Sometimes You Just Need to Call it a Day: Court Finds That Contractor Not Entitled to Recover Costs After Public Works Contract is Invalidated
June 29, 2020 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogJanuary was a tough month in the courts for Hensel Phelps Construction Company. Hot off the heels of Hensel Phelps Construction Co. v. Superior Court, a case concerning the 10-year statute of limitations under Civil Code section 941, comes Hensel Phelps Construction Co. v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Case No. B293427 (January 28, 2020), a bid dispute case . . .
The Tale of a Bid, a Bid Protest, and Two Cases
A. The Bid and Bid Protest
On March 15, 2015, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) issues an Invitation for Bid for the HVAC project at the Ironwood State Prison. The deadline to submit bids was April 30, 2015. Hensel Phelps Construction Co. submitted a timely bid and was determined to be the “apparent low bidder” with a bid of $88,160,000.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Another Reason to Love Construction Mediation (Read: Why Mediation Works)
December 02, 2015 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsI’ll bet you’re thinking by now that I have beaten the mediation drum to death and that I wouldn’t have any more praise for the process than I have heaped upon it here at this corner of the construction law “blawgosphere.” Well, just about every time I am involved with the process, whether acting in my capacity as a Virginia Supreme Court certified mediator, or as counsel to a client seeking to resolve a matter and move on with the business of making money, I become more convinced that mediation can work in even the most contentious of situations.
What do I mean by “work?” The obvious answer is that mediation “works” when the parties come up with a solution to their problem. In most instances, the solution involves money changing hands. After all, it is money that is usually the tangible and outwardly driving force behind a dispute. Money is also what a court or arbitrator (in most cases) will be awarding to one side or the other at the end of what is likely to be an expensive process.
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
Include Contract Clauses for Protection Against Ever-Evolving Construction Challenges
May 30, 2022 —
Michael Henry & Kevin J. Riexinger - Construction ExecutiveThe first quarter of 2022 provided a valuable glimpse into some of the major issues the construction industry can expect to continue impacting jobsites for the rest of the year.
Early in the pandemic, construction was not immune from the shut-downs that swept across market sectors. Workers were staying home to shield themselves and their families from the COVID-19 virus (and variants). This caused delays with construction projects and failures to meet negotiated benchmarks or deadlines. Contractors were left to wonder whether they remained obligated to perform under their contracts, or whether COVID-19 allowed them to invoke force majeure clauses. Over the past two years, there has been much debate about whether force majeure clauses encompass COVID-19 risks.
Traditionally, force majeure is only invoked for significant weather events or natural disasters. Unsurprisingly, outcomes of legal actions regarding COVID-19 and force majeure varied by state and by contract. It didn’t take long for contractors to seek a more predictable and certain solution.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Henry & Kevin J. Riexinger, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Mr. Riexinger may be contacted at kriexinger@gllawgroup.com
Mr. Henry may be contacted at MbHenry@tcco.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Keep It Simple: Summarize (Voluminous Evidence, That Is...)
October 02, 2023 —
Steve Swart - The Dispute Resolver"The most complex analyses grow beautifully simple as they become public objects.” Philip Rieff, Fellow Teachers (1973), quoted in JOHN BARTLETT, BARTLETT’S FAMILIAR QUOTATIONS 800 (Geoffrey O’Brien gen. ed., 18th ed. 2012)
In a recent ABA Forum on Construction Law Webinar, a panelist with substantial experience as an arbitrator explained that documents are the most important evidence in a construction dispute. Fact-finders, she said, focus on contemporaneous project records more than witness testimony to vet what happened.
But, even a small to mid-sized construction project can generate millions of pages of documents. That is particularly true when disputes involve loss of productivity, delay, acceleration, and disruption. The volume of records related to entitlement and damages (e.g., timesheets, accounting, equipment logs, schedule files, meeting minutes, etc.) can overwhelm and confuse — not to mention bore — the fact finder.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Steve Swart, Williams MullenMr. Swart may be contacted at
sswart@williamsmullen.com
Award Doubled in Retrial of New Jersey Elevator Injury Case
February 14, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFRichard Tufaro, a New Jersey carpenter who suffered injuries from an elevator accident in 2005, had lost a $4 million award on appeal, but has recently “won $8million on retrial” according to The New Jersey Law Journal.
In March of 2012, during the first trial, the “jury awarded $2.8 million for pain and suffering, $233,000 in medical expenses and $950,000 per quod to Tufaro's wife, totaling about $4 million.” In March 2013 the ruling was reversed by the Appellate Division who found “the verdict sheet and Coburn's jury instructions ‘together created a misleading and ambiguous deliberative environment, fully capable of engendering an unjust result.’"
On February 11th, at the conclusion of the retrial, the jury “found Schindler Elevator and Escalator Co.'s negligent maintenance of an elevator led to a two-and-a-half-story plunge that left Richard Tufaro with neck and back injuries” and awarded Tufaro “$5.5 million for pain and suffering, $2.25 million per quod and $250,000 in medical expenses.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Power & Energy - Emerging Insurance Coverage Cases of Interest
November 30, 2020 —
David G. Jordan & Tiffany Casanova - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.The Power & Energy sector faces a multitude of risks that impact output and profitability, requiring sound risk management and robust insurance programs. As of recent, like most industries, there have been significant challenges facing the industry in light of COVID-19. These issues, including decreased product demand as well as supply- side issues, have been well documented. However, other issues continue to impact Power & Energy providers, with significant insurance coverage implications that are worthy of note. Below is a summary of three open cases of interest, where declaratory relief has been sought by energy providers’ insurance carriers, seeking an avoidance of coverage.
1. Fracking Dispute and “Intentional Acts”
In the Texas case of The James River Insurance Co. v. Clearpoint Chemicals LLC et al., No. 4:20-cv-0076 (N.D.Tex), James River Insurance Company (“James River”) is asking a federal district court to declare that it does not owe defense or indemnity to its insured for acts it defines as both intentional and/or malicious acts.
Reprinted courtesy of
David G. Jordan, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Tiffany Casanova, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Jordan may be contacted at DJordan@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Casanova may be contacted at TCasanova@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Arizona Court of Appeals Decision in $8.475 Million Construction Defect Class Action Suit
May 09, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFIn the case of Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011), which involved an $8.475 million settlement in a construction defect class action suit, the question put forth to the Appeals court was “whether an insured and an insurer can join in a Morris agreement that avoids the primary insurer’s obligation to pay policy limits and passes liability in excess of those limits on to other insurers.” The Appeals court provided several reasons for their decision to affirm the validity of the settlement agreement as to the Non-Participatory Insurers (NPIs) and to vacate and remand the attorney fee awards.
First, the Appeals court stated, “The settlement agreement is not a compliant Morris agreement and provides no basis for claims against the NPIs.” They conclude, “Appellants attempt to avoid the doctrinal underpinnings of Morris by arguing that ‘the cooperation clause did not prohibit Hancock from assigning its rights to anyone, including Appellants.’ This narrow reading of the cooperation clause ignores the fact that Hancock did not merely assign its rights — it assigned its rights after stipulating to an $8.475 million judgment that neither it nor its Direct Insurers could ever be liable to pay. Neither Morris nor any other case defines such conduct as actual ‘cooperation’—rather, Morris simply defines limited circumstances in which an insured is relieved of its duty to cooperate. Because Morris agreements are fraught with risk of abuse, a settlement that mimics Morris in form but does not find support in the legal and economic realities that gave rise to that decision is both unenforceable and offensive to the policy’s cooperation clause.”
The Appeals court further concluded that “even if the agreement had qualified under Morris, plaintiffs did not provide the required notice to the NPIs.” The court continued, “Because an insurer who defends under a reservation of rights is always aware of the possibility of a Morris agreement, the mere threat of Morris in the course of settlement negotiations does not constitute sufficient notice. Instead, the insurer must be made aware that it may waive its reservation of rights and provide an unqualified defense, or defend solely on coverage and reasonableness grounds against the judgment resulting from the Morris agreement. The NPIs were not given the protections of this choice before the agreement was entered, and therefore can face no liability for the resulting stipulated judgment.”
Next, the Appeals court declared that “the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees under A.R.S § 12-341.” The Appeals court reasoned, “In this case, the NPIs prevailed in their attack on the settlement. But the litigation did not test the merits of their coverage defenses or the reasonableness of the settlement amount. And Plaintiffs never sued the NPIs, either in their own right or as the assignees of Hancock. Rather, the NPIs intervened to test the conceptual validity of the settlement agreement (to which they were not parties) before such an action could commence. In these circumstances, though it might be appropriate to offset a fee award against some future recovery by the Plaintiff Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011) class, the purposes of A.R.S. § 12-341.01 would not be served by an award of fees against them jointly and severally. We therefore conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding fees against Plaintiffs ‘jointly and severally.’”
The Appeals court made the following conclusion: “we affirm the judgment of the trial court concerning the validity of the settlement agreement as to the NPIs. We vacate and remand the award of attorney’s fees. In our discretion, we decline to award the NPIs the attorney’s fees they have requested on appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A).”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Worker Falls to His Death at Kyle Field
January 15, 2014 —
Melissa Zaya-CDJ STAFFThe family of Angel Garcia, a construction worker who fell to his death while working on Texas A&M’s football stadium (Kyle Field), has filed a $100 million lawsuit against six construction companies claiming inadequate safety policies, procedures, and negligence, Jordan Overturf of The Eagle reported.
According to The Eagle, Garcia’s attorneys alleged, “[Garcia] was ‘catapulted off the edge of a fourth-floor ramp’ on the northeast side when a section of concrete fell onto the bucket of the skid steer-loader he was operating. The tractor hit a steel beam during the fall, which exerted enough force to eject Garcia from the tractor.” Garcia did not survive his injuries. The complaint claims the companies involved violated the Occupational Safety and Health Administration rules and regulations. The defendants in the suit were unavailable for comment, according to The Eagle.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
