Incorporation, Indemnity and Statutes of Limitations, Oh My!
January 19, 2017 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsWe all know that the contract is king in Virginia. We also know that Virginia will allow for a so called “incorporation” clause that will allow for “flow down” of certain prime contract provisions in a way that will make those provisions applicable to subcontractors. We also know that a claim for breach of contract or other contractual claim does not last forever due to certain statutes of limitation found in the Code of Virginia. What happens when all of these elements crash together in one place leading to litigation? Well, a relatively recent case from the Virginia Supreme Court gives at least a partial answer.
In Hensel Phelps Construction Company v Thompson Masonry Contractor, Inc, the Virginia Supreme Court considered a claim that arose from construction at Virginia Tech by Hensel Phelps. The construction concluded in 1998 (remember that date). The Prime Contract included language concerning a one year “Guarantee of Work” as well as fairly typical Warranty of Workmanship” language. However the Prime Contract also stated that the one year guaranty term did nothing to affect any other limitations period for any other action pursuant to the Prime Contract (this is important as well because Virginia Tech was not subject to any statute of limitations due to its status as an agency of the Commonwealth of Virginia). Final payment was made to Hensel Phelps and subsequently to the subcontractors in 1999.
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
First-Time Buyers Shut Out of Expanding U.S. Home Supply
August 13, 2014 —
Prashant Gopal – BloombergThe four-bedroom house that Ilia Nielsen-Dembe purchased in west Denver earlier this year wasn’t her top choice. The first-time buyer had to settle on a home in a neighborhood with a high crime rate after losing out on bids for five properties in more desirable areas.
“I definitely sacrificed in terms of location,” said Nielsen-Dembe, 33, who lives with her husband and two daughters in the house she bought in April for $184,500. “I had to cross streets that were not ideal in order to get a house.”
While the supply of U.S. homes for sale is at an almost two-year high and price gains are moderating, buyers such as Nielsen-Dembe wouldn’t know it. An inventory crunch for entry-level houses has only worsened during the past year as discounted foreclosures become scarce and cash-paying investors snap up affordable listings to convert to rentals. Properties at the lower end of the market are also the most likely to have underwater mortgages, keeping would-be sellers from moving.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Prashant Gopal, BloombergMr. Gopal may be contacted at
pgopal2@bloomberg.net
Insurance Policies and Indemnity Provisions Are Not the Same
October 19, 2020 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogJust because you own a pair of Air Jordans doesn’t make you Michael Jordan. In the next case, Carter v. Pulte Home Corporation, Case No. A154757 (July 23, 2020), the 1st District Court of Appeal denied an insurance carrier’s equitable subrogation claim explaining that an insurer’s obligations under its insurance policy are not the same as an idemnitee’s obligations under an indemnity provision. Or, as aptly put by the Court of Appeal, while a “subrogated insurer is said to ‘stand in the shoes’ of its insured, because it has no greater rights than the insured. Here . . . [the insurer] is seeking to stand in a different, more advantageous set of shoes.”
Carter v. Pulte Home Corporation
Pulte Home Corporation was sued for construction defects by 38 homeowners in two housing developments. Various subcontractors had worked on the projects, but under their subcontracts, each subcontractor agreed to indemnify Pulte from and against “all liability, claims, judgments, suits, or demands for damages to persons or property arising out of, resulting from, or relating to Contractor’s performance of work under the Agreement (‘Claims’) unless such Claims have been specifically determined by the trier of fact to be the sole negligence of Pulte . . . ”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Be Careful with Good Faith Payments
February 24, 2020 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsSometimes doing the expedient thing and what looks good at the time can come back to bite you. Just ask 3M Company.
In Faneuil, Inc. v. 3M Co., the Virginia Supreme Court considered a customer services subcontract between Faneuil and 3M relating to a toll collection contract 3M entered into with ERC. The subcontract had a “pay if paid” clause in it requiring payment to 3M from ERC before ERC was required to pay Faneuil, a written change order provision and a base monthly payment to Faneuil for the services that could be reduced in the event of less than expected toll collections. Further, the subcontract stated that if either party settled 3rd party claims, that settlement would not bind the other party to the subcontract absent consent or Court order.
Faneuil was then alleged to have been required to provide “Special Services” relating to manual identification of license plates and other information necessary for toll billing due to 3M’s alleged failure to provide adequate imaging services. Faneuil requested (without written change order) and 3M promised to pay extra for these services. When 3M was slow to pay for the special services, Faneuil did what you would expect and threatened to stop providing them. Instead of contesting the right to the work, 3m made sporadic “good faith” payments to induce continued Special Services from Faneuil. Eventually 3M’s issues caused ERC to stop payments and thus 3M stopped paying Faneuil. 3M then settled the payment claims with ERC and still failed to pay Faneuil.
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
ASCE Statement on National Dam Safety Awareness Day - May 31
June 06, 2022 —
Dennis D. Truax, President, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)Washington, DC. – Nationwide, more than 92,000 dams protect communities across the country, providing numerous services including irrigation, water conservation, and flood protection. Advocating for the safety, robustness, and sustainability of our nation's dams is a top priority for ASCE as we recognize May 31 as National Dam Safety Awareness Day.
National Dam Safety Awareness Day is observed in remembrance of the "Johnstown Flood" on May 31, 1889. Failures of the South Fork Dam near Johnstown, PA, resulted in the death of more than 2,200 people. This tragedy serves as an illustration of the critical importance of effectively maintaining and managing our nation's dams and ensuring that adequate dam safety measures remain in place to avoid these preventable tragedies.
ASCE's
2021 Report Card for America's Infrastructure gave the nation's dams a "D" grade. Of the nation's 92,000 dams, more than 15,000 are classified as having "high hazard potential", meaning that dam failure would result in the loss of life. While increased state investment in dam safety programs has allowed for better assessment of dams and the ability to identify rehabilitation needs as well as potential hazards, increased federal investment is still needed to ensure the safety of dams nationwide.
ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS
Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 150,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Business Interruption, COVID-19 Claims Under Pollution Policy Fails
January 11, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe insurer was unsuccessful in seeking to dismiss business interruption claims due to COVID-19 under a pollution policy. New York Botanical Garden v. Allied World Assur., 2021 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 6012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct.15, 2021).
The insured was forced to cease operation after executive orders by the governor and mayor were issued in March 2020. The insured also had to reduce its in-person workforce by 100%. The insured's claim for business interruption and contingent business interruption were denied by Allied. The insured sued for a declaratory judgment.
Allied moved to dismiss, arguing that the executive orders were issued for prophylactic reasons in an effort to mitigate the spread of the virus. They were not issued solely to address the presence of COVID-19 at any non-insured owned location, but were issued broadly to limit the risk of spreading the COVID-19 virus. The insured responded that its broader pollution liability policy was not a typical civil authority policy that required the physical loss or damage to property.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Venue for Suing Public Payment Bond
June 15, 2017 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesPublic payment bonds (excluding FDOT payment bonds) are governed under Florida statute s. 255.05. As it pertains to venue—the location to sue a public payment bond–the statute provides in relevant portion:
(5) In addition to the provisions of chapter 47, any action authorized under this section may be brought in the county in which the public building or public work is being construction or repaired.
***
(1)(e) Any provision in a payment bond…which restricts venue of any proceeding relating to such bond…is unenforceable.
Now, what happens if a subcontractor sues only a payment bond but its subcontract with the general contractor contains a mandatory venue provision? For example, what if the general contractor is located in Lee County and the subcontract contains a venue provision for Lee County, the project is located in Collier County, the subcontractor is located in Miami-Dade County, and the surety issues bonds in Miami-Dade County? Does venue have to be in Lee County per the mandatory venue provision?
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
Dadelstein@gmail.com
Fifth Circuit Certifies Questions to Texas Supreme Court on Concurrent Causation Doctrine
August 07, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Fifth Circuit certified unanswered questions on the concurrent causation doctrine to the Texas Supreme Court. Overstreet v. Allstate Vehicle & Prop, Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 13582 (5th Cir. May 19, 2022).
The insured alleged that a hail storm damaged his roof. The roof was three years old when he purchased a policy from Allstate. An adjuster sent by Allstate valued the loss at $1,263.123, less than the policy deductible. Allstate contended that the roof damage was due to uncovered causes, namely a combination of wear and tear and earlier hail storms that hit the roof before the insured purchased the policy. The insured disagreed because the roof had never leaked before the hail storm, but only after the storm. The insured's expert inspected the roof and determined it had been damaged by hail. The district granted Allstate's motion for summary judgment because the insured had not carried his burden of proving how much damages came from the hail storm alone.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
