What’s the Best Way to “Use” a Construction Attorney?
January 04, 2023 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsThe question in the title of this post is one I think about a lot. I have also discussed
some aspects of this topic previously here at Musings. As 2022 winds down and we head into 2023, my thoughts have landed back on how I as a construction lawyer can
help my clients and how my construction industry clients can help me to be more effective. This post will focus on the latter aspect of the representation process.
The first key aspect to helping your construction counsel more effectively assist you with any aspect of your construction business is to communicate. Attorneys are only as good as the information that we have. Always remember that while you as the contractor lived the project about which you called your attorney, that attorney is just hearing about it for the first time. Construction lawyers spend a lot of time playing catch-up and trying to get familiar with all aspects (good and bad) of your claim or issue. Do not assume that even the most knowledgeable construction attorney can anticipate how the evidence and facts will come out over the course of a representation. Attorneys apply law to facts, it is up to the client to give the attorney the initial facts.
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
Construction Warranties and the Statute of Repose – Southern States Chemical, Inc v. Tampa Tank & Welding Inc.
January 20, 2020 —
David R. Cook - AHC Construction and Procurement BlogIn a recent holding by the Georgia Court of Appeals, the court held that Georgia’s eight-year statute of repose applied to bar the project owner’s warranty claims. The renovation work by the contractor on the owner’s chemical tank constituted an improvement of real property, and thus, the statute of repose bared any claims eight years after substantial completion thereof. In addition, the court rejected the project owner’s claim that it qualified as a third-party beneficiary of an extended warranty contained in a report given by a subcontractor to the contractor.
Factual Background
In 2000, Southern States Phosphate and Fertilizer Company (“Southern States”) hired Tampa Tank & Welding, Inc (“Tampa Tank”) to renovate a tank to hold sulfuric acid. The parties’ written contract contained an express one-year warranty for material and workmanship from the date of completion. Two years later, in January 2002, the tank renovation was completed. Tampa Tank contracted with Corrosion Control Inc. (“CCI”) to design, assist with, and test the cathodic corrosion system. CCI provided only consultation and did not provide any onsite installation. Upon completion of installation, CCI supplied a report to Tampa Tank that the system was properly installed and fully functioning. Additionally, a post–installation report from CCI to Tampa Tank calculated an estimated life expectancy of forty-three to forty-five years.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLPMr. Cook may be contacted at
cook@ahclaw.com
California Supreme Court Declines Request to Expand Exceptions to Privette Doctrine for Known Hazards
January 17, 2022 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogFirst things first. Happy New Year! Hope you had a good one.
To start things off in the new year we’ve got an employment-related case for you – Gonzalez v. Mathis, 12 Cal.5th 29 (2021) – a California Supreme Court case involving the Privette Doctrine. For those not familiar with the Privette Doctrine, the Privette Doctrine is named after the case Privette v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 689 (1993), which held that project owners and higher-tiered contractors are not liable for workplace injuries sustained by employees of lower-tiered contractors. Since then, courts have carved out a few exceptions to the Privette Doctrine including the “retained control exception” (also known as the Hooker exception – that’s the name of the case not the occupation of the injured worker) whereby a “hirer,” that is, the higher-tiered party who hired the lower-tiered party whose employee is injured, can be held liable if the hirer: (1) retains control over any part of the lower-tiered party’s work; and (2) negligently exercises that control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the worker’s injury.
Another exception is the “concealed hazard exception” (also known as the Kinsman exception) whereby a hirer can be held liable if: (1) the hirer knew, or should have known, of a concealed hazard on the property that the lower-tiered contractor did not know of and could not have reasonably discovered; and (2) the hirer railed to warn the lower-tiered contractor of that hazard.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Governor Bob Ferguson’s Recent Executive Orders – A Positive Sign for Washington’s Construction Industry
January 21, 2025 —
Ryan Sternoff & Trygve Groh - Ahlers Cressman & SleightOn January 15th, in his first act as Washington’s Governor, Bob Ferguson signed three executive orders, two of which may have a direct impact by removing some of the “red tape” that stifles Washington’s construction industry. This appears to be a positive sign that the Governor’s office is focused on pragmatic action, rather than partisan politics.
Executive Order 25-02 is entitled “Assessing Regulatory Efficiency and Addressing Washington’s Affordable Housing Crisis” and directs all executive and small cabinet agencies (collectively, “State Agencies”) to review their rules and regulations and prepare a report for the Governor’s Office that identifies rules or regulations that impact the construction of new housing. The reports will also identify rules or regulations that are no longer necessary and can be rescinded, rules or regulations that can be amended to speed up housing construction. The reports will include descriptions of proposed amendments to such rules and regulations. The reports must be provided to the Governor’s Office within sixty days.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ryan Sternoff, Ahlers Cressman & SleightMr. Sternoff may be contacted at
ryan.sternoff@acslawyers.com
Admissibility of Expert Opinions in Insurance Bad Faith Trials
November 04, 2019 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction LitigationIn 2010, Hansen Construction was sued for construction defects and was defended by three separate insurance carriers pursuant to various primary CGL insurance policies.[i] One of Hansen’s primary carriers, Maxum Indemnity Company, issued two primary policies, one from 2006-2007 and one from 2007-2008. Everest National Insurance Company issued a single excess liability policy for the 2007-2008 policy year, and which was to drop down and provide additional coverage should the 2007-2008 Maxum policy become exhausted. In November 2010, Maxum denied coverage under its 2007-2008 primarily policy but agreed to defend under the 2006-2007 primarily policy. When Maxum denied coverage under its 2007-2008 primary policy, Everest National Insurance denied under its excess liability policy.
In 2016, pursuant to a settlement agreement between Hansen Construction and Maxum, Maxum retroactively reallocated funds it owed to Hansen Construction from the 2006-2007 Maxum primary policy to the 2007-2008 Maxum primary policy, which became exhausted by the payment. Thereafter, Hansen Construction demanded coverage from Everest National, which continued to deny the claim. Hansen Construction then sued Everest National for, among other things, bad faith breach of contract.
In the bad faith action, both parties retained experts to testify at trial regarding insurance industry standards of care and whether Everest National’s conduct in handling Hansen Construction’s claim was reasonable. Both parties sought to strike the other’s expert testimony as improper and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Owners Should Serve Request for Sworn Statement of Account on Lienor
August 10, 2017 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen an owner receives a construction lien, an owner should serve the lienor with a Request for Sworn Statement of Account. The Request for Sworn Statement is authorized by Florida Statute s. 713.16(2) and should be in the following form:
REQUEST FOR SWORN STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT
WARNING: YOUR FAILURE TO FURNISH THE REQUESTED STATEMENT, SIGNED UNDER OATH, WITHIN 30 DAYS OR THE FURNISHING OF A FALSE STATEMENT WILL RESULT IN THE LOSS OF YOUR LIEN.
To: (Lienor’s name and address)
The undersigned hereby demands a written statement under oath of his or her account showing the nature of the labor or services performed and to be performed, if any, the materials furnished, the materials to be furnished, if known, the amount paid on account to date, the amount due, and the amount to become due, if known, as of the date of the statement for the improvement of real property identified as (property description) .
(name of contractor)
(name of the lienor’s customer, as set forth in the lienor’s Notice to Owner, if such notice has been served)
(signature and address of owner)
(date of request for sworn statement of account)
From both an owner and lienor’s perspective, the bolded, capitalized language is key. It states that if the lienor fails to respond under oath within 30 days, it will LOSE its lien. That is a very punitive measure for a lienor’s failure to respond, meaning a lienor should absolutely respond, no questions asked. Plus, a lienor’s response to a Request for Sworn Statement of Account is not a burdensome ordeal.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
Dadelstein@gmail.com
Trends in Project Delivery Methods in Construction
April 03, 2023 —
Sarah B. Biser - ConsensusDocsThe three key measures of a construction project’s success are cost, quality, and time (delays). The project delivery method that the owner of the project selects can affect each of these metrics. Project delivery methods in complex construction projects evolve as technology and processes improve. The traditional methods of design-bid-build (DBB), design-build (DB), and construction management (CM) have been the standard for many years. More recently, however, newer methods such as integrated project delivery (IPD), and public-private partnerships (PPP) have gained traction.
Design – Bid – Build (DBB)
Design-bid-build is the oldest, most commonly used method of project delivery. It involves three distinct phases: design, bid/award, and construction. An owner asks a team of professionals, such as architects, engineers, and contractors, to produce design documents that will be used to solicit bids. After the owner evaluates the bids and chooses a contractor, a construction contract is written. While this method is the most familiar and well-understood, it can lead to disputes during the construction process as changes are made to the original plans.
In DBB, the owner bears the risk for funding increased costs attributed to design changes and related delays – thanks to the Spearin Doctrine, which holds that the owner impliedly warrants the information, plans, and specifications that it provides to a general contractor. See 248 U.S. 132 (1918) Although the owner cannot claim against the contractor, it can make a claim against the design firm.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sarah B. Biser, Fox Rothschild LLP (ConsensusDocs)Ms. Biser may be contacted at
sbiser@foxrothschild.com
Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes: The Colorado Court of Appeals’ Decision Protecting a Declarant’s Right to Arbitration in Construction Defect Cases
May 20, 2015 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction LitigationOn May 7th, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued its much anticipated ruling in Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condominium Association, Inc. v. Metropolitan Homes, Inc., et al., 2015COA65 (Colo. App. May 7, 2015). By way of background, the Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condominiums were developed by Metro Inverness, LLC, which also served as the declarant for its homeowners association. Metropolitan Homes was Metro Inverness’ manager and the general contractor on the project. Greg Krause and Peter Kudla served as declarant-appointed members of the Association’s board during the period of declarant control.
When it set up the Association, Metro Inverness included within the Association’s declaration a mandatory arbitration provision specifically for construction defect claims. This provision stated that it “shall not ever be amended without the written consent of Declarant and without regard to whether Declarant owns any portion of the Real Estate at the time of the amendment.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
