Payment Bond Claim Notice Requires More than Mailing
June 18, 2019 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIt’s been a while since I posted something new relating to Virginia’s “Little Miller Act” and its various notice requirements for a subcontractor to make a payment bond claim.
I have posted on the basics of a Virginia payment bond claim previously here at Musings. One of these basics is the 90 day notice requirement for suppliers or second tier subcontractors with no direct contractual relationship to the general contractor. A recent case from the Norfolk, Virginia Circuit Court examined when notice is “given” under the Little Miller Act.
In R T Atkinson Building Corp v Archer Western Construction, LLC the Court looked at the question of whether mailing of the notice of claim is enough to constitute notice being “given” in a manner that would satisfy the statutory requirements. In that case, the supplier mailed the notice within the 90 day window, but the defendant argued on summary judgment that it did not receive the notice until 2 days after the 90 day window had closed. In support of this contention, the defendant provided tracking information showing delivery by the USPS on the non-compliant date.
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
A Word to the Wise: The AIA Revised Contract Documents Could Lead to New and Unanticipated Risks - Part II
October 16, 2018 —
George Talarico - Construction ExecutivePart I addressed general conditions, revised insurance terms, revisions that affect owner’s required insurance and revisions that affect contractor’s required insurance.
REVISIONS THAT AFFECT DISPUTE RESOLUTION
A seemingly minor but noteworthy change is to the definition of “Claim.” Under Section 15.1 a “Claim” is defined to:
- include a request for a modification of contract time; and
- exclude any requirement that an owner must file a claim to impose liquidated damages.
Notably, any request relating to contract time must be brought within the specified time period for Notice of Claim and in the prescribed manner. There are at least two traps for the unwary. First, even though email is regularly used for communications among the parties, the revised contract documents do not recognize email as an acceptable form of delivery of a Notice of Claim. Second, an unwary contractor may wrongly assume that an owner’s failure to assert a claim for LDs means that LDs will not be imposed. This may lull the contractor into failing to timely assert its own claim for a time extension and thereby waiving its ability to do so.
Reprinted courtesy of
George Talarico, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Talarico may be contacted at
gtalarico@sillscummis.com
Shifting the Risk of Delay by Having Float Go Your Way
July 05, 2021 —
Christopher J. Brasco & Matthew D. Baker - ConsensusDocsCritical path delay plays a central role in allocating responsibility for project delay. The interrelated concept of concurrency is also frequently determinative of entitlement on a range of claims including by owners for liquidated damages and by contractors for delay damages. What constitutes critical/concurrent delay, however, is hotly debated by scheduling experts. The lack of real consensus regarding how critical/concurrent delay should be determined and analyzed has created significant uncertainty in scheduling disputes. Indeed, courts have adopted differing and at times conflicting theories of concurrency that can produce divergent outcomes for the parties. In an effort to reduce uncertainty, stakeholders have increasingly adopted specialized contractual provisions and scheduling techniques which have significant implications for the evaluation of the companion concepts of criticality and concurrency. One such mechanism is float sequestration. Regardless of whether float sequestration is ultimately in the construction industry’s broader interest, stakeholders must be able to recognize its use and appreciate the implications for delay disputes on their projects.
Simply defined, float is the number of days an activity can be delayed before affecting the project’s critical path (i.e., the longest chain of activities which determines the project’s minimal duration). Typically, only delays affecting the critical path can produce concurrent delay. Consequently, the concept of float is integral to understanding and resolving issues of both criticality and concurrency.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher J. Brasco, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP and
Matthew D. Baker, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP
Mr. Brasco may be contacted at cbrasco@watttieder.com
Mr. Baker may be contacted at mbaker@watttieder.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Defendant Added to Morrison Bridge Decking Lawsuit
March 26, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe Morrison Bridge in Multnomah County, Oregon, has added a new company to their lawsuit regarding problems with the slip-resistant FRP decking, according to The Oregonian. The county has already named the installer, the supplier, and the manufacturer. Now, they have added Hardesty & Hanover, LLP, the company “that contracted with the decking manufacturer to provide engineering and design for the project.”
The Oregonian reported that “the county has identified a construction design professional who can testify that Hardesty & Hanover made errors that contributed to the Morrison Bridge's damage,” according to the amended complaint.
First, Conway construction (the deck installer) filed suit against the decking manufacturer and supplier. Then, the “county inserted itself into the suit last fall,” stated The Oregonian, and “is seeking more than $2 million to repair or replace the decking, plus damages.” A trial is scheduled for February 2015.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Builders Beware: A New Class Of Defendants In Asbestos Lawsuits
January 06, 2016 —
David J. Byassee, Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP & Timothy A. Gravitt, Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld, LLPResidential, commercial and industrial builders face new and potentially significant liability for construction activities that took place in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s: personal injury lawsuits filed by construction workers from exposure to building products containing asbestos. After emptying the pockets of manufacturers and suppliers of raw asbestos and asbestos-containing products over the last 20 years, plaintiff lawyers are beginning to set their sights on a new class of defendants in asbestos litigation: residential, commercial and industrial builders who unknowingly allowed asbestos-containing products to be incorporated into their projects.
The men and women who have been involved in the building industry for 40 years or more may remember the subject of asbestos surfacing in the 1970s with the enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). At that point builders were just beginning to learn that asbestos was a component of some building materials, and the potential risk of cancer presented by asbestos was being debated in scientific and medical journals. Although the use of building materials containing asbestos was mostly phased out by the 1980s, the health risks associated with exposure to asbestos continue – and in fact increase – for the duration of an exposed person’s life.
Today it is generally accepted that exposure to asbestos increases the risk of developing asbestosis and certain kinds of cancer, including mesothelioma. Cancers associated with exposure to asbestos are typically diagnosed at least 15 years (and sometimes up to 50 years) after a person’s exposure to asbestos, meaning that exposures in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s might not manifest in disease until now. The class of persons who may be at risk for asbestos-related disease is long and varied: insulators, HVAC installers, pipe fitters, plumbers, drywall installers, painters, plasterers and roofers, to name a few. Long-term exposure history, coupled with the theory that “each and every” exposure during a lifetime is a substantial factor increasing the risk of developing cancer, presents potential liability to builders acting as general contractors and/or property owners, as well as the usual defendants in asbestos lawsuits, which include manufacturers, suppliers, and users of asbestos-containing materials.
In recent years, plaintiff lawyers have set their sights on builders as the financial wherewithal of traditional asbestos defendants has dried up. Plaintiff lawyers have created a new theory of liability which they use to rope builders in as defendants in asbestos lawsuits: that the builder knew – or should have known – that a deadly ingredient (asbestos) was contained in the building materials used in construction, and the builder failed to warn its subcontractors or anyone else on the project that exposure to asbestos could harm them.
Builders have unique legal defenses to claims brought by employees of subcontractors who have developed asbestos-related disease. For example, the California Supreme Court in Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, held that an injured employee of a subcontractor cannot maintain a claim against the hirer (builder) for the employee’s injury absent affirmative contribution on the part of the builder to the injury. Thus the first line of defense in an asbestos exposure case is to argue that the developer had no direct role in the plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos and therefore the Privette doctrine precludes the plaintiff from suing the builder. But resourceful plaintiff lawyers are coming up with arguments to get around this so-called Privette defense in asbestos lawsuits by claiming that builders’ activities such as cleanup of asbestos-containing materials, or assertion of control over the work of the subcontractor, directly contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries and therefore provide exceptions to Privette and allow the claim to proceed.
A practical question is raised in asbestos cases: How is a plaintiff able to prove, decades after working on a project, what building materials contained asbestos, or that a builder knew or should have known in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s that asbestos-containing materials were used on their project, or that asbestos presented a health risk? To answer the first part of the question (what building materials contained asbestos), plaintiff’s experts will say that during the relevant timeframe asbestos was a common ingredient in many building products, e.g., drywall joint compounds, stucco/plaster/gun cement, acoustic ceiling products, cement pipe, insulation, roofing mastic, caulk and plumber’s putty; this can be further proven by reference to product manufacturers’ disclosures made pursuant to the Asbestos Information Act. Also, through the decades of asbestos litigation against product manufacturers and suppliers, resourceful plaintiff lawyers have developed vast banks of data and documentation identifying the manufacturers of asbestos-containing building products, the end-users of those products, and the projects where those products were supplied. With this bank of knowledge, all that is necessary for them to make the claim against a builder is to have the plaintiff identify a construction project where he or she remembers working during the relevant timeframe. Once that identification is made, it is a simple matter for the lawyers to dig and find out who developed the building/project, who then becomes a defendant in an asbestos lawsuit.
The answer to the second part of the question (whether the developer knew or should have known that the products brought to their projects contained asbestos) requires a detailed investigation into the dates at which the products were supplied to the project, the manufacturer of the product, and what information was available in the market place about the material content of the particular product.
The answer to the third part of the question (knowledge that asbestos presented a health risk) is trickier. One of the first standards set by OSHA in 1972 related to permissible levels of exposure to asbestos. It is a common tactic for plaintiff lawyers to argue that the existence of OSHA standards created a presumption of knowledge in the building industry about the dangers of asbestos. But what about pre-OSHA knowledge? Here plaintiff lawyers will argue that well before OSHA, going back as far as 1936, exposure to asbestos was regulated in California under General Industry Safety Orders relating to Dusts, Fumes, Mists, Vapors and Gases. They argue that the General Industry Safety Orders put builders “on notice” of the dangers of asbestos by virtue of being regulated by the State of California, and, by extension, builders had “knowledge” of the health risks associated with asbestos.
There are defenses that skilled defense counsel can utilize to defeat asbestos claims, assuming the Privette defense is not available. The first is to thoroughly investigate and evaluate all of the plaintiff’s potential exposures to asbestos throughout his entire lifetime, and identify those sources that likely were the major contributors to his disease. Next, counsel has to properly investigate the project at which the plaintiff is alleged to have been exposed to asbestos, identify all of the possible sources of exposure, i.e., the products that were used or might have been used at the project, and finally how the plaintiff was allegedly exposed at the project. As most builders do not maintain records of what products were used in their projects dating back 15 years or more, let alone the identities of the trades that worked on the projects, knowledgeable defense counsel can be a valuable partner in unearthing the brands of products typically in use in the locale where the construction took place, and identifying the manufacturers of those products. Defense counsel must analyze the frequency, duration, proximity and intensity of the exposure, as well as the type of asbestos the plaintiff was allegedly exposed to (not all asbestos is created equal – some types are more toxic than others). This will involve careful evaluation of the levels of exposure created by the alleged activity of the builder, to determine, through experts and a thorough understanding of the scientific and medical studies on the subject, whether the levels of asbestos exposure created by the activity could be considered a “substantial factor” in contributing to the risk of the plaintiff’s development of his asbestos-related disease.
Asbestos lawsuits present a significant risk to the unsuspecting and unprepared builder. Money damages available to a plaintiff are substantial. Medical expenses for treatment of asbestos-related disease typically run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, lost income (including retirement benefits) can also be significant, and jury awards for pain, suffering and emotional distress can be staggering - often millions of dollars. In some cases punitive damages are even awarded.
The bottom line is that a builder runs a big risk if it treats an asbestos claim like any other claim. The level of analysis and investigation to properly defend against the claim requires prompt action by knowledgeable counsel, and frequently there is no insurance coverage.
David J. Byassee is an attorney with the firm
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP, and is a litigator who has devoted nearly a decade to representation of real estate developers and builders. He can be reached at: dbyassee@bremerwhyte.com.
Timothy A. Gravitt is an attorney with the firm
Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld, LLP who is devoted to defending real estate developers and builders in a variety of litigation. He can be reached at: tgravitt@ulichlaw.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Supreme Court Rejects Third Exception to Privette Doctrine
July 03, 2022 —
Lewis BrisboisWalnut Creek, Calif. (May 25, 2022) - In Gonzalez v. Mathis (August 19, 2021) 12 Cal. 5th 29, the California Supreme Court considered whether to create a third exception to the Privette Doctrine specific to known hazards on a worksite, when a contractor cannot remedy the hazard by taking reasonable safety precautions to protect against it.
Privette Background
Under the Privette Doctrine, the hirer of an independent contractor generally cannot be liable for injuries sustained by the independent contractor or its employees while on the job. This is due to the “strong presumption” that the hirer delegates all responsibility for workplace safety to the independent contractor. See Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 689. Since the Privette ruling in 1993, the California Supreme Court has identified two circumstances in which the presumption may be overcome. First, the hirer may be liable when it retains control over any part of the independent contractor’s work and negligently exercises that retained control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the injury. Hooker v. Dept. of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal. 4th 198, 213. Second, a landowner who hires an independent contractor may be liable if the landowner knew, or should have known, of a concealed hazard to the property that the contractor did not know of and could not have reasonably discovered, and the landowner failed to warn the contractor of the hazard. Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. (2005) 37 Cal. 4th 659, 664. Here, in the Gonzalez case, the court considered whether a landowner could be liable for known hazards on the property.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
In UK, 16th Century Abbey Modernizes Heating System by Going Back to Roman Times
March 18, 2019 —
Peter Reina - Engineering News-RecordAncient Romans in western England bathed in naturally warm spring water of the spa town of Aquae Sulis, now named Bath. Nearly 2,000 years later, the city’s 16th century abbey is now preparing to draw warmth from the still functioning Great Roman Drain to replace the former monastery’s dilapidated Victorian-era heating system.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Peter Reina, ENRMr. Reina may be contacted at
reina@btinternet.com
Three Reasons Late Payments Persist in the Construction Industry
December 22, 2019 —
Patrick Hogan - Construction ExecutiveConstruction professionals are all too familiar with the payment issues that plague the construction industry. Contractors, subcontractors and material suppliers often have to deal with payment delays and even nonpayment—affecting cash flow and their ability to meet expenses.
According to an Atradius study, a quarter of all B2B invoices issued in North America are overdue. The construction industry accounted for one-third of those past-due invoices, and many contractors and construction business owners do not have a positive outlook on the industry's payment issues. The same survey found 55% of U.S. firms think there will be no change in the industry’s payment practices over the coming months—one-third even expects an increase in late payments.
These findings show that managing cash flow is a significant challenge in the construction industry. Having a negative cash flow will push the company toward financial trouble, which may ultimately lead to its demise. Understanding the reasons why payment issues persist in construction will help contractors protect their business, prevent these issues from happening or at least minimize their effect on the current operations.
Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick Hogan, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
