New York Revises Retainage Requirements for Private Construction Contracts: Overview of the “5% Retainage Law”
January 22, 2024 —
Levi W. Barrett, Patrick T. Murray, Skyler L. Santomartino & Mark A. Snyder - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.On November 17, 2023, the State of New York enacted the “5% Retainage Law.” This legislation effectively limits the amount of retainage that can be held from general contractors and subcontractors to no more than 5%. It applies to many but not all construction contracts. In addition, the new law revises late stage billing requirements, enabling contractors to invoice for retainage at substantial completion. Previously, the parties to a construction contract were free to negotiate any retainage amount, limited only by an unspecified “reasonable amount” that would be released as the parties contractually set forth.
Summary
The new law amends Sections 756-a and 756-c of the General Business Law (part of Article 35E of the GBL, known as the “Prompt Pay Act”), and applies to private construction contracts “where the aggregate cost of the construction project, including all labor, services, materials and equipment to be furnished, equals or exceeds one hundred fifty thousand dollars.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Levi W. Barrett, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.,
Patrick T. Murray, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.,
Skyler L. Santomartino, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Mark A. Snyder, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Barrett may be contacted at lbarrett@pecklaw.com
Mr. Murray may be contacted at pmurray@pecklaw.com
Mr. Santomartino may be contacted at ssantomartino@pecklaw.com
Mr. Snyder may be contacted at msnyder@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A Court-Side Seat: Flint Failures, Missed Deadlines, Toad Work and a Game of Chicken
October 05, 2020 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelThe last few weeks have yielded a number of interesting developments in the Federal courts.
FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEAL
In re Flint Water Cases
Several local and State of Michigan officials, including the former governor, requested dismissal from the civil litigation seeking damages for the massive failure of Flint, Michigan’s public drinking water system. On August 5, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit agreed that the plaintiffs, residents of Flint, have successfully pled a case that the conduct of the defendants so “shocked the conscience” that a claim for a violation of their substantive due process rights was appropriately alleged. The defendants, including the former governor, argued that they were entitled to a qualified immunity defense. The court rejected this argument on the basis of the earlier decisions made by the court in this matter. Judge Sutton concurred because he was bound by this precedent, but remarked that the evidence for the governor’s culpability was very thin; he was not intimately connected to the extraordinary error in judgment. The majority was very upset with this concurrence as indicted by their own opinion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Texas Court of Appeals Conditionally Grant Petition for Writ of Mandamus to Anderson
April 25, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFThe Texas Court of Appeals conditionally grant mandamus relief to Anderson Construction Company and Ronnie Anderson (collectively “Anderson”)… from the trial court in a construction defect lawsuit filed by Brent L. Mainwaring and Tatayana Mainwaring. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.001-.007 (West 2000 & Supp. 2010). Relators contend the trial court abused its discretion by compelling discovery while the case was abated by operation of law.
The Court of Appeals opinion describes what led up to the proceedings: “The Mainwarings’ original petition identified certain defects in their Anderson-constructed home. Those defects concerned the roof trusses and framing, air conditioning, mortar and masonry, exterior doors and windows, and weep holes. With respect to the five areas of defects identified in their original petition, the Mainwarings gave Anderson the statutorily required notice on January 13, 2010. After implementing agreed extensions, Anderson made an offer of settlement for the defects the Mainwarings identified in their notice. Almost eight months later, the Mainwarings filed an amended petition adding defects they had not included in their original petition and notice. The additional defects the Mainwarings included in their amended petition had not been addressed by Anderson’s offer of settlement.”
Following these events, Anderson claimed the Mainwarings did not respond in writing to their settlement offer. “Anderson filed a verified plea in abatement on December 2, 2010. In the trial court, Anderson claimed that the Mainwarings failed to respond in writing to Anderson’s settlement offer, as required by Section 27.004(b) of the RCLA. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(b)(1). The Mainwarings moved to compel discovery responses from Anderson. The Mainwarings alleged that they rejected Anderson’s settlement offer, and that if their response was insufficient, they contend that Anderson’s offer was rejected by operation of law on the twenty-fifth day after the Mainwarings received it. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(i). The Mainwarings’ motion to compel was not supported by affidavit. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(d)(2). On January 13, 2011, Anderson filed a verified supplemental plea in abatement. Anderson alleged that the Mainwarings failed to provide written notice concerning the newly alleged defects and complained the Mainwarings were attempting to circumvent the inspection and resolution procedure of the RCLA. Over Anderson’s objection that the lawsuit had been abated, the trial court granted the Mainwarings’ motion to compel discovery.”
After listening to both sides, the Court of Appeals offered this reasoning for their opinion: “The parties do not dispute that Anderson inspected the property before the Mainwarings alleged the existence of additional defects in their amended pleading, nor do the Mainwarings claim that Anderson has been given an opportunity to inspect the additional defects the Mainwarings identified in their amended pleadings. We conclude the trial court did not have the discretion to deny or lift the abatement until the Mainwarings established their compliance with the statute. In other words, the Mainwarings are required to provide Anderson a reasonable opportunity to inspect the additional defects identified by their amended pleading, which will allow Anderson the opportunity to cure or settle with respect to the newly identified defects.”
The Court of Appeals spoke directly on the issue of mandamus relief: “The Mainwarings contend that mandamus relief is not available because the trial court’s ruling does not prevent Anderson from making settlement offers during the discovery process. ‘An appellate remedy is “adequate” when any benefits to mandamus review are outweighed by the detriments.’ In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004). The failure to abate a case is typically not subject to mandamus. See In re Allstate Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co., 85 S.W.3d 193, 196 (Tex. 2002) (citing Abor v. Black, 695 S.W.2d 564, 567 (Tex. 1985)). In this case, however, the case was abated by operation of law. By ignoring the statutory abatement, the trial court interfered with the statutory procedure for developing and resolving construction defect claims. See In re Kimball Hill Homes Tex., Inc., 969 S.W.2d 522, 525 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, orig. proceeding) (An appeal provides an inadequate remedy for the trial court’s failure to observe automatic abatement pursuant to the RCLA.). The benefits of mandamus review are not outweighed by the detriments of mandamus review in this case.“
In conclusion, “The trial court had no discretion to compel discovery while the case was abated, and Anderson, who has been compelled to respond to discovery during a period the case was under an automatic abatement, has no adequate remedy on appeal. Accordingly, we conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus. The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to vacate its order of February 3, 2011, and fails to refrain from proceeding with the case until a motion to reinstate is filed that establishes compliance with the notice and inspection requirements of the Residential Construction Liability Act.”
Read the trial court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Contractor Side Deals Can Waive Rights
October 02, 2023 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsHere at Construction Law Musings, we are quite fond of the Federal Miller Act and it’s Virginia counterpart, the “Little” Miller Act. Both of these statutes allow a subcontractor or supplier on a government construction project the security to perform their work with the knowledge that a bonding company will back their claim for payment. These acts are necessary because a construction company cannot file a mechanic’s lien on a government owned piece of property.
As a general rule the Miller Acts impose almost strict liability on a contractor and its surety to pay for work performed by a downstream supplier or subcontractor. However, as a recent case out of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals makes clear, this rule is not without exceptions.
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
Newmeyer Dillion Attorneys Selected To The Best Lawyers In America© And Orange County "Lawyer Of The Year" 2020
September 03, 2019 —
Newmeyer DillionProminent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer Dillion is pleased to announce that ten of the firm's attorneys were recently recognized in their respective practice areas in The Best Lawyers in America© 2020. In addition, two attorneys have been named Best Lawyers ® 2020 "Lawyer of the Year." Greg Dillion was recognized by Best Lawyers as the 2020 Construction Law "Lawyer of the Year" award winner, while Thomas Newmeyer was recognized by Best Lawyers as the 2020 Litigation - Real Estate "Lawyer of the Year" award winner.
Attorneys named to The Best Lawyers in America, include:
Jason Moberly Caruso
Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs, Product Liability Litigation – Plaintiffs
Michael S. Cucchissi
Real Estate Law
Jeffrey M. Dennis
Insurance Law
Gregory L. Dillion
Commercial Litigation, Construction Law, Insurance Law, Litigation – Construction, Litigation - Real Estate
Joseph A. Ferrentino
Litigation – Construction, Litigation - Real Estate
Jon Janecek
Real Estate Law
Thomas F. Newmeyer
Commercial Litigation, Litigation - Real Estate
John O'Hara
Litigation – Construction
Bonnie T. Roadarmel
Insurance Law
Jane Samson
Real Estate Law
Newmeyer Dillion is immensely proud of our lawyers, whose consistent recognition demonstrates their contributions to the firm, our clients and the legal profession.
With a history of over 35 years, Best Lawyers is the oldest peer review publication within the legal profession. Universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence, Best Lawyers lists are compiled based on an exhaustive peer-review evaluation in which leading lawyers confidentially evaluate their professional peers. Their listings are published in 77 countries worldwide and are recognized for their reliable and unbiased selections. Only one lawyer for each specialty and location is recognized as the "Lawyer of the Year," an award given to the individual with the highest overall peer-feedback for a specific practice area and geographic region.
About Newmeyer Dillion
For 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that align with the business objectives of clients in diverse industries. With over 70 attorneys working as an integrated team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers tailored legal services to propel clients' business growth. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California and Nevada, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
LAX Construction Defect Suit May Run into Statute of Limitations
December 30, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFCurrent arguments over the claims made by LAX that Runway 25L was built in a defective manner by Tutor-Saliba/O&G Industries are hinging over whether the airport knew the runway was defective less than four years after the construction was completed. The runway was built almost five years ago, and Tutor-Saliba is claiming that Los Angeles World Airports has delayed too long in making a construction defect complaint. Tutor-Saliba is not conceding that the runway is defective, only that if it were, the airport would have known it earlier.
Los Angeles World Airports, which operates LAX, is not commenting on the matter, but Robert Span, an aviation attorney at Steinbrecher & Span, told the Daily Breeze that while “there is a four year statute of limitations for dealing with construction defects, but that’s for what they called patent defects,” and that “there’s a 10-year statute of limitations for construction projects where the defect that is alleged is called latent — something that would not be readily apparent.”
Tim Pierce, a construction attorney at K&L Gates LLP described it as “a common defense,” though he said it is “raised in most cases and only works in some.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Attorneys' Fees Awarded as Part of "Damages Because of Property Damage"
October 07, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court for the district of Hawaii found that an arbitrator's award of attorneys' fees was part of the "damages because of property damage" and covered under a CGL policy. Ass'n of Apt. Owners of the Moorings v. Dongbu Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110283 (Aug. 18, 2016 D. Haw).
The Moorings AOAO was the named insured under the policy issued by Dongbu. Jo-Anne and Brent Braden, owners of a residential unit at the Moorings, filed a demand for arbitration against the AOAO. The Bradens alleged that the AOAO had failed to repair and maintain their lanai roof, which caused water damage to their unit. The arbitrator awarded the Bradens $6,103.49 in special damages, which was the amount they paid to repair their roof and interior damage. The arbitrator also awarded $85,644.30 in attorneys' fees and $8,515.91 in costs to the Bradens.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Vegas Hi-Rise Not Earthquake Safe
July 12, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFIf an earthquake hit Las Vegas, the Harmon Tower would not withstand it. A report from Weidlinger Associates told MGM Resorts that “in a code-level earthquake, using either the permitted or current code specified loads, it is likely that critical structural members in the tower will fail and become incapable of supporting gravity loads, leading to a partial or complete collapse of the tower.” The inspection came at the request of county officials, according to the article in Forbes.
According to Ronald Lynn, directory of the building division in the county’s development services division, “these deficiencies, in their current state, make the building uninhabitable.” The county is concerned about risks to adjacent buildings.
MGM Resorts is currently in litigation, separate from the stability issues, with Perini Corp., the builders of Harmon Tower.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
