Construction Employment Rose in 38 States from 2013 to 2014
March 19, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) reported that 38 states experienced construction job growth from January 2013 to January 2014, and 27 states showed gains from December 2013 to January 2014. AGC stated that “the fact so many states added construction jobs for the year and month despite harsh winter conditions in many parts of the country is a sign that demand appears to be recovering.”
Kansas ranked first in the “12-month gain or loss” category with a 10.7% gain. Wyoming came in last with a -5.9% over a 12-month period. However, if examining a one-month period (between December 2013 and January 2014), Idaho showed the highest growth with a 5.8% gain, while Vermont was ranked 51 at -5.5%.
Read the full story, Article...
Read the full story, Rankings... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Unjust Enrichment and Express Contract Don’t Mix
August 23, 2021 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsI am a huge fan of clearly written construction contracts. Virginia state and federal courts will interpret contract provisions as written and will seek to enforce all of those terms where possible. Where the contract is ambiguous, we construction attorneys make money and the courts are forced to make decisions that the parties may not like.
A recent case out of the Eastern District of Virginia federal court highlights the ways in which a clear contract affects the claims that can be brought and limits the scope of possible litigation. In First Call Environmental LLC v. Murphy Oil USA LLC, the Court looked at a relatively typical Owner, Contractor, Subcontractor set of agreements. In this matter, Murphy Oil entered a contract with National Rapid Response, Inc. (“NRR”) whereby NRR would provide emergency and environmental management and waste disposal services to Murphy Oil. NRR then subcontracted with the Plaintiff First Call to perform the services for Murphy Oil. First Call filed suit against Murphy Oil alleging two counts: breach of contract (based on a third-party beneficiary theory), and unjust enrichment.
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
Business and Professions Code Section 7031, Demurrers, and Just How Much You Can Dance
February 14, 2022 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogFights between owners and contractors under Business and Professions Code section 7031 can get nasty and detailed. An owner’s remedy under Section 7031, as courts have stated, can be “harsh[ ],” “draconian” and even “unjust” and damages can be significant. Panterra GP, Inc. v. Superior Court, 2022 WL 289216 (2022), a case decided this past month, is no different. It even involved a disagreement between the very justices deciding the case.
The Panterra GP Case
Panterra GP, Inc. was a licensed general contractor. Rosedale Bakersfield Retail VI, LLC and Movie Grill Concepts XX, LLC intended to hire Panterra GP to perform renovation work at the Studio Movie Grill in Bakersfield, California, but drafted a construction contract mistakenly listing Panterra Development Ltd., LLP as the contractor on the project. Panterra GP was the general partner of Panterra Development.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Walking the Tightrope of SB 35
December 22, 2019 —
Robert Howard, Alexander Walker and Matt Olhausen - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogDevelopers in California know that getting approval to build new housing projects can be extremely difficult, time-consuming, and expensive. But a new policy is finally coming into full effect which could help developers cut through those barriers. SB 35, enacted in 2017, streamlines the approval process for housing developments in areas with inadequate housing supply, so long as the developments meet certain criteria.
We have written elsewhere about the initial impacts of SB 35. SB 35 has successfully allowed some developers to obtain their entitlements quickly and easily through a streamlined process, but some local governments have resisted the use of SB 35. For example, the City of Los Altos denied an application that attempted to obtain streamlining through SB 35, prompting a nonprofit housing organization to sue. In Cupertino, the Planning Commission Chairman advocated in April 2019 for rescinding the SB 35 approval of the redevelopment of the Vallco Mall, which would include over 2,400 units of housing, while some residents have sued to block the development. As a result, it is crucial for developers to understand the details of SB 35 and make sure to meet all of its requirements. Any misstep may allow a recalcitrant local government to deny that a development project qualifies for SB 35 treatment and attempt to block it.
In November 2018, the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) released Guidelines to clarify the criteria for SB 35 and assist cities in determining whether projects qualify for streamlining.
Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury attorneys
Robert Howard,
Alexander Walker and
Matt Olhausen
Mr. Howard may be contacted at robert.howard@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Walker may be contacted at alexander.walker@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Olhausen may be contacted at matt.olhausen@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Damron Agreement Questioned in Colorado Casualty Insurance v Safety Control Company, et al.
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFSafety Control and EMC appealed the judgment in Colorado Casualty Insurance Company versus Safety Control Company, Inc., et al. (Ariz. App., 2012). The Superior Court in Maricopa County addressed “the validity and effect of a Damron agreement a contractor and its excess insurer entered into that assigned their rights to sue the primary insurer.” Judge Johnsen stated, “We hold the agreement is enforceable but remand for a determination of whether the stipulated judgment falls within the primary insurer’s policy.”
The Opinion provides some facts and procedural history regarding the claim. “The Arizona Department of Transportation (“ADOT”) hired DBA Construction Company (“DBA”) to perform a road-improvement project on the Loop 101 freeway. Safety Control Company, Inc. was one of DBA’s subcontractors. As required by the subcontract, Safety Control purchased from Employer’s Mutual Casualty Company (“EMC”) a certificate of insurance identifying DBA as an additional insured on a policy providing primary coverage for liability arising out of Safety Control’s work.”
A collision occurred on site, injuring Hugo Roman. Roman then sued ADT and DBA for damages. “Colorado Casualty tendered DBA’s defense to the subcontractors, including Safety Control. Safety Control and EMC rejected the tender. Roman eventually settled his claims against DBA and ADOT. DBA and ADOT stipulated with Roman for entry of judgment of $750,000; Roman received $75,000 from DBA (paid by Colorado Casualty) and $20,000 from ADOT, and agreed not to execute on the stipulated judgment. Finally, DBA, ADOT and Colorado Casualty assigned to Roman their rights against the subcontractors and other insurers.”
Colorado Casualty attempted to recover what “it had paid to defend DBA and ADOT and settle with Roman. However, Roman intervened, and argued that “Colorado Casualty had assigned its subrogation rights to him as part of the settlement agreement.” The suit was not dismissed, but the Superior Court allowed Roman to intervene. “Roman then filed a counterclaim against Colorado Casualty and a cross-claim against the subcontractors.”
All claims were settled against all of the defendants except Safety Control and EMC. “The superior court ruled on summary judgment that EMC breached a duty to defend DBA and that as a result, ‘DBA was entitled to settle with Roman without EMC’s consent as long as the settlement was not collusive or fraudulent.’ After more briefing, the court held the stipulated judgment was neither collusive nor procured by fraud and that EMC therefore was liable to Roman on the stipulated judgment and for his attorney’s fees. The court also held Safety Control breached its subcontract with DBA by failing to procure completed-operations insurance coverage and would be liable for damages to the extent that EMC did not satisfy what remained (after the other settlements) of the stipulated judgment and awards of attorney’s fees.” Safety Control and EMC appealed the judgment.
Four reasons were given for the decision of the ruling. First, “the disagreement between Roman and Colorado Casualty does not preclude them from pursuing their claims against EMC and Safety Control.” Second, “the settlement agreement is not otherwise invalid.” Third, “issues of fact remain about whether the judgment falls within the EMC policy.” Finally, “Safety Control breached the subcontract by failing to procure ‘Completed Operations’ coverage for DBA.”
In conclusion, the Superior Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded . “Although, as stated above, we have affirmed several rulings of the superior court, we reverse the judgment against EMC and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion to determine whether the stipulated judgment was a liability that arose out of Safety Control’s operations. In addition, we affirm the superior court’s declaratory judgment against Safety Control but remand so that the court may clarify the circumstances under which Safety Control may be liable for damages and may conduct whatever further proceedings it deems appropriate to ascertain the amount of those damages. We decline all parties’ requests for attorney’s fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01 without prejudice to a request for fees incurred in this appeal to be filed by the prevailing party on remand before the superior court.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rose at a Faster Pace in October
January 06, 2016 —
Victoria Stilwell & Michelle Jamrisko – BloombergHome values in 20 U.S. cities rose at a faster pace in the year ended October as lean inventories of available properties combined with steadily improving demand.
The S&P/Case-Shiller index of property values climbed 5.5 percent from October 2014 after rising 5.4 percent in the year ended September, the group said Tuesday in New York. The median projection of 21 economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for a 5.6 percent advance. Nationally, prices rose 5.2 percent year-over-year.
A limited supply of properties for sale has helped prop up home values, boosting the household wealth levels of U.S. homeowners in the process. Faster wage growth and continued low borrowing costs will be needed to keep low-income and first-time buyers in the market and provide the next leg of growth in the housing recovery.
Reprinted courtesy of
Victoria Stilwell, Bloomberg and
Michelle Jamrisko, Bloomberg Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Be Careful With Construction Fraud Allegations
April 06, 2016 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsHere at Construction Law Musings we have discussed the intersection of contracts, construction and fraud on several occasions. We’ve even discussed how such fraud can bleed over from the civil to the criminal.
Recently, the Virginia Supreme Court weighed in again on the question of construction fraud and criminal allegations. In O’Connor v. Tice, the Court discussed a malicious prosecution action brought by a contractor against owners of a commercial building. In O’Connor, the owners and the contractor got into a disagreement over alleged damage to the roof of the owners’ building and who was responsible. In response to this disagreement, the owners contacted the local sheriff’s office, accusing the contractor of construction fraud, and then wrote a “15 day letter” to the contractor outlining the criminal consequences should he fail to pay the damages sought in the owners civil lawsuit. Subsequently, a criminal warrant was issued against the contractor based solely upon the word of the owners. This last occurred at the insistence of the owners (who did not inform the sheriff’s deputy or the Commonwealth Attorney that they’d had this conversation or that the contractor had partially performed) after they discussed the matter with the contractor’s attorney and were informed that any claim that they may have had was civil in nature.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, Construction Law MusingsMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Wildfire Threats Make Utilities Uninsurable in US West
August 12, 2024 —
Mark Chediak - BloombergTrinity Public Utilities District’s power lines snake through the lower reaches of the Cascade Range, a rugged, remote and densely forested terrain in Northern California that has some of the highest wildfire risk in the country. But for several years, the company has been without insurance to protect it from such a threat.
Trinity’s equipment was blamed for causing a 2017 wildfire that destroyed 72 homes and three years later its insurer, a California public agency called the Special District Risk Management Authority, told the utility that it would no longer cover it for fires started by its electrical lines. Trinity could find no other takers.
The utility’s exposure comes as wildfires are already flaring up across the US West in what could be a dangerous and prolonged fire season.
“If a fire were to start now that involved one of our power lines, it would likely bankrupt the utility,” said Paul Hauser, general manager of the local government-owned utility that serves about 13,000 rural customers in Trinity County, 200 miles (322 kilometers) north of Sacramento. That’s because without insurance, a lawsuit could put the utility on the hook to pay for damages to private homes and businesses, which could easily top the utility’s annual revenue of about $16 million.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mark Chediak, Bloomberg
