Understanding Lien Waivers
September 03, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFZlien on their Construction Payment Blog explained how to read a lien waiver. According to Zlien, “Lien waivers are meant to function as a sort of receipt – if a party is paid a certain amount that party waives his or her right to claim a lien for that amount. “ The blog post breaks down the types of lien waivers, including Conditional Waivers, Unconditional Waivers, Final Payment, and Progress Payment.
Once the type of waiver has been identified, Zlien suggests checking the length: “Because the party signing the lien waiver may feel obligated to sign whatever document is presented in order to get paid, unscrupulous or oblivious parties may attempt to use the lien waiver as a legal positioning tool and cram all sorts of other language into the lien waiver that really has no legitimate right or reason to be there.” Zlien recommends that if the document is long or confusing to consult an attorney.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Type I Differing Site Conditions Claim is Not Easy to Prove
May 30, 2018 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA differing site condition claim will almost universally result in both a cost and time impact. There will be additional, unanticipated costs incurred. And there will likely be a delay requiring additional time to perform.
A Type I differing site condition claim is when the contractor encounters conditions at the site different than those indicated in the contract documents. That seems easy enough to prove, right. Nope. And, I mean nope! If you don’t believe me, consider the recent decision in Meridian Engineering Co. v. U.S., 885 F.3d 1351 (Fed.Cir. 2018).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
Presenting a “Total Time” Delay Claim Is Not Sufficient
September 12, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen presenting a delay-type of claim on a construction project, a claimant MUST be in a position to properly PROVE the claim. Trying to present a delay claim loosey-goosey is not a recipe for success. In fact, it can be a recipe for an easy loss. This is not what you want. To combat this, make sure you engage a delay expert that understands delay methodologies and how to calculate delay and do NOT present a total time claim. Presenting a delay claim using a total time approach, discussed below, makes it too easy to attack the flaws and credibility of the approach. Per the discussion of the case below, a total time claim with a contractor that used its project manager, versus a delay expert, to support its claim turned the contractor’s claim into a loss.
In French Construction, LLC v. Department of Veteran Affairs, 2022 WL 3134507, CBCA 6490 (CBCA 2022), a contractor submitted a delay claim to the government for almost $400,000. The contractor was hired to construct a two-story corridor to connect hospital buildings. The contractor was required to be complete within 365 days. It was not. The contractor was seeking 419 days of delay from the government. The contractor’s “delay expert” was its project manager who compared the contractor’s as-planned schedule to an as-built schedule he prepared for the claim.
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
Not Everything is a Pollutant: A Summary of Recent Cases Supporting a Common Sense and Narrow Interpretation of the CGL's Pollution Exclusion
October 26, 2020 —
Philip B. Wilusz & Jeffrey J. Vita - Saxe Doernberger & VitaThose of us who suffered through law school are familiar with the argument that there are fundamental rules applicable to contract interpretation and that a certain contract language interpretation would “swallow the rule.” However, insurance companies have long advocated for an interpretation of the CGL policy’s pollution exclusion that would “swallow the coverage” that the insureds thought they were purchasing. Insurers have successfully argued in several states that the pollution exclusion’s definition of “pollutant” should be read literally, and be applied to any “solid, liquid, gaseous, or thermal irritant or contaminant including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals, and waste.” As anyone with children can attest to, the range of items and substances that can be considered an “irritant” is limitless. The logical extent of the insurer’s interpretation brings to mind the high school student who, for his science fair project, convinced his fellow students to ban “dihydrogen monoxide.”1 Citing evidence such as the fact that everyone who has ever died was found to have consumed “dihydrogen monoxide,” he convinced them of the dangers of . . . water. Similarly, an overly expansive reading of the definition of “pollutant” could lead to the absurd result of even applying it to ubiquitous harmless substances such as water. The pollution exclusion, therefore, has run amok in many states and has allowed insurers to avoid liability for otherwise covered claims.
Fortunately, insureds in many states have successfully argued that the pollution exclusion is subject to a more limited interpretation based on several different theories. For example, some courts have agreed that the pollution exclusion, as initially introduced by the insurance industry, should be limited to instances of traditional environmental pollution. Others have held that the exclusion is ambiguous as to its interpretation. The reasonable expectations of the insureds do not support a broad reading of the defined term “pollutant.” Below, this article addresses a number of recent decisions that have adopted a pro policyholder interpretation of the pollution exclusion. As with most insurance coverage issues, choice of law clearly matters.
Reprinted courtesy of
Philip B. Wilusz, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and
Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Wilusz may be contacted at pbw@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Vita may be contacted at jjv@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brenner Base Tunnelers Conquer Peaks and Valleys in the Alps
October 21, 2019 —
Scott Blair - Engineering News-RecordA logistics tangle decades in the unraveling, the Brenner Base Tunnel project is having a banner year. Twin tunnel boring machines in May were released on their relentless journey to mine the main tunnels underneath the Alps between Austria and Italy, while a multinational crew of 2,400 workers armed with a toolkit of just about every mining technique is swarming four major worksites, including a particularly challenging area where workers must undercut a river and pass through the fast-flowing aquifer below it.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scott Blair, ENRMr. Blair may be contacted at
blairs@enr.com
California Supreme Court Holds that Design Immunity Does Not Protect a Public Entity for Failure to Warn of Dangerous Conditions
June 26, 2023 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogGet ready for more street signage.
The California Supreme Court, in
Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, (2023) 14 Cal.5th 639, has held that Government Code section 830.6, which protects public entities from claims alleging dangerous conditions on public property if the design was approved by a public agencies’ legislative body or their designee, does not shield a public entity from claims that the public entity should have warned the public of known dangers.
We wrote about the Tansavatdi case
a while back when it was before the Court of Appeals. The case involves a very sad set of facts. A young boy was killed by a semi-trailer while waiting at a stoplight on his bicycle in Rancho Palos Verdes, California. The area where the boy was killed did not have a bicycle lane although stretches of the same road did. The 2nd District Court of Appeal, on appeal from a motion for summary judgment, held that even if the public entity could establish that it was immune from liability under Government Code section 830.6, the trial court should have considered whether the public entity should have been liable for failing to warn of a dangerous condition on public property.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Fifth Circuit Certifies Eight-Corners Duty to Defend Issue to Texas Supreme Court
June 21, 2021 —
Jeremy S. Macklin - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogIn the recent case of Bitco Gen. Ins. Corp. v. Monroe Guar. Ins. Co., No. 19-51012, 2021 WL 955155 (5th Cir. Mar. 12, 2021), certified question accepted (Mar. 19, 2021), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals certified to the Texas Supreme Court the question of whether a court can consider extrinsic evidence when determining an insurer’s duty to defend. The underlying lawsuit stems from a construction contract in which J&B Farms of Texas hired 5D, a construction company, to drill a commercial irrigation well through the Edwards Aquifer. Two years after beginning the project, J&B Farms sued 5D and its President for breach of contract and negligence. J&B Farms alleged that while drilling, 5D “stuck the drilling bit in the bore hole, rendering the well practically useless for its intended/contracted for purpose.” 5D then “failed and refused to plug the well, retrieve the drill bit, and drill a new well.” J&B Farms asserted that 5D drilled the well “with unacceptable deviation” and then “abandon[ed] the well.”
5D notified its insurers, BITCO and Monroe, of the lawsuit and demanded a defense from both. BITCO agreed to provide a defense to 5D, but Monroe refused arguing that the alleged property damage fell outside the relevant policy period, and therefore, it had no duty to defend 5D. BITCO then filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a finding that Monroe owed 5D a duty to defend.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub LiebermanMr. Macklin may be contacted at
jmacklin@tlsslaw.com
Newmeyer Dillion Announces New Partners
January 06, 2020 —
Michael Krueger & Jason Morris - Newmeyer DillionProminent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer Dillion is pleased to announce that Walnut Creek attorney, Michael Krueger, and Newport Beach attorney, Jason Morris, have been elected to partnership. Their promotion is effective immediately.
"We are proud to have Jason and Mike join the firm's partnership," said Managing Partner Paul Tetzloff. "They both embody the firm's core cultural pillars – like, trust, respect and loyalty – and they've both demonstrated a commitment to outstanding client service and excellent legal work. They will continue to propel the firm's success for decades to come."
Michael Krueger is based in the firm's Walnut Creek office, representing companies at every stage of the business life cycle to create business solutions that minimize risk and accomplish strategic objectives. Recognized as a 2019 California Trailblazer by The Recorder, Krueger is a trusted advisor for complex business negotiations, real estate ventures including Opportunity Zone projects, mergers and acquisitions, bank finance and private equity transactions. A former in-house counsel and business owner, he serves as general counsel for clients focused on expanding their operations, products, and services. Krueger earned his B.A from Marian University and his J.D. from Valparaiso School of Law.
Jason Morris is based in the firm's Newport Beach office, representing companies in all aspects of labor & employment law and business litigation. Whether offering practical advice on a wide range of day-to-day employment law issues, or navigating the complexity of all aspects of civil litigation defense, his focus is helping clients avoid potential legal landmines and keep their business assets protected. Morris brings significant leadership and trial experience to his practice, serving for nearly eight years on active duty in the United States Marine Corps as a Judge Advocate both in the Pentagon advising senior military and civilian leaders, and as a trial attorney successfully representing more than 300 cases, including over 10 trials to verdict. Morris earned his B.A. from Marian University, cum laude, and his J.D. from Indiana University Maurer School of Law.
About Newmeyer Dillion
For 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that achieve client objectives in diverse industries. With over 70 attorneys working as a cohesive team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers holistic and integrated legal services tailored to propel each client's success and bottom line. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California and Nevada, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
