Domtar Update
June 11, 2014 —
Robert M. Caplan – White and Williams LLPOn May 29, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allocatur—i.e., the permission to appeal—in the controversial subrogation case, Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Domtar Paper Co., 77 A.3d 1282 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013). In its order granting the relief to Liberty Mutual, a workers’ compensation insurer, the Supreme Court set forth the narrow issue to be decided on appeal: “Does Section 319 of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, 77 P.S. § 671, allow the employer/insurer to step into the shoes of the insured employee to subrogate against the tortfeasor?”
In Domtar, Liberty Mutual was caused to incur approximately $35,000 in compensation benefits which it paid on behalf of George Lawrence, an employee of Liberty Mutual’s insured, for injuries he sustained in a work-related accident. Mr. Lawrence chose not to file an independent personal injury lawsuit. As a result, in order to recover its lien interests, Liberty Mutual sued the third parties responsible for causing Mr. Lawrence’s work-related injuries directly, having become subrogated to the rights of Mr. Lawrence by virtue of Liberty Mutual’s workers’ compensation expenditure on his behalf.
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
Virginia General Assembly Helps Construction Contractors
June 10, 2015 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsAs reported last week at the Virginia Real Estate, Land Use and Construction Law Blog (authored by my good friend Tim Hughes (@timrhughes)), the Virginia General Assembly has passed an amendment to the jurisdictional limitations of Virginia General District Courts. The new statute, going into effect July 1, 2011, increases the jurisdiction of these courts to $25,000 from the present level of $15,000.
Why is this a big deal? As a solo practitioner who represents contractors and subcontractors in cases big and small, this increase is a boon to my practice and the collect-ability of some debts. I think back to the numerous conversations I have had with clients who had bona fide claims for around $20,000. These conversations inevitably turned toward the cost of Circuit Court versus General District Court and whether it would be better to leave money out of the claim to avoid the ramped up attorney fee and filing costs (not to mention the time from filing to judgment). This conversation was especially relevant in the instance where the contracts did not contain an attorney fees provision.
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
Traub Lieberman Partner Eric D. Suben Obtains Federal Second Circuit Affirmance of Summary Judgment in Insurer’s Favor
April 10, 2023 —
Eric D. Suben - Traub LiebermanIn the underlying action, a property owner hosting a motorcycle rally was sued after a motorcycle collided with an auto near the entrance to the premises, injuring the cyclists. The cyclists sued the property owner, among others, alleging failure to supervising traffic on the adjoining roadway. The property owner tendered the claim under its CGL policy, which was endorsed with an “absolute auto exclusion,” precluding coverage for claims “arising out of or resulting from the ownership, maintenance, use or entrustment to others of any…auto.” The CGL insurer disclaimed coverage based on the endorsement.
In the ensuing coverage litigation, Traub Lieberman represented the insurer, and moved for summary judgment arguing that the “absolute auto exclusion” was dispositive of coverage on the facts alleged, citing case law from New York state courts enforcing similar exclusions to preclude coverage for multi-vehicle accidents. The insured argued in opposition that the outcome should be controlled by Essex Insurance Company v. Grande Stone Quarry, LLC, 82 A.D.3d 1326, 918 N.Y.S.2d 238 (3rd Dep’t 2011), in which the court declined to apply such exclusion in the case of a single-vehicle accident caused by a dangerous condition of the insured’s premises. The federal district judge disagreed with the insured’s argument in this regard, granting Traub Lieberman’s motion for summary judgment in favor of the insurer.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Eric D. Suben, Traub LiebermanMr. Suben may be contacted at
esuben@tlsslaw.com
NY Estimating Consultant Settles $3.1M Government Project Fraud Case
November 23, 2020 —
Eva Fedderly - Engineering News-RecordVJ Associates, a Hicksville, N.Y., estimating consultant, has agreed to pay $3.13 million in civil and criminal penalties to settle charges that the firm overbilled and falsified hours on multiple federal and state government-funded transportation and other contracts in New York and Massachusetts, the U.S. Attorney's office in Boston announced on Oct. 29.
Reprinted courtesy of
Eva Fedderly, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Can’t Get a Written Change Order? Document, Document, Document
August 29, 2018 —
Todd M. Heffner - Smith CurrieMost construction contracts require that any changes to the work be made formally, in writing, via a change order, work directive, or similar written document. Frequently, however, changes to the work or extra work are communicated orally by the architect, engineer, or owner’s representative, instead of in writing. What is the contractor to do in such a situation? The best option is follow the provisions of the contract and demand a written change order before performing changed work. Unfortunately, the realities of construction sometimes make it impossible to get the changes in the proper format in a timely manner. Savvy contractors will maintain schedule and produce written documentation of the change in lieu of a formal change order or directive. But many contractors will simply proceed with the changed work, relying on the owner, architect, or engineer to do the right thing and stand by their oral instructions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Todd M. Heffner, Smith CurrieMr. Heffner may be contacted at
tmheffner@smithcurrie.com
Receiving a $0 Verdict and Still Being Deemed the Prevailing Party for Purposes of Attorney’s Fees
May 24, 2018 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesLow and behold, a party can be the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees even if that party is awarded $0. That’s right, even if the party is awarded a big fat zero, they can still be the prevailing party for purposes of being entitled to attorney’s fees. This is because a party is the prevailing party if they prevail on the significant issues in the case. A party can prevail on the significant issues even if that party is awarded $0. Whoa!
For example, in Coconut Key Homeowner’s Association, Inc. v. Gonzalez, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D1045a (Fla. 4th DCA 2018), a homeowner sued her homeowner’s association claiming the association breached its governing documents. There was a basis for fees under Florida’s homeowner’s association law (and there likely was a basis under the governing documents). At trial, the jury held that the association breached its governing documents, but awarded the homeowner nothing ($0). The trial court also issued injunctive relief in favor of the homeowner. The homeowner claimed she should be deemed the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees; however, this was denied by the trial court based on the $0 verdict and no fees were awarded to the homeowner.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
Why’d You Have To Say That?
October 09, 2023 —
Daniel Lund III - LexologyA surety seeking collateral from indemnitors filed suit in federal court in Louisiana pursuant to a forum selection clause in the indemnity agreement between the parties.
The indemnitors were being called upon to provide collateral as a result of defaults on two Louisiana Department of Transportation projects. Seeking to move the dispute to Louisiana state court from federal court, the indemnitors filed a forum non conveniens motion.
Among the arguments of the indemnitors removing the case out of federal court was the doctrine of “direct-benefits” estoppel – a policy which “‘holds a non-signatory to a clause in a contract if it “knowingly exploits the agreement” containing the clause.’ In re Lloyd's Reg. N. Am., Inc., 780 F.3d 283, 291 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting Bridas S.A.P.I.C. v. Gov't of Turkmenistan, 345 F.3d 347, 361-62 (5th Cir. 2003)).”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
Will a Notice of Non-Responsibility Prevent Enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien?
March 05, 2015 —
William L. Porter – Porter Law Group, Inc.The “Notice of Non-Responsibility” is one of the most misunderstood and ineffectively used of all the legal tools available to property owners in California construction law. As a result, in most cases the answer to the above question is “No”, the posting and recording of a Notice of Completion will not prevent enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien.
The mechanics lien is a tool used by a claimant who has not been paid for performing work or supplying materials to a construction project. It provides the claimant the right to encumber the property where the work was performed and thereafter sell the property in order to obtain payment for the work or materials, even though the claimant had no contract directly with the property owner. When properly used, a Notice of Non-Responsibility will render a mechanics lien unenforceable against the property where the construction work was performed. By derailing the mechanics lien the owner protects his property from a mechanics lien foreclosure sale. Unfortunately, owners often misunderstand when they can and cannot effectively use a Notice of Non-Responsibility. As a result, the Notice of Non-Responsibility is usually ineffective in protecting the owner and his property.
The rules for the use of the Notice of Non-Responsibility are found in California Civil Code section 8444. Deceptively simple, the rules essentially state that an owner “that did not contract for the work of improvement”, within 10 days after the owner first “has knowledge of the work of improvement”, may fill out the necessary legal form for a Notice of Non-Responsibility and post that form at the worksite and record it with the local County Recorder in order to prevent enforcement of a later mechanics lien on the property.
What commonly occurs however is that early in the process the owner authorizes or even requires its tenant to perform beneficial tenant improvements on the property. This authorization is often set forth in a tenant lease or other written document. The dispositive factor for determining whether the Notice of Non-Responsibility will be enforceable though is that the owner knows that these improvements will be made to the property and intends that they be made, usually long before the work begins. Indeed, the owner has usually negotiated these very terms into the lease contract. The owner then mistakenly believes that once work on the property commences it has 10 days to post and record a Notice of Non-Responsibility and thereby protect itself from a mechanics lien.
The usual error is two-fold. First, the statute states that the Notice is available when the owner “did not contract for the work of improvement”. The fact though is that the owner did contract for the work of improvement. It did so through the lease contract. This is true even though the owner’s contract was not with the contractor or supplier directly. Secondly, the 10 day period to post and record the Notice begins when the owner first “has knowledge” of the work of improvement. This knowledge was of course gained when the lease was negotiated and signed, providing knowledge typically many days before the work has begun. Thus, the 10 day period can also seldom be met. The Notice of Non-Responsibility will therefore fail both rules because the owner has in fact contracted for the improvement and because he does not act within 10 days of gaining this knowledge.
The next event in the typical scenario occurs when the tenant does not pay its contractor. The contractor then has nothing to pay its subcontractors. Material suppliers also go unpaid. Mechanics liens are then recorded by the unpaid claimants, followed by foreclosure actions within ninety days thereafter. Owners will typically point to the Notice of Non-Responsibility they posted and recorded, claiming its protection. Claimants then in turn point to the lease or other evidence that the owner knew of the pending improvements and contracted in some way that the improvements be performed, often also more than 10 days before they posted the Notice. Judges generally agree with the unpaid mechanics lien claimants and the Notice of Non-Responsibility is deemed ineffective.
The fact that the Court does not enforce the Notice of Non-Responsibility under these circumstances is not an unfair result. Since the owner authorized the work to be performed and it received a substantial benefit in the form of those improvements, it is not unfair that the owner should pay for those benefits. It would be inequitable for the owner to obtain the benefit of the improvements which it authorized but for which it did not pay, while allowing those who provided the benefit to go unpaid. Moreover, without such a system in place the door would be open to owners setting up sham “tenants” who would enter into contracts to have work performed, only to disappear when the work is completed, leaving the contractor without a source of payment. The system in place as described above prevents such duplicity. Owners would do well to arm themselves with proper knowledge of when the Notice of Non-Responsibility will and will not protect them and then responsibly use the Notice of Non-Responsibility.
For the legal eagles among you, the following cases illustrate the view of the courts, consistent with the above: Baker v. Hubbard (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 226; Ott Hardware v. Yost (1945) 69 Cal. App.2d 593 (lease terms); Los Banos Gravel Co. v. Freeman (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 785 (common interest); Howard S. Wright Construction Co. v. Superior Court (2003); 106 Cal.App.4th 314 (participating owner).
William L. Porter of
Porter Law Group, Inc. located in Sacramento, California may be contacted at (916) 381-7868 or bporter@porterlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
