especially due to the rising costs of childcare. About 1 in every 4 baby-boomers retired. Others took part-time employment, entered military service or left the workforce due to disability or injury. (See, Bloomberg Businessweek).
Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Feld, Kahana Feld and
Chris Bates, Kahana Feld
Mr. Feld may be contacted at jfeld@kahanafeld.com
Mr. Bates may be contacted at cbates@kahanafeld.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Contractor Side Deals Can Waive Rights
October 02, 2023 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsHere at Construction Law Musings, we are quite fond of the Federal Miller Act and it’s Virginia counterpart, the “Little” Miller Act. Both of these statutes allow a subcontractor or supplier on a government construction project the security to perform their work with the knowledge that a bonding company will back their claim for payment. These acts are necessary because a construction company cannot file a mechanic’s lien on a government owned piece of property.
As a general rule the Miller Acts impose almost strict liability on a contractor and its surety to pay for work performed by a downstream supplier or subcontractor. However, as a recent case out of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals makes clear, this rule is not without exceptions.
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
Massachusetts Judge Holds That Insurer Breached Its Duty To Defend Lawsuit After Chemical Spill
October 16, 2018 —
Lawrence J. Bracken, II & Alexander D. Russo - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogA District Court Judge for the District of Massachusetts recently ruled that Ace Property and Casualty Insurance Co. breached its duty to defend its insured in a lawsuit brought by Plaistow Project, LLC, after a family owned laundromat leaked chemicals onto Plaistow Project’s property. Plaistow Project, LLC v. ACE Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 16-CV-11385-IT, 2018 WL 4357480, (D. Mass. Sept. 13, 2018). Plaistow Project sued State Line Laundry Services in state court, and ACE denied coverage under the pollution exclusion in State Line Laundry’s insurance policy. Plaistow Project then settled with State Line Laundry. Under the settlement terms, Plaistow Project was assigned State Line Laundry’s rights against ACE.
In the subsequent coverage litigation, Plaistow Project alleged that ACE had breached its duty to defend State Line Laundry under its insurance policy. ACE argued that (1) the burden was on the policyholder to demonstrate that the policy’s “sudden and accidental” exception applied to the policy’s pollution exclusion; and (2) the policyholder could not show the “sudden and accidental” exception applied based on the complaint.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lawrence J. Bracken, II, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Alexander D. Russo, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Bracken, may be contacted at lbracken@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Russo may be contacted at arusso@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Court Broadly Interprets Insurance Policy’s “Liability Arising Out of” Language
December 20, 2017 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIn McMillin Mgmt. Servs. v. Financial Pacific Ins. Co., Cal.Ct.App. (4th Dist.), Docket No. D069814 (filed 11/14/17), the California Court of Appeal held that the term “liability arising out of,” as used in an ongoing operations endorsement, does not require that the named insured’s liability arise while it is performing work on a construction project.
In the McMillin case, the general contractor and developer (McMillin) contracted with various subcontractors, including a concrete subcontractor and stucco subcontractor insured by Lexington Insurance Company. Both subcontractors performed their work at the project prior to the sale of the units.
The Lexington policies contained substantively identical additional insured endorsements that provided coverage to McMillin “for liability arising out of your [the named insured subcontractor’s] ongoing operations performed for [McMillin].” Several homeowners filed suit against McMillin, alleging that they had discovered various defective conditions arising out of the construction of their homes, including defects arising out of the work performed by Lexington’s insureds. Lexington argued that there was no potential for coverage in McMillin’s favor under the endorsements because there were no homeowners during the time that the subcontractors’ operations were performing work at the project (the homes closed escrow after the subcontractors had completed their work); thus, McMillin did not have any liability for property damage that took place while the subcontractors’ operations were ongoing.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rose Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
Three Kahana Feld Attorneys Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® 2025
September 23, 2024 —
Linda Carter - Kahana FeldNEW YORK – Sep. 4, 2025 – Kahana Feld is pleased to announce that Eric Bernhardt and Kraig Kilger were included in the 2025 edition of The Best Lawyers in America® and Alice A. Trueman was included in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America.
Eric Bernhardt was awarded for his work in Litigation – Insurance. Bernhardt is a partner in the firm’s Buffalo, NY office, admitted in New York and California, and a member of Kahana Feld’s national appellate practice group. His practice encompasses multiple types of litigation including the defense of New York Labor Law, construction, product liability, trucking, professional and medical malpractice, automobile accident, and general negligence cases.
Kraig Kilger was recognized in the areas of Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law, Litigation – Real Estate, and Real Estate Law. Kilger is a partner in Kahana Feld’s Irvine, CA office. His experience spans all phases of residential and commercial real estate development, including acquisitions, financing, planning, entitlement, development, construction, leasing, and sales.
Alice Trueman was recognized by Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in the field of Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants. She is a litigation attorney in the firm’s Buffalo, NY office who focuses her practice on general liability defense and insurance defense. Ones to Watch recipients typically have been in practice for 5-9 years and are selected for their outstanding professional excellence in private practice.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Linda Carter, Kahana FeldMs. Carter may be contacted at
lcarter@kahanafeld.com
New York Appellate Team Obtains Affirmance of Dismissal of Would-Be Labor Law Action Against Municipal Entities
August 12, 2024 —
Lewis Brisbois NewsroomNew York, N.Y. (July 11, 2024) - In Charlot v. City of New York, ___ A.D.3d ___, 2024 NY Slip Op 03161 (2d Dep’t 2024), New York Associate Dean Pillarella, a member of the Appellate Practice, recently obtained an affirmance of the lower court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s action against the City of New York (“the City”) for failure to timely serve a notice of claim. New York Partner Meghan Cavalieri, a member of the Construction Practice, and her team authored and argued the initial motion to dismiss.
The plaintiff alleged to have sustained injuries as a result of a construction-site accident on December 8, 2020, on City-owned property in the course of the construction of a school by the New York City School Construction Authority. N.Y. General Municipal Law (“GML”) § 50-e(1)(a), requires service of a notice of claim within 90 days after the claim arises as a condition precedent to the commencement of a tort action. The plaintiff served no notice of claim until June 2021 and commenced an action in January 2022, alleging violations of N.Y. Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200. Given the plaintiff’s failure to comply with GML § 50-e(1)(a), Meghan and her team rejected the notices of claim as untimely. The plaintiff then moved for leave to deem the notices of claim timely served nunc pro tunc. In response, Meghan and her team opposed the motion and cross-moved to dismiss the action.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
