Why Construction Firms Should Think Differently on the Issue of Sustainability
May 25, 2020 —
Chris Batterson - Construction ExecutiveHow does a construction company differentiate itself from the competition? If the company owner don’t know the answer to this question, or if the first thought that popped into his or her mind was a generic answer along the lines of customer service, keep reading.
While all businesses should strive to deliver better results for their customers, if a construction firm is looking to stand out from the crowd, putting sustainability at the very center of everything it does will be a clear difference maker.
Finding ways to divert construction and demolition (C&D) waste materials away from landfills and into recycling streams is a must. Keeping track of and measuring your C&D recycling rates on a per-project basis, and also company-wide, can be the difference between winning and losing a contract.
Reprinted courtesy of
Chris Batterson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Batterson may be contacted at
chris.batterson@rubiconglobal.com
Client Alert: Expert Testimony in Indemnity Action Not Limited to Opinions Presented in Underlying Matter
February 18, 2015 —
R. Bryan Martin and Kristian B. Moriarty – Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLPIn National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh Pa. v. Tokio Marine and Nichido Fire Insurance Co. (filed 2/4/2015, B24899 and B247258), the California Court of Appeal, Second District, held that the insurer of Costco Wholesale Corporation, in a subsequent indemnity action, could offer expert opinions which were not developed by the third-party plaintiff’s experts in an underlying dispute.
Jack Daer filed suit against Costco and Yokohama Tire Corporation, alleging a tire manufactured by Yokohama (and sold by Costco), was defective and caused an accident resulting in Mr. Daer’s injuries. The case proceeded through expert discovery and depositions. On the first day of trial, Costco settled with Daer for $5.5 million, and Yokohama settled for $1.1 million.
Reprinted courtesy of
R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com, Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Reminder: Pay if Paid Not All Encompassing (but Could it be?)
December 09, 2019 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsOn numerous occasions, I have discussed the need to be careful with so called “pay if paid” clauses in construction contracts. While such clauses are enforceable in Virginia (when phrased correctly), there are exceptions and limitations (for instance in the Miller Act context).
One such exception (that I frankly would have thought to be obvious) is that such clauses do not protect a general contractor from paying all subcontractors. Such a clause only protects a general contractor from payment to those subs for whose work the general contractor has not been paid. In other words, if a general contractor has been paid by an owner for a particular subcontractors work, it cannot use the pay if paid clause to deny payment even in the event that other subcontractors were deficient in their work or the owner has failed to pay the general contractor in full.
In Precision Contractors Inc. v. Masterbuilt Companies Inc. (PDF) the Fairfax, VA Circuit Court reiterated this principal stating that nothing in the contract suggests that either party to the lawsuit had any intention to shift the risk of non-payment by the owner or non-performance of other subcontractors to the plaintiff (Precision).
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
Should a Subcontractor provide bonds to a GC who is not himself bonded? (Bonding Agent Perspective)
May 03, 2017 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsGuest Post Friday is back, and for this week, Construction Law Musings welcomes Steve Moore. Steve has been the Construction & Surety Manager for Towne Insurance Agency-Invincia, in Chesterfield, VA since 2010. Steve’s experience in the Virginia surety bonding marketplace started in 1985 with USF&G. His underwriting travels took him from USF&G to starting National Grange Mutual’s mid-Atlantic bond department over Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, North & South Carolina, to being Reliance Surety’s “Firemark” bond manager in Virginia. Reliance was purchased by Travelers, where Steve continued to grow the surety book of business and build expertise and relationships. Experience with Travelers and Zurich had Steve handling surety bonds for some of Virginia’s largest and best-of-class contractors. Recently, he was contracted by the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office to serve as a contract surety expert witness on behalf of the state. He is a 1985 graduate of Virginia Tech with double-major B.S. degrees in Finance and Marketing.
Today, Steve has business and relationships with Travelers, The Hartford, Westfield, CNA, CBIC, Selective, Liberty Mutual, Ohio Casualty, Cincinnati, and many other companies. Steve’s strong foundation of insurance knowledge and in bonding principles and practices allow him to serve as a great resource for his clients.
An old Aesop fable comes to mind when I am asked whether a Sub should bond to an unbonded GC:
"A woodsman entered the forest and asked the trees to give him a handle made of the best wood. After giving the woodsman a stave of hickory, the forest watched the woodsman fashion an axe onto the handle. In a flash, the woodsman began to chop down the various oaks and maples in the forest. The oak then said to a pine, “It serves us right, since we gave our adversary the very thing that contributes to our doom…"
When a subcontractor client of mine asks about bonding to an un-bonded general contractor, a number of questions immediately come to mind. Why isn’t the GC bonded? What is the existing relationship between the GC and Sub? How well is the job financed? While wanting to help my subcontractor procure work, and surely enjoying the commissions from writing a bond, I also want to help my sub client manage unforeseen risk. What are the risks to a sub, when posting a bond to an unbonded GC?
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Texas Legislature Puts a Spear in Doctrine Making Contractor Warrantor of Owner Furnished Plans and Specifications
May 31, 2021 —
Paulo Flores, Timothy D. Matheny & Jackson Mabry - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.The Texas Legislature has just sent Senate Bill 219 (“S.B. 219”) to the Governor for signature; if this legislation is signed by the Governor, it will further erode the Texas legal doctrine that makes the contractor the warrantor of owner-furnished plans and specifications unless the prime contract specifically places this burden on the owner.
Background
49 states follow what is known as the Spearin doctrine (named after the U.S. Supreme Court case of United States v. Spearin) in which owners warrant the accuracy and sufficiency of owner-furnished plans and specifications. Texas, on the other hand, follows the Texas Supreme Court created Lonergan doctrine, which has been an unfortunate presence in Texas construction law since 1907. In its “purest form,” as stated by the Texas Supreme Court, the Lonergan doctrine prevents a contractor from successfully asserting a claim for “breach of contract based on defective plans and specifications” unless the contract contains language that “shows an intent to shift the burden of risk to the owner.” Essentially, this then translates into the contractor warranting the sufficiency and accuracy of owner-furnished plans and specifications, unless the contract between them expressly places this burden on the owner. Over the years some Texas courts of appeal had ameliorated this harsh doctrine, but in 2012, the Texas Supreme Court indicated Lonergan was still the law in Texas, in the case of El Paso v. Mastec. In 2019, the Texas Legislature took the first step toward hopefully abrogating the Lonergan doctrine by implementing a new Chapter 473 to the Texas Transportation Code with respect to certain projects undertaken by the Texas Department of Transportation, and Texas political subdivisions acting under the authority of Chapters 284, 366, 370 or 431 of the Transportation Code, adopting, as it were, the Spearin Doctrine in these limited, transportation projects. Now, the legislature has further chipped away at the Lonergan doctrine with the passage of S.B. 219.
Reprinted courtesy of
Paulo Flores, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.,
Timothy D. Matheny, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Jackson Mabry, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Flores may be contacted at PFlores@Pecklaw.com
Mr. Matheny may be contacted at tmatheny@pecklaw.com
Mr. Mabry may be contacted at jmabry@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lakewood Introduced City Ordinance to Battle Colorado’s CD Law
September 24, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to The Denver Post, the Lakewood City Council “introduced an ordinance that would make it more difficult for homeowners associations to sue developers for construction defects and give builders more opportunity to fix problems before litigation begins.” A hearing and final vote is scheduled for October 13th.
"If there are defects, we want to get them fixed rather than dragging this through the courts for years," Lakewood Mayor Bob Murphy told The Denver Post. Murphy believes the ordinance will bring “more diverse housing options to Lakewood, especially around stations along the Regional Transportation District’s West Rail Line.” Lakewood’s City Planner Travis Parker also declared that the defects law is to blame for the lack of condos in the area.
However, some believe that “Lakewood is overstepping its bounds as a home-rule city,” according to The Denver Post. "What they're trying to do is use an ordinance to circumvent state law in order to make it impossible for homeowners to seek redress against builders for defects," Molly Foley-Healy an attorney who serves as legislative liaison for the Community Associations Institute's Legislative Action Committee told the Post. “Mayor Murphy needs to incentivize quality construction in Lakewood instead.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Engineers Found ‘Hundreds’ of Cracks in California Bridge
January 24, 2014 —
James Nash – Bloomberg NewsEngineers spotted “hundreds” of cracks in welds on parts produced for the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in 2008 and were encouraged to stay quiet rather than delay the $6.4 billion project, according to a California Senate committee report.
James Merrill, then a senior engineer with a quality assurance company known as Mactec, told Senate investigators that his complaints about work done at Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industry Co. Ltd. (900947), known as ZPMC, were rebuffed by managers of the California Department of Transportation as “too rigorous,” according to the report released yesterday.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James Nash, Bloomberg NewsMr. Nash may be contacted at
jnash24@bloomberg.net
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
