A Teaming Agreement is Still a Contract (or, Be Careful with Agreements to Agree)
November 18, 2019 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsI have discussed teaming agreements in this past here at Construction Law Musings. These agreements are most typically where one of two entities meets a contracting requirement but may not have the capacity to fulfill a contract on its own so brings in another entity to assist. However, these agreements are contracts and are treated as such here in Virginia with all of the law of contracts behind them.
One illustrative case occurred here in Virginia and was decided by the Virginia Supreme Court. That case is CGI Fed. Inc. v. FCi Fed. Inc. While this is not strictly a “construction” case, it helps lay out some of the pitfalls of teaming agreements in general.
In this case, the parties entered into a fairly typical small business (FCI) Big Business (CGI) teaming arrangement for the processing of visas for the State Department. The parties negotiated the workshare percentage (read payment percentage) should FCI get the work and the teaming agreement set out a framework for the negotiation of a subcontract between FCI, the proposed general contractor, and CGI, the proposed subcontractor. After a while working together, FCI submitted a proposal to the State Department and as part of the negotiations of this proposal, the work percentage for CGI was lowered in exchange for some management positions for CGI relative to the work by amendment to the original teaming agreement. However, one day later FCI submitted a proposal to the State Department that not only didn’t include the management positions, but further lowered CGI’s workshare.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Think Twice Before Hedging A Position Or Defense On A Speculative Event Or Occurrence
July 13, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesSometimes, hedging a position on a potential occurrence is not prudent. Stated differently, hedging a position on a contingent event is not the right course of action. The reason being is that a potential occurrence or contingent event is SPECULATIVE. The occurrence or event may not take place and, even if it does take place, the impact is unknown.
An example of hedging a defense on such a potential occurrence or contingent event can be found in a construction dispute involving a federal project out of the Eastern District of Virginia, U.S. f/u/b/o Champco, Inc. v. Arch Insurance Co., 2020 WL 1644565 (E.D.Va. 2020). In this case, the prime contractor hired a subcontractor to perform electrical work, under one subcontract, and install a security system, under a separate subcontract. The subcontractor claimed it was owed money under the two subcontracts and instituted a lawsuit against the prime contractor’s Miller Act payment bond. The prime contractor had issued the subcontractor an approximate $71,000 back-charge for delays. While the subcontractor did not accept the back-charge, it moved for summary judgment claiming that the liability for the back-charge can be resolved at trial as there is still over $300,000 in contract balance that should be paid to it. The prime contractor countered that the delays caused by the subcontractor could be greater than $71,000 based on a negative evaluation in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (“CPARS”). A negative CPARS rating by the federal government due to the delays caused by the subcontractor would result in a (potential) loss of business with the federal government (i.e., lost profit) to the prime contractor. The main problem for the prime contractor: a negative CPARs rating was entirely speculative as there had not been a negative CPARs rating and, even if there was, the impact a negative rating would have on the prime contractor’s future business with the federal government was unknown. To this point, the district court stated:
In this case, [prime contractor’s] claim for damages is wholly speculative. [Prime contractor] has not produced any evidence that its stated condition precedent—a negative CPARS rating—will actually occur and will have a negative impact on its future federal contracting endeavors. Specifically, [prime contractor] has not identified any facts that indicate that it will be subject to a negative CPARS rating or any indication of the Navy’s dissatisfaction with its work as the prime contractor on the Project… Further, a CPARS rating is only one aspect taken into consideration when federal contracts are awarded. In sum, there is no evidence of the following: (1) a negative CPARS rating issued to [prime contractor]; (2) [prime contractor’s] hypothetical negative rating will be the result of the delay [prime contractor] alleges was caused by [subcontractor]; or (3) [prime contractor’s] hypothetical negative CPARS rating will result in future lost profits.
U.S. f/u/b/o Champco, Inc., supra, at *2 (internal citation 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
CLB Recommends Extensive Hawaii Contractor License Changes
January 27, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFIn 2013, the Hawaii senate passed a resolution, which asked the Contractors License Board to assess “each of the contractor licensing classifications under chapter 444, Hawaii Revised Statutes, and chapter 77, Hawaii Administrative Rules, and prepare a report that evaluates each classification,” according to Anna Oshiro’s blog, Hawaii Construction Law. The “board completed its task” and “recommends wholesale changes to the scope of work to be performed by licensed contractors in the State of Hawaii.” The report has been filed with the Legislative Reference Bureau.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mortar Insufficient to Insure Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Case
January 06, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe US District Court of Nevada issued a summary judgment in the case of R&O Construction Company V. Rox Pro International Group, Ltd. on December 19, 2011. The case involved the installation of stone veneer at a Home Depot location (Home Depot was not involved in the case). R&O’s subcontractor, New Creation Masonry, purchased the stone veneer from Arizona Stone. Judge Larry Hicks noted that “the stone veneer failed and R&O was forced to make substantial structural repairs to the Home Depot store.”
Rox Pro asked the court for a summary judgment, which the court granted only in part. The court looked at two issues in the case, whether the installation instructions constituted a breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and whether there was a breach of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
Judge Hicks found that there was a breach of implied warranty of merchantability. The instructions drafted by Real Stone and distributed by Arizona Stone were not sufficient for affixing the supplied stones, according to R&O’s expert, a claim the plaintiffs dispute. “Because there is an issue of material fact concerning the installation guidelines, the court shall deny Arizona Stone’s motion for a summary judgment on this issue.”
On the other hand, the judge did not find that the instructions had any bearing as to whether R&O bought the stone, since the stone was selected by the shopping center developer. This issue was, in the view of the judge, appropriately dismissed.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
BOOK CLUB SERIES: Everything You Want to Know About Construction Arbitration But Were Afraid to Ask
October 30, 2023 —
Marissa L. Downs - The Dispute ResolverI recently had the pleasure of speaking with construction law notables John Foust and Andy Ness to discuss the release of their new book—
Construction Arbitration: The Advocate’s Practical Guide. The goal of their book: to teach attorneys what they need to know to maximize their effectiveness in the arbitration context. To that end, the book covers every aspect of the arbitration process including motion practice, conduct as an advocate, presentation of the case, and post-hearing submissions. Read on for Andy and John’s candid, behind-the-scenes take on how this book came to be and why you should get your copy now, while supplies last!
Q: Who is the target audience for this book?
Andy: In the editing process (and in writing my own chapter on Navigating an International Construction Arbitration) I pretended that I was speaking with a construction lawyer who was a few years out of law school, with some litigation experience, who was getting ready to take on a significant and complex construction arbitration for the first time. The book presupposes knowledge of the basics and tries to anticipate the questions that would be asked when you are trying to think through the whole arbitration process from start to finish. What should my pleadings look like? How much discovery am I likely to be able to obtain? How should my demeanor be different from what I would do in a courtroom? How much should I object during the hearing? In a nutshell, it’s “What do I need to know to maximize my chances of success in the arbitration setting?”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Marissa L. Downs, Laurie & Brennan, LLPMs. Downs may be contacted at
mdowns@lauriebrennan.com
The Devil is in the Details: The Texas Construction Trust Fund Pitfalls Residential Remodelers (and General Contractors) Should Avoid
December 26, 2022 —
Rochelle Cabe & Roni Most - Kahana FeldA tale of Texas Construction Trust Account woe. You’re a contractor running a business doing interior remodels for clients in a major metropolitan Texas area. You sign up clients with a contract developed by our friends at LegalZoom and get your team to work. Three months into your remodeling project with Mr. and Mrs. “you thought they were happy” Clients, you get this letter:
“Consistent with the requirements of §162.006 and §162.007 of the Texas Property Code, Mr. and Mrs. “you thought they were happy” Clients demand a full and complete accounting of all funds you have received from any source relating to this project.”
What should you do? Should you ignore it? Should you respond? Fear sets in, you call your crew, and you stop the work. Mr. and Mrs. “you thought they were happy” Clients become Mr. and Mrs. “irate and angry” Clients and they sue you alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and perhaps fraud.
Reprinted courtesy of
Rochelle Cabe, Kahana Feld and
Roni Most, Kahana Feld
Ms. Cabe may be contacted at rcabe@kahanafeld.com
Mr. Most may be contacted at rmost@kahanafeld.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Georgia House Bill Addresses Construction Statute of Repose
May 04, 2020 —
Jason Gropper - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLPOn March 2, 2020, by a unanimous vote, the House passed HB 968. This Bill seeks to clarify which civil actions are subject to Code Section 9-3-51, which is the eight-year statute of repose for deficiencies in connection with improvements to realty. If passed by the General Assembly, it would explicitly state that the statute of repose will not apply to breach of express warranties. If the Bill is passed, O.C.G.A § 9-3-51 would include a subsection that provides: “This Code section shall not apply to actions for breach of contract, including, but not limited to actions for breach of express contractual warranties.”
Jason Gropper, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Gropper may be contacted at Gropper@ahclaw.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Illinois Supreme Court Holds that Constructions Defects May Constitute “Property Damage” Caused By An “Occurrence” Under Standard CGL Policy, Overruling Prior Appellate Court Precedent
January 08, 2024 —
Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogOn November 30, 2023, the Illinois Supreme Court issued an opinion that overturned precedent in Illinois regarding whether faulty workmanship that only caused damage to the insured’s own work constituted “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under Illinois law. In Acuity v. M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC, 2023 IL 129087, the Illinois Supreme Court considered whether Acuity, a mutual insurance company, had a duty to defend its additional insured, M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC (M/I Homes), under a subcontractor’s commercial general liability (CGL) policy in connection with an underlying lawsuit brought by a townhome owners’ association for breach of contract and breach of an implied warranty of habitability. The Cook County Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of Acuity finding no duty to defend because the underlying complaint did not allege “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under the initial grant of coverage of the insurance policy. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that Acuity owed M/I Homes a duty to defend. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, in part, holding construction defects to the general contractor’s own work may constitute “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under the standard CGL Policy. This is significant as it overrules prior Illinois precedent finding that repair or replacement of the insured’s defective work does not satisfy the initial grant of coverage of a CGL Policy.
By way of background, the underlying litigation stems from alleged construction defects in a residential townhome development in the village of Hanover Park, Illinois. The townhome owners’ association, through its board of directors (the Association) subsequently filed an action on behalf of the townhome owners for breach of contract and breach of the implied warranty of habitability against M/I Homes as the general contractor and successor developer/seller of the townhomes. The Association alleged that M/I Homes’ subcontractors caused construction defects by using defective materials, conducting faulty workmanship, and failing to comply with applicable building codes. As a result, “[t]he [d]efects caused physical injury to the [t]ownhomes (i.e. altered the exterior’s appearance, shape, color or other material dimension) after construction of the [t]ownhome[ ] was completed from repeated exposure to substantially the same general conditions.” The defects included “leakage and/or uncontrolled water and/or moisture in locations in the buildings where it was not intended or expected.” The Association alleged that the “[d]efects have caused substantial damage to the [t]ownhomes and damage to other property.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Taylor, Traub LiebermanMr. Taylor may be contacted at
jtaylor@tlsslaw.com
