Government’s Termination of Contractor for Default for Failure-To-Make Progress
July 10, 2023 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhenever you elect to terminate the other party for cause or for default, you need to JUSTIFY the basis of the cause or default. The reason being is that a termination for default or cause is the harshest contractual remedy. This is why the other party will typically either (i) convert the termination for default into one for convenience, or (ii) if there is no termination for convenience provision in the contract, argue the terminating party breached the contract by terminating the contract without rightful justification.
The key is if you are going to terminate a party for cause of default, make sure you have memorialized the persuasive reasons for exercising the termination, and can otherwise reasonably support the justification. Do not, and I repeat, do not haphazardly exercise a termination for default and think you do not have to justify the basis for the termination.
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
Is Construction Defect Litigation a Cause for Lack of Condos in Minneapolis?
September 17, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to Peter Callaghan writing for the Minn Post, while multi-family residential real estate is “hot” right now, most developers are building apartments rather than condos. Four developers spoke on the topic during Minneapolis City Council Member Lisa Goodman’s monthly “Lunch with Lisa” program. The developers stated that financing is more difficult for condos than it is for apartments, and millennials and baby boomers seem to prefer renting over buying. However, some developers stated that “the 10-year liability exposure for construction defects” was another reason to avoid condo building.
However, not all developers avoid condo building in Minneapolis. Jim Stanton, owner of Shamrock Development, said that he still is building condos. Stanton declared that he “has a good relationship with his lender,” and “he hasn’t been sued a lot and has never had a suit reach court.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
They Say Nothing Lasts Forever, but What If Decommissioning Does?
June 10, 2019 —
Stella Pulman - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogThe looming decommissioning liabilities of offshore energy producers have been a focus of the federal government in recent years. One recent case out of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Taylor Energy v. United States, highlights the tension between the federal government’s desire to maintain financial security for decommissioning activities, and that of an operator whose security is tied up indefinitely while the government awaits technological advances to allow for safe decommissioning.
The case relates to a trust agreement between Taylor Energy and the United States, established to secure Taylor’s decommissioning liabilities for 28 wells in the Gulf of Mexico. Taylor completed certain decommissioning work for which it was reimbursed by the trust. However, with over $400 million remaining in the trust, Taylor and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) concluded that the ecological benefits of further decommissioning would be outweighed by the ecological risks. But despite recognizing that the limitations of current technology made the environmental impacts of further decommissioning work unjustifiable, the BSEE declined to release Taylor from its decommissioning obligations and instead decided to await “changes in technology and a better understanding of the undersea environment.” Because Taylor’s decommissioning obligations remained in place, the U.S. refused to release the remaining funds in the trust.
Taylor claimed that the United States should release the remaining funds in the trust because “decommissioning the remaining wells is not ‘currently technologically feasible.’” Taylor asserted that Louisiana law applied to the trust agreement, and that under Louisiana law every contract must be completed within an ascertainable term. By holding the trust funds until decommissioning was complete, Taylor argued that the government was essentially holding the funds in perpetuity given the technological infeasibility of completing decommissioning. Taylor also asserted that the agreement was premised on an impossibility (the full decommissioning of the wells), and/or a mutual mistake of the parties (that the wells could be decommissioned).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stella Pulman, PillsburyMs. Pulman may be contacted at
stella.pulman@pillsburylaw.com
Cumulative Impact Claims and Definition by Certain Boards
June 21, 2024 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhat is a cumulative impact claim? This is commonly referred to as the unforeseeable ripple effect of changes, i.e., the death by a thousand cuts. Cumulative impact claims refer to a disruption on productivity based on the cumulative impact of changes and their impact on unchanged work. Cumulative impact claims are difficult claims to prove, particularly based on the causation standpoint (and argument they could be released based on change order language). If pursuing or considering a cumulative impact claim, you will need to work with a consultant(s) and lawyer that understand the dynamic of these claims to best maximize your arguments and recovery from a causation and damages standpoint. Cumulative impact damages are real. They occur. But they are not damages you can just throw out there or use loosely and expect to develop traction on compensation.
Below is how cumulative impact claims are defined by certain Boards of Contract Appeals. The definitions are important.
In Appeal of Centex Bateson Construction, Co., Inc., 9901 BCA P 30153, VABCA 4613 (VABCA 1998), the Board explained:
Direct impact, as the immediate and direct effect of a change on unchanged work, is considered foreseeable.
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
More In-Depth Details on the Davis-Bacon Act Overhaul
November 06, 2023 —
Seth C. Wiseman & Angela M. Richie - Construction ExecutiveThe U.S. Department of Labor’s finalization of a
rule updating the Davis-Bacon Act, the federal law that governs how prevailing wages for federal construction projects can be determined, will have a significant impact on contractors and workers alike in the construction industry. The new rule, in effect, adopts the 30% rule, meaning that the prevailing wages must be equal to the wage paid to at least 30% of workers of a particular classification in a particular area. The new rule also implements a new anti-retaliation provision, specifically protecting construction workers who raise concerns about payment practices from adverse employment actions. The timing of this new rule is particularly significant for contractors, as it will likely raise the cost of labor for contractors at a time when the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the CHIPS Act are providing additional funding for federal projects across the country. Thus, it is important for all parties in the construction industry to understand the updated rule in order to evaluate the short-term impacts on their respective projects and long-term impact on their respective businesses.
Reprinted courtesy of
Seth C. Wiseman & Angela M. Richie, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Mr. Wiseman may be contacted at swiseman@grsm.com
Ms. Richie may be contacted at arichie@grsm.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
What is a “Force Majeure” Clause? Do I Need one in my Contract? Three Options For Contractors, Subcontractors and Suppliers to Consider
June 20, 2022 —
William L. Porter - Porter Law GroupIn the world of the building and construction industry, the general rules of contracting are fairly simple. A supplier agrees to supply equipment or materials for a specific price and within a certain time frame, does so, and is paid an agreed sum. Likewise, contractors and subcontractors agree to build structures per plans and specifications within certain time frames and are paid accordingly. Pretty simple. But what happens when some outside event makes performance impossible or unduly expensive or substantially delayed? What happens, for example, if a ship is sitting off the coast of Long Beach for three months with equipment ordered for the project and it cannot be unloaded due to a labor shortage? What if government mandates cause factories that build needed equipment to close due to an epidemic or pandemic? What if the supply warehouse holding the equipment until it is ready for installation unexpectedly burns to the ground? What if a Russian missile blows up the factory in Ukraine where the intended equipment is being manufactured? What happens then? Who bears the financial consequence?
A properly constructed “force majeure” clause may provide the answer to these questions. The Marriam-Webster Dictionary defines “force majeure” as a literal translation from the French meaning “a superior or irresistible force.” It further defines the term as “an event or effect that cannot be reasonably anticipated or controlled.” The Oxford Dictionary defines force majeure as “unexpected circumstances, such as a war, that can be used as an excuse when they prevent somebody from doing something that is written in a contract.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Porter, Porter Law GroupMr. Porter may be contacted at
bporter@porterlaw.com
Michigan Court Waives Goodbye to Subrogation Claims, Except as to Gross Negligence
March 13, 2023 —
Lian Skaf - The Subrogation StrategistIn Ace American Insurance Company, et. al. v. Toledo Engineering Co., Inc., et. al., No. 18-11503, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15222 (Ace American), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan determined whether insurers could pursue their subrogation claims against the defendants despite a waiver of subrogation in each of the contracts the insured had with the respective defendants. Based on the language of the contracts and the circumstances leading up to the loss, the court held that the insurers could not pursue their subrogation claims – other than their claims for gross negligence – due to waivers of subrogation in the applicable contracts.
In Ace American, the insured, Guardian Industries, LLC (Guardian), retained Toledo Engineer Co., Inc. (TECO) and Dreicor, Inc. (Dreicor) to renovate a glass furnace in the insured’s glass manufacturing plant. Guardian and TECO entered into a contract on December 6, 2016. Guardian and Dreicor entered into a contract on September 29, 2013, that the parties later updated on June 3, 2016. Both defendants began work on the project in the spring of 2017 and were finished with the portion of the work known as the “Cold Tank Repair” prior to the loss.
On June 3, 2017, there was an explosion and fire at the plant that caused significant property damage. The plaintiff insurers (Plaintiffs) made payments in the amount of $80 million and became subrogated to its insured’s rights. Plaintiffs then initiated this action.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLPMr. Skaf may be contacted at
skafl@whiteandwilliams.com
Court Holds That Property Insurance Does Not Cover Economic Loss From Purchasing Counterfeit Vintage Wine
March 22, 2018 —
Christopher Kendrick and Valerie A. Moore – Publications & InsightsIn
Doyle v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. (No. G054197, filed 3/7/18), a California appeals court held that financial loss from purchasing counterfeit vintage wine was not direct and accidental loss or damage to covered property within the coverage of a valuable possessions property policy.
In
Doyle, the insured was a collector of rare, vintage wine that was housed in a wine storage facility. He had purchased nearly $18 million of purportedly rare, vintage wine from a dealer, and insured the collection under a valuable possessions policy. But a law enforcement investigation revealed that the dealer had been filling empty wine bottles with his own wine blend and affixing counterfeit labels. The dealer was convicted of fraud and was sent to prison for 10 years.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
