Quick Note: Independent Third-Party Spoliation Of Evidence Claim
June 18, 2019 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn an earlier posting I discussed the difference between first-party spoliation of evidence and third-party spoliation of evidence.
There is NO independent cause of action for first-party spoliation of evidence because that can be dealt with directly in the underlying lawsuit. This deals with the assertion that an actual party to a lawsuit spoiled evidence.
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
Alabama Supreme Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect to Contractor's own Product
October 21, 2013 —
Tred Eyerly — Insurance Law HawaiiThe Alabama Supreme Court followed prior precedent and found that the contractor's faulty workmanship causing damage to his own product did not arise from an occurrence. Owners Ins. Co. v. Jim Carr Homebuilder, LLC, 2013 Ala. LEXIS 122 (Ala. Sept. 20, 2013).
The plaintiffs contracted with Carr to construct a new home. After completion of the home and taking occupancy, the plaintiffs noted several problems with the house related to water leaking through the roof, walls and floors, resulting in water damage to various areas of the house. The plaintiffs sued Carr and the case eventually went to arbitration. The arbitrator entered an award in favor of plaintiffs for $600,000.
Owners filed an action against Carr for a declaratory judgment seeking to establish there was no coverage because the property damage did not arise from an occurrence. The trial court granted summary judgment to Carr.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred EyerlyTred Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Entire Fairness or Business Judgment? It’s Anyone’s Guess
January 09, 2015 —
Maurice Pesso, Greg M. Steinberg and Christopher J. Orrico – White and Williams LLPIn lawsuits challenging the validity of business transactions and combinations, the most significant issue is often which standard of review the court applies: the defense-friendly “Business Judgment Rule” or the more stringent “Entire Fairness Standard.” The standard utilized by the court – or more often times the standard which the parties think the court will apply – can drive decisions on motion practice, settlement discussions, and resolution strategy. Under the Business Judgment Rule, directors are presumed to have acted in good faith and their decisions will only be questioned when they are shown to have engaged in self-dealing or fraud. However, if a “Controlling Shareholder” stands on both sides of the transaction, the court will often scrutinize the transaction under the more plaintiff-friendly “Entire Fairness Standard.”
So, what constitutes a “Controlling Shareholder?” If the party in question owns more than 50% of a company’s equity, the answer is clear-cut. However, for cases involving stockholders who own less than 50% of a company’s equity and stand on both sides of the disputed transaction, the answer is not so simple. This uncertainty was highlighted in back-to-back decisions by the Delaware Chancery Court in November 2014. On November 25, 2014, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss a derivative lawsuit alleging breach of fiduciary duty in In Re Sanchez Energy Derivative Litigation (“Sanchez”). Vice Chancellor Glasscock held that the complaint failed to plead facts sufficient to raise an inference that two directors with a collective 21.5% equity interest in the company were Controlling Shareholders. The very next day, in In Re Zhongpin Inc. Stockholders Litigation (“Zhongpin”), the Delaware Chancery Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss breach of fiduciary duty claims against an alleged “Controlling Shareholder” and members of the company’s board. In Zhongpin, Vice Chancellor Noble held that sufficient facts were plead to raise an inference that a CEO with a 17.5% equity was a “Controlling Shareholder.”
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys
Maurice Pesso,
Greg M. Steinberg and
Christopher J. Orrico
Mr. Pesso may be contacted at pessom@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Steinberg may be contacted at steinbergg@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Orrico may be contacted at orricoc@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
How Will Today’s Pandemic Impact Tomorrow’s Construction Contracts?
October 26, 2020 —
Levi W. Barrett, Nathan A. Cohen & Mark A. Snyder - Peckar & AbramsonThe emergence of COVID-19 has created a new set of challenges in the already complex world of negotiating construction contracts. In the pre-COVID-19 era, general contractors, construction managers and those negotiating on their behalf, needed to balance a variety of fairly well-established legal risks and exposures and commercial realities with the need to maintain a positive relationship with their counterparty. While many are rightfully concerned with addressing the impacts of COVID-19 to their on-going projects, those negotiating new contracts now are undoubtedly cognizant that they are negotiating in the midst of an unpredictable future that is tipping the historical negotiating balance. The following presents some crucial areas to focus on when negotiating and drafting your contracts in this new era.
Contract Terms Through the COVID-19 Lens
Contractors should examine proposed new contracts carefully to identify rights that afford COVID-19 protections and identify contractual obligations that create COVID-19 commercial risks.
Specific attention should be paid to those sections relating to force majeure/excusable delay, emergencies, changes (including changes in law), contingency, suspension and termination, site investigation as well as all representations and warranties. The paramount concern in examining these provisions is to ensure that they not only entitle the contractor to relief for those unknown events, emergencies and changes, but that they also contain sufficient entitlement for the contractor to obtain both time extensions and financial compensation for unknown impacts of a known event – the COVID-19 pandemic.
Reprinted courtesy of
Levi W. Barrett, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.,
Nathan A. Cohen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.and
Mark A. Snyder, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Barrett may be contacted at lbarrett@pecklaw.com
Mr. Cohen may be contacted at ncohen@pecklaw.com
Mr. Snyder may be contacted at msnyder@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
“License and Registration, Please.” The Big Risk of Getting Busted for Working without a Proper Contractor’s License
July 25, 2021 —
Christopher A. Henry & Mia Hughes - ConsensusDocsThe need for contractors to maintain the proper contracting license may seem like a mundane, clerical detail, and generally is just that. If, however, the contractor ignores or mishandles paperwork and the proper license is not in hand, licensing may go from a mundane, clerical detail to a financial catastrophe. An unlicensed contractor may be barred from asserting claims or collecting payments for work already performed; the contractor may even be required to return payments for unlicensed work performed.
A recent case in Georgia, a state that had no state-wide general contractor’s license requirement in effect until 2008 illustrates the risk of unlicensed work.[1] In Saks Management and Associates, LLC v. Sung General Contracting, Inc.,[2] the court ruled that without a license the general contractor did not have the right to enforce a contract. The contractor’s claims for payment failed, and the mundane, clerical error led a major financial loss. This disastrous result for the Georgia contractor is far from an outlier, and is a real risk in many states.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher A. Henry, Jones Walker LLP and
Mia Hughes, Jones Walker LLP
Mr. Henry may be contacted at chenry@joneswalker.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
General Contractor/Developer May Not Rely on the Homeowner Protection Act to Avoid a Waiver of Consequential Damages in an AIA Contract
August 04, 2011 —
Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCRecently, in Caribou Ridge Homes, LLC v. Zero Energy, LLC, et al., Case No. 10CV1094, Boulder County District Court Judge Ingrid S. Bakke entered a ruling and order on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Determination of Question of Law Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 56(h) on Issue of Damages. The Order found that the Plaintiff was not a homeowner intended to be protected by the Homeowner Protection Act (the “HPA”) and thus could not pursue its claims for consequential damages against Defendant.
By way of background, on June 18, 2008, Plaintiff Caribou Ridge Homes, LLC (“Caribou”) entered into a Standard Form Agreement Between Owner and Contractor AIA Document A114-2001 (the “Contract”) with Defendant Zero Energy, LLC (“Zero Energy”). Plaintiff hired Zero Energy to serve as a general contractor for the construction of a single-family home in the Caribou Ridge subdivision in Nederland, Colorado. A provision in the contract contained a mutual waiver of consequential damages (“Waiver”).
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Land Planners Not Held to Professional Standard of Care
October 10, 2013 —
Heather Anderson — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC.Recently, the Colorado Court of Appeals indicated that there is no professional duty of care applicable to land planners. See Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. v. Coleman Brothers Constr., LLC, 297 P.3d 1042 (Colo. App. 2013). Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. (“SCA”) agreed to provide land planning services to Coleman Brothers Construction, LLC (“Coleman”) for property referred to as Crown Mountain in a letter and then verbally agreed to provide a development analysis for another property, located on Emma Road in Basalt, Colorado. Thereafter, SCA sent letters to the defendant concerning the possible subdivision and development of the Emma Road property.
Approximately two years later, SCA sued Coleman for breach of the verbal agreement concerning the Emma Road property. Coleman then asserted counterclaims against SCA for negligently providing inaccurate advice about whether the Emma Road property could be subdivided and developed, and that the county had denied the planned unit development sketch plan SCA prepared and submitted on behalf of Coleman. The district court granted SCA’s motion for summary judgment thereby concluding that the economic loss rule barred Coleman’s negligence counterclaims. The Court of Appeals agreed.
In its opinion, the Court of Appeals reiterated the economic loss rule espoused in the Colorado Supreme Court in the Town of Alma v. AZCO Constr., Inc., 10 P.3d 1256, 1264 (Colo. 2000) case. “Under the economic loss rule, ‘a party suffering only economic loss from the breach of an express or implied contractual duty may not assert a tort claim for such a breach absent an independent duty of care under tort law.’”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Heather AndersonHeather Anderson can be contacted at
anderson@hhmrlaw.com
New Research Shows Engineering Firms' Impact on Economy, Continued Optimism on Business Climate
October 28, 2024 —
The ACEC Research InstituteWASHINGTON – The ACEC Research Institute – the leading source of original research for the business of engineering – released the results of two important studies on the current and future state of the engineering industry, and its role in the overall U.S. economy.
The reports, the
2024 Economic Assessment of the Engineering & Design Services Industry and the
Engineering Business Sentiment Report for 2024 Q4, both point to continued optimism for the industry and its firms, though somewhat softened compared to previous quarters.
"This research shows the outsized impact the engineering industry has on the American economy," said ACEC Research Institute Chair Mike Carragher. "As the engineering industry's contributions grow year over year, the Institute's research helps firm executives position their businesses for a successful future."
All told, the industry added $656 billion to the U.S. GDP in 2023, supported well over five million jobs directly or indirectly, and contributed $92 billion to federal tax coffers, with an additional $44 billion in state and local taxes.
Overall, the report found that the engineering and design services industry has continued to build on its year-over-year post-COVID gains, growing 5.5% in 2023 to $436 billion, with much of that growth driven by infrastructure projects. Non-residential and non-building construction, flush with government funding through the IIJA and Inflation Reduction Act, remained on an upward trajectory.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
