Contractor Walks Off Job. What are the Owner’s Damages?
September 25, 2018 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhat are your damages as the result of a breach of the construction contract? This is an important question, right? It is probably the most important part of your case. If you didn’t have damages, you wouldn’t be in a dispute. So, I repeat, what are your damages as the result of a breach of the construction contract? The below case explains dealing with a contractor that elected to walk off the job mid-construction.
In Forbes v. Prime General Contractors, Inc., 43 Fla.L.Weekly D20194a (Fla. 2d DCA 2018), owners hired a contractor to perform a residential renovation job for $276,000. The owners were to pay the contractor in five draw payments (common for residential jobs) where the third draw payment was due upon the contractor’s completion of the dry-in (as defined in the contract). After the contractor received the first two draw payments totaling $138,000 plus an additional $6,000 for updated architectural plans, the contractor claimed the job doubled in price and demanded that the owners pay the contractor the third draw payment immediately (before it was due) plus an additional $31,450. The contractor refused to continue unless the owners agreed to its terms, and then walked off the job when the owners would not agree to these terms (nor should the owners agree to those terms). At the time the contractor walked off the job, the owners’ home was not habitable due to the construction.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Court of Appeal Puts the “Equity” in Equitable Subrogation
October 05, 2020 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogSubrogation as a concept is well understood in insurance circles. According to the Institute of Risk Management Institute’s glossary of insurance terms subrogation is “the assignment to an insurer by the terms of [a] policy or by law, after payment of a loss, of the rights fo the insured to recover the amount of the loss from one legally liable for it.” In other words, if an insurer comes out of pocket for something someone else broke, the insurer can turn to that responsible party for reimbursement of its out of pocket costs.
Typically, subrogation is, as stated in IRMI’s glossary of insurance terms, a matter of contract and the rights and responsibilities of parties are set forth within the terms of a policy. However, subrogation may, as stated in IRMI’s glossary, also be matter of law. And this is where equitable subrogation comes in.
“Equitable subrogation,” according to IRMI, is “the right of subrogation granted under common law when one party has made a payment on behalf of another and becomes entitled to whatever recovery rights the other party has against a responsible third party.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Changing Course Midstream Did Not Work in River Dredging Project
December 10, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorA contractor learned a $12M lesson when it tried to change course on a Corps of Engineer river dredging project. The case also illustrates the importance of documenting problems on a project and providing notice of those problems to the owner.
In Weston/Bean Joint Venture v U.S., Weston/Bean was awarded a Corps of Engineers project to provide maintenance dredging on the Miami River to a depth of 15 feet. The contract noted that the contractor may experience sediment, debris and rock, including soft to moderately hard limestone.
The contractor encountered rocks early on in the project, but consistently submitted reports to the Corps of Engineers that nothing was experienced on the project that would lead to a change order or claim. And, for the first year of operations, the contractor made no claim for differing site conditions. Instead, the contractor terminated the subcontractor for not being able to process the rock uncovered during the dredging process.
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
Cal/OSHA’s Toolbox Has Significantly Expanded: A Look At Senate Bill 606
December 13, 2021 —
Michael J. Studenka - Newmeyer DillionGovernor Gavin Newsom recently signed into law Senate Bill 606, set to take effect on January 1, 2022. With proponents of the bill citing the need to hold large employers accountable for COVID-related workplace hazards, SB 606 creates two new categories of employer violations. First, SB 606 creates a rebuttable presumption that if a type of violation is discovered at one particular worksite, Cal/OSHA can extrapolate that the violation is an “enterprise-wide” violation at all of the other company worksites. Additionally, SB 606 adds a new category of “egregious violations” to Cal/OSHA’s arsenal, adding a penalty multiplier for such violations. Finally, SB 606 increases Cal/OSHA’s investigative capabilities by authorizing Cal/OSHA to issue a subpoena to employers should they fail to “promptly provide” information requested during an investigation. As further explained below, the consequences of violating Cal/OSHA regulations has become significantly greater and more expensive, particularly for larger employers with multiple worksites.
ENTERPRISE-WIDE VIOLATIONS AND THE SEVERE REMEDIES THAT FOLLOW
Under SB 606, employers with more than one worksite will now face a rebuttable presumption that a violation at one location is actually “enterprise-wide” if either of the following are true:
- A written policy or procedure violates any Cal/OSHA standard, rule, order or regulation; OR
- Cal/OSHA finds evidence of a “pattern or practice” of the same violation being committed by the employer at one or more of its worksites.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael J. Studenka, Newmeyer DillionMr. Studenka may be contacted at
michael.studenka@ndlf.com
The Enforceability of “Pay-If-Paid” Provisions Affirmed in New Jersey
January 04, 2023 —
Levi W. Barrett, Michael S. Zicherman & Brian Glicos - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.On December 7, 2022, the Appellate Division affirmed the New Jersey Superior Court decision in Jersey Precast v. Tricon Enterprises, Inc. et al., finding that the “pay-if-paid” clause in a material supplier’s purchase order with a general contractor was binding and enforceable. While clauses conditioning a general contractor’s obligation to pay its subcontractors on the general contractor’s receipt of payment from the project owner are not unique – this is the first time that a court in New Jersey has affirmed this practice in a published opinion. [1]
Background
The general contractor, Tricon, sent Jersey Precast its standard form purchase order for the supply of prestressed box beams to fulfill a public improvement contract with Union County. The reverse side of the form purchase order contained standard terms and conditions, and included a pay-if-paid clause drafted by Michael Zicherman, a partner of Peckar & Abramson, P.C. While Jersey Precast provided some draft revisions to the terms and conditions, Tricon never signed the purchase order and the proposed revisions were never accepted. Significantly, Jersey Precast did not attempt to modify the pay-if-paid provision. It later developed that the construction of the project became impossible, and the beams fabricated by Jersey Precast were not used. Tricon invoiced Union County for the cost of the beams, but the County failed to make payment and refused to accept delivery of the beams.
Reprinted courtesy of
Levi W. Barrett, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.,
Michael S. Zicherman, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Brian Glicos, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Barrett may be contacted at lbarrett@pecklaw.com
Mr. Zicherman may be contacted at mzicherman@pecklaw.com
Mr. Glicos may be contacted at bglicos@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
House of Digital Twins
March 08, 2021 —
Cristina Savian - AEC BusinessAs a vocal and passionate advocate for the adoption of Digital Twins for our built assets, I keep finding myself standing in, what feels like, the middle of a house of cards, observing its always rocky structure in constant danger of collapse. A wobbly system threatened by the tremors stressed by one of the most prominent digital revolutions that our construction industry has ever experienced.
DIGITAL TWINS FOR OUR BUILT ASSET.
This booming industry trend is gaining speed at a rate that the construction industry has never experienced before. Construction has always been slow at innovating and still holds its title as the least digitalised industry, but the Digital Twin revolution has now found our location and is ready to disrupt. I often witness how these forces attempt to pull down the cards, but, to my surprise, their resilience is what keeps holding the house together. Hold on, is this resilience or resistance?
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Cristina Savian, AEC Business
UPDATE - McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court
June 05, 2017 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Glenn T. Barger, & David A. Napper - CGDRB News & PublicationsThe matter has been fully briefed since last year and the construction industry anxiously awaits the California Supreme Court's highly anticipated decision regarding McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132. Numerous amicus briefs have also been filed including one by the Association of Southern California Defense Counsel, with the immediate past president of the organization, CGDRB's Glenn T. Barger, Esq., listed as the attorney of record. The Supreme Court will consider the issue of whether the Right to Repair Act (SB800) is the exclusive remedy for all defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003, thereby resolving the split of authority presented by the Fifth Appellate District's holding in McMillin Albany, which outright rejected the Fourth Appellate District's holding in Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98, on this particular issue. Oral argument is still pending and CGDRB will continue to closely monitor the progress of this case. Stay tuned.
Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys
Richard H. Glucksman,
Glenn T. Barger and
David A. Napper
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Barger may be contacted at gbarger@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Legal Matters Escalate in Aspen Condo Case
January 28, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFOn January 3rd of this year, Chad Abraham reported in the Aspen Daily News that the Ute City building—a condominium on Hopkins Avenue in Aspen, Colorado—“lacks proper entryways to apartments and a basement-level nightclub space for both tenants and the disabled.”
The owners, Michael Sedoy and Natalia Shvachko, have been sued by the city after refusing “to allow access to an eastside staircase and elevator for other building residents and disabled patrons of a basement restaurant,” according to the Aspen Daily News. “Their stance has forced the other tenants and the disabled to use a westside, alleyway service entrance, according to the city.”
Sedoy and Schvachko’s attorney retorts in court documents “that the city approved of a building map and declarations that allow access through the westside entry in the alley.”
Furthermore, in another article by Abraham published in the Aspen Daily News on January 25th, he relates that the owners had filed more than “more than 30 noise complaints with the police and the city’s environmental health department about eateries and bars around their home on Restaurant Row. That led to a trial for the Aspen Brewing Co., which a jury acquitted in about 10 minutes last week.”
In addition, the couple is being sued by Mountain Home Window Fashions, the Ute City building general contractor. According to the lawsuit as reported by the Daily Aspen News, Mountain Home claims they are owed $12,332. The owners have counter-sued, alleging “that there were defects in Mountain Home Window Fashions’ work” and that one of the employees “made unauthorized charges on Sedoy’s credit card.”
Read the full story, January 3rd article ...
Read the full story, January 25th article ...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
