How Do You Get to the Five Year Mark? Some Practical Advice
August 26, 2015 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsFor this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Construction Law Musings, we would like to welcome back (again) Sean Lintow Sr. of
SLS Construction & Building Solutions . Sean has over 20 years working directly in the trenches in the construction arena. Since moving to Illinois, the focus of his business has shifted to helping builders, trade professionals& even code officials not only understand and meet the latest energy codes but how to improve their methods to accomplish it better and more affordably.
Currently he is RESNET Rater, AEE CEA (Certified Energy Auditor), ENERGY STAR partner & verifier, EPA Indoor airPLUS verifier, Level 2 Infrared Thermographer, Volunteer Energy Rater for Habitat for Humanity, and Builders Challenge Partner & Verifier. You may also want to check out his great resources on
The HTRC (Homeowners & Trades Resource Center).
I would like to thank Chris for inviting me back for my 6th musing on this great site. I would also like to give him a Belated Happy Birthday for reaching 5 years since going solo. Reaching five years is a big milestone for many businesses as most new ventures (I think it is 85% or maybe even 90%) fail during that time. Therefore, a big congrats to you Chris & here is to another five plus years.
For the most part the blame game for failure comes down to; wrong product offerings (market to saturated, not interested in, etc…), their ability to market, or poor business skills (not charging enough, realizing what they are spending, etc…) as the main point of failures. There is another group though that never seems to get much press and that is the ones that seemingly are blindsided by the dreaded “ignorance of the law” is no excuse… Not only does this effect many large companies but also many solo operations which is where I do want to focus today, especially on 4 “lesser” known issues.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PCMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
3D Printing Innovations Enhance Building Safety
October 07, 2019 —
Mahmut Ekenel & Melissa Sanchez - Construction ExecutiveThe mention of 3D printing alone is enough to get people excited, often conjuring images of a desktop console that can download and create three dimensional objects such as prototypes, or mechanical parts. And yet, in recent years the technology has given way to a slight impatience, as people begin to wonder how and when it will have a direct impact on both their lifestyles and their businesses.
The construction industry has been quick to take advantage of these innovations, and the effects are tangible, especially regarding building safety. The 3D construction technology allows for several key advantages in terms of faster construction times, uncompromised quality of construction and lower costs—allowing for affordable dwellings to be quickly built for people in need.
These advantages also lead to safety improvements during the building process. The ability to accelerate construction time without requiring an increase in labor results in a fewer construction-related workplace injuries and a reduction in material waste, making it an environmentally friendly construction method as well.
ICC-Evaluation Service (ICC-ES), a subsidiary of the International Code Council (ICC) which develops model codes and standards (i.e. International Building Code, International Residential Code) and delivers a wide array of building safety services, has taken the lead on developing acceptance criteria to address building code compliance of 3D printed construction. Currently, 3D construction technology is not within the provisions of the International Building Code (IBC) or International Residential Code (IRC). The acceptance criteria introduces new compliance measures for interior and exterior 3D printed concrete walls (with and without structural steel reinforcement), load-bearing and non-load-bearing walls, and shear walls in one-story, single-unit, residential dwellings. The 3D walls are constructed by printing two outer layers of 3D concrete and then filling the core with 3D concrete to form a solid wall.
Reprinted courtesy of
Mahmut Ekenel & Melissa Sanchez, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Mr. Ekenel may be contacted at mekenel@icc-es.org
Ms. Sanchez may be contacted at msanchez@icc-es.org
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Robinson+Cole’s Amicus Brief Adopted and Cited by Massachusetts’s High Court
July 31, 2024 —
Erica Whaley - Construction Law ZoneEarlier this year, the
Associated Subcontractors of Massachusetts hired Robinson+Cole attorney
Joseph Barra to submit an amicus brief to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for consideration in the appeal pending before it in
Business Interiors Floor Covering Business Trust v. Graycor Construction Co., Inc. In its June 17, 2024 decision in that case, the Court interpreted the Massachusetts Prompt Pay Act, which applies to private construction projects and “requires that parties to a construction contract approve or reject payment within” an allotted time period and in compliance with certain procedures else such payments will be deemed approved. Two years ago, the Massachusetts Appeals Court, in
Tocci Building Corp. v. IRIV Partners, LLC, decided that an owner who fails to timely advise its general contractor of the reasons as to why it was withholding payment, coupled with failure to certify that such funds are being withheld in good faith, violates the Prompt Pay Act and makes the owner liable for funds owed.
[1] However, the Tocci Building Court left open the question of whether one who violates the Prompt Pay Act forfeits its substantive defenses to non-payment, such as fraud, defective work, or breach of material obligation of the contract.
The facts of Business Interiors involve a general contractor, Graycor, which subcontracted Business Interiors to perform certain flooring work for a movie theatre in Boston’s North End. When Graycor failed to formally approve, reject, or certify, in good faith, its withholding of payment of three of Business Interiors’ applications for payment as prescribed by the Prompt Pay Act, Business Interiors brought suit alleging, among other things, breach of contract. Business Interiors then moved for summary judgement arguing that Graycor’s failure to comply with the Act rendered it liable for the unpaid invoices.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Robinson + Cole
Monitoring Building Moisture with RFID – Interview with Jarmo Tuppurainen
February 22, 2018 —
Aarni Heiskanen – aec businessI met Jarmo, the Technology Manager at Helsinki Metropolia University of Applied Sciences, at the leading event for housing markets in Helsinki (
Asuntomarkkinat). He and his team had set up an impressive display of devices and structures in the KIRA-digi showroom.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, aec businessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
A Year-End Review of the Environmental Regulatory Landscape
January 11, 2022 —
Anne Idsal Austin & Joel Simon - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogOur guest today is Anne Idsal Austin, a nationally recognized environmental lawyer who has held several high-profile federal and state regulatory roles. As a partner who recently joined Pillsbury’s environmental and natural resources practice, she provides strategic consulting and policy advice, helping clients navigate the dynamic regulatory and legal waters in an era of energy transition, decarbonization and an emphasis on ESG principles. Prior to joining Pillsbury, Anne was the Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Air and Radiation, known as OAR or OAR, where she had primary oversight over United States clean air policy and regulation. Prior to that, she served as the EPA regional administrator for Region 6, overseeing all federal environmental programs in Texas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Arkansas. Prior to joining EPA, Anne held several positions where she shaped environmental and energy policy at the highest levels of government in the state of Texas. Welcome to our podcast, Anne.
Anne Austin: Thanks so much. It’s great to be here today, Joel.
Joel Simon: Anne, I’m really excited for this chance to speak with you because there’s so much going on at the federal environmental policy level, and it would be great to have someone really knowledgeable present this to us in an organized fashion. So with that minor task ahead of you, could you start us off with a brief overview of the environmental regulatory landscape?
Reprinted courtesy of
Anne Idsal Austin, Pillsbury and
Joel Simon, Pillsbury
Ms. Austin may be contacted at anne.austin@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Simon may be contacted at joel.simon@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurance Company Prevails in “Chinese Drywall” Case
June 17, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Louisiana Court of Appeals rejected an appeal to reverse a summary judgment granted to Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Company. Terrence and Rhonda Ross contracted for a remodel of their home in which Chinese-made drywall was used. When the drywall emitted harmful gasses, the Rosses filed a claim under their insurance policy. This claim was rejected under four exclusions: for faulty materials, latent defect, loss by corrosion, and loss by pollution. After the claim was denied, the Rosses sued Louisiana Citizens.
In April 2010, the lower court granted a summary judgment, followed by a May, 2010 order dismissing the Rosses’ claims against Louisiana Citizens. The Rosses appealed this decision. In the court’s review, they agreed with Louisiana Citizens and the lower court on all counts. Although the Rosses maintained that the drywall was not defective (as it still functioned as drywall), the court ruled that its emission of sulfuric gases was a defect. Further, as it was in place for two years before this became evident, it was also a latent defect. Damage to the Rosses’ home consisted of corrosion damage caused by the pollutants in the drywall.
The Rosses made an additional claim that since their policy covered smoke damage, this should be covered, as the harm was done by sulfuric gases. The court noted that the contract specifies “fumes or vapors from a boiler, furnace, or related equipment,” none of which apply in this case.
Read the court’s decision
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Private Project Payment Bonds and Pay if Paid in Virginia
January 05, 2017 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsOne of the many items of construction law that has always been about as clear as mud has been the interaction between a contractual pay if paid clause and payment bond claims either under the Federal Miller Act or Virginia’s “Little Miller Act.” While properly drafted contractual “pay if paid” clauses are enforceable by their terms in Virginia, what has always been less clear is whether a bonding company can take advantage of such a clause when defending a payment bond claim. As always, these questions are very fact specific both under the Federal Act and the state statute. I wish that this post would answer this question, but alas, it will not.
A recent case from the City of Roanoke, Virginia looked at the interaction between a payment bond and a “condition precedent” pay if paid clause as it relates to a private project that is not subject to the Little Miller Act. In the case of IES Commercial, Inc v The Hanover Insurance Company, the Court examined a contractual clause between Thor Construction and IES Commercial in tandem with the bond language between Hanover Insurance Company and Thor as it related to a surprisingly familiar scenario. The general facts are these: IES performed, Thor demanded payment from the owner for the work that IES performed and the owner, for reasons that are left unstated in the opinion, refused to pay. IES sues Hanover pursuant to the payment bond and Hanover moves to dismiss the suit because Thor hadn’t been paid by the owner and therefore Hanover could take advantage of the pay if paid language.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
In Supreme Court Showdown, California Appeals Courts Choose Sides Regarding Whether Right to Repair Act is Exclusive Remedy for Homeowners
August 10, 2017 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogEarlier, we wrote about an appellate court split concerning the Right to Repair Act (Civil Code sections 895 et seq.) which applies to construction defects in newly constructed residential properties including single-family homes and condominiums (but not condominium conversions) sold after January 1, 2003.
The California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District, in Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98, held that the Right to Repair Act does not provide the exclusive remedy when pursing claims for construction defects involving “actual” property damage (e.g., a defectively constructed roof causing actual physical damage due to water intrusion as opposed to a defectively constructed roof that while constructed improperly does not cause actual physical damage). However, the California Court of Appeals for the Fifth District, in McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132, which is currently pending before the California Supreme Court, held that the Right to Repair Act does in fact provide the exclusive remedy when pursuing claims for construction defects whether they involve “actual” property damage or merely “economic” damages. For homeowners, they would prefer the option of pursuing remedies under either or both the Right to Repair Act (which includes detailed pre-litigation procedures and statutory construction standards) or under common law claims such as negligence (which do not include pre-litigation procedures and have more flexible standards of care).
The California Court of Appeals for the Third District has now thrown its hat into the ring . . . on the side of McMillan.
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
