Another Reason to Always Respond (or Hensel Phelps Wins One!)
September 16, 2019 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsHere at Construction Law Musings, Hensel Phelps Construction Co. is best known as the company that got whipsawed between indemnity rules and the lack of a statute of limitations for state agencies. However a recent case out of the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia gave them a win and illustrates, once again, that failing to appear or respond is never a good option.
In Hensel Phelps Construction Co. v. Perdomo Industrial LLC, the Alexandria, VA federal court looked at an arbitration award entered for Hensel Phelps and against Perdomo under the Federal Arbitration Act. The facts of the case showed that Perdomo “double dipped” into the deep end of refusal or failure to respond. First of all, the contract required arbitration and any award was enforceable in any state or federal court having jurisdiction. Based upon this language, Hensel Phelps filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association against Perdomo and its surety, AAA sent notice to both Perdomo and Surety, and. . . neither responded or appeared at what was ultimately 8 days of hearings. After hearing Hensel Phelp’s evidence and the total lack of defenses from Perdomo and Surety, the panel issued an award in favor of Hensel Phelps, finding Perdomo LLC in default and holding Perdomo LLC and Allied World jointly and severally liable in the amount of $2,958,209.71 and Perdomo LLC individually liable in the amount of $7,917,666.30 plus interest.
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
Top Five Legal Mistakes in Construction
April 04, 2022 —
Jonathan A. Cass, Nicholas F. Morello & John A. Greenhall - Construction ExecutiveMany contractors repeatedly make the same mistakes in negotiating contracts. Here are the most common mistakes contractors make—and how they can be avoided.
1. Not Being Careful With Force Majeure Clauses
To protect themselves from liability in the event of unforeseen circumstances like fires, floods, wars, unusual delays in deliveries, strikes, pandemics or acts of God, contractors should ensure their contracts contain robust force majeure provisions. These provisions state that in the event of any extenuating circumstances outside of its control, the contractor is not liable for any damages that result from a delay to the project completion date and is entitled to a time extension. This clause has been critical in addressing COVID-19-related disruptions and the current material shortages. Contractors should be wary, however, of “no damage-for-delay” language, which often appears in conjunction with these clauses.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jonathan A. Cass, Nicholas F. Morello and John A. Greenhall, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Mr. Cass may be contacted at jcass@cohenseglias.com
Mr. Greenhall may be contacted at jgreenhall@cohenseglias.com
Mr. Morello may be contacted at nmorello@cohenseglias.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Over a Hundred Thousand Superstorm Sandy Cases Re-Opened
March 12, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) announced yesterday that they will be reopening 144,000 flood insurance claims, reported the New Jersey Law Journal.
The announcement comes weeks after reports that “some insurance companies denied thousands of claims after fraudulently altering engineering reports, as well as complaints that insurance companies systematically underpay on claims because they fear a backlash from FEMA.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Keep it Simple with Nunn-Agreements in Colorado
June 28, 2021 —
Jean Meyer - Colorado Construction LitigationOn May 24, 2021, the Colorado Supreme Court published its decision in Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Ass'n.[1] There, the Colorado Supreme Court was tasked with answering whether an insurer, who is defending its insured under a reservation of rights, is entitled to intervene as of right under C.R.C.P. 24(a)(2) where the insured enters into a Nunn agreement with a third-party claimant, but rather than entering into a stipulated judgment, agrees with the third party to proceed via an uncontested trial to determine liability and damages. Interestingly, however, while the Court ultimately answered the above question in the negative, the real lesson from the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision is that Colorado litigants should not seek a trial court’s blessing as to liability and damages through non-adversarial proceedings when using Nunn-Agreements. Or, as articulated in Justice Carlos Samour’s vociferous dissenting opinion, Colorado litigants desiring to enter into a Nunn-Agreement should not proceed with a non-adversarial hearing, as doing so is “offensive to the dignity of the courts,” constitutes a “bogus,” “faux,” “sham” and “counterfeit” proceeding, and the hearing provides “zero benefit.”
By way of background, the case arrived in front of the Colorado Supreme Court based on the following fact pattern. A homeowner association (Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Association, Inc.) (“Association”) brought construction defect claims against a variety of prime contractors and those contractors subsequently brought third-party construction defect claims against subcontractors. One of the prime contractors assigned their claims against a subcontractor by the name Sierra Glass Co., Inc. (“Sierra”) to the Association. The other claims between the additional parties settled. On the eve of trial involving only the Association’s assigned claims against Sierra, the Association made a settlement demand to Sierra for $1.9 million. Sierra asked its insurance carrier, Auto-Owners Insurance, Co. (“AOIC”), which had been defending Sierra under a reservation of rights letter, to settle the case for that amount, but AOIC refused. This prompted Sierra to enter into a “Nunn-Agreement” with the Association whereby the case would proceed to trial, Sierra would refrain from offering a defense at trial, the Association would not pursue any recovery against Sierra for the judgment, and Sierra would assign any insurance bad faith claims it may have had against AOIC to the Association.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jean Meyer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. Meyer may be contacted at
meyer@hhmrlaw.com
Nevada Governor Signs Construction Defect Reform Bill
February 26, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval “signed the first major Republican-backed reform bill of the 2015 session, a measure making changes to Nevada’s construction defect law.”
Sandoval stated, “During my State of the State address, I challenged the Legislature with passing meaningful construction defect reform. They have met that challenge with the Homeowner Protections Act, which discourages frivolous litigation and strengthens Nevada’s rebounding housing market,” as quoted in the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
The bill, which goes into effect immediately, “restricts the definition of what constitutes a home defect, repeals a provision allowing attorney fees and costs in a home defect judgment, and requires specific descriptions of defects.” It also reduces the statute of limitations from ten years to six years, and prohibits homeowner association boards from filing suits on behalf of homeowners.
Not all legislatures were in favor of the measure. For instance, Sen. Aaron Ford “called the measure the ‘homeowner rejection’ act rather than a homeowner protection act at a joint hearing on the bill,” according to the Las Vegas-Review Journal.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
AAA Revises Construction Industry Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures
July 22, 2024 —
Patrick McKnight - The Dispute ResolverThe American Arbitration Association (AAA) recently revised its Construction Industry Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures (“the Rules”). Several notable changes went into effect March 1, 2024, involving the scope of confidentiality, regular and fast track procedures, and updates to certain monetary thresholds.
I. Revisions to Regular Track Procedures
Rule 45: Confidentiality
For the first time, confidentiality is now the default standard. Under Rule 45(a), arbitrators must keep all matters confidential unless otherwise required by law, court order or the agreement of the parties. Rule 45(b) allows a mediator to issue confidentiality orders and “take measures for protecting trade secrets and confidential information.”
Rule 7: Consolidation and Joinder
Under the new provisions, consolidation and joinder requests must be filed before confirmation of the Merits Arbitrator’s appointment. This language eliminates a previous option that allowed confirmation up to 90 days after filing of such requests. A failure to timely respond to a joinder request will result in a waiver of objections. Now, a party must establish both good cause and prejudice for a successful joinder request after confirmation of the arbitrator.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick McKnight, Fox Rothschild LLPMr. McKnight may be contacted at
pmcknight@foxrothschild.com
Blackouts Require a New Look at Backup Power
April 06, 2020 —
John McBride - Construction ExecutiveRecent blackouts on both East and West coasts are causing commercial property owners to reassess their need for backup power. The likelihood of more-frequent blackouts means backup power must evolve from ensuring the safe exit of office workers to enabling core business functions to continue uninterrupted. That’s a major shift in preparedness that construction executives should consider in future planning.
In New York City on July 13, 2019, a Con Edison blackout left 72,000 customers in Manhattan and Queens without power primarily because of a flawed connection at an electrical substation. Eight days later, a second Con Edison blackout left more than 50,000 customers, mostly in Brooklyn, without power due to high usage during a heat wave. These events occurred even though, as Con Edison stated, the New York City grid is one of the most complex and technologically advanced in the world and contains multiple layers of redundancy.
In northern and central California in late October, 2019, intentional blackouts were implemented by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) on a massive scale in response to out-of-control wildfires. “Never before in California history have more than 2 million people gone five days without electrical power because of the intentional safety policy of a utility,” reported the Los Angeles Times. It was the second massive blackout in California in two weeks, after PG&E had earlier shut off power to almost 2 million people in rolling blackouts.
The blackouts on both coasts are remarkable not only for their breadth but for the range of causes—from limiting wildfires sparked in part by faulty, above-ground, power lines to a flawed connection at a substation to overuse during a heat wave. The conditions creating those causes are not likely to subside, and Con Edison warned this summer of more service outages to come. In California, The Washington Post writes, “blackouts are redefining the prosperous state.”
Reprinted courtesy of
John McBride, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Statute of Frauds Applies to Sale of Real Property
April 19, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn law school, one of the first legal doctrines we learn is known as the “statute of frauds.” The statute of frauds is essentially a defense to a contract enforcement action claiming the contract is unenforceable due to the statute of frauds. In other words, this doctrine is raised when one party seeks to enforce a contract. The other party argues, “not so fast,” because the contract is NOT enforceable in light of the statute of frauds.
Common scenarios where the statute of frauds comes into play are with transactions involving real property or agreements where services are not to be performed within one year.
The statue of frauds doctrine is contained in Florida Statute s. 725.01:
No action shall be brought whereby to charge any executor or administrator upon any special promise to answer or pay any debt or damages out of her or his own estate, or whereby to charge the defendant upon any special promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another person or to charge any person upon any agreement made upon consideration of marriage, or upon any contract for the sale of lands, tenements or hereditaments, or of any uncertain interest in or concerning them, or for any lease thereof for a period longer than 1 year, or upon any agreement that is not to be performed within the space of 1 year from the making thereof, or whereby to charge any health care provider upon any guarantee, warranty, or assurance as to the results of any medical, surgical, or diagnostic procedure performed by any physician licensed under chapter 458, osteopathic physician licensed under chapter 459, chiropractic physician licensed under chapter 460, podiatric physician licensed under chapter 461, or dentist licensed under chapter 466, unless the agreement or promise upon which such action shall be brought, or some note or memorandum thereof shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith or by some other person by her or him thereunto lawfully authorized.
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
