Veolia Agrees to $25M Settlement in Flint Water Crisis Case
February 19, 2024 —
James Leggate - Engineering News-RecordEngineering firm Veolia North America agreed to a $25-million settlement to resolve a federal class action case related to its work for the city of Flint, Mich., during the city’s lead-in-water crisis, the company and attorneys for the plaintiffs announced Feb. 1. Veolia is the second engineering firm that worked for the city to settle with city residents, and the deal came ahead of a class-action trial scheduled to start later this month.
Reprinted courtesy of
James Leggate, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Commonwealth Court Holds That Award of Attorney's Fees and Penalties is Mandatory Under the Procurement Code Upon a Finding of Bad Faith
October 29, 2014 —
William J. Taylor and Michael Jervis – White and Willams LLPIn a decision regarding a payment claim by a highway contractor against the City of Allentown, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has held that an award of attorney's fees and penalties is mandatory under the terms of the Pennsylvania Procurement Code, 62 Pa.C.S. § 3901 et seq., upon a finding of bad faith by the non-paying government agency, even though the statute only states that a court “may” award such fees and penalties.
In A. Scott Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Allentown, Cmwlth. Ct. No. 2163 C.D. 2013, the plaintiff, A. Scott Enterprises, Inc. (Scott), won a contract with the City of Allentown (City) to construct a one mile roadway. Several weeks after commencing work, Scott learned that soil at the construction site was potentially contaminated with arsenic, and was instructed by the City to suspend its work. Because of the soil contamination, additional work would be required to complete the project and Scott submitted proposals for the additional work plus its suspension costs. However, the City never approved the additional work and the project was never completed. The City never paid Scott for costs incurred due to the suspension of the work and Scott filed suit to recover its losses. The jury found that the City had breached the contract with Scott and had acted in bad faith in violation of the Procurement Code, and awarded damages to Scott for its unreimbursed suspension costs. However, the trial court denied Scott’s request for an award of attorney's fees and penalty interest. Both Scott and the City appealed the final judgment to the Commonwealth Court, which reversed the trial court’s refusal to award attorney's fees and penalties.
Reprinted courtesy of
William J. Taylor, White and Williams LLP and
Michael Jervis, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Taylor may be contacted at taylorw@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Jervis may be contacted at jervism@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Is the Removal and Replacement of Nonconforming Work Economically Wasteful?
September 19, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThere are times a contractor installs the wrong material or system contrary to the plans and specifications. A nonconformity. The owner wants the already-installed material or system to be replaced in conformity with the plans and specifications. However, what was installed is functionally equivalent to what the plans and specifications required and would be cost prohibitive, i.e., economically wasteful. If the contractor elects to remove and replace the nonconforming work, it may seek a change order because it is economically wasteful. Or, the contractor may refuse (typically, not the best approach) in furtherance of taking on the fight based on the economic wastefulness associated with the removal and replacement. A recent case, David Boland, Inc. v. U.S., 2022 WL 3440349 (Fed.Cl. 2022), talks about this exaction situation and the economic waste doctrine. This is an important doctrine for contractors to understand when faced with a similar predicament.
Here, a contractor was hired by the government to construct a wastewater collection system that was to be owned and operated by a private company. The contractor’s work was going to be incorporated into a larger sewer system that the private company already operated. The contractor was required to install sewer manholes reinforced with steel in accordance with an ASTM standard. The manholes could be rejected if they did not conform to the ASTM standard. Compliance with this ASTM standard was also required by the private company’s construction protocol for the infrastructure, which was incorporated into the contractor’s contract with the government. The contractor was required to strictly comply with the contract.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Implied Warranty Claims–Not Just a Seller’s Risk: Builders Beware!
May 10, 2021 —
Carin Ramirez - Colorado Construction LitigationOne of the thorns in the side of every construction defect defense litigator is the implied warranty claim. The “implied warranty” is a promise that Colorado law is “implied” into every contract for a sale of a new home that the home was built in a workmanlike manner and is suitable for habitation. Defense attorneys dislike the implied warranty claim because it is akin to a strict liability standard. All that is required to provide the claim is that an aspect of construction is found to be defective — i.e., inconsistent with the building code or manufacturer’s installation instructions — regardless of whether the work was performed to the standard of care. The implied warranty claim is therefore easier to prove than a negligence claim, where a claimant must prove that a construction professional’s work fell below a standard of reasonable care. Additionally, it is not a defense to an implied warranty claim that the homeowners or the HOA are, themselves, partially liable for the defects where damage is due in part to insufficient or deferred maintenance, as it is for negligence claims. The only redeeming aspect to the implied warranty claim was that, until recently, it was believed that it could only be asserted by a first purchaser against the seller of an improvement, because the implied warranty arises out of the sale contract.
Recently, the Colorado Court of Appeals opinion in Brooktree Village Homeowners Association v. Brooktree Village, LLC, 19CA1635, decided on November 19, 2020, extended the reach of the implied warranty — though just how far remains to be seen. Specifically, a division of the Court of Appeals held that an HOA can assert implied warranty claims on behalf of its members for defects in common areas, even where there is no direct contractual relationship between the parties to base the warranty upon.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Carin Ramirez, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMs. Ramirez may be contacted at
ramirez@hhmrlaw.com
Appraisal Process Analyzed
August 19, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe California Court of Appeal offered a primer in the appraisal process in reversing the trial court's confirmation of the appraisal award. Lee v. California Capital Ins. Co., 2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 530 (Cal. Ct. App. June 18, 2015).
A fire damaged an apartment building owned by the insured. The fire started in unit 3 on the ground floor. The insurer argued the fire did not extend beyond unit 3. The insured claimed that the fire damaged six of the 12 apartments with fire or smoke.
The insured's public adjuster submitted a claim to the insurer that exceeded $800,000. The statement of loss included costs for cleaning, asbestos abatement, reconstruction of affected apartments, and loss of rent. The public adjuster said the loss consisted of burn damage to unit 3 and some damage to the "common" walls located between the apartments on the two floors above unit 3. All of the interior rooms of five apartments other than unit 3 would need to be completely dismantled and then replaced.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Florida’s Statute of Limitations / Repose for Actions Founded on Construction Improvement Modified
April 25, 2023 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesOn April 13, 2023, Florida’s all-important four-year statute of limitations–Florida Statute s. 95.11(3)(c)–relating to actions founded on construction of an improvement of real property was modified. This is a key statute of limitations for ALL construction practitioners because it also includes the statute of repose for latent construction defects.
At the bottom of this posting is the current version fo s. 95.11(3)(c) with the underlined section being recent additions. (They hyperlink above will identify the deletions and additions.) Important things to note:
- Statute of Repose. The statute of repose has been reduced from 10 years to 7 years. There is now an objective date for when the repose period commences: “within 7 years after the date the authority having jurisdiction issues a temporary certificate of occupancy, a certificate of occupancy, or a certificate of completion, or the date of abandonment of construction if not completed, whichever date is earliest.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Do We Really Want Courts Deciding if Our Construction Contracts are Fair?
March 19, 2015 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsAs I posted recently, the Virginia General Assembly has passed, and I can see no reason why the governor won’t sign, a bill that would
essentially invalidate preemptive contractual waivers of lien rights as they relate to subcontractors and material suppliers. It does not apply to General Contractors, but it is a step in what many (including those attorneys that represent subcontractors and suppliers) believe is the right direction.
Of course, as soon as I posted last week, my friend and colleague
Scott Wolfe (@scottwolfejr) commented on that post and then
gave his two cents worth at his Zlien blog. The gist of the comments here at Musings and the post over at his blog was essentially that these contractual provisions were inherently unfair and therefore should be abolished because of both a relative disparity in leverage between the Owner or GC and the Subcontractor when it comes to negotiations and the fact that subcontractors often don’t read their contracts or
discuss them with a construction attorney prior to signing them. I hear this first of his arguments often when I am reviewing a contract after the fact and a client or potential client acts surprised that a provision will be enforced and the courts of the Commonwealth of Virginia will actually enforce them. As to Scott’s second reason, I have always warned here at Musings that
you should read your contracts carefully because they will be the law of your business relationship in the future.
The first of his two points is more interesting and in some ways more easily supported. However, where we are speaking of contracts between businesses where both sides are bound by the terms of the contract, it begs the question of whether in seeking to make contracts more “fair” we could add a layer of uncertainty that could cause more problems than it solves. Do we really want courts stepping in after the fact to renegotiate the terms of a deal that was struck months or possibly years before because one judge believes that the deal was too one sided? Do we really need such “Monday morning quarterbacking?” Is one person’s idea of “fair” better than another’s when both parties to the contract had the full ability to read, negotiate and possibly reject the deal long ago? Personally, I think that the answer to these questions is, in all but the most egregious cases or where the legislatures have stepped in adding certainty (whether to the good or bad), “No.”
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
A Court-Side Seat: Permit Shields, Hurricane Harvey and the Decriminalization of “Incidental Taking”
May 31, 2021 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelThis is a brief review of some of the significant environmental (and administrative law decisions) released the past few weeks.
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
On April 22, 2021, the Court decided two important administrative law cases: Carr, et al. v. Saul and AMG Capital Management v. Federal Trade Commission.
Carr, et al. v. Saul
In this case, the constitutionality of Social Security Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) hearing disability claims disputes was at issue. More precisely, were these ALJs selected in conformance with the Appointments Clause of the Constitution? A similar issue was litigated in the case of Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission. There, the Court held that many of the agency’s ALJs were not selected in conformance with the Appointment’s Clause. Here, the Court held that this issue could be decided by the courts without compelling the litigants to first exhaust their administrative remedies. Thousands of ALJs are employed by the federal government, and it may take some time to resolve this question for every agency.
AMG Capital Management v. Federal Trade Commission
In this case, the court held, unanimously, that the Commission does not presently have the authority to employ such equitable remedies as restitution or disgorgement.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
