What You Should Know About Liquidated Damages and Liability Caps for Delay and Performance Liquidated Damages
May 06, 2024 —
Chris Cazenave - ConsensusDocsLiquidated damage clauses are omnipresent in today’s construction contracts—often considered in early negotiations to provide a degree of certainty and limit financial liability.
There are two principal types of LDs appearing in construction contracts—(i.) damages for delay when a contractor fails to deliver a project by a certain milestone; and (ii.) performance damages when a contractor fails to meet specific performance requirements. Differentiating between LDs for delay and LDs for performance—especially when both LD types are combined in the same contract—is key to risk awareness and allocation during contract negotiations and throughout performance.
This article briefly outlines what you should know about LDs for delay and LDs for failing to meet certain performance requirements. The article also covers how contractors can allocate and cap risks based on risks each party can either manage, insure, or otherwise limit.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Chris Cazenave, Jones Walker LLPMr. Cazenave may be contacted at
ccazenave@joneswalker.com
President Trump Issued Two New EOs on Energy Infrastructure and Federal Energy Policy
May 20, 2019 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel1. The first EO is very comprehensive, affecting many federal agencies and departments, and is entitled “Promoting Federal Infrastructure and Economic Growth.” The EO emphasizes its concern with the need for infrastructure that “ is capable of safely and efficiently transporting these plentiful resources to end users.” To that end, the EO:
- (A) states the general policy that the U.S. Government is to promote private investment in the Nation’s infrastructure by establishing efficient permitting processes and procedures that avoid duplication and result in increased regulatory certainty;
- (B) reviews and revises existing federal guidance and regulations regarding Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), with particular emphasis on EPA’s guidance document, CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification, and actions will be taken in accordance with a regulatory schedule set forth in the EO which has as its objective a notice of proposed rulemaking on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Section 401 regulations to be published in 12 months, with the final rules to be issued by May 2020;
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
The Sounds of Silence: Pennsylvania’s Sutton Rule
January 29, 2024 —
William L. Doerler - The Subrogation StrategistIn Westminster Am. Ins. Co. a/s/o Androulla M. Toffalli v. Bond, No. 538 EDA 2023, 2023 Pa. Super. LEXIS 626, 2023 PA Super 272, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Appellate Court) recently discussed the impact of silence on the Sutton Rule with respect to the landlord, Androulla M. Toffalli (Landlord), securing insurance. After holding that the tenant, Amy S. Bond (Bond) t/a Blondie’s Salon – who leased both commercial and residential space in the building pursuant to written leases – was not an implied “co-insured” on Landlord’s insurance policy, the Appellate Court reversed the decision of the trial court.
In this case, Bond rented the ground floor of a property located in Monroe County pursuant to a written commercial lease (Commercial Lease) and operated Blondie’s salon out of the leased location. In addition, Bond rented and lived in a second-floor apartment pursuant to a residential lease (Residential Lease). Both leases required the tenants (Tenants) to obtain insurance for personal items. The leases, however, did not require Landlord to obtain fire insurance for the property.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLPMr. Doerler may be contacted at
doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com
New Home Construction Booming in Texas
October 24, 2022 —
Jason Daniel Feld & Ron Raydon - Kahana FeldWith the rapid relocation trends of families moving to Texas, it was reported that new residential construction permits in Texas grew to a total value in excess of $2 billion and over 7,500 new construction permits in September 2022 alone. D.R. Horton lead the way with 1,139 new permits, while Lennar Homes clocked 696 new permits. Other leading homebuilders including KB Homes (239 permits) and Pulte Homes (253 permits) remained active heading into the 4th Quarter of 2022. The following is a breakdown of new permits and average home values in the 4 largest cities in Texas (Houston, Dallas, Austin and San Antonio) for September 2022:
Houston
Last month, there were approximately 340 home builders with new permits on record in the Houston area, and the following ranked as the top five total new permits:
| Builder | Total Permits | Average Value |
|---|
| 1-D.R. Horton |
483 |
$ 129,812.00 |
| 2-Camillo Properties |
190 |
$ 147,790.00 |
| 3-Lennar Homes |
188 |
$ 195,503.00 |
| 4-Meritage Homes |
124 |
$ 248,597.00 |
| 5-Wan Pacific Real Estate Development |
117 |
$ 165,044.00 |
Dallas
In Dallas, there were more than 290 contractors with new residential construction activity on record with HBW last month, and the following ranked as the top five for total new permits:
| Builder | Total Permits | Average Value |
|---|
| 1-D.R. Horton |
555 |
$ 179,430.00 |
| 2-Lennar Homes |
232 |
$ 202,318.00 |
| 3-Trophy Signature Homes |
111 |
$ 274,016.00 |
| 4-Bloomfield Homes |
97 |
$ 405,235.00 |
| 5-Meritage Homes |
92 |
$ 267,425.00 |
Austin
Last month, there were nearly 125 home builders with new construction activity on record in the Austin area, and the following ranked as the top five for total new permits for the one-month period:
| Builder | Total Permits | Average Value |
|---|
| 1-Lennar Homes |
150 |
$ 154,390.00 |
| 2-KB Homes |
147 |
$ 253,606.00 |
| 3-D.R. Horton |
99 |
$ 200,416.00 |
| 4-Taylor Morrison Homes |
79 |
$ 365,183.00 |
| 5-David Weekley Homes |
64 |
$ 436,978.00 |
San Antonio
In San Antonio, there were nearly 120 contractors with new residential construction activity on record last month, and the following ranked as the top five for total new permits:
| Builder | Total Permits | Average Value |
|---|
| 1-Lennar Homes |
126 |
$ 174,315.00 |
| 2-KB Homes |
55 |
$ 254,109.00 |
| 3-Pulte Homes |
52 |
$ 241,012.00 |
| 4-M/I Homes |
51 |
$ 237,283.00 |
| 5-LGI Homes |
30 |
$ 202,760.00 |
The residential construction boom is Texas does not appear to be slowing down anytime soon. With new corporations relocating corporate offices to the Lone Star State each year, we expect this trend to continue for the foreseeable future. And with increased home production, we will closely monitor the increase in construction related litigation over the next five to ten years.
The increase in market activity attracts new or inexperienced builders and tradesman, making the importance of a proactive approach to construction management all the more important. Given the labor shortages and supply chain issues. It is imperative that Texas homebuilders take extra precautions to ensure quality construction practices and oversight to minimize potential litigation.
Reprinted courtesy of Jason Daniel Feld, Kahana Feld and Ron Raydon, Kahana Feld
Mr. Feld may be contacted at jfeld@kahanafeld.com
Mr. Raydon may be contacted at rraydon@kahanafeld.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
KF-103 v. American Family Mutual Insurance: An Exception to the Four Corners Rule
October 29, 2014 —
Zach McLeroy – Colorado Construction LitigationIn Colorado, the “complaint rule,” also known as the “four corners rule,” requires an insurer to provide a defense when an underlying complaint alleges any set of facts that may fall within an insurance policy. This can result in a situation where an insurer has a duty to defend although the underlying facts ultimately do not fall within the policy.
In KF-103 v. American Family Mutual Insurance, 2014 WL 4409876, District Court Judge Richard P. Matsch recognized an exception to the complaint rule. In doing so, Judge Matsch determined that a court may look beyond the complaint to judicial orders preceding the filing of the complaint to determine whether an insurer has a duty to defend. Therefore, a party may not be able to assert unsupported facts in a complaint for the sole purpose of triggering an insurance policy.
KF 103 v. American Family arose out of an underlying easement dispute. In the underlying case, KF 103-CV, LLC (“KF 103”) purchased a piece of property from the Infinity Group. As a condition of the purchase agreement, Infinity Group was required to complete improvements to boundary streets and the intersection of Ski Lane and Sorpresa Lane. Several adjoining property owners (the “neighbors”) objected to the modification of the intersection because it violated an express easement (the “easement”) that provided access to their properties.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Zach McLeroy, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McLeroy may be contacted at
McLeroy@hhmrlaw.com
Cliffhanger: $451M Upgrade for Treacherous Stretch of Highway 1 in British Columbia
July 31, 2023 —
Aileen Cho - Engineering News-RecordRugged Construction | Part Three of an ENR Series
Winding along the edges of steep slopes deep in the eastern forests of British Columbia, a stretch of Highway 1 offers stunning vistas for commuters and visitors as they traverse Kicking Horse Canyon. But the 70-plus-year-old two-lane highway also has been susceptible to rockfalls, avalanches and traffic accidents involving both humans and wildlife.
Reprinted courtesy of
Aileen Cho, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Cho may be contacted at choa@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sanctions of $1.6 Million Plus Imposed on Contractor for Fabricating Evidence
March 16, 2017 —
Paul R. Cressman, Jr.King County Superior Court issued sanctions of $1,641,721 in favor of Gefco and against Cascade Drilling, Inc. and its President, Bruce Niermeyer, composed of $1,394,435 in attorneys’ fees and $247,286 in expert fees. [i]
Cascade Drilling is a contractor. Gefco manufactures and sells large drilling machinery. The dispute centered around a project that began in 2008. Cascade was hired to drill a water well at a housing development in Wheeler Canyon, California. Cascade used a 50K drilling rig purchased from Gefco. The pump drive shafts on the drilling rig failed four times. After each failure, Cascade ordered a replacement pump drive shaft from Gefco.
In September 2008, Cascade ordered drilling equipment for an unrelated drilling rig from Gefco, but did not pay Gefco. Gefco then sued to collect. Cascade admitted not paying, but asserted counterclaims alleging that Gefco was indebted to Cascade for non-conforming and defective goods, including the replacement pump drive shafts purchased from Gefco for the Wheeler Canyon project.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Paul R. Cressman, Jr., Ahlers & Cressman PLLCMr. Cressman may be contacted at
pcressman@ah-lawyers.com
Superior Court Of Pennsylvania Holds Curb Construction Falls Within The Scope Of CASPA
September 17, 2014 —
Jerrold Anders & Michael Jervis – White and Williams LLPIn Prieto Corp. v. Gambone Construction Co., the Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently considered three issues arising out of a construction dispute, including whether construction of a curb falls within the scope of the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act (CASPA), 73 P.S. §§ 501-516. CASPA is a Pennsylvania statute which is intended to protect contractors and subcontractors from abuses in the building industry and which establishes certain rules and deadlines for payments between owners, contractors, and subcontractors. Failure to abide by the act’s payment requirements subjects an owner or contractor to liability for interest, penalties and attorneys fees. In this case, Prieto was a subcontractor hired by Gambone to construct concrete or Belgian block curbs at Gambone’s property developments. Prieto sued Gambone under CASPA for failure to pay its invoices for four projects. After the trial court entered judgment for Prieto, Gambone appealed, arguing that CASPA did not encompass the work at issue, i.e. the construction of curbs, because curbs did not constitute an improvement to real property.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jerrold Anders, White and Williams LLP and
Michael Jervis, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Anders may be contacted at andersj@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Jervis may be contacted at jervism@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
