American Arbitration Association Revises Construction Industry Rules and Mediation Procedures
April 08, 2024 —
Dennis Cavanaugh & Larry Grijalva - Construction Law ZoneThe American Arbitration Association (AAA), one of the longest-standing and experienced alternative dispute resolution (ADR) administrators, has unveiled a significant update to its Construction Industry Rules and Mediation procedures. This update, last revised in 2015, became effective March 1, 2024. Changes to the AAA Construction Industry Rules are significant as these rules are incorporated by default in American Institute of Architects standard construction forms, which are widely used in the industry.
Advancements in remote access technology drive a substantial number of new changes. Others are designed to streamline the arbitrator appointment process and certain prehearing procedures and to make arbitration more cost-efficient by enhancing the arbitrator’s case management authority. Some of the more notable changes are:
Fast Track
F-1: The limit for cases eligible for AAA’s Fast Track Procedures has been increased from $100,000 to $150,000 so long as no claim or counterclaim exceeds that amount.
Reprinted courtesy of
Dennis Cavanaugh, Robinson & Cole and
Larry Grijalva, Robinson & Cole
Mr. Cavanaugh may be contacted at dcavanaugh@rc.com
Mr. Grijalva may be contacted at lgrijalva@rc.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Buyer Beware: Insurance Agents May Have No Duty to Sell Construction Contractors an Insurance Policy Covering Likely Claims
May 20, 2024 —
David McLain - Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCConstruction contractors in the market for insurance coverage have few legal protections if their insurance agent fails to provide insurance that covers likely claims against the contractor. As construction defect lawsuits continue to be a frequent occurrence throughout Colorado, we have seen an increase in the number and complexity of coverage endorsements and exclusions in insurance policies. Some of these exclusions result in insurance policies that are essentially useless to the contractor who purchased them. For example, we have seen dirt work contractors with earth movement exclusions or an earth movement sublimit that turns their $2 million policy into a $100,000 policy. We have seen contractors who primarily build tract homes in subdivisions with tract home exclusions. We have seen general contractors whose policies state that every subcontractor must name the contractor as an additional insured or else the general contactor’s policy converts from a seven-figure policy to a five-figure policy with eroding limits (meaning that the attorney’s fees, expert fees, and litigation costs reduce the coverage limits). The list goes on and leads to an unfortunately high number of contractors who pay significant sums for their insurance policies, finding themselves uninsured or underinsured.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Insurance Policy’s “No Voluntary Payment” Clauses Lose Some Bite in Colorado
October 22, 2013 —
Brady Iandiorio — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC.The Colorado Court of Appeals recently handed down an opinion dulling the teeth of the “no voluntary payment” clauses found in many contractors’ insurance policies. In the case of Stresscon Corporation v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, 2013 WL 4874352 (Colo. App. 2013), the Court of Appeals found that an insured’s breach of the “no voluntary payment” clause does not always bar the insured from receiving benefits from its insurance company.
In July 2007, at a construction project run by Mortenson (the “GC”), a partially erected building collapsed, killing one worker and gravely injuring another. The collapse was caused by a crane hook pulling a concrete component off of its supports. The GC contracted with Stresscon Corporation (“Stresscon”) to build pre-cast concrete components for the project, and in turn Stresscon hired two sub-subcontractors, RMS and Hardrock (the “Crane Team”) to work together to erect those concrete components. Stresscon and the Crane Team had liability insurance, and Stresscon was insured by Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (“Travelers”).
The accident led to three separate lawsuits: 1) one brought by the deceased worker; 2) one brought by the injured worker; and 3) one brought by the GC against Stresscon claiming it was entitled to contract damages incurred because the project was delayed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brady IandiorioBrady Iandiorio can be contacted at
Iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com
Arbitration Clause Found Ambiguous in Construction Defect Case
October 28, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe California Court of Appeals ruled on September 28 in the case of Burch v. Premier Homes. Ms. Burch bought a home after negotiating various addendums to the contract. The contract was a standard California Association of Realtors contract to which both the buyer and seller made additions. At issue in this case was paragraph 17 of the contract which included that “Buyer and Seller agree that any dispute or claim in Law or equity arising between them out of this Agreement or resulting transaction, which is not settled through mediation, shall be decided by neutral, binding arbitration.”
The seller/defendant’s Addendum 2 “included provisions relating to the arbitration of disputes that may arise.” Ms. Burch’s realtor, Lisa Morrin, told Burch that “she had never seen a proposed contractual provision that would require a home buyer to agree to arbitrate with a builder over construction defects.” Ms. Burch told Morrin that she did not want to buy the property if she would have to give up her rights under California law.
As part of Addendum 2, the buyer had to buy a warranty from the Home Buyers Warranty Corporation. The sale was held up for a while, as Ms. Burch waited for a copy of the warranty. When she received it, she took further exception to Addendum 2. Scott Warren of Premier Homes said he could not sell the property without Addendum 2. Ms. Burch told her realtor that despite the claims made by Mr. Warren that this was for her benefit, she felt it was more to the benefit of Premier Homes. Don Aberbrook of HBW agreed to the clause, contained in the final sentence of Addendum 2, being struck.
Subsequent to buying the home, Burch submitted a claim concerning construction defects. HBW denied the claim and Burch began an action against the defendants. Premier filed a motion to compel arbitration which Burch opposed.
The trial court ruled that the striking out of the arbitration clause at the end of Addendum 2 “created a conflict with respect to the parties’ intent as to the scope of arbitration.” The trial court found that “the parties’ intention was to preserve Burch’s right to make state law claims including her right to a jury trial for any non-warranty claims against the builder.”
The appeals court in their ruling looked at the standard of review and concluded that the purchase agreement was ambiguous and that extrinsic evidence was required to resolve that ambiguity. As the contract contained contradictory provisions as to whether or not arbitration was required, it was necessary for the trial court to examine these claims. The appeals court found that the evidence supported the conclusions of the trial court.
Finally, the appeals court found that “there was no valid agreement to arbitrate disputes.” The court noted that arbitration can only happen by mutual consent and “it is clear that Burch did not enter into an agreement to arbitrate any construction defect disputes she might have.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Eleventh Circuit Finds Professional Services Exclusion Applies to Construction Management Activities
April 29, 2024 —
Ashley Kellgren - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogIn Colony Ins. Co. v. Coastal Constr. Mgmt., LLC, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 4809 (11th Cir. Feb. 29, 2024), the Eleventh Circuit found the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify its insured based on a professional services exclusion. In that case, the underlying claims arose out of the construction of a four-story apartment complex. The owner and project developer contracted with the insured to provide construction management services as a construction manager and construction consultant. Several years after the project was completed, the owner filed suit against the architect, general contractor, and the insured alleging numerous defects and deficiencies with respect to the project. The owner asserted claims against the insured for breach of contract and negligence, alleging various failures by the insured in connection with its supervision of construction and failures to properly and timely complete the project, and correct inadequate, defective, and noncomplying work.
Colony issued two commercial general liability policies to the insured, both of which contained a professional services exclusion. Although the policy did not expressly define “professional services,” the professional services exclusion provided a non-exhaustive list of examples, including:
(2) preparing, approving, or failing to prepare or approve maps, drawings, opinions, reports, surveys, change orders, designs or specifications;
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ashley Kellgren, Traub LiebermanMs. Kellgren may be contacted at
akellgren@tlsslaw.com
Rent Increases During the Coronavirus Emergency Part II: Avoiding Violations Under California’s Anti-Price Gouging Statute
April 06, 2020 —
Dan Schneider - Newmeyer DillionIn my earlier article, Profiting From Fear: What You Need to Know About Price Gouging During the Coronavirus Emergency, I discuss price gouging and how the anti-price gouging statute, California Penal Code 396 (“CPC 396”), protects buyers of goods and services deemed vital and necessary for the health, safety and welfare of consumers. Part II of the article provides guidance to landlords on the parameters applicable to acceptable price increases and focuses attention on the application of CPC 396 to rental housing and related issues.
California Penal Code 396
As it pertains to housing, defined as “any rental housing with an initial lease term of no longer than one year,” price gouging occurs when a landlord increases the rent of an existing or prospective tenant by more than 10 percent of the previously charged or advertised price following an emergency or disaster declaration for a period of 30 days.2 A residential landlord is only allowed to increase rent in excess of 10 percent if “the increase is directly attributable to additional costs for repairs or additions beyond normal maintenance that were amortized over the rental term that caused the rent to be increased greater than 10 percent or that an increase was contractually agreed to by the tenant prior to the proclamation or declaration” (CPC 396(e).) Further, landlords are prohibited from evicting a tenant and then re-renting the property at a rate that the landlord would have been prohibited from charging the evicted tenant under the statute (CPC 396(f).)3
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dan Schneider, Newmeyer DillionMr. Schneider may be contacted at
daniel.schneider@ndlf.com
Summary Judgment Granted to Insurer for Hurricane Damage
January 24, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe insurer's motion for summary judgment, contending there was no coverage for hurricane damage, was granted. Laurence v. Liberty Ins. Corp., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227807 (S.D. Texas Nov. 29, 2021).
When Hurricane Harvey hit, Mike Laurence held a homeowner's policy from Liberty Insurance Corporation and a contractor policy for his business, Pride Plumbing, Inc., issued by State Farm Lloyds. Laurence's property suffered water damage during the storm. State Farm investigated and concluded that all but a small amount, within the policy's deductible, was from flood damage and excluded. Laurence sued.
The property covered by the State Farm policy included Laurence's home, Pride Plumbing's office and two sheds. Pride Pluming did not own or lease any of the buildings on the property. Laurence testified in his deposition that the only damage to his property not caused by flood water was to three buildings from fallen tree limbs and equipment from his business.
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
U.S. Department of Justice Settles against Days Inn
February 18, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to a press release on the Pacific ADA Center website, the Department of Justice (DOJ) reached a settlement with Sairam Enterprises, Inc., the owner of the Tulsa, Oklahoma Days Inn. The DOJ alleged that Sairam violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when it denied a room to a veteran and his family because of the veteran’s service dog.
Under the settlement, “Sairam will pay $5,000 to the family and will provide its employees with training regarding the ADA and the protections it provides to guests with service animals; it will also post signs and other announcements at its hotel stating its willingness to lodge travelers with service animals.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
