How to Mitigate Lien Release Bond Premiums with Disappearing Lien Claimants
May 20, 2019 —
Scott MacDonald - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCIt is one of those dreaded business situations that plagues the construction industry, especially in times of economic downturn—what to do when a lower-tier entity files a lien against a property then disappears. It has happened to countless owners, general contractors, subcontractors, and even some particularly unlucky sub-tier subcontractors and suppliers. Here is how it arises: a project is moving along, then performance or payment issues arise, and a company that is over extended or unwilling to continue work stops performance, walks off the job, and files a lien against the property for whatever amounts were allegedly unpaid. Often, the allegedly unpaid sums were legitimately withheld due to a good faith dispute over payment/performance, and it is not unusual for the defaulting entity to not be entitled to any of the sums claimed in the lien. Regardless, the lien stays on the property, and pressure is applied from the “upstream” entities to the party who contracted with the defaulting entity to “deal” with the lien.
Oftentimes, a contract will require the parties to “deal” with a lien by obtaining a lien release bond (“release bond”). For those lucky enough to not have encountered this issue, a release bond is a nifty statutory device whereby a surety agrees to record a release bond for the full claimed amount of the lien, with the release bond substituting in for the liened property, effectively discharging the property from liability under the lien. In other words, the lien is released from the property and attaches to the release bond. If the lien claimant recovers on its lien, it is technically satisfied by the surety providing the release bond (or the party who agrees to indemnify and defend the release bond). In exchange for delivering the release bond, the surety demands yearly premiums be paid on the release bond amount
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scott MacDonald, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. MacDonald may be contacted at
scott.macdonald@acslawyers.com
Under Privette Doctrine, A Landowner Delegates All Responsibility For Workplace Safety to its Independent Contractor, and therefore Owes No Duty to Remedy or Adopt Measures to Protect Against Known Hazards
September 29, 2021 —
Krsto Mijanovic, Jeffrey C. Schmid & John M. Wilkerson - Haight Brown & BonesteelIn Gonzalez v. Mathis (2021 WL 3671594) (“Gonzalez”), the Supreme Court of California held that a landowner generally owes no duty to an independent contractor or its workers to remedy or adopt other measures to protect them against known hazards on the premises. The Court applied the Privette doctrine which establishes a presumption that a landowner generally delegates all responsibility for workplace safety to its independent contractor. (See generally Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689; SeaBright Ins. Co. v. US Airways, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 590.) As such, the independent contractor is responsible for ensuring that the work can be performed safely despite a known hazard on the worksite, even where the contractor and its workers are unable to take any reasonable safety precautions to avoid or protect themselves from the known hazard.
In Gonzalez, the landowner, Mathis, had hired an independent contractor, Gonzalez, to clean a skylight on his roof. To access the skylight, Gonzalez needed to utilize a narrow path between the edge of the roof and a parapet wall. While walking along this path, Gonzalez slipped and fell to the ground, sustaining serious injuries. Gonzalez alleged this accident was caused by several dangerous conditions on the roof, including a slippery surface, a lack of tie-off points to attach a safety harness, and a lack of a guardrail. Gonzalez was aware of all of these hazards prior to the accident.
Reprinted courtesy of
Krsto Mijanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel,
Jeffrey C. Schmid, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and
John M. Wilkerson, Haight Brown & Bonesteel
Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com
Mr. Schmid may be contacted at jschmid@hbblaw.com
Mr. Wilkerson may be contacted at jwilkerson@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
BKV Barnett, LLC v. Electric Drilling Technologies, LLC: Analyzing the Impact of Colorado’s Anti-Indemnification Statute
December 23, 2024 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation BlogIn the recent case of BKV Barnett, LLC v. Electric Drilling Technologies, LLC, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado dealt with significant legal issues concerning indemnification and insurance obligations in construction agreements. The ruling, handed down on September 26, 2024, serves as a crucial reminder of the limitations imposed by Colorado’s Anti-Indemnification Statute, C.R.S. § 13-21-111.5, and its implications for contracts in the construction industry.
This case arose from a Master Service Contract (“MSC”) between BKV Barnett, LLC (“BKV”) and Electric Drilling Technologies, LLC (“EDT”), in which EDT provided electrical services and equipment to an oil and gas lease wellsite in Texas. Following a lightning strike in early 2022 that damaged electrical infrastructure at the site, EDT dispatched Turn Key Utility Construction to repair the damage. During the repair work, an arc flash occurred, causing significant injuries to one of Turn Key’s employees, Matthew Lara, leading to a personal injury lawsuit filed by Lara in Dallas County, Texas. BKV sought indemnification, defense, and additional insured status from EDT under the terms of their MSC, which EDT contested.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Combating Climate Change by Reducing Embodied Energy in the Built Environment
December 02, 2019 —
Brent Trenga - Construction ExecutiveThe building and construction industry is a significant consumer of non-renewable energy resources and is contributing to changing the earth’s environment in damaging and irreversible ways. These impacts are being felt in climate-related shifts that include increases in the earth’s average temperature and rising sea levels.
A new report by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows that 2018 was the fourth-hottest year since 1880, the earliest year for which reliable global temperature data is available. The three hottest years on record were 2015, 2016 and 2017.
Additionally, the rise in sea levels is causing “nuisance floods” to become more common. From the 1950s to the early 2000s, the days of flooding in the 27 most vulnerable cities across the United States grew from two per year to nearly 12.
These and other environmental impacts underscore the urgency of battling climate change and how critical it is for all industries—including construction—to stem the tide on this issue.
Reducing embodied energy in the built environment is one way the building and construction sector can do its part to address one of the major challenges of this century.
Reprinted courtesy of
Brent Trenga, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Trenga may be contacted at
brent.trenga@kingspan.com
Medical Center Builder Sues Contracting Agent, Citing Costly Delays
March 19, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe Pennsylvania firm Bedwell Co. “has sued the Camden County Improvement Authority, saying it is owed $4.6 million for construction of [the Cooper Medical School of Rowan University]” in Camden, New Jersey, according to the Courier-Post. The Bedwell Co. alleges that its expenses exceeded fifty million, “but that it has been paid only $46 million.”
The lawsuit states, as quoted by the Courier-Post, “From its inception, the project was plagued by delays due to defects in the design document and other circumstances that were beyond Bedwell’s control.” Furthermore, there were “an abnormally large quantity of design changes, schedule disputes, schedule disruptions and work-activity interference.”
“Representatives of the CCIA and HDR could not be reached for comment Wednesday,” according to the Courier-Post. “Bedwell declined to comment on the allegations in the suit.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Big Three: The 9th Circuit Joins The 6th Circuit and 7th Circuit in Holding That Sanctions For Bad-Faith Litigation Tactics Can Only Be Awarded Against Individual Lawyers and Not Law Firms
September 03, 2015 —
Christopher B. Lloyd & Stephen J. Squillario – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Law v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2015 S.O.S. 13–56099 – filed August 27, 2015), the Ninth Circuit joined the shortlist of Circuit Courts to hold that sanctions for bad-faith litigation tactics under 28 U.S.C. section 1927 can only be sought against individual attorneys and not law firms. Section 1927 authorizes sanctions against “[a]ny attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United States … who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously….”
On behalf of the client, an attorney with Kaass Law filed a complaint against ten different defendants, including Wells Fargo Bank, which moved to dismiss under F.R.C.P. Rule 12(b)(6). Rather than responding to the motion to dismiss, plaintiff filed a motion to amend the initial complaint; Wells Fargo Bank filed a notice of non-opposition.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher B. Lloyd, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr.Lloyd may be contacted at clloyd@hbblaw.com
Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
U.K. High Court COVID-19 Victory for Policyholders May Set a Trend in the U.S.
November 09, 2020 —
Andres Avila & Anastasiya Collins - Saxe Doernberger & VitaOn September 15, 2020, in a matter entitled The Financial Conduct Authority v. Arch & Others1, the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, the equivalent of a trial court in the U.S., issued a ruling on a COVID-19 business interruption insurance case (the “Judgment”). Significantly, the Court sided with policyholders on most key coverage issues under specific non-damage business interruption insurance coverage forms. U.S. policyholders should review whether any of their policies issued by U.K.-based carriers, which may be subject to English law and have the forms discussed below, are impacted by this favorable decision.
The Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”), the U.K. financial regulatory body, brought the case to establish liability under 21 lead representative sample policy wordings from eight insurer defendants. The case was filed on an expedited basis on June 9, 2020 under the Financial Market Test Case Scheme, which is used for claims of general importance that require authoritative court guidance. Although the Judgment is legally binding only on the carriers who were parties to the action, the FCA estimates the case could affect 700 types of policies across 60 different insurers, and 370,000 small to medium-sized enterprises policyholders (“SME”) in the U.K. While the Judgment may be appealed, it is expected to incentivize insurers to settle their claims before the outcome of an appeal is known.
Reprinted courtesy of
Andres Avila, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and
Anastasiya Collins, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Avila may be contacted at AAvila@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Collins may be contacted at ACollins@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Be Careful When Walking Off of a Construction Project
November 24, 2019 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsI am truly grateful that my buddy Craig Martin (@craigmartin_jd) continues his great posts over at The Construction Contractor Advisor blog. He is always a good cure for writer’s block and once again this week he gave me some inspiration. In his most recent post, Craig discusses a recent Indiana case relating to the ever present issue of termination by a subcontractor for non-payment. In the Indiana case, the court looked at the payment terms and determined that the subcontractor was justified in walking from the project when it was not paid after 60 days per the contract.
This result was the correct, if surprising. Why do I say surprising? Because I am always reluctant to recommend that a subcontractor walk from a job for non payment if it is possible to continue. This is not so much for legal reasons (not paying a sub is a clear breach of contract by a general contractor) but practical ones. The practical effect of walking from the job is that the subcontractor is put on the defensive. Instead of arguing later that it performed but was not paid, that subcontractor is put in the position of arguing that the general contractor cannot collect its completion related and other damages because it breached first. This is a more intuitively difficult argument and one that is not as strong as the first.
Of course, all of this is contingent on the language in your contract (is there a “pay if paid” or language like that in the Indiana case?).
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
