COVID-19 Business Closure and Continuity Compliance Resource
March 30, 2020 —
Adam Chelminiak, Joshua Mooney & Ryan Udell - White and Williams LLPIn less than a few weeks’ time, COVID-19 has changed the way we live and work. Businesses, large and small, have had to grapple with unprecedented challenges, including orders to close or significantly curtail operations in order to stem the transmission of the coronavirus. Often, these orders have not been clear or businesses are unsure whether they fit in a category that is deemed essential, life sustaining or other similar category that permits them to continue to operate. Or, the business believes that it is necessary for it to continue to operate for reasons that may not have been apparent to the governmental authority issuing the order.
White and Williams has been busy assisting our clients in Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and other states in understanding these orders. Below are government orders, and related resources, that have been announced and/or are currently in effect. White and Williams will continue to monitor these orders and add additional orders and resources as they are announced.
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys
Adam Chelminiak,
Joshua Mooney and
Ryan Udell
Mr. Chelminiak may be contacted at chelminiaka@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Mooney may be contacted at mooneyj@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Udell may be contacted at udellr@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the full story for government orders, and related resources, that have been announced and/or are currently in effect.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Novation Agreements Under Federal Contracts
November 29, 2021 —
Hal Perloff - Construction ExecutiveA unique aspect of doing business with the federal government is the built-in limits on a contractor’s right to assign the contract or the right to payment under the contract to third parties. The Anti-Assignment Act (41 U.S.C. § 6305) prohibits the transfer of a government contract or interest in a government contract to a third party. An assignment of a contract in violation of this law voids the contract except for the government’s right to pursue a breach of contract remedies.
What’s a contractor to do when it is acquired/merged with another firm, is restructured or goes through a variety of other types of corporate transaction? The Federal Acquisition Regulations recognize that firms involved in government contracts get bought and sold from time to time and includes procedures for the novation of contracts in certain situations to avoid a potential violation of the Anti-Assignment Act.
What Is a Novation?
A novation is a three-party agreement between the United States, the original contractor and the new contractor offering to assume the government contract. The purpose the novation is to allow the government to recognize a new contractor as the successor-in-interest to a government contract and avoid a violation of the Anti-Assignment Act.
Reprinted courtesy of
Hal Perloff, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Perloff may be contacted at
hal.perloff@huschblackwell.com
Product Liability Economic Loss Rule and “Other Property” Damage
November 28, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesOne of the best defenses a manufacturer has, particularly in non-personal injury cases, is the economic loss rule. Lo and behold, a recent opinion out of the Middle District of Florida, Dero Roofing, LLC v. Triton, Inc., 2022 WL 14636884 (M.D.Fla. 2022), touches on this very subject with cogent analysis regarding “other property” damage for purposes of the economic loss rule.
In Dero Roofing, a roofing contractor repaired hurricane damage to roofs of condominium buildings. The roofing contractor became a certified applicator of the manufacturer Triton’s products. After the roofer applied certain products with a sprayer, the products “streaked down the roof tiles onto ‘the exterior and interior of the [Condos], including penetration of the residents’ screens, gutters, and other related areas.” Dero Roofing, supra, at *1. The roofing contractor obtained an assignment of the condominium’s claims and sued the manufacturer and distributor of the (Triton manufactured) products.
The defendants moved to dismiss under the economic loss doctrine.
The economic loss doctrine “prohibits tort recovery when a product damages itself, causing economic loss, but does not cause personal injury or damage to any property other than itself.” Dero Roofing, supra, at *3 (quotation and 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
Changes To Commercial Item Contracting
May 29, 2023 —
Marcos R. Gonzalez - ConsensusDocsThe FAR Council has recently published two changes to commercial item contracting that clarify the definition of commercial services and simplify commercial item determinations (“CIDs”) for contracting officers (“COs”). Since the 1990s, the federal government has encouraged the purchase of commercial items to ease the regulatory burden on vendors who have not previously conducted federal business, encourage innovation, and lower prices[
1]. These different objectives (cost savings, broadening markets, innovation) often have corollary policies; for example, vendors who are not accustomed to the regulatory burdens of government business are encouraged to enter the market by being exempted from a slew of regulations (found in standard commercial items clause FAR 52.212-4). As a result, the regulations applicable to commercial item contracting are those required by statute and executive orders in addition to generic commercial terms that may be tailored due to potential variation in commercial terms.[
2]
Commercial Products v. Commercial Services
The first change, in effect since November 2021 pursuant to the 2019 National Defense Authorization (“NDAA”), split the old definition of “commercial item” into two separate definitions: “commercial product” and “commercial service.”[
3] We are now blessed with the following definitions of commercial products and services, respectively:
Commercial product means—
(1) A product, other than real property, that is of a type customarily used by the general public or by nongovernmental entities for purposes other than governmental purposes, and–
(i) Has been sold, leased, or licensed to the general public; or
(ii) Has been offered for sale, lease, or license to the general public;
Reprinted courtesy of
Marcos R. Gonzalez, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Gonzalez may be contacted at mgonzalez@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Defect Notice in the Mailbox? Respond Appropriately
August 04, 2011 —
Douglas Reiser, Builders Council BlogRecently, I have seen a rash of ignored construction defect notices. What is a construction defect notice? It’s a statutorily required notice, sent from a homeowner to a contractor, listing a number of defects found at their property. If you get one, don’t ignore it.
The Revised Code of Washington includes a number of provisions intended for residential construction disputes. Among them is the “Notice to Customer” requirement in RCW 18.27.114, which can preempt a contractor’s lien rights, and the “Notice of Construction Defects” found in RCW 64.50.020.
The Notice of Construction Defects is a standard notice mandated by RCW 64.50, a chapter in the Revised Code of Washington, intended to provide a pre-litigation resolution process for contractors and consumers. The chapter applies only to those losses “caused by a defect in the construction of a residence or in the substantial remodel of a residence.”(See “Action” RCW 64.50.010).
Unfortunately, many contractors will simply ignore these notices or tell the homeowner to make a warranty claim. But, the notice actually provides a contractor with a forty-five (45) day window to alleviate the dispute.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Appeals Court Remands Fine in Late Completion Case
November 18, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe California Court of Appeals in Stanislaus County has reversed the decision of the lower court in Greg Opinski Construction Inc. v. City of Oakdale. The earlier court had awarded the city of judgment of $54,000 for late completion, $3,266 for repair of construction defects and interest, and $97,775 in attorneys’ fees. The late completion of the project was due to actions by the City of Oakdale, however, the court rejected Opinski’s argument that the California Supreme Court decision in Kiewit did not allow this, as his contract with the city established a procedure for claiming extensions.
The appeals court noted that the Kiewit decision has been “criticized as an unwarranted interference in the power of contracting parties to shift the risk of delays caused by one party onto the other party by forcing the second party to give the first notice of any intention to claim an extension of time based on delays caused by first.” They cited Sweet, a professor at Boalt Hall, UC Berkeley’s law school, that Kiewit “gutted” the “provision that conditions the contractor’s right to claim an extension of time for delays beyond his control.”
Further changes in California law in response to the Kiewit decision lead to the current situation which the court characterized as “if the contractor wished to claim it needed an extension of time because of delays caused by the city, the contractor was required to obtain a written change order by mutual consent or submit a claim in writing requesting a formal decision by the engineer.”
Opinski also argued that the lower court misinterpreted the contract. The Appeals court replied that “Opinski is mistaken.” He cited parts of the contract regarding the increase of time, but the court rejected these, noting that “an inability to agree is not the same as an express rejection.”
The court also rejects Opinski’s appeal that “the evidence the project was complete earlier than September 30, 2005, is weightier than the evidence to the contrary,” which they describe as “not a winning appellate argument.” The court points out that the role of an appeals court is not to reweigh the evidence, but to determine “whether the record contains substantial evidence in support of the judgment.”
The court did side with Opinski on one question of the escrow account. They rejected most of his arguments, repeating the line “Opinski is mistaken” several times. They decided that he was mistaken on the timing of the setoff decision and on whether the city was the prevailing party. However, the appeals court did find that Opinski was not liable for interest on the judgment.
The appeals court rejected the awarding of prejudgment interest to the city as the funds from which the judgment was drawn was held in an escrow account. The court noted that the city had access to the funds and could “access the funds when it determined that Opinski had breached the contract.” The appeals court noted that the judgment exhausted the escrow balance and remanded the case to the lower court to determine the amount own to Opinski.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Don’t Assume Your Insurance Covers A Newly Acquired Company
February 19, 2019 —
Patrick M. McDermott & Michael S. Levine - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogThe Supreme Court of Virginia’s decision yesterday finding no coverage for fire damage to a building is a cautionary tale for companies acquiring other companies. Erie Ins. Exch. v. EPC MD 15, LLC, 2019 WL 238168 (Va. Jan. 17, 2019). In that case, Erie Insurance issued a property insurance policy to EPC. The policy covered EPC only and did not cover any subsidiaries of EPC. EPC then acquired the sole member interest in Cyrus Square, LLC. Following the acquisition, fire damaged a building that Cyrus Square owned.
EPC sought coverage under its property insurance policy. Because the policy did not cover Cyrus Square, EPC argued that a provision extending coverage to “newly acquired buildings” applied, contending that EPC had newly acquired Cyrus Square’s building by virtue of becoming the sole member interest in the LLC. Based on the law relative to LLCs and its interpretation of the policy, the Supreme Court of Virginia ruled against EPC. It found that although EPC had acquired Cyrus Square, it had not “newly acquired” the building and so the “newly acquired buildings” coverage extension did not apply.
Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick M. McDermott, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. McDermott may be contacted at pmcdermott@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Federal District Court Addresses Material Misrepresentation in First Party Property Damage Claim
August 26, 2024 —
James M. Eastham - Traub LiebermanIn Pittsfield Dev. LLC v. Travelers Indem. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117530 (N.D. Ill. July 3, 2024), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois addressed an alleged material misrepresentation by an insured during the course of the adjustment of a water loss claim at an insured property. Subsequent to a pipe burst event which caused damage to a number of the floors in the insured building, the insured submitted a claim to Travelers and also submitted, with the assistance of a retained public adjuster, a damage estimate of the damages at the property. Included within the estimate submitted by the insured was a line item for "Lead Paint & Asbestos Removal" with a corresponding dollar amount of $1,140,000. It was this line item which formed the basis of Travelers' claim of misrepresentation.
At his deposition, the public adjuster testified that the $1,140,000 figure was an oral estimate received over the phone from an asbestos remediation company. Travelers disputed the testimony and contended that no such estimate was ever provided. For support, Travelers pointed to deposition testimony from a remediation company employee that while rough estimates were occasionally given verbally, the largest over the phone estimate she could recall was in the $20,000-$25,000 range. It was also disputed that the company would ever provide an oral quote of that magnitude sight unseen, especially since the largest project the remediation company had ever completed was less than $250,000.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James M. Eastham, Traub LiebermanMr. Eastham may be contacted at
jeastham@tlsslaw.com
