Superintendent’s On-Site Supervision Compensable as Labor Under Miller Act
March 13, 2023 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent Miller Act payment bond decision out of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, U.S. f/u/b/o Civil Construction, LLC v. Hirani Engineering & Land Surveying, PC, 58 F.4th 1250 (D.C. Circ. 2023), dealt with the issue of whether a subcontractor’s superintendent constitutes recoverable “labor” within the meaning of the Miller Act and compensable as a cost under the Miller Act that typically views labor as on-site physical labor.
The issue is that the Miller Act covers “[e]very person that has furnished labor or material in carrying out work provided for in a contract.” Civil Construction, supra, at 1253 quoting 40 U.S.C. s. 3133(b)(1). The Miller Act does not define labor. The subcontractor claimed labor includes actual superintending at the job site. The surety disagreed that a superintendent’s presence on a job site constitutes labor as the superintendent has to actually perform physical labor on the job site to constitute compensable labor under the Miller Act.
The subcontractor argued its subcontract and the government’s quality control standards required detailed daily reports that verified manpower, equipment, and work performed at the job site. It further claimed its superintendent had to continuously supervise and inspect construction activities on-site: “[the] superintendent had to be on-site to account for, among other things, hours worked by crew members, usage and standby hours for each piece of equipment, materials delivered, weather throughout the day, and all work performed. These on-site responsibilities reflected the government’s quality control standards, under which the superintendent as ‘the most senior site manager at the project, is responsible for the overall construction activities at the site…includ[ing] all quality, workmanship, and production of crews and equipment.” Civil Construction, supra, at 1253-54.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Court Finds No Coverage for Workplace “Prank” With Nail Gun
April 04, 2022 —
Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogIn the recent case of Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Burby, 2022 NY Slip Op 22070, ¶ 1 (Sup. Ct.) Justice Richard M. Platkin of the Supreme Court of Albany County, New York examined a homeowners insurance policy and determined that a duty to defend was triggered in a case seeking recovery for injuries sustained when the insured, Burby allegedly discharged a nail gun in the bathroom of a work facility at which both Burby and the underlying plaintiff worked. Burby pled guilty to assault in the third degree for recklessly causing physical injury. MetLife, Burby’s carrier, disclaimed coverage based on lack of an occurrence, the business activities exclusion and the intentional loss exclusion, which bars coverage for injuries expected or intended by the insured or injuries that are the result of the insured’s intentional and criminal acts or omissions. Justice Platkin initially reviewed the intentional loss exclusion and lack of an occurrence and found that, from a duty to defend perspective, neither provided a dispositive coverage defense. However, the court found that the broadly worded business activities exclusion, which was not the subject of MetLife’s motion and instead was the subject of a cross motion by Burby, applied to bar coverage. In doing so, the court searched the record and granted summary judgment on the issue, despite MetLife not moving for relief under the exclusion.
With respect to the expected or intended prong of the intentional loss exclusion, the court found that, even if Burby did intend to pull the trigger of the nail gun, it was not pled in the underlying complaint that the harm that resulted to the plaintiff was expected or intended. As such, the court concluded that MetLife did not prove that there was no possible factual or legal basis upon which it could be found that Burby did not reasonably expect or intend to cause injury to the plaintiff.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Rokuson, Traub LiebermanMr. Rokuson may be contacted at
crokuson@tlsslaw.com
Coverage Denied for Faulty Blasting and Improper Fill
October 08, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe court found coverage was properly denied based on the subcontractor's failure to follow contract specifications in blasting at the job site. Westfield Ins. Co. v. Carpenter Reclamation, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130752 (S.D. W. Va. Sept. 18, 2014).
Carpenter was hired by the Board of Education (BOE) to perform preliminary site clearing, demolition, rock excavation, and establishment of sub-grade for a building. Carpenter was to excavate to 3.5 feet below the floor subgrade so that plumbing and other utilities could be installed.
Carpenter, however, blasted to depths deeper than required, including some areas that were up to nine feet. The BOE sued, alleging over-blasting and having to pay the cost of remediating the problem, along with breach of contract issues.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Manhattan Developer Wants Claims Dismissed in Breach of Contract Suit
August 27, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe Real Deal reported that Savannah, the developer of the condo conversion at 141 Fifth Avenue, “has filed to dismiss a number of claims in a $7.5 million breach of contract lawsuit by the property’s board of managers, while alleging professional negligence against several of its own contractors.”
Savanah’s lawyers stated, according to The Real Deal, that whether or not construction defects exist, their client isn’t responsible: “However to the extent that any of the alleged defects exist at the building, sponsor cannot be held liable for the existence of such defects.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Vacant Property and the Right of Redemption in Pennsylvania
April 06, 2016 —
Suzanne Prybella – White and Williams LLPIn Pennsylvania, pursuant to the Municipal Claims and Tax Liens Act (53 P.S. §7293(a)) (the Act), the owner of a property sold under a tax or municipal claim may redeem the sold property at any time within nine months after the date of acknowledgment of the sheriff's deed by, in general, paying the amount of the debt. However, there is a caveat contained in the Act with respect to vacant property, which states that “there shall be no redemption of vacant property by any person after the date of the acknowledgment of the sheriff's deed.” (53 P.S. §7293(c)). In Brentwood Borough School District v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 111 A.3d 807 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015), a case of first impression before the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, the court addressed the definition of “vacant property” under the Act and the timing of a petitioner to invoke the right of redemption with respect to vacant property.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Suzanne Prybella, White and Williams LLPMs. Prybella may be contacted at
prybellas@whiteandwilliams.com
Hawaii Bill Preserves Insurance Coverage in Lava Zones
May 20, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Hawaii legislature passed a bill in its recently concluded session to protect homeowners and businesses affected by lava flows from losing coverage.
The Puna district on the Big Island was severely impacted by the Pu`u O`o lava flow as it crept closer to homes, businesses, schools and populated areas. Problems were created by the imposition of a moratorium on the sale of new policies in certain areas of the Puna district.
SB 589 grants relief to homeowners who have had continuous insurance in lava zone areas that are declared to be in a state of emergency. The bill (1) allows the homeowners to have their policies renewed, (2) permits continued coverage for homeowners who wish to sell their homes, (3) grants coverage for new buyers of an insured property, and (4) allows homeowners who have not previously had insurance to purchase coverage from the Hawaii Property Insurance Association.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Were Quake Standards Illegally Altered for PG&E Nuclear Power Plant?
October 29, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAn environmental group has brought a lawsuit alleging that “[f]ederal regulators secretly and illegally revised the license for California’s last nuclear power facility — PG&E’s Diablo Canyon — to mask the aging plant’s vulnerability to earthquakes,” according to SF Gate.
Friends of the Earth’s “suit claims that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Pacific Gas and Electric Co. last year changed a key element of the plant’s license related to seismic safety without allowing public input as required by law — or even notifying the public at all.”
However, spokesman Blair Jones claimed that “Friends of the Earth continues to mischaracterize the facts regarding seismic safety at Diablo Canyon. The facts are Diablo Canyon was built with earthquake safety at the forefront, is a seismically safe facility, and is in compliance with NRC licensing requirements.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Will a Notice of Non-Responsibility Prevent Enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien?
March 05, 2015 —
William L. Porter – Porter Law Group, Inc.The “Notice of Non-Responsibility” is one of the most misunderstood and ineffectively used of all the legal tools available to property owners in California construction law. As a result, in most cases the answer to the above question is “No”, the posting and recording of a Notice of Completion will not prevent enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien.
The mechanics lien is a tool used by a claimant who has not been paid for performing work or supplying materials to a construction project. It provides the claimant the right to encumber the property where the work was performed and thereafter sell the property in order to obtain payment for the work or materials, even though the claimant had no contract directly with the property owner. When properly used, a Notice of Non-Responsibility will render a mechanics lien unenforceable against the property where the construction work was performed. By derailing the mechanics lien the owner protects his property from a mechanics lien foreclosure sale. Unfortunately, owners often misunderstand when they can and cannot effectively use a Notice of Non-Responsibility. As a result, the Notice of Non-Responsibility is usually ineffective in protecting the owner and his property.
The rules for the use of the Notice of Non-Responsibility are found in California Civil Code section 8444. Deceptively simple, the rules essentially state that an owner “that did not contract for the work of improvement”, within 10 days after the owner first “has knowledge of the work of improvement”, may fill out the necessary legal form for a Notice of Non-Responsibility and post that form at the worksite and record it with the local County Recorder in order to prevent enforcement of a later mechanics lien on the property.
What commonly occurs however is that early in the process the owner authorizes or even requires its tenant to perform beneficial tenant improvements on the property. This authorization is often set forth in a tenant lease or other written document. The dispositive factor for determining whether the Notice of Non-Responsibility will be enforceable though is that the owner knows that these improvements will be made to the property and intends that they be made, usually long before the work begins. Indeed, the owner has usually negotiated these very terms into the lease contract. The owner then mistakenly believes that once work on the property commences it has 10 days to post and record a Notice of Non-Responsibility and thereby protect itself from a mechanics lien.
The usual error is two-fold. First, the statute states that the Notice is available when the owner “did not contract for the work of improvement”. The fact though is that the owner did contract for the work of improvement. It did so through the lease contract. This is true even though the owner’s contract was not with the contractor or supplier directly. Secondly, the 10 day period to post and record the Notice begins when the owner first “has knowledge” of the work of improvement. This knowledge was of course gained when the lease was negotiated and signed, providing knowledge typically many days before the work has begun. Thus, the 10 day period can also seldom be met. The Notice of Non-Responsibility will therefore fail both rules because the owner has in fact contracted for the improvement and because he does not act within 10 days of gaining this knowledge.
The next event in the typical scenario occurs when the tenant does not pay its contractor. The contractor then has nothing to pay its subcontractors. Material suppliers also go unpaid. Mechanics liens are then recorded by the unpaid claimants, followed by foreclosure actions within ninety days thereafter. Owners will typically point to the Notice of Non-Responsibility they posted and recorded, claiming its protection. Claimants then in turn point to the lease or other evidence that the owner knew of the pending improvements and contracted in some way that the improvements be performed, often also more than 10 days before they posted the Notice. Judges generally agree with the unpaid mechanics lien claimants and the Notice of Non-Responsibility is deemed ineffective.
The fact that the Court does not enforce the Notice of Non-Responsibility under these circumstances is not an unfair result. Since the owner authorized the work to be performed and it received a substantial benefit in the form of those improvements, it is not unfair that the owner should pay for those benefits. It would be inequitable for the owner to obtain the benefit of the improvements which it authorized but for which it did not pay, while allowing those who provided the benefit to go unpaid. Moreover, without such a system in place the door would be open to owners setting up sham “tenants” who would enter into contracts to have work performed, only to disappear when the work is completed, leaving the contractor without a source of payment. The system in place as described above prevents such duplicity. Owners would do well to arm themselves with proper knowledge of when the Notice of Non-Responsibility will and will not protect them and then responsibly use the Notice of Non-Responsibility.
For the legal eagles among you, the following cases illustrate the view of the courts, consistent with the above: Baker v. Hubbard (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 226; Ott Hardware v. Yost (1945) 69 Cal. App.2d 593 (lease terms); Los Banos Gravel Co. v. Freeman (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 785 (common interest); Howard S. Wright Construction Co. v. Superior Court (2003); 106 Cal.App.4th 314 (participating owner).
William L. Porter of
Porter Law Group, Inc. located in Sacramento, California may be contacted at (916) 381-7868 or bporter@porterlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
