Smart Contracts Poised to Impact the Future of Construction
November 12, 2019 —
Frederick D. Cruz and Seth Wamelink - Construction ExecutiveIn August 2018, the State of Ohio passed legislation making it easier for businesses in Ohio, including the construction industry, to use blockchain technology in business transactions, which can result in significant savings and increased efficiency if used correctly. Specifically, Senate Bill 220 amends the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (Ohio Rev. Code. 1306.01, et seq.) and ensures that records (or signatures) secured through blockchain are legally binding. With the enactment of this bill, Ohio has joined several other states to allow their businesses to take advantage of this budding technology. While the implications of this enactment are widespread, the use of “smart contracts” utilizing blockchain technology is particularly helpful in the construction industry to streamline certain processes and increase efficiency.
What is Blockchain?
While blockchain technology is most commonly associated with cryptocurrency (e.g., Bitcoin), the technology has far greater applications as it can be used to “eliminate the middle-man” in a variety of transactions across a broad spectrum of industries. At its core, blockchain is a decentralized ledger that allows transacting parties to interact directly (i.e., peer-to-peer) in a secure manner. Essentially, the blockchain “ledger” is where users record transactions. These transactions are then verified, viewed, and shared with others in the network. The information is stored across a peer network and allows for approved users to view the data simultaneously. It is often analogized to using GoogleDocs, where multiple people can access and edit the same document simultaneously. While that is an easy comparison, blockchain itself is a bit more complex.
Reprinted courtesy of
Frederick D. Cruz & Seth Wamelink, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Mr. Cruz may be contacted at frederick.cruz@tuckerellis.com
Mr. Wamelink may be contacted at seth.wamelink@tuckerellis.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Supreme Court Eliminates Judicial 'Chevron' Deference to Federal Agency Statutory Interpretations
July 31, 2024 —
Jane C. Luxton - Lewis BrisboisWashington, D.C. (July 1, 2024) – In a much-anticipated decision, on June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a sweeping opinion “overrul[ing]” a 40-year old precedent that required judges to defer to federal agency interpretations of their governing statutes when those laws were ambiguous or silent. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, et al. No. 22-451 (2024), overruling Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
The decision means that courts will no longer give special weight to an agency’s view of the scope of its regulatory powers but must apply independent judgment in deciding “whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.” Loper Bright, slip op. at 35. Taking pains to explain that the new ruling would not allow for reversals of cases previously decided under the Chevron doctrine, the Court left no doubt that, in the words of Justice Neil Gorsuch, “[t]oday, the Court places a tombstone on Chevron no one can miss.” Id., Gorsuch Concurring Opinion at 1.
Writing for a 6-2 majority, Chief Justice Roberts forcefully condemned the Chevron-based principle that courts should defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of the scope of its legal authority, rejecting the concept that agencies have any special expertise in statutory interpretation, a field reserved to the courts, not the executive branch, under Article III of the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jane C. Luxton, Lewis BrisboisMs. Luxton may be contacted at
Jane.Luxton@lewisbrisbois.com
Illinois Supreme Court Holds that Constructions Defects May Constitute “Property Damage” Caused By An “Occurrence” Under Standard CGL Policy, Overruling Prior Appellate Court Precedent
January 08, 2024 —
Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogOn November 30, 2023, the Illinois Supreme Court issued an opinion that overturned precedent in Illinois regarding whether faulty workmanship that only caused damage to the insured’s own work constituted “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under Illinois law. In Acuity v. M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC, 2023 IL 129087, the Illinois Supreme Court considered whether Acuity, a mutual insurance company, had a duty to defend its additional insured, M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC (M/I Homes), under a subcontractor’s commercial general liability (CGL) policy in connection with an underlying lawsuit brought by a townhome owners’ association for breach of contract and breach of an implied warranty of habitability. The Cook County Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of Acuity finding no duty to defend because the underlying complaint did not allege “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under the initial grant of coverage of the insurance policy. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that Acuity owed M/I Homes a duty to defend. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, in part, holding construction defects to the general contractor’s own work may constitute “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under the standard CGL Policy. This is significant as it overrules prior Illinois precedent finding that repair or replacement of the insured’s defective work does not satisfy the initial grant of coverage of a CGL Policy.
By way of background, the underlying litigation stems from alleged construction defects in a residential townhome development in the village of Hanover Park, Illinois. The townhome owners’ association, through its board of directors (the Association) subsequently filed an action on behalf of the townhome owners for breach of contract and breach of the implied warranty of habitability against M/I Homes as the general contractor and successor developer/seller of the townhomes. The Association alleged that M/I Homes’ subcontractors caused construction defects by using defective materials, conducting faulty workmanship, and failing to comply with applicable building codes. As a result, “[t]he [d]efects caused physical injury to the [t]ownhomes (i.e. altered the exterior’s appearance, shape, color or other material dimension) after construction of the [t]ownhome[ ] was completed from repeated exposure to substantially the same general conditions.” The defects included “leakage and/or uncontrolled water and/or moisture in locations in the buildings where it was not intended or expected.” The Association alleged that the “[d]efects have caused substantial damage to the [t]ownhomes and damage to other property.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Taylor, Traub LiebermanMr. Taylor may be contacted at
jtaylor@tlsslaw.com
Architectural Firm, Fired by School District, Launches Lawsuit
October 01, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFEl Associates Architects and Engineers is suing the Boyertown School District after the district fired them for underestimating the cost of an expansion project. The school district, located in Pennsylvania, was seeking to increase student capacity. El Associates estimate lead to a $55 million budget, but D’Huy Engineering, the district’s construction management firm, estimated $70 million for the project.
After the Boyertown School District hired KCBA Architects, El Associates filed suit. El Associates contends that it had followed the contract requirements and that the school district was in violation of the contract’s provisions on terminating the agreement.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Contractors Liable For Their Subcontractor’s Failure To Pay Its Employees’ Wages And Benefits
November 01, 2022 —
Edward O. Pacer & David J. Scriven-Young - ConsensusDocsRecently, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker signed two House Bills that amend the Illinois Wage Payment & Collections Act, 820 ILCS 115 et. seq. (“Wage Act”), to provide greater protection for individuals working in the construction trades against wage theft in a defined class of projects. Pursuant to this new law, every general contractor, construction manager, or “primary contractor,” working on the projects included in the Bill’s purview will be liable for wages that have not been paid by a subcontractor or lower-tier subcontractor on any contract entered into after July 1, 2022, together with unpaid fringe benefits plus attorneys’ fees and costs that are incurred by the employee in bringing an action under the Wage Act. This new wage theft law follows several other states that have considered and passed similar legislation.
These amendments to the Wage Act apply to a primary contractor engaged in “erection, construction, alteration, or repair of a building structure, or other private work.” However, there are important limitations to the amendment’s applicability. The amendment does not apply to projects under contract with state or local government, or to general contractors that are parties to a collective bargaining agreement on a project where the work is being performed. Additionally, the amendment does not apply to primary contractors who are doing work with a value of less than $20,000, or work that involves only the altering or repairing of an existing single-family dwelling or single residential unit in a multi-unit building.
Reprinted courtesy of
Edward O. Pacer, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. (ConsensusDocs) and
David J. Scriven-Young, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. (ConsensusDocs)
Mr. Pacer may be contacted at epacer@pecklaw.com
Mr. Scriven-Young may be contacted at dscriven-young@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Arizona Court Affirms Homeowners’ Association’s Right to Sue Over Construction Defects
October 15, 2024 —
Melissa Kenney - White and Williams LLPIn Gallery Community Association v. K. Hovnanian at Gallery LLC, No. 1 CA-CV 23-0375, 2024 Ariz. App. Unpub. LEXIS 696 (Ct. App.), the Court of Appeals of Arizona (Court of Appeals) discussed whether a homeowners’ association can file an action for breach of the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability arising from construction defects. At issue was whether the implied warranty extended to the areas within the community that the association maintained, including the common areas. The Court of Appeals held that homeowners’ associations can sue builder-vendors for breach of the implied warranty arising from construction defects.
In this case, a homeowners’ association, responsible for managing and maintaining a community of townhomes, sued the developer/builder for alleged construction defects in the common area and exteriors of homes that the association maintained for the homeowners in the community. The alleged defects included the pool cabana and staircase walls in the common areas and the exterior walls, roofs, and staircases on the separately owned townhomes in the community. The builder filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the implied warranty extended to dwelling actions initiated by homeowners – not homeowners’ associations – and that the alleged construction defects at issue were not related to a dwelling. The trial court granted the motion. The Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeals determined that both common law and statutory law authorized the homeowners’ association’s breach of implied warranty claim.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Kenney, White and WilliamsMs. Kenney may be contacted at
kenneyme@whiteandwilliams.com
Insolvency of Primary Carrier Does Not Invoke Excess Coverage
January 06, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe insured failed to present any argument for excess coverage after the insolvency of the primary carrier. Canal Ins. Co. v. Montello, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20625 (10th Cir. Nov. 27, 2015).
Montello distributed an oil drill containing asbestos between 1966 and 1985. Montello was sued by individuals claiming injuries due to exposure to the asbestos.
Montello was insured by The Home Insurance Company from March 1975 to March 1984. In 2003, Home was declared insolvent. Home did not pay any claims for bodily injury on Montello's behalf.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
California Joins the Majority of States in Modifying Its Survival Action Statute To Now Permit Recovery for Pain, Suffering And Disfigurement
January 03, 2022 —
Krsto Mijanovic & Elizabeth D. Rhodes - Haight Brown & BonesteelOn January 1, 2022, California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”)Section 377.30 et seq., as amended by Senate Bill 447, otherwise known as the “survival action” statute1, goes into effect. On that date, all plaintiffs filing new civil cases filed on or after January 1, 2022, and before January 1, 2026, and plaintiffs in any action or proceeding granted trial preference pursuant to CCP Section 36 before January 1, 2022, will be expressly allowed to recover damages for a decedent’s pain, suffering, or disfigurement in a survival action.2 This is a significant change in California law. In that regard, California is now the 46th state to permit this form of recovery.
As reported in the Legislative Counsel’s Digest3, Consumer Attorneys of California and Consumer Federation of California, which co-sponsored Senate Bill 447, opined to the Legislature that the prior law provided a “death discount” to defendants which incentivized bad faith delays in resolution, and caused unnecessary congestion of the already overburdened court system. These argued issues will be vetted by the Legislature using the four-year reporting requirement that is also part of the amendment to the statute, requiring plaintiffs who recover this newly permitted category of damages to report the valuation and details of the case to the Judicial Council within 60 days of the judgment or other operative court document being entered in the court’s docket.4 The amendment will be evaluated by the Legislature for amendment or extension on or before January 1, 2026.
Reprinted courtesy of
Krsto Mijanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and
Elizabeth D. Rhodes, Haight Brown & Bonesteel
Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com
Ms. Rhodes may be contacted at erhodes@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
