Federal Contractors – Double Check the Terms of Your Contract Before Performing Ordered Changes
July 08, 2019 —
Jonathan Schirmer - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCAs federal contractors may be aware, the general rule when performing a contract for the federal government is that only the contracting officer (“CO”) can bind the government. Often, the CO delegates responsibility to a contracting officer’s representative (“COR”). While in some cases a COR may be able to bind the federal government, the contract may limit that ability exclusively to the CO.
Important for our clients, it is the responsibility of the contractor to determine whether the COR can legally bind the federal government when ordering changes to the scope of work. [1] This is true even when a COR possesses apparent authority to order changes to the work, and when the project is almost exclusively overseen by COR’s. [2]
A recent case highlights the dangers of a contractor relying on the orders of a COR when performing work outside the scope of a contract. In Baistar Mechanical Inc., a contractor was awarded a maintenance and snow removal contract with the federal government. The contract expressly stated that only the CO had contracting authority regarding additional or changed work. [3] However, Baistar, the contractor, argued it was directed by the contracting officer’s representatives to perform work outside of the contract.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jonathan Schirmer, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Schirmer may be contacted at
jonathan.schirmer@acslawyers.com
Be Careful How You Terminate: Terminating for Convenience May Limit Your Future Rights
January 19, 2017 —
Brett M. Hill - Ahlers & Cressman, PLLC BlogMany construction contracts contain a termination clause that allows a contractor to be terminated either for convenience or for cause. Termination for convenience and termination for cause clauses have been discussed previously on the blog
here,
here and
here. The distinction between a termination for convenience or for cause is an important one.
If a contractor is terminated for convenience, the rights of the party who has terminated the contractor for convenience could be limited in the future. This is specifically true as to any defects in the terminated contractor’s work that are discovered after the termination for convenience.
This issue was addressed in an Oregon Court of Appeals case where a general contractor attempted to recover costs incurred in correcting a terminated subcontractor’s work after the subcontractor was terminated for convenience. Shelter Prods. v. Steel Wood Constr., Inc., 257 Or. App 382 (2013). In that case, the subcontractor sued the general contractor for its termination expenses. The general contractor asserted an offset/backcharge claim for damages incurred by the general contractor in correcting the subcontractor’s defective work. The general contractor had incurred the costs after it had terminated the subcontractor. The general contractor did not notify the subcontractor that its work was defective and did not give the subcontractor an opportunity to cure before the repairs were completed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brett M. Hill, Ahlers & Cressman, PLLCMr. Hill may be contacted at
bhill@ac-lawyers.com
Newmeyer & Dillion Announces New Partner Bahaar Cadambi
May 06, 2019 —
Newmeyer & DillionProminent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is pleased to announce that Newport Beach attorney Bahaar Cadambi has been elected to partnership.
"Bahaar has worked hard to become an integral part of the firm's litigation practice, delivering exceptional value to her colleagues and clients at every opportunity," said the firm's Managing Partner, Paul Tetzloff, "We are proud to count her among our partners and look forward to her continued success and contributions."
Cadambi concentrates her practice in business, insurance, and real estate litigation. She represents businesses, homebuilders, developers, and general contractors in complex, multi-party real estate, construction defect, and insurance disputes. She also represents individuals and businesses across a variety of business litigation matters. Her approach to litigation ensures that clients are informed of all potential strategies, the consequences of those strategies, and how the implementation of those strategies will affect their business.
Passionate about the legal community, Cadambi is an adjunct professor at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law and an active member of CREW (Commercial Real Estate Women Orange County). She is also a Barry's Bootcamp and yoga enthusiast, lover of all things interior design, avid traveler, devoted wife, and favorite aunt to two energetic nieces and one cheerful nephew.
Bahaar earned her B.A. from the University of California, Los Angeles and her J.D. from the University of California, Hastings College of Law. Prior to joining Newmeyer & Dillion, she served as a Judicial Extern for the Honorable William Alsup in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Bahaar Cadambi: bahaar.cadambi@ndlf.com
Practice Areas
- Business Litigation
- Construction Litigation
- Insurance Law
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For almost 35 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client's needs. 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 have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New York Climate Mobilization Act Update: Reducing Carbon Emissions and Funding Solutions
August 30, 2021 —
Caroline A. Harcourt - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate BlogIn our June 16 CMA Update, we discussed how the New York City Climate Mobilization Act (CMA) will affect building owners and the market for CMBS mortgage loans (loans pooled and resold as commercial mortgage-backed securities). (For more information on C-PACE financing, see Sustainable Buildings and Development: Carbon Emissions and the Recent Climate Mobilization Act of New York City.) In this update, we will outline some of the funding solutions that are available to New York City building owners looking to retrofit their buildings in order to comply with the CMA’s requirements.
Funding Solutions for Covered Building Owners
The cost of retrofitting buildings to incorporate energy efficient features and to achieve compliance with the CMA can be daunting.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Caroline A. Harcourt, PillsburyMs. Harcourt may be contacted at
caroline.harcourt@pillsburylaw.com
Insured Survives Motion for Summary Judgment in Collapse Case
May 30, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe insurer's motion to exclude expert testimony and for summary judgment in a cases involving collapse was denied. Firehouse Church Ministries v. Church Mut. Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53959 (D. Miss. March 25, 2022).
A roof truss, a framework supporting the roof, collapsed in the church. The cause was either deterioration over time or a nearby tornado. The Church claimed that before the tornado passed, the church was clean and in orderly condition. When inspected after the tornado, there was debris and wreckage, including tin, insulation dust, plaster, and ceiling tile, on the floor.
The Church had a contractor, Gregory Blanchard, inspect. He added posts to support the truss and made other repairs, but informed the Church that the damage was worse than expected and it could not be easily repaired.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
SEC Recommendations to Protect Against Cybersecurity Threats
March 09, 2020 —
Shaia Araghi and Jeffrey Dennis – Newmeyer DillionWhat Happened?
The Securities and Exchange Commission's Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations ("OCIE") issued a detailed
report on January 27, 2020 regarding various ways for organizations to safeguard data and protect against security and data breaches. Cyber threat actors are now invading data in a more sophisticated manner than ever before, and implementation of the SEC's recommended practices are essential in order to protect from outside vulnerabilities.
What is at Risk?
If market participants fail to implement these recommended policies, they will become more vulnerable to external attacks and data breaches. This can weaken an organization or firm if all employees are not properly trained and informed of the increasing dangers of cybersecurity breaches.
What Can You Do to Protect Yourself from a Cybersecurity Threat?
1.
Governance and Risk Management. Senior leaders should make efforts to improve the cyber safety at their organization. Some of these efforts may include:
- Devote attention to overseeing the organization's cybersecurity and resilience programs;
- Develop a risk assessment process to identify and mitigate cybersecurity risks to the organization;
- Adopt and implement policies and procedures regarding these risks;
- Promptly respond and adapt to changes by updating policies and procedures when necessary; and
- Establish communication policies and procedures to provide timely information to customers, employees, and others when needed.
2.
Access Rights and Controls. Implement updated controls to determine appropriate users for organization systems, limit access as appropriate to authorized users (including the set-up of multi-factor authentication) and monitor user access.
3.
Data Loss Prevention. OCIE has recommended various important data loss prevention measures for organizations:
- Establish a vulnerability management program;
- Implement capabilities that can monitor network traffic and detect threats on endpoints;
- Establish a patch management program covering all software and hardware;
- Maintain an inventory of hardware and software assets;
- Encrypt data and implement network segmentation;
- Create an insider threat program to monitor any suspicious behaviors; and
- Secure legacy systems and equipment through disposal of sensitive information from hardware and software and by reassessing vulnerability and risk assessments.
4.
Mobile Security. Establish policies and procedures for mobile device use, manage use of mobile devices through a mobile device management application, implement security measures for internal and external users, and train employees on mobile device policies and effective practices.
5.
Incident Response and Resiliency. Detect and disclose material information regarding incidents in a timely manner and assess appropriateness of corrective actions taken in response to incidents. Organizations should develop a plan if an incident occurs, address applicable reporting requirements, assign staff to execute specific areas of the plan, and test and assess the plan. In the event that a data breach occurs, an organization should improve its resiliency by maintaining an inventory of core business services and prioritizing business operations based on an assessment of risks.
6.
Vendor Management. Establish a vendor management program to ensure that vendors meet your organization's security requirements. Organizations should aim to understand all contract terms with vendors to ensure that all parties are in agreement regarding risk and security. Organizations should also monitor third-party vendors and ensure that the vendor continues to meet the organization's security requirements.
7.
Training and Awareness. Train staff to implement cybersecurity policies of the organization. Organizations should provide cybersecurity and resiliency training and re-evaluate the effectiveness of training procedures.
A Final Reminder for Organizations
Organizations should strive to implement as many of the SEC's recommended protection measures as possible. Ensuring that senior members of an organization are leading the initiative in increased awareness about cybersecurity threats through training of employees will lead to greater cyber safety for the overall organization. Although prevention of all breaches cannot be guaranteed, developing data loss prevention plans to keep the organization and its core businesses safe from attack will benefit the entire organization.
How We Can Help
If you feel that your business falls below the SEC's recommended security measures, our firm can assist with compliance. Contact us for a free initial consultation to determine a reasonable and practical way for your business to become compliant with these guidelines.
Shaia Araghi is an associate in the firm's Privacy & Data Security, and supports the team in advising clients on cyber-related matters, including compliance and prevention that can protect their day-to-day operations. For more information on how Shaia can help, contact her at shaia.araghi@ndlf.com.
Jeff Dennis (CIPP/US) is the Head of the firm's Privacy & Data Security practice. Jeff works with the firm's clients on cyber-related issues, including contractual and insurance opportunities to lessen their risk. For more information on how Jeff can help, contact him at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com.
About Newmeyer Dillion
For 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that achieve client objectives in diverse industries. With over 70 attorneys working as a cohesive team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, environmental/land use, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers holistic and integrated legal services tailored to propel each client's success and bottom line. 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
Is Your Business Insured for the Coronavirus?
March 16, 2020 —
J. Kelby Van Patten & Jared De Jong - Payne & FearsHow bad will the pandemic get? How much will it spread in the United States? Will we develop a vaccine in time to do any good?
As insurance lawyers, we have no idea. But we can help you figure out whether your business is insured for the coronavirus risks that keep business owners up at night.
Risk 1: An outbreak forces my business to close until the outbreak ends. Are my financial business losses covered?
Maybe. Many commercial property policies provide “business interruption coverage” which may apply.
This coverage typically requires that:
(i) Your business is shut down. If your business actually closes for a period of time, you may meet this requirement. However, you wouldn’t meet it if your business slows because half of your staff is home sick.
(ii) The shutdown is necessary. “Necessary” means something different than “desirable” or “prudent.” Whether a shutdown is necessary depends on the facts. If it is physically or legally impossible to enter your building, then closure is necessary. But if the government issues a public advisory recommending that businesses close, and you voluntarily comply, that’s a different story.
(iii) The shutdown is caused by physical damage to your property. Is a viral outbreak “damage” to your property? There’s not a clear answer. On the one hand, courts have found that hazardous contamination of a building constitutes property damage to the building. For example, asbestos incorporated into a building constitutes property damage to the building under a commercial general liability policy. Environmental contamination can also constitute property damage to the contaminated property. Policyholders whose businesses close during an outbreak will argue that property contaminated by the virus satisfies the “physical damage to property” requirement. On the other hand, insurers may argue that the real cause of the shutdown is not the contaminated building surfaces, but the need for social distancing in a neighborhood with many contagious people. Coverage will depend on the policy language and the details of the shutdown.
Reprinted courtesy of
J. Kelby Van Patten, Payne & Fears and
Jared De Jong, Payne & Fears
Mr. Van may be contacted at kvp@paynefears.com
Mr. Jong may be contacted at jdj@paynefears.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
$24 Million Verdict Against Material Supplier Overturned Where Plaintiff Failed to Prove Supplier’s Negligence or Breach of Contract Caused an SB800 Violation
March 16, 2017 —
Jon A. Turigliatto, Esq. & Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq. – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger BulletinAcqua Vista Homeowners Assoc. v. MWL Inc. (2017) 2017 WL 371379
COURT OF APPEAL EXTENDS GREYSTONE HOMES, INC. v. MIDTEC, INC., HOLDING THAT CIVIL CODE §936 CREATES A NEGLIGENCE STANDARD FOR CLAIMS AGAINST MATERIAL SUPPLIERS BROUGHT UNDER SB800.
The Fourth District California Court of Appeal recently published its decision Acqua Vista Homeowners Assoc. v. MWI, Inc. (2017) 2017 WL 371379, holding that claims against a material supplier under SB800 (Civil Code §895 and §936) require proof that the SB800 violation was caused by the supplier's negligence or breach of contract.
Civil Code §936 states in relevant part, that it applies "to general contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, individual product manufacturers, and design professionals to the extent that the general contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, individual product manufacturers, and design professionals caused, in whole or in part, a violation of a particular standard as the result of a negligent act or omission or a breach of contract .... [T]he negligence standard in this section does not apply to any general contractor, subcontractor, material supplier, individual product manufacturer, or design professional with respect to claims for which strict liability would apply."
Acqua Vista Homeowners Association (the "HOA") sued MWI, a supplier of Chinese pipe used in the construction of the Acqua Vista condominium development. The HOA's complaint asserted a single cause of action for violation of SB800 standards, and alleged that defective cast iron pipe was used throughout the building. After trial, the trial court entered a judgment against MWI in the amount of $23,955,796.28, reflecting the jury's finding that MWI was 92% responsible for the HOA's damages.
MWI filed a motion for a directed verdict and motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the grounds that the HOA had failed to present any evidence that MWI had caused an SB800 violation as a result of its negligence or breach of contract, and had therefore failed to prove negligence and causation as required by SB800, citing to Greystone Homes, Inc. v. Midtec, Inc.(2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1194. The trial court denied both motions, relying on the last sentence of Civil Code §936, which states in part, "[T]he negligence standard in this section does not apply to any ... material supplier ... with respect to claims for which strict liability would apply."
The Court of Appeal reversed and ordered the trial court to enter judgment in favor of MWI. The Court of Appeal relied on the legislative history of S8800 and Greystone, which held that the first sentence of Civil Code §936 contains an "explicit adoption of a negligence standard" for S8800 claims against product manufacturers. The Court of Appeal reasoned that since §936 treats product manufacturers and material suppliers identically, the holding of Greystone must equally apply to material suppliers.
Because the complaint did not state a common law cause of action for strict liability, the HOA was required to prove that the damages were caused by MWI' s negligence or breach of contract. Although, the Court of Appeal found that while the HOA's evidence may have supported a finding that the manufacturer of the leaking pipes was negligent, the HOA had not provided any evidence that MWI, the supplier, had failed to supply the type of pipe ordered, acted unreasonably in failing to detect any manufacturing defects present in the pipe, or damaged it during transportation. Accordingly, the HOA could not prove that the alleged S8800 violation was caused, in whole or in part, by MWI' s negligence, omission, or breach of contract.
In light of the decision, homeowner and associations that allege only violations of SB800 standards without asserting a common law cause of action for strict liability cannot prevail by simply producing evidence of a violation, and are required to prove that violation was caused by the negligent act or omission, or breach of contract, of the defendant contractor, material supplier, and/or product manufacturer.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jon A. Turigliatto, Esq, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq., Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com
Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
