The Burden of Betterment
February 23, 2017 —
Ryan M. Charlson, Esq. - Florida Construction Law NewsThe concept of betterment has long been used by defendants in cases involving defective design or construction to limit the damages awarded to a plaintiff.[1] The theory behind betterment is that: “if in [the] course of making repairs [an] owner adopts a more expensive design, recovery should be limited to what would have been the reasonable cost of repair according to original design.”[2] Betterment is often raised as an affirmative defense, requiring a defendant to prove that the plaintiff has received a good or service that is superior to that for which the plaintiff originally contracted. A recent South Florida case seems, at first blush, to suggest the burden of establishing the value of betterments may fall to the plaintiff, although a closer reading indicates the decision is likely to have limited applicability.
In Magnum Construction Management Corp. v. The City of Miami Beach, the Third District Court of Appeal was asked to review the damages award to the City for construction defects associated with the redesign and improvement of a park.[3] The completed project contained landscaping deficiencies, along with other “minor defects” in the playground’s construction.[4] After a unilateral audit, and without providing the contractor its contractually required opportunity to cure the defects, the City “removed, redesigned, and replaced the playground in its entirety.”[5] It did so despite no recommendation by the City’s own expert to perform such work.[6] During the bench trial, the “only measure of damages provided by the City was the costs associated with the planning, permitting, and construction of a park that is fundamentally different from the one it contracted with [the contractor] to build.”[7]
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ryan M. Charlson, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.Mr. Charlson may be contacted at
ryan.charlson@csklegal.com
Hawaii Supreme Court Finds Subcontractor Has No Duty to Defend Under Indemnity Provision
July 14, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Hawaii Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals [see prior post here] and determined that a subcontractor did not have a duty to defend the developer upon tender under an indemnify provision in the parties' contract. Arthur v. State of Hawaii, 2016 Haw. LEXIS 155 (June 27, 2016).
A simplified version of the detailed facts and procedural history follows. The case involved the wrongful death of Mona Arthur. Mona typically gardened on the hillside behind her home. She would cross a concrete drainage ditch and climb over a two-foo-high chain length fence to reach the hillside.
Mona was found lying in a concrete ditch with severe head injuries, which ultimately led to her death. Her husband and estate sued for her wrongful death. Claims were asserted for negligence in failing to build a fence higher than two feet, which would have prevented Mona from having access to the garden. Defendants included the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands; Kamehameha Investment Corporation ("KIC"), the developer; Design Partners, Inc., the architect; Coastal Construction Company, the general contractor; and Sato and Associates, the civil engineer. The second amended complaint sought punitive damages against KIC.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Liability Coverage for Claims of Publishing Secret Data Does Not Require Access by Others
April 20, 2016 —
Sean Mahoney and Laura Schmidt – White and Williams LLPOn April 11, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit concluded that general liability insurance covered claims alleging that an insured was negligent in securing private medical records, even where there was no evidence that any third parties had actually viewed the underlying plaintiffs’ medical records. This “unpublished” decision was issued in Travelers Indemnity Company of America v. Portal Healthcare Solutions, LLC less than three weeks after the court heard oral argument. Portal Healthcare accordingly stands for the proposition that “publication” within the meaning of the standard commercial general liability coverage for “personal and advertising injury” only requires that claims against an insured allege that confidential information was made available to the public, without allegations that any third party actually accessed it, to trigger the insurer’s duty to defend.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sean Mahoney, White & Williams LLP and
Laura Schmidt, White & Williams LLP
Mr. Mahoney may be contacted at mahoneys@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Schmidt may be contacted at schmidtl@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Key California Employment Law Cases: October 2018
December 11, 2018 —
Alejandro G. Ruiz & Eric C. Sohlgren - Payne & FearsThis month’s key employment law cases address the test for independent contractor status, the legality of an incentive compensation system, and personal liability for wage and hour violations.
Garcia v. Border Transp. Group, LLC, Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 22, 2018
Summary: Defendants must satisfy Dynamex ABC test to establish independent contractor status as defense to wage order claims, but Borello multifactor test applies to non-wage-order claims.
Facts: Plaintiff leased a taxicab license and taxicab from defendants. Plaintiff brought several employment claims against defendants, including claims for whistleblower wrongful termination, unpaid wages, minimum wages, meal and rest break penalties, wage statement penalties, civil penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorney Generals Act (“PAGA”), waiting time penalties, and unfair competition. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims on the ground that plaintiff was an independent contractor and not an employee. Relying on the factors described in Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal. 3d 341, 256 Cal. Rptr. 543 (1989), defendant presented evidence that plaintiff set his own hours, used the cab for personal business, kept collected fares, used a radio dispatch service, entered into sublease agreements, held other jobs, and advertised services in his own name.The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. While plaintiff’s appeal was pending, the California Supreme Court decided Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903, 232 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (2018), establishing a new test for independent contractor status under the definition of employment found in the California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.
Reprinted courtesy of
Alejandro G. Ruiz, Payne & Fears and
Eric C. Sohlgren, Payne & Fears
Mr. Ruiz may be contacted at agr@paynefears.com
Mr. Sohlgren may be contacted at ecs@paynefears.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Suing the Lowest Bidder on Public Construction Projects
September 17, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorThe California Court of Appeals has allowed the second lowest bidders on public construction projects to sue the lowest bidder where it appears that the lowest bidder was only the lowest because it paid its employees less than the established prevailing wage. This is a novel theory for recovery, but may provide for an opportunity to challenge improperly low bids.
Background
Between 2009 and 2012, American Asphalt outbid two asphalt companies on 23 public works projects, totaling nearly $15 million. The two asphalt companies sued American Asphalt alleging that they were the second lowest bidder all 23 construction projects and they would have been the lowest had American Asphalt paid its employees the required prevailing wage. Importantly, the municipality awarding the contracts was not sued by the second lowest bidders. Instead, the second lowest bidders alleged that American Asphalt intentionally interfered with a business expectancy and sought damages from American Asphalt, specifically the profit that they lost by not performing these contracts.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
Force Majeure Under the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic
March 08, 2021 —
Lindsay T. Watkins - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCAs COVID-19 disrupts work and life as we know it, the question many contractors have is what protections are available against the inevitable project impacts and delays? Generally, construction contracts require a contractor to timely perform work until project completion or potentially face damages (liquidated or actual) and possible termination. When events occur, however, that are beyond our control (such as a national pandemic), it is important to review and understand what contract provisions or avenues are available for potential relief.
1.
Review Your Contract For A Force Majeure Provision.
A
“force majeure” contract provision is commonly included in construction contracts, service agreements, purchase orders, etc. It typically covers events or conditions that can be neither anticipated nor controlled. These provisions, however, will vary greatly from contract to contract and may not include the language “force majeure” but rather may be included in general delay or impact clauses. For example, some common provisions include:
- Washington State Department of Transportation Clause (2018 Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction): The Contractor shall rebuild, repair, restore, and make good all damages to any portion of the permanent or temporary Work occurring before the Physical Completion Date and shall bear all the expense to do so, except damage to the permanent Work caused by: (a) acts of God, such as earthquake, floods, or other cataclysmic phenomenon of nature, or (b) acts of the public enemy or of governmental authorities; or (c) slides in cases where Section 2-03.3(11) is applicable; Provided, however, that these exceptions shall not apply should damages result from the Contractor’s failure to take reasonable precautions or to exercise sound engineering and construction practices in conducting the Work.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lindsay T. Watkins, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMs. Watkins may be contacted at
Lindsay.Watkins@acslawyers.com
Take Advantage of AI and Data Intelligence in Construction
May 06, 2019 —
Nick Carter - Construction ExecutiveFor consumers, AI and data intelligence are daily activities. Purchase recommendations from Amazon simplify holiday shopping. Music options from Spotify helps employees focus during the workday and relax at night. Car-sharing apps remove the stress from post-happy hour transport.
It is time for this kind of data-driven ease to hit the construction industry. Building is booming, yet despite the good times, the industry still lags in terms of data intelligence and AI. With them, construction providers can transform document and jobsite information into intelligent insights, reduce errors, keep projects on schedule and predict and prevent costly inefficiencies. Artificial intelligence is the “connective tissue” that construction is missing--if it is used wisely.
Why Construction is Ready for AI
With its endless stream of owners, architects, engineers, contractors, subcontractors and suppliers, the construction industry manages more critical information on a day-to-day basis than nearly any other business. As a result, there are dozens of potential miscommunications just waiting to happen every day.
Reprinted courtesy of
Nick Carter, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Third Circuit Follows Pennsylvania Law - Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship Does Not Arise from an Occurrence
May 10, 2013 —
Tred EyerlyThe Third Circuit followed Pennsylvania law in determining that damage caused by faulty workmanship did not arise from an occurrence. Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. R. M. Shoemaker Co., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 6093 (3d Cir. March 27, 2013).
The County sued R. M. Shoemaker, alleging faulty construction of an addition to a correctional institution. The County alleged Shoemaker negligently supervised its subcontractor, thereby permitting the subcontractor to engage in willful misconduct, resulting in damage to structural elements of the correctional institution. The County alleged that Shoemaker's negligence permitted water to intrude, damaging the electrical systems, acoustic ceilings and miscellaneous equipment.
Zurich sought a declaratory judgment that it was not required to defend or indemnify Shoemaker. The district court granted Zurich summary judgment. Relying on Pennsylvania law, the district court found that the allegations in the underlying action did not arise from an occurrence.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred EyerlyMr. Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
