Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

When Is an Arbitration Clause Unconscionable? Not Often

April 05, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Here at Construction Law Musings, I have discussed the pros and cons of various forms of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), including arbitration. I am a fan of most ADR, but less of one for arbitration than for mediation. However, where the arbitration can be done under a good set of cost-containing rules and with an arbitrator that is experienced in construction, arbitration can help with the resolution of construction claims. Of course, arbitration provisions in construction contracts are routinely upheld by the courts of Virginia with limited exceptions. One of these exceptions is where the arbitration clause is unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. A recent case out of the Western District of Virginia, Marroquin v. Dan Ryan Builders Mid-Atlantic LLC, shows how high a hurdle it is to get a court to invalidate an arbitration provision. In this case, the Marroquins purchased a new construction home from the Defendants. As is often the case in such purchase transactions, Defendant provided a limited warranty agreement (in this case provided by Quality Builders Warranty Corporation (“QBW”)) that along with the sales contract contained a mandatory arbitration provision. The parties executed the limited warranty and the sale proceeded with the Marroquins taking possession. Over the next year or so, the County inspector’s office issued several correction orders to Defendant, and the Marroquins, through counsel, identified numerous defects in construction, many of which they alleged to remain unremedied. Needless to say, they sued for breach of statutory warranty and for breach of the limited warranty. Defendant removed the case to Federal District Court and then moved to compel arbitration. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Judge Nixes SC's $100M Claim Over MOX Construction Delays

February 16, 2017 — Engineering News-Record
A federal judge on Feb. 8 dismissed a claim by the state of South Carolina against the U.S. Dept. of Energy over delayed construction of the Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, near Aiken, S.C. The claim for financial compensation was part of a lawsuit the state filed in February 2016 seeking payment of $1 million per day—or an annual maximum of $100 million—for the MOX facility not producing fuel by Jan. 1, 2016. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

Rejection’s a Bear- Particularly in Construction

December 23, 2024 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
As I read through this week’s cases published in Virginia Lawyers Weekly, I came across a case posing an interesting question. The question is, “If your bid is rejected along with everyone else’s, can you complain?” The short answer set out by the Rockingham County, Virginia Circuit Court is “No.” In the case of General Excavation v. City of Harrisonburg the Court looked at the Virginia Public Procurement Act’s bid protest provisions in Va. Code 2.2-4360 and 2.2-4364(C) in the context of General Excavation’s protest of the City’s failure to award it (or anyone else for that matter) the contract on which it was the low bidder. The controlling section of the statute allows a challenge to the award or proposed award of a contract. In defending the action, the City of Harrisonburg argued that, because the Procurement Act waived some of the city’s sovereign immunity, it must be read strictly. The city further argued (somewhat ironically) that, because no award of the contract was given or even proposed, General Excavation could not bring suit because it would not be challenging the “proposed award or award” of a contract. Not surprisingly, the Rockingham County court held with the City and strictly construed the statute against General Excavation in finding that General Excavation did not have the standing necessary to bring suit under the statute. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Colorado Legislature Kills SB 20-138 – A Bill to Extend Colorado’s Statute of Repose

June 22, 2020 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
As previously reported, SB 20-138, “Concerning Increased Consumer Protection for Homeowners Seeking Relief for Construction Defects,” would have extended the Colorado statute of repose applicable to construction defect claims. Senate Bill 20-138, if enacted, would have:

Extended Colorado’s statute of repose for construction defects from 6+2 years to 10+2 years;
Required tolling of the statute of repose until the claimant discovers not only the physical manifestation of a construction defect, but also its cause; and
Permitted statutory and equitable tolling of the statute of repose.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

California Bid Protests: Responsiveness and Materiality

January 06, 2016 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
It can be a rough and tumble world out there. And in the case of public works construction in California, this includes bid disputes. California’s competitive bidding laws require that a public works contract be awarded to the “lowest responsible bidder.” However, as we’ve mentioned before, there are two requirements which must be satisfied for a bidder to be determined to be the lowest responsible bidder: (1) the awarded bidder’s bid must be “responsive”; and (2) the awarded bidder must be “responsible.” In a case decided this past month, DeSilva Gates Construction v. Department of Transportation, Case No. C074521 (December 14, 2015), the California Court of Appeals for the Third District addressed the first of these two requirements, whether two bids on $34 million highway widening project were responsive, which in turn involves a two-step process: (1) whether the bids were responsive or not; and (2) if not, whether the variance in the bids were “material” or “immaterial.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Lucky No. 7: Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Issues Pro-Policyholder Decision Regarding Additional Insured Coverage for Upstream Parties

November 02, 2020 — Daniela Aguila - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
In Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Columbia Ins. Group, Inc,1 the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that a subcontractor’s insurer was obligated to defend and indemnify the project owner’s insurer for damages associated with the subcontractor's employee's personal injury lawsuit where the underlying complaint alleged negligence by the additional insureds. The case cements the notion that under Illinois law, one can significantly benefit from the facts presented in third party complaints as a basis for additional insured coverage. Rockwell Properties (“Rockwell”) was the project owner, along with Prairie Management & Development (“Prairie”), the general contractor, on a construction project in Chicago. Prairie subcontracted HVAC services to TDH Mechanical (“TDH”). When an employee of TDH Mechanical sustained serious injuries performing work at a construction site, a suit was lodged against Rockwell and Prairie in state court. The lawsuit did not bring any claims against TDH but instead alleged that both Rockwell and Prairie had negligently failed to supervise the subcontractors’ work on-site, thus contributing to the worker’s injuries. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniela Aguila, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Ms. Aguila may be contacted at dag@sdvlaw.com

Courthouse Reporter Series: Louisiana Supreme Court Holds Architect Has No Duty to Safeguard Third Parties Against Injury, Regardless of Knowledge of Dangerous Conditions on the Project

July 31, 2024 — Stu Richeson - The Dispute Resolver
In Bonilla v. Verges Rome Architects, 2023-00928 (La. 3/22/24); 382 So.3d 62, the Louisiana Supreme Court held because the terms of the agreement between the architect and the public owner did not give the architect responsibility for the means and methods of construction or for safety on the project, the architect did not have a duty to safeguard third parties against injury, regardless of whether the architect may have had knowledge of dangerous conditions on the project. In Bonilla, the City of New Orleans entered into a contract for the renovation of a building owned by the city. The city also entered into an agreement with Verges Rome Architects (“VRA”) to serve as the project architect. The general contractor on the project subcontracted the demolition work to Meza Services, Inc. (“Meza”). An employee of Meza was injured while attempting to demolish a “vault” on the project. The vault was a ten-foot by ten-foot cinderblock room with a nine-foot-high concrete slab ceiling located on the second floor of the building. The walls of the vault had been partially demolished when one of the employees of Meza was directed by his supervisor to stand on the ceiling of the vault with a jackhammer to continue the demolition. Shortly after beginning the task, the vault structure collapsed and caused the employee to suffer significant injury. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stu Richeson, Phelps
Mr. Richeson may be contacted at stuart.richeson@phelps.com

Recovering For Inflation On Federal Contracts: Recent DOD Guidance On Economic Price Adjustment Clauses

October 24, 2022 — Amanda L. Marutzky - ConsensusDocs
Since October 2020, inflation in the United States has seen its fastest increase in more than 30 years. In the last year alone, inflation has remained as high as 8.6%. This hike has impacted everything from diesel to steel. In the construction industry, the higher prices of goods and services directly affect how contractors draft their construction contracts. The Department of Defense (DoD) has taken note of this dramatic price increase and recently issued guidance to its commanding officers and the procurement community. On May 5, 2022, DoD issued a memorandum titled “Guidance on Inflation and Economic Price Adjustments.” The stated purpose of the memo is “to assist COs to understand whether it is appropriate to recognize cost increases due to inflation under existing contracts as well as offer considerations for the proper use of EPA when entering into new contracts.” DoD’s memo responds to contractor and contracting officer concerns about the sudden and unexpected cost increases in labor and materials. Economic Price Adjustments, or EPAs, are adjustments to a stated contract price upon the occurrence of certain contingencies. FAR 16.203-1. They are of three general types – (1) adjustments based on established prices, (2) adjustments based on actual costs of labor or material, or (3) adjustments based on cost indexes of labor or material. Id. Because EPAs allow for adjustments in a contract price, EPA clauses allow a contractor to recover unanticipated increases in its project costs. For example, FAR 52.216-4, Economic Price Adjustment-Labor and Material, authorizes a contractor to recover for increases in the cost of material or labor. Such recovery is available when costs increase more than 3%, with a maximum recovery of 10% of the original contract price. See also FAR 52.216-2 through FAR 52.216-4. These EPA clauses provide contractors with relief and protection from issues such as dramatic inflation. EPA clauses, however, are not included in all contracts. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Amanda L. Marutzky, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Ms. Marutzky may be contacted at amarutzky@watttieder.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES