Application of Set-Off When a Defendant Settles in Multiparty Construction Dispute
January 05, 2017 —
David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThe defense of set-off is an important defense in construction disputes, particularly multiparty disputes. For more information on this defense, please check out this
article as it explains the application of set-off in civil disputes in detail.
The issue of set-off will come up in a multiparty dispute when a plaintiff settles with one or more of the defendants. The remaining defendant(s) wants the benefit of that settlement to set-off and reduce any judgment against it. An example of this scenario can be found in Escadote I Corp. v. Ocean Three Limited Partnership, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D23a (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).
In this case, an owner of a condominium unit sued the condominium association, the developer, and the general contractor for water intrusion and mold infestation. The claim against the condominium association was the only claim that entitled the owner to attorney’s fees pursuant to its lawsuit (thus, attorney’s fees were isolated to only that claim against the association). During trial, the owner settled with the association. In entering a settlement, the owner smartly allocated the settlement amount such that $500 was allocated to its principal damages and $374,500 was allocated to its attorney’s fees. The owner then obtained a jury verdict against the contractor and developer for approximately $2M, jointly and severally, and the contractor and developer wanted the entire $375,000 settlement amount with the association to be set-off from the $2M verdict. The trial court set-off the entire $375,000 from the jury verdict when entering judgment. The appellate court reversed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@katzbarron.com
Court Holds That Insurance Producer Cannot Be Liable for Denial of COVID-19 Business Interruption Claim
November 23, 2020 —
Christopher P. Leise & Marc L. Penchansky - White and Williams LLPAfter an insurance carrier denied a lawyer and her law firm’s claim for lost business income due to the COVID-19-related shutdown, she sued both her carrier and the insurance producer that procured the policy. See Wilson v. Hartford Casualty Company, No. 20-3384 (E.D.Pa. Sep. 30, 2020). In one of the first cases to consider producer liability in COVID-19 cases, Judge Eduardo Robreno dismissed the lawsuit against the producer and the carrier.
USI procured the Policy from Hartford for Rhonda Hill Wilson and her law firm. The Policy included coverage for lost business income and extra expense caused by direct physical loss of, or damage to property. Similarly, the Policy covered lost business income if a nearby property experienced a direct physical loss that caused a civil authority to issue an order that prohibited access to the law firm’s property. The Policy also included a virus exclusion “for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by . . . [p]resence, growth, proliferation, spread or any activity of . . . virus.”
Judge Robreno did not decide whether the Policy afforded any coverage to Wilson and her law firm for their COVID-19 losses. Rather, he found that even if they could, the virus exclusion unambiguously barred any coverage they could possibly claim. For that reason, Judge Robreno dismissed the claims against Hartford.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher P. Leise, White and Williams LLP and
Marc L. Penchansky, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Leise may be contacted at leisec@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Penchansky may be contacted at penchanskym@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Despite Misapplying California Law, Federal Court Acknowledges Virus May Cause Physical Alteration to Property
October 26, 2020 —
Scott P. DeVries, Michael S. Levine & Michael L. Huggins - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogOn August 28, Judge Stephen V. Wilson of the Central District of California, entered the latest ruling in the ongoing saga of the COVID-19 business interruption coverage dispute between celebrity plaintiff’s attorney Mark Geragos and Insurer Travelers.
The case, 10E, LLC v. The Travelers Indemnity Co. of Connecticut, was filed in state court. Travelers removed to federal court, where Geragos sought remand and Travelers moved to dismiss. Judge Wilson denied remand and granted the Motion to Dismiss, finding plaintiff did not satisfactorily allege the actual presence of COVID-19 on insured property or physical damage to its property. This holding is inconsistent with long standing principles of California insurance law and appears to improperly enhance the minimal pleading threshold under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint need only allege a claim “that is plausible on its face.”).
After rejecting Geragos’ attempt to have the case remanded based on a finding that Geragos had fraudulently joined a defendant to avoid removal, the Judge proceeded to the Motion to Dismiss which raised three issues: (1) the effect of the Virus Exclusion in the Travelers’ Policy, (2) whether plaintiff failed to allege that the governmental orders prohibited access to its property, and (3) whether plaintiff could “‘plausibly allege that it suffered ‘direct physical loss or damage to property’ as required for civil authority coverage.’” Rather than address the effect of the exclusion, which would be the narrowest issue (this exclusion is not present in all policies), the Court proceeded directly to the third issue, which has the broadest potential application.
Reprinted courtesy of
Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth,
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Michael L. Huggins, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Huggins may be contacted at mhuggins@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Preliminary Notices: Common Avoidable But Fatal Mistakes
August 26, 2019 —
William L. Porter - Porter Law GroupIn the California building and construction industry, service of a “Preliminary Notice” is a prerequisite for Subcontractor and Supplier claims for payment through the Mechanics Lien, Stop Payment Notice and Payment Bond Claim process. Without proper drafting and service of a Preliminary Notice, these extremely valuable claims cannot be protected. Unfortunately, despite the vital importance of the Preliminary Notice, Subcontractors and Suppliers often make common self-defeating mistakes that make their Preliminary Notice efforts completely ineffective, resulting in loss of their claims rights. The purpose of this article is to list some of these common mistakes in the hope that the reader will avoid such mistakes, preserve the integrity of the Preliminary Notice, and protect the claims rights it makes available:
Not Sending out the Preliminary Notice Within 20 Days After Supplying Labor or Materials:
The protection of a Preliminary Notice begins 20 days before it sent out. This means that if a Subcontractor or Supplier claimant delivered $100,000 in materials on February 1, that same claimant must serve the Preliminary Notice on or before February 21 (the sooner the better), or the claimant will not be able to pursue an enforceable Mechanics Lien, Stop Payment Notice or Payment Bond claim for that $100,000. There are very few exceptions. Best practice: A Subcontractor or Supplier must send out the Preliminary Notice as soon as an agreement to provide work or materials to a California construction project is in place (See California Civil Code 8204).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Porter, Porter Law GroupMr. Porter may be contacted at
bporter@porterlaw.com
Attorneys Fees Under California’s Prompt Payment Statutes. Contractor’s “Win” Fails the Sniff Test
October 02, 2015 —
Roger Hughes – California Construction Law BlogThis past month, the California Court of Appeals for the Third District, in James L. Harris Painting & Decorating, Inc. v. West Bay Builders, Inc., Case No. C072169 (August 27, 2015), handed down a decision in a construction contract battle that has raged since 2007. And, once again, the winner is . . . in the words of Justice Andrea Lynn Hoch who authored the opinion . . . . “no prevailing party in [the] case” and hence “no prevailing party attorney’s fees [ ] awarded.”
Background
In Harris, subcontractor James L. Harris Painting & Decorating, Inc. (“Harris”) sued general contractor West Bay Builders, Inc. (“West Bay”) for extra work performed on a school construction project in Stockton, California. Among its claims, Harris asserted that West Bay was liable under California’s prompt payment statutes for failure to timely pay Harris.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Roger Hughes, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Hughes may be contacted at
rhughes@wendel.com
Andrea DeField Recognized In 2024 List of Influential Business Women By South Florida Business Journal
February 19, 2024 —
Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogWe are pleased to announce that Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP insurance coverage partner Andrea DeField was named to the
South Florida Business Journal’s 2024 list of Influential Business Women. The award celebrates 25 women who have a strong record of leadership, performance and innovation in their industry, as well as meaningful community involvement. This distinction is well-deserved given Andi’s leadership in the cyber insurance space, contribution to the firm’s pro bono efforts, and longstanding record of community involvement in South Florida.
Andi and the other honorees will be featured in the March 15 special issue of the South Florida Business Journal introducing the Influential Business Women of 2024. Congratulations Andi!
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Four Key Steps for a Successful Construction Audit Process
May 03, 2021 —
Ronald L. Williams, Fox Rothschild LLP - ConsensusDocsThe implications of the audit provisions contained in construction agreements between owners and contractors owners extend far beyond post-completion bean counting, and can affect multiple aspects of a project, from project administration to relationships with key subcontractors. It is critically important that contractors give audits the attention they deserve by taking the following four steps. First, invest the time to negotiate the audit provisions that ultimately appear in contracts with the owner. Second, ensure that the project team and the owner’s project auditors engage in timely communication during construction. Third, make certain that post-completion audit administration is prompt and complete. And finally, carefully draft adequate “flow-down” provisions with subcontractors and vendors so that they understand and comply with their contractual obligations, as well as the expectations of the contractor and owner. All four aspects are critical, and if not addressed effectively can undermine the profitability of the contract, and contractors’ business relationships with both upstream and downstream parties.
Negotiations
At the outset of contract negotiations, a contractor must completely understand the owner’s audit process expectations. An owner’s understanding of the audit process and its potential pitfalls depends on their own experience, as well as the knowledge of their personnel, including internal audit members and external auditors. Negotiations, which like the audit itself need not be adversarial, can be educational for both the owner and any representatives involved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ronald L. Williams, Fox Rothschild LLPMr. Williams may be contacted at
rwilliams@foxrothschild.com
Navigating Threshold Arbitration Issues in Construction Contracts
April 29, 2024 —
Daniel D. McMillan and TJ Auner - The Dispute ResolverIncluding an arbitration clause in your construction contract may not mean that your dispute will be confined to arbitration. Instead, parties often find themselves in court litigating threshold issues related to the existence and/or enforceability of an arbitration clause. Common issues include whether the underlying contract containing the arbitration clause is valid, whether the dispute falls within the scope of the clause, whether the parties complied with contractual prerequisites to arbitration, whether issues related to arbitrability are decided by the court or arbitrator, and whether one of the parties has waived their right to arbitrate. This blog post highlights two recent construction cases addressing threshold issues that a party seeking to enforce—or oppose enforcing—an arbitration clause might face.
Seifert v. United Built Homes, LLC: Delegating Issues of Arbitrability to the Arbitrator
In Seifert, an owner sued a homebuilder in Texas federal court for breach of contract and sought damages and declaratory relief. No. 3:22-CV-1360-E, 2023 WL 4826206 (N.D. Tex. July 27, 2023). The builder moved to compel arbitration. The owner opposed and argued that: (1) there was no agreement to arbitrate because the underlying contract was null and void, and (2) its claim for declaratory relief fell outside the scope of the arbitration clause. The court did not address the merits of either argument. Instead, it determined that these were issues for the arbitrator to decide.
Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel D. McMillan, Jones Day and
TJ Auner, Jones Day
Mr. McMillan may be contacted at ddmcmillan@jonesday.com
Mr. Auner may be contacted at tauner@jonesday.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
