Beyond the Flow-Down Clause: Subcontract Provisions That Can Expose General Contractors to Increased Liability and Inconsistent Outcomes
December 10, 2024 —
Phillip L. Parham III - ConsensusDocsFlow-down clauses in construction subcontracts—blanket clauses providing that some or all of the terms and conditions in the prime contract between the general contractor and the property owner apply equally between the subcontractor and general contractor—are an important component to managing risk for a general contractor and reducing the likelihood of disputes with either/both the owner and subcontractor. Put simply, flow-down provisions can provide continuity between the general contractor’s obligations to the owner and the subcontractor’s obligations to the general contractor. Properly drafted, flow-down clauses reduce the general contractor’s risk by ensuring that the subcontractor is legally bound to meet the owner’s objectives for the project in the same way as the general contractor. But relying on blanket flow-down clauses, alone, to protect the general contractor is like a soldier going into battle with nothing but a helmet, leaving significant other areas exposed and unprotected. In other words, a general contractor should look beyond just a singular, blanket flow down of terms to ensure its bases are properly covered.
Accordingly, this article goes beyond the blanket flow-down clause and highlights several key subcontract provisions where inconsistent obligations among the subcontractor, general contractor, and owner expose the general contractor to increased liability and inconsistent outcomes. Specifically, this article will examine disputes resolution clauses, liquidating provisions, notice provisions, and termination provisions. However, this article will not provide a deep examination of these clauses, nor does it highlight every potentially relevant clause. Rather, it focuses on these select clauses to highlight important issues associated with flow-down provisions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Phillip L. Parham III, Jones Walker LLPMr. Parham may be contacted at
pparham@joneswalker.com
State Supreme Court Cases Highlight Importance of Wording in Earth Movement Exclusions
June 21, 2017 —
Hannah E. Austin - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.In Erie Insurance Property and Casualty Company v. Chaber, the West Virginia Supreme Court recently
held that an insurance policy’s earth movement exclusion was unambiguous and applied to both manmade
and natural earth movement. The Court also found that a narrow “ensuing loss” exception to the exclusion
that provided coverage for glass breakage resulting from earth movement could not be extended to cover the
entire loss.
The Erie Insurance Property and Casualty Company (Erie) insured five commercial buildings owned by
Dmitri and Mary Chaber. One of the properties was damaged by a landslide, and the Chabers filed a claim
with Erie. Erie asserted that the loss was excluded from coverage because the policy excluded coverage for
losses caused by earth movement, which was defined to include earthquakes, landslides, subsidence of
manmade mines, and earth sinking (aside from sinkhole collapse), rising or shifting. The exclusion stated
that it applied “regardless of whether any of the above . . . is caused by an act of nature or is otherwise
caused,” and also contained an anti-concurrent causation clause. However, there was an exception for glass
breakage caused by earth movement.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hannah E. Austin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Austin may be contacted at
hea@sdvlaw.com
Supplement to New California Construction Laws for 2019
January 08, 2019 —
Daniel F. McLennon - Smith CurrieA representative of the Contractors State License Board would like to emphasize a benefit of SB 1042 not mentioned in the report below that Smith Currie published recently. Importantly, the new law allows the CSLB to work with licensees, resolve complaints informally, and avoid a full Administrative Procedure Act hearing brought by the California Attorney General’s office. If the CSLB and licensee are unable to resolve a citation informally, the licensee is still entitled to the APA hearing. Contractors receiving CSLB citations are wise to avail themselves of this process.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel F. McLennon, Smith CurrieMr. McLennon may be contacted at
dfmclennon@smithcurrie.com
Georgia Amends Anti-Indemnity Statute
June 02, 2016 —
David R. Cook Jr. – AHHC Construction Law BlogIn its most recent session, the Georgia General Assembly passed HB 943, which amends Georgia’s Anti-Indemnity Statute. The amendment expands the Anti-Indemnity Statute beyond construction contracts to include contracts for engineering, architectural, and land surveying services (“A/E Contracts”).
In a
prior post, we discussed
Georgia’s Anti-Indemnity Statute, which generally prohibits indemnity clauses in construction contracts that require one party (the “Indemnitor”) to indemnify another party (the “Indemnitee”) if property damage or bodily injury results from the Indemnitee’s sole negligence. The
prior post, discussed the Supreme Court of Georgia’s broad interpretation of the Anti-Indemnity Statute.
HB 943 adds subpart (c), which states:
A covenant, promise, agreement, or understanding in or in connection with or collateral to a contract or agreement for engineering, architectural, or land surveying services purporting to require that one party to such contract or agreement shall indemnify, hold harmless, insure, or defend the other party to the contract or other named indemnitee, including its, his, or her officers, agents, or employees, against liability or claims for damages, losses, or expenses, including attorney fees, is against public policy and void and unenforceable, except for indemnification for damages, losses, or expenses to the extent caused by or resulting from the negligence, recklessness, or intentionally wrongful conduct of the indemnitor or other persons employed or utilized by the indemnitor in the performance of the contract. This subsection shall not affect any obligation under workers’ compensation or coverage or insurance specifically relating to workers’ compensation, nor shall this subsection apply to any requirement that one party to the contract purchase a project specific insurance policy or project specific policy endorsement.
(Emphasis added.)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLPMr. Cook may be contacted at
cook@ahclaw.com
Plaintiff’s Mere Presence in Area Where Asbestos is Present Insufficient to Establish Bystander Exposure
October 21, 2015 —
R. Bryan Martin & Laura C. Williams – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Schiffer v. CBS Corporation (filed 9/9/15; modified 9/30/15), the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendant asbestos insulation manufacturer finding plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence of bystander exposure.
Plaintiff James Schiffer (“Schiffer”) alleged that while working at the Ginna Gas & Electric power plant in the summer of 1969, he was exposed to asbestos-containing materials during installation of equipment and insulation manufactured by CBS Corporation’s predecessor-in-interest, Westinghouse.
After developing mesothelioma, Schiffer and his wife sued numerous entities, including CBS, which successfully moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Schiffer failed to submit evidence that he was exposed to asbestos-containing materials.
Reprinted courtesy
R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Laura C. Williams, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com
Ms. Williams may be contacted at lwilliams@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Winter COVID-19 Relief Bill: Overview of Key Provisions
January 04, 2021 —
White and Williams LLPIn a much needed holiday gift for businesses and individuals who continue to be affected by COVID-19, Congress finally approved a $900 billion aid package follow-up to the CARES Act (the Winter Covid-19 Relief Bill), the several trillion dollar stimulus that was enacted early in the pandemic. The bill, part of the larger annual spending bill, will hopefully be signed into law by President Trump in the coming days although the President has indicated his disappointment about the small amount of direct relief to individuals included in the bill. The bill was passed by both houses of Congress by a veto proof majority and is expected to become law whether or not the President chooses to exercise his veto power.
White and Williams has and will continue to provide more detailed updates on important components of the legislation, some of which address matters beyond COVID-19-related relief and support, including a new Paycheck Protection Program and tax deductibility of expenses paid for with PPP funds, extension and expansion of the employee retention tax credit, direct payments to individuals, additional unemployment assistance, restrictions on surprise medical billing, rental assistance and extension of the eviction moratorium, education funding, vaccine distribution, testing and tracing, and other healthcare funding. In the meantime, here is a brief overview of several pieces of the legislation:
Paycheck Protection Program
The Winter COVID-19 Relief Bill provides for $284 billion of funding for a new round of the popular Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), which was established by the CARES Act and allowed borrowers to receive forgivable loans to be used to retain employees and cover certain other basic operating expenses. New and existing businesses may participate in the program. However, eligibility for PPP Part II is more restrictive and targeted then the original PPP.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams LLP
Arkansas: Avoiding the "Made Whole" Doctrine Through Dépeçage
April 09, 2014 —
Robert M. Caplan – White and Williams LLPIn Arkansas, a workers’ compensation carrier’s subrogated recovery is subject to a determination of whether the injured worker—or, as the case may be, the worker’s surviving beneficiaries—has been “made whole” by the worker’s recovery against the third party tortfeasor. See, e.g., Yancey v. B & B Supply, 213 S.W.3d 657, 659 (Ark. App. 2005) (“An insured’s right to be made whole takes precedence over an insurer’s right to subrogation, and an insured must be fully compensated before the insurer's right to subrogation arises.”) [1] More often than not, a “made whole” determination will completely eradicate the carrier’s lien.
But under the right circumstances, a workers’ compensation carrier may be able to avoid the harsh outcome of “made whole” by intervening in a pending third party action and subsequently filing a motion for dépeçage—i.e., the conflict of laws principle requiring the court to conduct a separate choice of law analysis for discrete issues in a given case. A motion for dépeçage, in this sense, would demand that the court conduct a choice of law analysis to determine what state’s workers’ compensation subrogation law will apply on reimbursing a carrier’s lien.
We recently exploited this often underutilized tactic—to avoid Arkansas’ made whole doctrine—in a case involving a fatal plane crash in Louisiana. In that case, the deceased worker and his beneficiaries were residents of Louisiana; the accident took place in Louisiana; the worker was officially employed in Louisiana; and the workers’ compensation insurance policy was governed by, and benefits were paid under, Louisiana law. The only “contact” with Arkansas [2], meanwhile, was that Arkansas was the defendant’s domicile.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Robert M. Caplan, White and Williams LLPMr. Caplan may be contacted at
caplanr@whiteandwilliams.com
Worker’s Compensation Exclusivity Rule Gets “Trumped” by Indemnity Provision
October 27, 2016 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogSorry, I couldn’t help myself with the title.
The next case, Aluma Systems Concrete Construction of California v. Nibbi Bros., Inc., California Court of Appeals for the First District, Case No. A145734 (August 16, 2016), discusses the interplay between indemnity provisions and the worker’s compensation exclusivity rule.
The worker’s compensation exclusivity rule generally provides that worker’s compensation insurance is the exclusive remedy of employees for injuries or death arising out of the course and scope of their employment.
In the Aluma case, the California Court of Appeals, addressed what happens when a subcontractor’s employees are injured on a project, sue the general contractor, and the general contractor, pursuant to an indemnity provision in its subcontract, tenders the claim to the subcontractor whose worker’s compensation insurance has already paid the employees.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
