Pacing in Construction Scheduling Disputes
September 14, 2017 —
Luke Mecklenburg - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogOn a high level, construction delay litigation involves sorting out the impacts to the critical project path and determining which party is responsible for those impacts. One of the more difficult elements of this process is determining whether a delay would have occurred regardless of one party’s critical path impact due to a separate, independent impact to the critical path by the other party. For example, a contractor cannot collect delay damages for delays caused by the owner if the contractor itself was causing independent impacts that would have pushed off the completion date anyway.
However, the concept of “pacing” provides a potential defense for a party who is not on pace with the as-planned schedule for noncritical activities, even where those activities are still ongoing after the planned completion date. “Pacing delays” are a type of concurrent delay that occur when one party makes a conscious decision to decelerate or slow down the pace of noncritical activities to keep pace with the critical delays of another party. A more formal definition would be “deceleration of the work of the project, by one of the parties to a contract, due to a delay caused by the other party, so as to maintain steady progress with the revised overall project schedule.” Zack, Pacing Delays–The Practical Effect, Construction Specifier 47, 48 (Jan. 2000). A party to the construction process may decide to slow down its performance of noncritical activities to keep pace with the delayed progress. For example, contractors may adjust the pace of their work in light of delays in owner-furnished equipment, delays by other multiple prime contractors, delays in permits, limited access, or differing site conditions. Owners may slow down their response time to requests for information or submittals, or postpone the delivery of owner-furnished equipment or the processing of change orders. Id. at 48.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & WilmerMr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at
lmecklenburg@swlaw.com
Caveat Emptor (“Buyer Beware!”) Exceptions
May 10, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThere is value to a seller when it comes to entering into an as-is transaction and stating that the seller has NOT made any representation or warranty, all such representations or warranties are disclaimed, the buyer is NOT relying on any representation of the seller, and that the buyer is relying on its own inspection of the property. This shifts the onus to the buyer to undertake the inspection or due diligence it needs to take relating to the property it wants to buy.
With respect to commercial property transactions:
The doctrine of caveat emptor, which Florida courts continue to apply, “places the duty to examine and judge the value and condition of the property solely on the buyer and protects the seller from liability for any defects.” There are, however, three exceptions to this doctrine, including: “1) where some artifice or trick has been employed to prevent the purchaser from making independent inquiry; 2) where the other party does not have equal opportunity to become apprised of the fact; and, 3) where a party undertakes to disclose facts and fails to disclose the whole truth.”
Florida Holding 4800, LLC v. Lauderhill Mall Investment, LLC, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D785b (Fla. 4th DCA 2021).
These three exceptions to caveat emptor, or the doctrine of buyer beware, are not easy to prove because it places a burden on a buyer to prove an active effort from the seller to conceal a material fact to skirt around the as-is language. Again, this is not an easy burden to prove.
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
Coverage Denied for Insured's Defective Product
October 15, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe court found there was no coverage obligations for the insured's defective product. Titanium Indus., Inc. v. Federal. Ins. Co., 2014 WL 4428324 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Sept. 10, 2014).
The insured, Titanium Industries, supplied titanium bar materials to Biomet Manufacturing Corporation. Biomet manufactured orthopedic implants and devises. The titanium was used to manufacture screws to incorporate into Biomet's products.
Biomet notified the insured of a potential defect in some of the titanium material, described as "alloy segregation," i.e., the failure of alloys in a metal to completely melt, causing the alloy to separate and undermine the strength of the finished product. The insured and Biomet negotiated a settlement, which included lost profits and the cost of returning the titanium.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
DC Circuit Rejects Challenge to EPA’s CERCLA Decision Regarding Hardrock Mining Industry
September 23, 2019 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelIn a decision that will likely be welcomed by the electrical power, chemical manufacturing, and petroleum and coal products manufacturing industries, on July 19, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held in the case of Idaho Conservation League et al., v. Wheeler, that EPA acted reasonably in deciding not to issue CERCLA financial responsibility regulations for the hardrock mining industry. CERCLA (a.k.a., Superfund) was enacted in 1980 and amended in 1986, and Section 108(b) of CERCLA provides that EPA shall promulgate requirements that classes of facilities establish and maintain evidence of financial responsibility “consistent with the degree and duration of risk” associated with the production, transportation, treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous substances. However, no action was taken to implement Section 108(b) until 2009, and then only as the result of litigation challenging EPA’s failure to act. EPA and the petitioners agreed to a schedule by which the agency would propose financial responsibility rules for the hardrock mining industry—which was the initial class of industry facilities selected for the possible application of these rules—and the DC Circuit approved this schedule in 2016, which contained the court’s caveat that EPA retained the discretion not to issue any rule at the conclusion of the rulemaking.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Dispute Over Exhaustion of Primary Policy
May 20, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiIn a dispute between the excess and primary carriers, the Fifth Circuit determined the primary policy was exhausted, triggering coverage under the excess policy. Amerisure Mut. Ins. Co. v. Arch Spec. Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6627 (5th Cir. April 21, 2015).
Amerisure issued a CGL policy to Admiral Glass & Mirror Co. The policy provided excess over any coverage under a controlled insurance program policy. Arch issued an Owner Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP) policy to Endeavor Highrise, LP and to its contrators and subcontractors for bodily injury and property damage arising out of the construction of the Endeavor Highrise. Admiral was a subcontractor insured under the OCIP.
The OCIP had combined bodily injury and property damage limits of $2,000,000 per occurrence, a general aggregate limit of $2,000,000 and a products-completed operations aggregate limit of $2,000,000. The OCIP contained a Supplementary Payments provision which provided that Arch would pay "[a]ll expenses we incur" in connection with any covered claim, and that "[t]hese payments will not reduce the limits of insurance." Endorsement 16, however, expressly deleted and replaced this statement with: "[supplementary payments] will reduce the limits of insurance." The OCIP also provided that Arch's duty to defend ended "when we have used up the applicable limit of insurance in the payment of judgments or settlements."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Background Owner of Property Cannot Be Compelled to Arbitrate Construction Defects
November 07, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFIn Truppi v. Pasco Engineering, John Quattro sued Property Management Contractors, Inc. over construction defects in William Truppi’s home. All parties are named in the suit. The California Court of Appeals ruled that Property Management Contractors, Inc. (PMCI) could not compel Mr. Quattro to arbitration.
The background of the case involves two houses built in Encinitas, California by PCMI: one for Mr. Truppi at 560 Neptune, and one for Mr. Quattro at 566 Neptune. Both contracts contained an arbitration provision. Mr. Quattro signed the contract for his residence and Mr. Truppi signed the other. Mr. Quattro then sued PCMI and its principal, William Gregory. Mr. Quattro claimed to be the true contracting party for the 560 Neptune residence and a third party beneficiary of the contract Mr. Truppi signed, and stated that PCMI was aware of this.
PCMI in a demurrer stated that Quattro “had only a ‘prospective beneficial interest in the property upon its eventual sale or lease.’” Mr. Quattro amended his complaint to account for the issues raised by PCMI. The court rejected PCMI’s demurrer to the amended complaint.
Finally, PCMI and Gregory asserted that Quattro was “not the real party in interest” and could not sue. PCMI continues to assert that Quattro lacks standing, but their attorney sent Quattro an e-mail stating, “While my client disputes that you are a party, and that you lack standing to assert the claim, to the extent you do so I believe you are obligated to proceed by way of arbitration.”
The court did not cover the issue of Quattro’s standing in the case, only if he could be compelled to arbitration. The court affirmed the lower court’s finding that Quattro could not be compelled to arbitrate the construction defect claim as neither he nor Gregory signed the contract in an individual capacity. Further, the court noted that PCMI and Gregory “denied the existence of an agreement between themselves and Quattro on the 560 contract,” and cannot compel arbitration on a non-existent agreement. And while non-signatories can, in some situations be compelled to arbitrate, the court found that “these cases are inapplicable because here they seek to have the alleged third party beneficiary (Quattro) compelled by a nonsignatory (Gregory).” The arbitration clause in question “expressly limited its application to persons or entities that signed the 560 contract.”
As Mr. Quattro was not a signatory to that agreement, the court found that he could not be held to its arbitration provision.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Illinois Court Addresses Rip-And-Tear Coverage And Existence Of An “Occurrence” In Defective Product Suit
September 04, 2018 —
Brian Bassett - TLSS Insurance Law BlogIn Lexington Ins. Co. v. Chi. Flameproof & Wood Specialties Corp., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135871, 2018 WL 3819109 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 10, 2018), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois found that rip-and-tear costs could qualify as covered “property damage,” but the court rejected coverage for claims that the insured intentionally sold a noncompliant product as the suit did not allege an “occurrence.”
Lexington Insurance Company (“Lexington”) issued a CGL policy to Chicago Flameproof & Wood Specialties Corp. (“Flameproof”). During the policy period, a third party ordered fire-retardant-treated lumber from Flameproof for construction in Minnesota. Flameproof instead sent materials that were not tested, certified, or labeled as compliant. The third party installed the materials, discovered the non-compliance, and then removed the materials. Removing the materials allegedly damaged other portions of the building on the project. The third party then sued Flameproof, alleging costs associated with replacing the lumber as well as property damage to the other materials from the removal of the lumber. Flameproof tendered the claim to Lexington seeking a defense. Lexington filed a declaratory action in the Northern District of Illinois.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brian Bassett, Traub Lieberman Strauss & Shrewsberry LLPMr. Bassett may be contacted at
bbassett@tlsslaw.com
Congress Relaxes Several PPP Loan Requirements
June 15, 2020 —
Greg Tross & Michael Krueger – Newmeyer DillionOn June 3, 2020, Congress passed the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act ("Act") which does exactly what it means to do: provide flexibility for PPP loan recipients. President Trump is expected to sign the bill into law within the week.
The Act extends the "covered period" for Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP") loans from the original eight weeks to 24 weeks or December 31, 2020, whichever is earlier. This extension provides much needed reprieve to small businesses who can utilize these funds to weather the economic effects of the Coronavirus Pandemic through 2020.
The Act also revises the limitations on how small businesses utilize their PPP loans. While the CARES Act originally required 75% of the PPP loan to be used for payroll costs, this number has now been reduced to 60%. This means that up to 40% of the PPP loan can be used to cover mortgage obligations, rent, and other covered utility payments.
The PPP loan payment deferral period has also been extended to align with the date on which the PPP loan's forgiveness amount is remitted to the lender. This should provide more certainty to small businesses on their payback obligations, if any.
Recently, the Small Business Administration also released loan forgiveness applications to assist a business in calculating their loan forgiveness. While the SBA will likely revise it with the Act's passing, small businesses should look at the application's framework to prepare for submitting their loan forgiveness requests in the future.
Newmeyer Dillion continues to follow COVID-19 and its impact on your business and our communities. Feel free to reach out to us at NDcovid19response@ndlf.com or visit us at www.newmeyerdillion.com/covid-19-multidisciplinary-task-force/.
Reprinted courtesy of
Greg Tross, Newmeyer Dillion and
Michael Krueger, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Tross may be contacted at greg.tross@ndlf.com
Mr. Krueger may be contacted at michael.krueger@ndlf.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
