Dump Site Provider Has Valid Little Miller Act Claim
October 19, 2020 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsYou may have thought that a Virginia “Little Miller Act” bond claim, like a mechanic’s lien, could only be brought by those that provide materials and labor incorporated into the construction project. If you did, you aren’t alone.
In fact, Safeco Insurance Co. of America, a surety, made exactly the above argument in Yard Works LLC v. GroundDown Constructors LLC. In that case, a debris hauling company failed to pay Yard Works, the company that provided the dumping site for the debris. Yard Works sued pursuant to the Little Miller Act to get paid. In response, the surety sought to have the claim against the payment bond dismissed and argued that because Yard Works did not actually improve the property or provide improvements and that Yard Works only passively provided a dump site, Yard Works could not claim under the payment bond.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Insurers' Communications Through Brokers Not Privileged
April 20, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe court granted the insured's motion to compel documents withheld for privilege by the insurers. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's v. Amtrack, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27041(E.D. N.Y. Feb. 19, 2016).
Plaintiffs were insurers who did business in the London Insurance Market and who issued one or more liability policies issued to Amtrak. Amtrak demanded coverage under the policies for alleged environmental contamination and/or asbestos exposure. Coverage was denied and the insurers filed for a declaratory judgment.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Forum Selection Provisions Are Not to Be Overlooked…Even On Federal Projects
September 16, 2024 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesForum selection provisions are NOT to be overlooked. Ever. Treat them seriously. Even on federal projects where there is a Miller Act payment bond. Consider forum selection provisions on the front end when negotiating your contract.
In a recent opinion, U.S. f/u/b/o Timberline Construction Group, LLC vs. Aptim Federal Services, LLC, 2024 WL 3597164 (M.D.Fla. 2024), a joint venture prime contractor was hired by the federal government to build a temporary housing site. The joint venture prime contractor obtained a Miller Act payment bond. The joint venture then entered into a subcontract with one of its joint venture members and the member-subcontractor then engaged a sub-subcontractor. The sub-subcontractor claimed it was owed $3.5 Million and sued the member-subcontractor, as well as the prime contractor’s Miller Act payment bond, in the Middle District of Florida. The member-subcontractor and the Miller Act payment bond sureties moved to transfer venue to the Middle District of Louisiana pursuant to a forum selection clause in the contract between the sub-subcontractor and the member-subcontractor. The contract provided that the exclusive venue would be a United States District Court located in Louisiana.
Forum selection provisions are analyzed in federal court under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a): “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.” U.S. f/u/b/o Timberline, supra at *2. A forum selection provision is presumptively valid and given controlling weight. Id. (quotations and citations omitted).
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
Filing Motion to Increase Lien Transfer Bond (Before Trial Court Loses Jurisdiction Over Final Judgment)
May 15, 2023 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIf a construction lien is recorded against real property, the lien can be transferred to a lien transfer bond. This transfers the security or collateral of the construction lien from the real property to the lien transfer bond. The lien transfer bond can be a bond posted by a surety company or it can be cash. This is governed by Florida Statute s. 713.24. The amount of the lien does not dictate the amount of the lien transfer bond. Rather, the lien transfer bond needs to be in the amount of the lien, plus interest on that amount for three years, plus $1,000 or 25% of the amount of the lien (whichever is greater so factor in the 25%) to cover attorney’s fees. Fla. Stat. 713.24(1).
If you are looking to transfer a construction lien to a lien transfer bond, make sure to consult with counsel.
Keep in mind there is a statutory mechanism for a lienor to increase the lien transfer bond to cover attorney’s fees and costs and notice the word “must” in the statute below. Pursuant to Florida Statute s. 713.24(3):
Any party having an interest in such security or the property from which the lien was transferred may at any time, and any number of times, file a complaint in chancery in the circuit court of the county where such security is deposited, or file a motion in a pending action to enforce a lien, for an order to require additional security, reduction of security, change or substitution of sureties, payment of discharge thereof, or any other matter affecting said security. If the court finds that the amount of the deposit or bond in excess of the amount claimed in the claim of lien is insufficient to pay the lienor’s attorney’s fees and court costs incurred in the action to enforce the lien, the court must increase the amount of the cash deposit or lien transfer bond. Nothing in this section shall be construed to vest exclusive jurisdiction in the circuit courts over transfer bond claims for nonpayment of an amount within the monetary jurisdiction of the county courts.
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 Court Upholds Late Notice Disclaimer
August 20, 2018 —
Brian Margolies - TLSS Insurance Law BlogIn its recent decision in Evanston Ins. Co. v. Yeager Painting, LLC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130316 (N.D. Ala. Aug. 3, 2018), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama had occasion to consider an insured’s reporting obligations under a general liability policy.
Evanston’s insured, Yeager, was hired to sandblast water tanks, and in turn, subcontracted out the work to a third party. On May 19, 2012, an employee of the subcontractor was severely injured in connection with a work-site accident. It is not entirely clear when Yeager provided notice of occurrence to Evanston, although Evanston advised by letter dated January 30, 2013 that it would be further investigating the matter subject to a reservation of rights. Evanston subsequently denied coverage by letter dated April 10, 2013, the disclaimer based on a subcontractor exclusion on the policy. Notably, Evanston’s letter advised that Yeager should immediately contact Evanston if any facts changed or if it had any additional information concerning the matter.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brian Margolies, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLPMr. Margolies may be contacted at
bmargolies@tlsslaw.com
Michigan: Identifying and Exploiting the "Queen Exception" to No-Fault Subrogation
May 13, 2014 —
Robert M. Caplan – White and Williams LLPIn Michigan, an employee’s entitlement to compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident is governed by both the Workers’ Disability Compensation Act of 1969, MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 418.801 et seq., and Chapter 31 of The Insurance Code of 1956, MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 500.3101 et seq., commonly referred to as the “no-fault act.” Polkosnik v. United Canada Ins. Co., 421 N.W.2d 241, 242 (Mich. App. 1988).
PIP1 benefits payable arising from a motor vehicle accident in Michigan include, principally, (1) medical benefits unlimited in amount and duration, and (2) 85% of lost wages for up to three years. See DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL SERVICES, Brief Explanation of Michigan No-Fault Insurance. As of October 2013, lost wages are capped at $5,282 per month. Id. Such benefits constitute an injured worker’s “economic loss.” See generally Wood v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 668 N.W.2d 353, 355 (Mich. 2003).
Michigan’s no-fault legislation is no different than other no-fault legislation in regard to its purpose: The automobile insurer pays without any right of reimbursement out of any third party tort recovery. Sibley v. Detroit Auto. Inter-Ins. Exch., 427 N.W.2d 528, 530 (Mich. 1988). Moreover, just like in New York, for example, “where benefits are provided from other sources pursuant to state or federal law, the amount paid by the other source reduces the automobile insurer’s responsibility.” Id. at 530.
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
Construction Demand Unsteady, Gains in Some Regions
June 29, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Associated General Contractors of America reported Tuesday, June 28 that construction employment increased in 120 of the 337 metropolitan areas surveyed between May 2010 and May 2011.
‘While construction employment has stopped plunging, any sign of a recovery remains spotty at best,” said Ken Simonson, the association’s chief economist. ‘The close to even split between areas adding and losing jobs is a reminder that for every market doing well, there is another market that is still hurting.”
The largest number of jobs created was in the Dallas, Texas region, with 5,600 new jobs, a five percent increase. The northern Massachusetts/southern New Hampshire region near Haverhill saw the greatest percentage increase, although that twenty-two percent increase represents only 800 new jobs. The Chicago, Illiinois area added 4,600 jobs, a four percent increase.
Other regions were not so lucky. The Atlanta, Georgia area saw a loss of 7,400 jobs, an eight percent loss. Las Vegas also lost 7,400 jobs, which there represented a sixteen percent decline. The New York City area lost 6,700 jobs, a six percent reduction. The Riverside, California area lost 5,300 jobs, a nine percent loss.
Stephen E. Sandherr, the association’s chief executive officer, blamed a combination of regulation and budget squeezes. "Some in Washington never met a regulation they didn’t like and others never found a penny they didn’t want to pinch. Together that makes for a bad way to boost employment and a great way to stifle the private sector and neglect critical economic infrastructure.”
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Certification Requirements for Veteran-Owned Small Business Concerns and Service-Disabled Veteran-owned Small Business Concerns Seeking Public Procurement Contracts
March 27, 2023 —
Jennifer Harris, Timothy D. Matheny & Abby Bello Salinas - ConsensusDocsEffective January 1, 2023, Veteran-Owned Small Business Concerns (VOSBs) and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Concerns (SDVOSBs) will be required to obtain Small Business Administration (SBA) certification to participate in any federal government agency VOSB or SDVOSB sole source or set-aside prime contracts. This change originated from a Final Rule (87 FR 73400) published by the SBA on November 29, 2022. As a result of this Final Rule, not only will VOSBs and SDVOSBs be required to re-visit, and in some cases re-apply for various certifications, but these new regulations will also impact joint ventures that rely on their member’s VOSB or SDVOSB status to bid public work.
New Regulation
Previously, a VOSB and SDVOSB could self-certify to perform set-aside and sole source projects on non-U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) procurements—a VOSB and SDVOSB only needed to be certified by the VA Center for Verification and Evaluation (CVE) when bidding on VA procurements contingent on its status.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jennifer Harris, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.,
Timothy D. Matheny, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Abby Bello Salinas, Law Clerk, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Ms. Harris may be contacted at jharris@pecklaw.com
Mr. Matheny may be contacted at tmatheny@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
