Rising Construction Disputes Require Improved Legal Finance
November 15, 2022 —
Apoorva Patel - Construction ExecutiveConstruction disputes are famously high stakes, and the industry is currently experiencing an uptick in the value and number of disputes resulting from contractual obligations and third-party or force majeure incidents. While this is not entirely surprising given COVID-19’s disruption of global markets and supply chains, the numbers are noteworthy.
For example, in 2020 alone, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)—the leading institution for construction disputes, partly because its clauses feature in many FIDIC standard form contracts—registered 194 construction arbitrations, and construction disputes now comprise over 20% of the ICC caseload.
In addition to the damage to business outcomes that the underlying disputes may present, parties can quickly spend many millions on legal fees and expenses, as well as technical experts and consultants, if and when those disputes progress through the courts or arbitration. According to Norton Rose’s 2020 Global Construction Disputes Report, the average construction dispute value rose sharply from $30.7 million in 2019 to $54.26 million in 2020.
Reprinted courtesy of
Apoorva Patel, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
When is Construction Put to Its “Intended Use”?
July 31, 2013 —
Brady Iandiorio, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCDefining words and phrases in the law can be a tricky proposition. In everyday life one would presume to know what the phrase “intended use” would mean, but when it comes to litigation, oftentimes the definitions become much more nuanced.
On March 12, 2013, in the Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Canal Ins. Co., WL 950800 (D. Colo. 2013) case, Senior District Court Judge Wiley Y. Daniel denied Third-Party Defendant Canal Insurance Company’s (“Canal”) motion to dismiss Third-Party Plaintiff Hartford Casualty Insurance Company’s (“Hartford”) third-party complaint. The case arose out of a liability insurance coverage dispute related to an underlying construction defect lawsuit. In the construction defect suit, a plaintiff homeowner’s association brought a suit against a developer and a general contractor (“GC”) among others. While the underlying action was settled, a dispute remained between Bituminous Casualty Corporation, which insured the GC, and Hartford, which insured the developer.
Hartford asserted third-party claims against Canal seeking a declaration of Canal’s obligations and contribution in the event Hartford owed any defense or indemnity obligations to the GC. Hartford’s claims are based on the premise that Canal owed a duty to defend and/or indemnify the GC in the underlying action.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brady IandiorioBrady Iandiorio can be contacted at
Iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com
Bridges Crumble as Muni Rates at Least Since ’60s Ignored
June 26, 2014 —
William Selway and Brian Chappatta – BloombergNo state is needier than West Virginia when it comes to fixing crumbling highways, airports and water works, with annual repair needs of $1,035 per resident that’s three times the national average.
Yet even with borrowing costs hovering close to four-decade lows, lawmakers rejected a January proposal to sell $1 billion of bonds to repair roads that run through the Appalachian Mountains. Budget cuts were a more immediate concern, they said.
Across the U.S., localities are refraining from raising new funds in the $3.7 trillion municipal-bond market after the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression left them with unprecedented deficits. Rather than take advantage of Federal Reserve (FDTR) policy that’s held benchmark interest rates at historic lows since December 2008, they’re repaying obligations by the most on record.
Mr. Selway may be contacted at wselway@bloomberg.net; Mr. Chappatta may be contacted at bchappatta1@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William Selway and Brian Chappatta, Bloomberg
There's No Such Thing as a Free House
April 01, 2015 —
Megan McArdle – BloombergShould people be able to get a free house by refusing to pay their mortgage?
That's the question Florida has to answer. The housing crisis is over, and the housing market is healing itself, though slowly in some places. But a backlog of foreclosures still remains ... and it has been going on so long that some homes are now past the statute of limitations for collecting debt. Lawyers for the homeowners are arguing that this means they get to keep the house. Lawyers for the banks are, unsurprisingly, arguing that each month they fail to pay the mortgage payment starts the statutory clock anew.
Both arguments create problems if the courts endorse them. If failing to pay really restarted the clock every month, then there wouldn't be a statute of limitations on debt -- creditors could just keep sending you bills forever and dun you right up to the edge of your grave. There's a very good reason that we have statutes of limitations on most crimes and most debts: The law recognizes that our interests in justice and contract rights must be balanced against other considerations. People need to be able to plan their lives without decades-old problems coming back to bite them, and also, as cases age, they get harder and harder to prove as witnesses die, evidence gets lost and memories fade.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Megan McArdle, BloombergMs. McArdle may be contacted at
mmcardle3@bloomberg.net
Product Liability Alert: Evidence of Apportionment of Fault Admissible in Strict Products Liability Action
March 26, 2014 —
R. Bryan Martin and Kristian B. Moriarty - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Romine v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (No. B239761, filed March 17, 2014), the California Court of Appeal for the Second District held that a trial court must permit a defendant, in a products liability action, to present evidence of apportionment of fault among settling and non-settling entities. The case involved an automobile collision in which the plaintiff was struck from behind, causing the driver’s seat to recline and propel plaintiff into the back seat where she struck her head. Plaintiff was left quadriplegic as a result.
Plaintiff brought suit against the driver who caused the accident, the Nissan entities who manufactured the car plaintiff was driving, Johnson Controls, Inc. (“Johnson”), Ikeda Engineering Corporation (“Ikeda”), Vintec Co. (“Vintec”), and Autoliv ASP, Inc., who designed and manufactured the driver’s seat of the vehicle plaintiff was driving, and against Faurecia Automotive Seating, Inc. who manufactured the recliner mechanism of plaintiff’s vehicle’s front seat. Ikeda participated in the design of the driver’s seat and Vintec manufactured the driver’s seat. Johnson manufactured the seat belt for the driver’s seat of plaintiff’s vehicle in accordance with Nissan’s design. Prior to trial, plaintiff settled with the defendant driver, the Nissan defendants, the Autoliv defendants, and Faurecia Automotive Seating, Inc. Plaintiff elected to proceed to trial solely on a cause of action for strict products liability against Ikeda and Vintec. Pursuant to a stipulation, Johnson agreed it would be legally responsible for damages awarded to plaintiff at trial based upon the actions of Vintec or Ikeda.
At trial, the court precluded Vintec and Ikeda from offering evidence that: (1) plaintiff would not have been injured if her vehicle’s seat belt was designed in a different manner by Nissan; (2) Nissan chose the manufacturer of the recliner mechanism and required defendants to use that manufacturer and that part in the seat; and (3) The other defendants had already reached settlements with plaintiff.
Reprinted courtesy of
R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Ms. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bright-Line Changes: Prompt Payment Act Trends
September 16, 2024 —
Stephanie L. Cooksey - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Untimely payment by the owner for contract work and additional work on construction projects can place an unfair financial burden on contractors and subcontractors. Most states have attempted to eliminate or mitigate this inequity in construction contracting through Prompt Payment Acts that govern payment deadlines and provide remedies for untimely payment. This article addresses the legislative trends aimed at minimizing the risk of non-payment, overdue payment, and withholding retainage in favor of downstream parties to a construction contract.
Fortifying Contractor Protections with “Bright-Line” Language
Over the last decade, states have been tightening prompt payment laws by replacing broad, general statutory language with bright-line rules. What is a bright-line rule? A specific or definite figure, a quantifiable marker—i.e., something owners, contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers should be aware of. Practically speaking, the more bright-line a prompt payment statute is, the greater the likelihood it will affect a construction project in your state.
A standard form construction contract, if not reviewed carefully, can create conflicts or confusion if it gives a party more leeway on payment deadlines than the applicable Prompt Payment Act. For example, consider an owner-issued Construction Change Directive (“CCD”) that requires a contractor to commence additional work immediately while a formal change order is negotiated. Consequently, a CCD can push financial burdens downstream, whether inadvertently or not, and may conflict with statutory payment deadlines. Nevertheless, an owner can be justified in its utilization of a CCD to maintain the project schedule. How should the parties competing interests be resolved?
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Eliminating Waste in Construction – An Interview with Turner Burton
June 29, 2020 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessI had the pleasure of interviewing Turner Burton, President of Hoar Construction. We discussed waste in construction and how his company is on a mission to eliminate it.
Can you say a few words about yourself and your company?
I grew up around construction and this company, hearing about the business from both my grandfather and my father. I started working on job sites in high school forming concrete, continued working on projects throughout college, and since graduating from college, I’ve taken on different roles in the company to ensure I understand all aspects of the business.
Hoar Construction was founded 80 years ago, and throughout our history, we’ve been committed to learning from every project to improve our processes and deliver the best building experience possible for our clients and partners. But it’s the relentless pursuit of improvement that really sets us apart as builders – to always strive to be the best and do the right thing for our customers and partners. There’s something to be said for setting a goal that you’ll always be working toward. It fosters hard work, collaboration, and productive effort. If we’re always working to find a better way, then we will always be improving. That effort drives better results for our owners and everyone we work with. Essentially, we’re always working toward something. Always improving. Always in process.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
New York Governor Expected to Sign Legislation Greatly Expanding Recoverable Damages in Wrongful Death Actions
June 20, 2022 —
Nicholas P. Hurzeler - Lewis BrisboisNew York, N.Y. (June 3, 2022) - The New York Senate and Assembly recently passed
Bill S74A, also known as the Grieving Families Act, and it is expected that Governor Hochul will likely sign the bill into law. If passed, the law would significantly expand the damages available in wrongful death actions in a number of ways.
First, Section 1 would amend EPTL section 5-4.1 to extend the statute of limitations to commence a wrongful death action from two years to three years and six months, a significant increase that will permit many more wrongful death cases to go forward.
Second, Section 2 amends EPTL section 5-4.3, to allow recovery for emotional damages if a tortfeasor is found liable for causing a death. The current law only allows recovery of economic damages, such as economic hardship caused by a loss of parental guidance. The old law did not permit recovery of damages for grief, sympathy, and loss of companionship or consortium (see, e.g., Liff v. Schildkrout, 49 N.Y.2d 622 (1980); Bumpurs v. New York City Hous. Auth., 139 A.D.2d 438, 439 (1st Dept. 1988)), but that would change with passage of the new bill.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nicholas P. Hurzeler, Lewis BrisboisMr. Hurzeler may be contacted at
Nicholas.Hurzeler@lewisbrisbois.com
