Use of Dispute Review Boards in the Construction Process
December 27, 2021 —
Sarah B. Biser - ConsensusDocsDispute Review Boards: Overview
Problems, disagreements and claims arise in most large and complex construction projects regardless of the project delivery method. These disputes can and do delay and significantly increase the cost of the project. Dispute Review Boards, also known as Dispute Resolution Board, Dispute Board, Dispute Avoidance Board or DRB, are often found in large construction projects to assist the parties to minimize, resolve or avoid disputes and mitigate adverse impacts to projects. To date, over $270 billion worth of construction projects have used the dispute review board process to avoid numerous disputes and achieve significant savings.[1]
Unlike mediation and arbitration, a DRB is convened at the very beginning of the project and conducts regular meetings and visits at the project site throughout, allowing the DRB to discuss, observe and monitor construction, progress and potential disputes. At these meetings, DRB members become familiar with many of the facts and acquaint themselves with the job site personnel. If a dispute is submitted to them, the panelists have a great deal of knowledge about the circumstances of the problem to aid them in reaching their recommendations or conclusions. DRBs also encourage open and honest communications among or between the parties during the project, which in turn, encourages avoidance or resolution of disputes before they become formal claims. In short, the DRP process involves real-time discussion of the dispute with highly qualified people who know the particular project from day one and can provide recommendations on how to resolve disputes.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sarah B. Biser, Fox Rothschild LLPMs. Biser may be contacted at
sbiser@foxrothschild.com
Acord Certificates of Liability Insurance: What They Don’t Tell You Can Hurt You
June 28, 2013 —
David McLainAs anyone involved in construction knows, one of the most heavily used forms for tracking insurance information during the subcontracting phase of a project is the Acord Certificate of Liability Insurance. General contractors often require subcontractors to provide these ubiquitous forms as evidence that the subcontractor maintains adequate insurance or insurance which complies with the requirements of the subcontract. Unfortunately, experience has shown that the Acord forms being used today are insufficient sources of the information needed by the developer and general contractor.
Historically, developers and GCs would require Acord forms to ensure that a subcontractor had a CGL insurance policy, with sufficient limits, and which named them as additional insureds. More recently, developers and GCs took the additional step of requiring a confirmation on the Acord forms that they were named as additional insureds for both ongoing and completed operations. This is important because coverage for ongoing operations only provides coverage during the construction process. Once the homes are put to their intended use, developers and GCs must be named as additional insureds for completed operations also in order to avail themselves of the benefits of the policy. Unfortunately, this is where the evolution of the use of the Acord forms ended, resulting in a failure to provide sufficient information to protect developers and GCs from the unknown.
My firm has had a rash of recent experience where our clients have not obtained the benefit of additional insured coverage for which they bargained because they relied on Acord forms which failed to provide sufficient information to allow them to protect themselves from insufficient insurance coverage on the part of the subcontractors with which they did business. For example, in one recent case a homeowners association alleged insufficient grading and drainage away from the homes within a development built by one of our clients. In reviewing the insurance information from the construction files, we found the Acord forms from the excavating company that performed all of the grading work around the homes. To our delight, the Acord form listed our client as an additional insured for both ongoing and completed operations.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David M. McLainDavid M. McLain can be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
An Obligation to Provide Notice and an Opportunity to Cure May not End after Termination, and Why an Early Offer of Settlement Should Be Considered on Public Works Contracts
August 17, 2020 —
Jeff Kaatz - Ahlers Cressman & SleightIn 2015, the City of Puyallup (“City”) and Conway Construction Company (“Conway”) executed a public works contract for road improvements (“Project”). On March 9, 2016, approximately four months after work started on the Project, the City issued Conway a notice of suspension and breach of contract and identified nine defective and uncorrected work and safety concerns. Conway denied any wrongdoing, and on March 25, 2016, the City issued a notice of termination for default and withheld payments due to Conway.
Conway subsequently filed suit in Pierce County Superior Court and alleged the City’s termination for default breached the contract and sought a determination that the City’s termination for default was improper and should be deemed a termination for convenience. Conway sought approximately $1.25 million in damages and recovery of its attorney fees and costs. Following a bench trial, the Trial Court found the City breached the contract and awarded Conway damages, attorney fees, and costs. The City appealed.[1]
On appeal, after affirming the trial court’s determination that the City improperly terminated Conway, the Court of Appeals considered two other issues raised by the City. First, whether the City was entitled to a set-off for replacing defective work discovered after Conway was terminated. Second, whether Conway is entitled to attorney fees if it did not make the statutorily required offer of settlement per RCW 39.04.240.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jeff Kaatz, Ahlers Cressman & SleightMr. Kaatz may be contacted at
Jeff.Kaatz@acslawyers.com
In Pennsylvania, Contractors Can Be Liable to Third Parties for Obvious Defects in Completed Work
July 10, 2023 —
Michael L. DeBona - The Subrogation StrategistIn Brown v. City of Oil City, No. 6 WAP 2022, 2023 Pa. LEXIS 681 (2023), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Supreme Court) recently held that a contractor can be liable for dangerous conditions it creates even if the hazard is obvious or known by the property owner. In City of Oil City, the City of Oil City (Oil City) contracted with Harold Best and Struxures, LLC and Fred Burns, Inc. (collectively Contractors) to reconstruct the concrete stairs to the city library. Contractors completed their work at the end of 2011. In early 2012, Oil City received reports of issues with the stairs. Oil City notified Contractors that it considered the stairs dangerous and that Contractors’ defective workmanship created the condition. Neither Oil City or Contractors took any action to fix the stairs or warn of the danger and the stairs’ condition worsened with time.
On November 23, 2015, David and Kathryn Brown exited the library. Kathryn Brown tripped on one of the deteriorated steps, falling and striking her head. Kathryn suffered a traumatic head injury and passed away six days later. The Estate of Kathryn Brown and David Brown, individually (collectively, the Browns), sued Oil City as the owner of the library and Contractors. With respect to Contractors, the Browns asserted that Contractors’ work on the stairs created a dangerous condition that presented an unreasonable risk of harm to those using the steps.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael L. DeBona, White and WilliamsMr. DeBona may be contacted at
debonam@whiteandwilliams.com
Contract Void Ab Initio: Key Insights into the KBR vs. Corps of Engineers Affirmative Defense
February 12, 2024 —
Matthew DeVries - Best Practices Construction LawIn a recent Board decision dated December 13, 2023, the United States Army Corps of Engineers sought to amend its answer in the case of APPEALS OF – KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT SERVICES, INC., under Contract No. W912GB-13-C-0011. The proposed amendment introduces an affirmative defense, contending that Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. (KBR) made material misrepresentations in its proposal, rendering the fully-performed contract void ab initio.
Background: The contract in question, executed on July 9, 2013, was for the construction of an Aegis Ashore Missile Defense System site in Deveselu, Romania, with a firm, fixed-price amount of $134,211,592. The Corps moved to amend its answer to allege that KBR’s material misrepresentations induced the Corps to enter the contract, justifying the voiding of the contract. The alleged misrepresentations include issues related to subcontractor quotes, firm fixed prices, subcontracting plans, and more.
Motion to Amend and Legal Defense: The Corps, despite delays in formally amending its answer, argued that KBR was aware of the potential affirmative defense before the conclusion of fact discovery. The proposed affirmative defense asserts that KBR made eight material misrepresentations in its proposal, upon which the Corps relied in awarding the contract and defending against a GAO protest.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Matthew DeVries, Burr & Forman LLPMr. DeVries may be contacted at
mdevries@burr.com
San Francisco Sues Over Sinking Millennium Tower
November 17, 2016 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFDennis Herrera, San Francisco’s city attorney, filed a lawsuit against the developer of the Millennium Tower, “for failing to inform buyers that it was sinking ‘much faster than expected,’” reported the New York Times. Mission Street Development sold more than 400 units in the skyscraper.
“They went ahead and sold condominiums for a handsome profit without telling the buyers about the situation,” Mr. Herrera told the New York Times. “This is every homeowner’s worst nightmare.”
The spokesman for the development, P.J. Johnson, stated that “the allegations by the city attorney had ‘no merit,’ and that the “building had sunk within ‘predicted, safe ranges’ during the entire sales process,” according to the New York Times. Furthermore, Johnson asserted that the problem derived from the nearby railroad station removing water from the ground, which “had caused the building to ‘settle beyond the 12 inches it was predicted to settle.’”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Luxury-Apartment Boom Favors D.C.’s Millennial Renters
August 27, 2014 —
Heather Perlberg – BloombergMandy Johnson was priced out of Virginia Square Towers, a luxury-apartment building rising across the Potomac River from Washington, D.C., where about $3,000 a month would bring perks such as a swimming pool, yoga studio and a game room with virtual golf and zombie dodge ball.
Less than 24 hours after declining to sign the contract in June, she got an e-mail from a leasing manager offering two months’ free rent. That brought the monthly payment down for Johnson and her roommate by about $450 over the term of the lease and put the place within reach.
“The building is still under construction, so we have to deal with that part, but we are also able to have this brand new apartment for the same price as one in older buildings, so we went for the shiny object,” said Johnson, 28, who works at a nonprofit that gives scholarships to military families.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Heather Perlberg, BloombergMs. Perlberg may be contacted at
hperlberg@bloomberg.net
Boston Team Secures Summary Judgment Dismissal on Client’s Behalf in Serious Personal Injury Case
October 21, 2024 —
Lewis Brisbois NewsroomBoston, Mass. (October 14, 2024) - Boston Managing Partner Kenneth B. Walton and Partner Matthew M. O' Leary recently secured summary judgment on behalf of a civil engineering firm in a serious personal injury matter arising from a trip-and-fall incident in a mall parking lot.
The client was retained to provide site civil engineering design for the parking lot of a local mall. The design included multiple bioretention areas known as rain gardens. In November of 2019, a woman tripped and fell while attempting to cross a rain garden to reach her car. She suffered significant bodily injuries, including a fracture of the cervical spine that resulted in partial paralysis.
The woman and her husband sued the mall's owner for negligence and loss of consortium in June 2021. The owner, in turn, impleaded Lewis Brisbois' client and the lot's builder, asserting third-party claims for contribution, contractual and common law indemnity, and breach of contract. In addition, the builder cross-claimed against Lewis Brisbois' client for contribution and common law indemnity.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
