"Repair Work" Endorsements and Punch List Work
May 20, 2019 —
Jeremiah M. Welch - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.The recent white paper on
Repair Work Endorsements by
Jeremiah Welch, drew a storm of responses. Most were appreciative and included follow up questions, but there were those that lamented along the lines of: “How can that be? We’ve been doing it this way for years…”. For the skeptics, the best approach to test the premise of the paper (that most “repair work endorsements” are at best redundant with the PCO extension and at worst restrictive) is to try to formulate a scenario where coverage would be available under a “repair work endorsement” but not under a PCO extension.
Several folks asked about the impact of PCO extensions and repair work endorsements on “punch list” work. “Punch list” work presents a related but different problem. The first issue is understanding what is meant by the term “punch list”. You won’t find that term in an ISO CGL policy. You may find it defined in a construction contract and a Google search will yield several similar definitions. In general, our industry uses the term “punch list” to describe items identified toward the end of a project (often after the contractually defined point of “substantial completion”) which must be completed in order to fully comply with the contract requirements/scope. In short, “punch list” items are items necessary to complete the work.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jeremiah M. Welch, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Welch may be contacted at
jmw@sdvlaw.com
Adobe Opens New Office Tower and Pledges No Companywide Layoffs in 2023
April 18, 2023 —
Edward Ludlow & Brody Ford - BloombergAdobe Inc., breaking ranks with an industry cutting costs and laying off workers, has opened a new office tower in its home city, adding new capacity for staff and pledging no companywide job cuts in 2023.
The Founders Tower is an 18-story, 1.25 million-square-foot shimmering glass addition to San Jose, California, a city Adobe has called home since the early ’90s. The software company’s fourth tower has capacity for 3,000 employee workstations, Adobe said Wednesday in a statement. Despite opening a new office with amenities, the company remains supportive of hybrid and flexible work arrangements.
“We’re actually committed to continuing to grow here,” Adobe Chief People Officer Gloria Chen said in an interview with Bloomberg Television to air Wednesday. “We are committed to not having companywide layoffs.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Edward Ludlow, Bloomberg and
Brody Ford, Bloomberg Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Comparing Contracts: A Review of the AIA 201 and ConsensusDocs - Part I
March 22, 2018 —
Michael Sams and Amanda Cox – Construction Executive, A publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All Rights Reserved.Here’s a helpful comparison of and analysis of some important contract sections in the
AIA 201 (2007 and 2017 versions) and
ConsensusDocs (2014 and 2017 versions). While not intended to be all inclusive, this summary comparison of the contract documents will run as a three-part series. Part I covers Financial Assurances, Design Risk, Project Management and Contract Administration. Part II will cover Schedule/Time, Consequential Damages/LDs, Claims and Disputes/ADR. Part III will cover Insurance and Indemnification and Payment.
FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
- What assurances are there that the owner can pay for the project?
- The Contractor should have the right to request and obtain proof that the Owner has funding sufficient to pay for the Work. The provision should also provide that the Contractor may terminate the Contract if the Owner refuses to allow a review of funding documents, or should the Contractor reasonably determine that the Owner does not have sufficient funds to pay for the Work.
Relevant Sections:
- A201 2007 Section 2.2.1; 2017 Section 2.2.1-2.2.2 A201
- 2014 & 2017 ConsensusDocs 200: Section 4.2
AIA:
- Section 2.2.1 A201 2007 & 2017: Both editions require the Owner, upon Contractor’s written request, to provide, “reasonable evidence that the Owner has made financial arrangements to fulfill the Owner’s obligations under the Contract.” Thereafter, the Contractor may only request such evidence if (1) the Owner fails to make payments; (2) a change in the Work materially changes the Contract Sum; or (3) the Contractor identifies in writing a reasonable concern regarding the Owner’s ability to make payment when due. If the Owner does not comply, the Contractor may stop work.
- Additionally, A201 2017 Section 2.2.2 awards costs to the Contractor for demobilization and remobilization.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Sams , Kenney & Sams and
Amanda Cox, Kenney & Sams
Mr. Sams may be contacted at mpsams@KandSlegal.com
Ms. Cox may be contacted at ajcox@KandSlegal.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Still Going, After All This Time: the Sacketts, EPA and the Clean Water Act
September 13, 2021 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelOn August 16, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling that the Idaho property of Michael and Chantell Sackett was a regulated wetlands under the then-controlling 1977 EPA rules defining “waters of the United States,” and that the Sacketts dredging and filling of their property was subject to regulation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or EPA. EPA’s case, as it has been for many years, was based on 2008 EPA and Corps inspection reports and Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” test as the controlling opinion in the 2006 Supreme Court case, Rapanos v. United States. The Sacketts’ argument was that the text of the Clean Water Act, as interpreted by Justice Scalia and three other Justices, was controlling, but for several years, the Ninth Circuit has relied on Justice Kennedy’s opinion in these CWA controversies. The court’s opinion expressed considerable sympathy for the Sacketts as they negotiated the thicket of EPA’s regulatory processes, but it could not disregard circuit precedent. A few years ago, the Supreme Court ruled, in a unanimous decision, that EPA’s then extant administrative compliance orders were arbitrary and capricious. (See Sackett v. US, 566 US 120 (2015).) After that decision, the case was remanded to the federal district court, where it lingered for several more years.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Meet the Forum's In-House Counsel: KATE GOLDEN
February 19, 2024 —
Jessica Knox - The Dispute ResolverCompany: Mortenson
Email: kate.golden@mortenson.com
Website: www.mortenson.com
College: University of Iowa (Bachelor of Science in Engineering, 1991)
Graduate School: University of Minnesota (Master of Science in Civil Engineering, 1994)
Law School: William Mitchell College of Law (now Mitchell | Hamline School of Law) (JD 1999)
States Where Company Operates/Does Business: Mortenson is a national builder and developer with 13 regional office locations.
Q: Describe your background and the path you took to becoming in-house counsel.
A: In high school, I loved math and science, so I attended the University of Iowa College of Engineering and studied civil engineering, with a focus on environmental engineering. To practice environmental engineering at that time, you generally needed a master’s degree, so I attended the University of Minnesota, where my thesis for my degree program was “Organochlorines in Lake Michigan.” I then worked as an environmental engineer for a consulting firm called Montgomery Watson (now MWH) assisting clients with various environmental issues from air permitting to watershed reports to risk assessments of contaminated sites.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jessica Knox, Stinson LLPMs. Knox may be contacted at
jessica.knox@stinson.com
Arizona Court of Appeals Decision in $8.475 Million Construction Defect Class Action Suit
May 09, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFIn the case of Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011), which involved an $8.475 million settlement in a construction defect class action suit, the question put forth to the Appeals court was “whether an insured and an insurer can join in a Morris agreement that avoids the primary insurer’s obligation to pay policy limits and passes liability in excess of those limits on to other insurers.” The Appeals court provided several reasons for their decision to affirm the validity of the settlement agreement as to the Non-Participatory Insurers (NPIs) and to vacate and remand the attorney fee awards.
First, the Appeals court stated, “The settlement agreement is not a compliant Morris agreement and provides no basis for claims against the NPIs.” They conclude, “Appellants attempt to avoid the doctrinal underpinnings of Morris by arguing that ‘the cooperation clause did not prohibit Hancock from assigning its rights to anyone, including Appellants.’ This narrow reading of the cooperation clause ignores the fact that Hancock did not merely assign its rights — it assigned its rights after stipulating to an $8.475 million judgment that neither it nor its Direct Insurers could ever be liable to pay. Neither Morris nor any other case defines such conduct as actual ‘cooperation’—rather, Morris simply defines limited circumstances in which an insured is relieved of its duty to cooperate. Because Morris agreements are fraught with risk of abuse, a settlement that mimics Morris in form but does not find support in the legal and economic realities that gave rise to that decision is both unenforceable and offensive to the policy’s cooperation clause.”
The Appeals court further concluded that “even if the agreement had qualified under Morris, plaintiffs did not provide the required notice to the NPIs.” The court continued, “Because an insurer who defends under a reservation of rights is always aware of the possibility of a Morris agreement, the mere threat of Morris in the course of settlement negotiations does not constitute sufficient notice. Instead, the insurer must be made aware that it may waive its reservation of rights and provide an unqualified defense, or defend solely on coverage and reasonableness grounds against the judgment resulting from the Morris agreement. The NPIs were not given the protections of this choice before the agreement was entered, and therefore can face no liability for the resulting stipulated judgment.”
Next, the Appeals court declared that “the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees under A.R.S § 12-341.” The Appeals court reasoned, “In this case, the NPIs prevailed in their attack on the settlement. But the litigation did not test the merits of their coverage defenses or the reasonableness of the settlement amount. And Plaintiffs never sued the NPIs, either in their own right or as the assignees of Hancock. Rather, the NPIs intervened to test the conceptual validity of the settlement agreement (to which they were not parties) before such an action could commence. In these circumstances, though it might be appropriate to offset a fee award against some future recovery by the Plaintiff Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011) class, the purposes of A.R.S. § 12-341.01 would not be served by an award of fees against them jointly and severally. We therefore conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding fees against Plaintiffs ‘jointly and severally.’”
The Appeals court made the following conclusion: “we affirm the judgment of the trial court concerning the validity of the settlement agreement as to the NPIs. We vacate and remand the award of attorney’s fees. In our discretion, we decline to award the NPIs the attorney’s fees they have requested on appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A).”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Firm Announces Remediation of Defective Drywall
October 16, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe residents of Villa Lago at Renaissance Commons will be relieved of their problems with defective Chinese drywall, according to an announcement from their legal counsel, Whitfield Bryson & Mason. Gary E. Mason, a founding member of the firm, announced to homeowners that remediation would begin on November 1. “The project will start with about 30 units on the top floor and will continue floor by floor for the next 12 months.” Residents will be moved out of their units for about three months while all drywall is removed and replaced.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Retainage: What Contractors Need to Know and Helpful Strategies
June 04, 2024 —
Gerard J. Onorata - ConsensusDocsIntroduction
Most, if not all, construction contracts contain a provision for “retainage.” The origin and concept of retainage dates back to the railroad boom that embraced Great Britain in the 1840s. In its simplest terms, retainage is a mechanism by which an owner or general contractor withholds disbursement of funds from the payment of a requisition in order to secure future performance of a contract and/or to pay for repair of defectively performed work. Retainage typically ranges from five to ten percent, with the amount being reduced as the project progresses to substantial and final completion. One of the reasons for withholding retainage is to incentivize a contractor to complete its work in accordance with the contract terms and conditions. While this may be well-intentioned in concept, it all too often leads to abuse that impacts project cash flow and raises tension between the parties. This typically happens on projects that have delay issues, deficient drawings, and/or claims of defective work. When a project has “gone bad,” the withholding of retainage is one of the first things that an owner will latch onto in order to leverage its position against a contractor. In order for a contractor to put itself in the best position possible, the following negotiation techniques and protective measures should be kept in mind.
Know Your Applicable Statute
Every state except West Virginia has statutes in place that govern the payment of retainage on public projects. On federal projects, the amount of retainage withheld shall not exceed ten percent as set forth in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (“FAR”). The common thread running through these statutes is the payment of interest as a remedy when the retainage is not timely paid. Historically, most retainage statutes were applicable only to publicly funded projects. This has recently changed with a substantial number of state legislatures recognizing that the payment of retainage on private projects was a serious enough problem to warrant regulation. These include Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Vermont. New York’s retainage laws relating to private projects were enacted only this past November.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gerard J. Onorata, Peckar & AbramsonMr. Onorata may be contacted at
gonorata@pecklaw.com
