Specific Source of Water Not Relevant in Construction Defect Claim
June 28, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Nebraska Court of Appeals has concluded that a lower court came to the correct conclusion in a construction defect case involving water intrusion. The Hiatts built a home in North Platte, Nebraska, in in 2004 which they sold to the Oettingers in May, 2006. Shortly thereafter, the Oettingers started experiencing problems with water intrusion and contacted the Hiatts. The Hiatts responded by replacing the septic lift. Subsequently, the Oettingers landscaped their yard, which they allege was done with the assistance of the Hiatts. The water problems continued and “the parties took substantial remedial measures, including excavating the sidewalk and inspecting the downspouts.” The water problems continued, getting worse and requiring increasingly aggressive responses.
The Oettingers then had a series of inspections, and they hired the last of these inspectors to actually fix the water intrusion problem. At that point, they filed a lawsuit against the Hiatts alleging that the Hiatts “breached their contact by constructing and selling a home that was not built according to reasonable construction standards,” and that they “were negligent in the repair of the home in 2009.”
During the trial, Irving Hiatt testified that they “tarred the outside of the basement and put plastic into the tar and another layer of plastic over the top of that.” He claimed that the problem was with the Oettingers’ landscaping. This was further claimed in testimony of his son, Vernon Hiatt, who said the landscaping lacked drainage.
The Oettingers had three experts testify, all of whom noted that the landscaping could not have been the problem. All three experts testified as to problems with the Hiatts’ construction. The court concluded that the Hiatts had breached an implied warranty, rejecting the claim that the water intrusion was due to the landscaping. The Hiatts appealed the decision of the county court to the district court. Here, the judgment of the lowest court was confirmed, with the district court again finding a breach of the implied warranty of workmanlike performance.
The Hiatts appealed again. They alleged that the district court should not have held a breach of implied warranty existed without proving the source of the water intrusion, and that damages should have been apportioned based on the degree to which the Oettingers’ landscaping and basement alterations were responsible. The appeals court dispensed with the second claim first, noting that “they do not argue this error in their brief nor do they explain how or why the trial court should have apportioned damages.” The court also noted that although the Oettingers made a negligence claim in their suit, the case had been decided on the basis of a breach of implied warranty.
The appeals court upheld the Oettingers’ claim of a breach of implied warranty. In order to do this, the court noted that the Oettingers had to show that an implied warranty existed, that the Haitts breached that warranty, damage was suffered as a result, and that no express warranty limited the implied warranty. That court noted that “the record is sufficient to prove that the Hiatts breached the implied warranty in the method in which they constructed the basement” and that “this breach was the cause of the Oettingers’ damages.”
The court concluded that the Oettingers “provided sufficient evidence that the Hiatts’ faulty construction allowed water, whatever its source, to infiltrate the basement.” The court rejected the Hiatts’ claim that the Oettingers’ repairs voided the warranty, as it was clear that the Hiatts were involved in carrying out these repairs. The court’s final conclusion was that “the evidence in the record supports the trial court’s factual finding that the Hiatts’ flawed construction caused water damage to the Oettingers’ basement.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Substantial Completion Explained: What Contractors & Owners Should Know
January 17, 2022 —
Travis Colburn - Ahlers Cressman & SleightA project’s Substantial Completion date is a critical construction milestone for contractors and owners. Depending on the contract, the date of Substantial Completion has project-specific contractual and statutory consequences.
Substantial Completion is an “event” – there is no universal definition of the term. It is generally understood to be (1) a point in time (2) when work performed by the contractor is sufficiently complete (3) where it can be used or occupied for the owner’s intended purpose. The date of Substantial Completion is generally established at the time of contract formation (either as a negotiated or a contract set date), and that date may be adjusted over the course of a project to account for excusable delays.
As a construction professional, your attorney should review and tailor any written agreement to your project-specific needs and risk tolerances prior to execution. Savvy construction professionals often start with standard form agreements promulgated by the American Institute of Architects (“AIA”), the Design-Build Institute of America (“DBIA”), or the Engineers Joint Contract Document Committee (“EJCDC”) as the basis for their construction contracts. The AIA, DBIA, and EJCDC standard forms each contains contract provisions relating to when and what happens once Substantial Completion has occurred, subject to any agreed-to, project-specific deviations.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Travis Colburn, Ahlers Cressman & SleightMr. Colburn may be contacted at
travis.colburn@acslawyers.com
Trends and Issues which Can Affect Workers' Compensation Coverage for Construction Companies
December 26, 2022 —
Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Recent trends in workers’ compensation coverage suggest that the number of claims are likely to continue to increase, specifically for high-risk industries, like the construction industry. This article explores multiple trends and issues which are likely to impact workers’ compensation insurance for construction companies. Several of these trends and issues reflect demographic, labor, and technological shifts, which have important implications for contractors and construction companies.
1. Technological Innovation and Worker Safety
New wearable technologies and other data-collecting products such as helmets which warn of employee fatigue and sensors which help with ergonomic corrections have emerged in the markets to support safety measures in the construction industry. Although devices such as these tools can help business owners to demonstrate the implementation of safety programs to their insurance carriers, they can also distract the workers who are wearing them or go through a product malfunction, which could lead to injuries in the workplace and could also result in higher workers’ compensation premiums. While these new technological devices are intended to support worker safety on construction sites, it is also important for business owners to evaluate the potential risks of new technologies on a project site.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Contractor Sued for Contract Fraud by Government
December 11, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFA Canton, Ohio construction company, TAB Construction, has been sued by the federal government over claims that the company lied about its location in order to receive contracts from the U.S. government. According to the suit, TAB received about $13 million for contracts with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The firm had gained the contracts through a Small Business Administration program that allowed firms in certain areas to compete for contracts, however, the firm was not located in the appropriate area.
When the SBA found that TAB was not doing business out of an address that qualified for the SBA’s HUBZone program, the company claimed to be working from another address that qualified. Upon investigation, the SBA found this also was not true.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
No Coverage for Property Damage That is Limited to Work Completed by Subcontractor
April 25, 2012 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe issue before the 11th Circuit was whether, under Florida law, a general contractor had coverage for a property damage claim limited to the defective work performed by a subcontractor, and not affecting any other portion of the project. The court found no coverage in Amerisure Mut. Ins. Co. v. Auchter Co., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5412 (11th Cir. March 15, 2012).
Amelia Island Company contracted with Auchter Company, a general contractor, for construction of an inn and conference room. Auchter subcontracted with Register Contracting Company to install the Inn’s roof. Pursuant to the Florida Building Code, installation of the roof required that it be able to withstand 110 m.p.h. winds.
Register completed installing the roof tiles in January 1998. Beginning in 2002, the tiles began dislodging from the roof. During the 2004 hurricane season, three hurricanes caused more tiles to come off the roof. Some of these tiles hit other tiles, cracking them.
In 2006, the parties went to arbitration over the costs of repairs for the roof.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Exception to Watercraft Exclusion Does Not Apply
September 24, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe court determined that an additional insured was not entitled to coverage despite an exception to the watercraft exclusion. Holden v. U.S. United Ocean Serv., LLC, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 15954 (5th Cir. Aug. 19, 2014).
United entered a contract with Buck Kreihs Company, Inc. under which Buck Kreihs would perform ship-repair work for United. Under the contract, Buck Kreihs would indemnify United for all liabilities arising out of the work or services performed by Buck Kreihs for United. The contract further provided that Buck Kreihs was to procure general liability coverage and name United as an additional insured. Buck Kreihs did so under a policy issued by St. Paul.
Holden, an employee of Buck Kreihs, was injured while preparing to remove a gangway that led from a dock at Buck Kreihs's facility to a barge owned by United. Holden sued United, which tendered to St. Paul as an additional insured. St. Paul denied coverage under the policy's watercraft exclusion. Holden and United settled. United pursued its third party suit against St. Paul. The district court granted summary judgment to St. Paul.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Did You Really Accept That Bid? – How Contractors Can Avoid Post-Acceptance Bid Disputes Over Contract Terms
July 28, 2016 —
David A. Harris & Steven M. Cvitanovic – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPWhen California general contractors submit bids to an owner, can they force their subcontractors to honor their bids? Can they recover damages if the subcontractor later refuses to do so?
While the general rule in California is that a general contractor who reasonably relies on a subcontractor’s bid may recover damages when the subcontractor reneges, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District recently held that there is a substantial and important exception to the general rule.
In Flintco Pacific, Inc. v. TEC Management Consultants, Inc. (LASC No. YC067984), the Court of Appeal held that where a general contractor requires a subcontractor to enter into a “standard-form subcontract” which materially differs from the subcontractor’s bid, the general contractor has rejected the subcontractor’s bid and has instead issued a counteroffer. The subcontractor is thereafter free to walk, or accept the new terms. If the subcontractor walks, the general contractor may not seek to enforce the terms of the subcontract or seek reliance damages.
Reprinted courtesy of
David A. Harris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com
Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
That’s not the way we’ve always done it! (Why you should update your office practices)
April 15, 2014 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback – Construction Law in North CarolinaAnyone recognize the photo to the left [Photo of Pay Phone]? If you are of the Millennial generation, this is a quaint thing called a public pay phone. They used to be everywhere. Imagine, not having a cell phone to keep you in constant contact with Big Brother…………. [the good old days].
As you may be able to tell from the fact that the receiver is hanging down, this phone has seen better days.
What does this have to do with construction? Everything. Just because something is done one way– even for years, or decades– doesn’t mean it should stay that way. Just as you learn new technical skills and change your designs, you should also update and modernize your office practices.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North CarolinaMs. Brumback may be contacted at
mbrumback@rl-law.com
