Columbus Ohio Building Expert Directory

Payment Bond Claim Notice Requires More than Mailing

June 18, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
It’s been a while since I posted something new relating to Virginia’s “Little Miller Act” and its various notice requirements for a subcontractor to make a payment bond claim. I have posted on the basics of a Virginia payment bond claim previously here at Musings. One of these basics is the 90 day notice requirement for suppliers or second tier subcontractors with no direct contractual relationship to the general contractor. A recent case from the Norfolk, Virginia Circuit Court examined when notice is “given” under the Little Miller Act. In R T Atkinson Building Corp v Archer Western Construction, LLC the Court looked at the question of whether mailing of the notice of claim is enough to constitute notice being “given” in a manner that would satisfy the statutory requirements. In that case, the supplier mailed the notice within the 90 day window, but the defendant argued on summary judgment that it did not receive the notice until 2 days after the 90 day window had closed. In support of this contention, the defendant provided tracking information showing delivery by the USPS on the non-compliant date. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Toolbox Talk Series Recap – Considerations for Optimizing Dispute Resolution Clauses

June 05, 2023 — Michael Filbin - The Dispute Resolver
In the April 27, 2023 edition of Division 1's Toolbox Talk Series moderated by Manuel del Valle, Sergio Andre Laclau (Partner at Mello Torres) and Liza Akins (Senior Assistant GC and Division Counsel at ARCO Design/Build) offered the following strategies for drafting effective ADR clauses in construction contracts:

Define the ADR process for various types of disputes.

Not all disputes on a construction project are the same, and the parties can tailor the ADR process to different situations. For example, the parties could choose to arbitrate complex disputes and resolve minor claims through mediation. Differentiating the ADR process between complex and minor disputes can save parties time and money. While Liza prefers arbitration for complex claims because you can get a quick and final decision from an arbitrator experienced with construction disputes, she noted that arbitration costs can add up quickly. Therefore, if the dollar amount in dispute is relatively small, arbitration may not make sense financially. Mediation tends to be a comparatively cheaper and faster option. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael Filbin, Cozen O'Connor
Mr. Filbin may be contacted at mfilbin@cozen.com

Insurer Defends Denial in Property Coverage Dispute Involving Marijuana Growing Operations

March 14, 2018 — Michael Levine and Geoffrey Fehling - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
Last month, we reported on the ongoing insurance coverage dispute between commercial landlord KVP Properties, Inc. and its property insurer, Westfield Insurance Company. The dispute arises from an October 2015 DEA raid on KVG-owned rental units in Novi, Michigan, which uncovered damage to the units related to the tenants’ marijuana growing operations. The arguments raised by KVG on appeal highlight a number of important marijuana-related coverage issues, which Westfield has now addressed in opposition. Reprinted courtesy of Michael Levine, Hunton & Williams LLP and Geoffrey Fehling, Hunton & Williams LLP Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@hunton.com Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@hunton.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

“Incidental” Versus “Direct” Third Party Beneficiaries Under Insurance Policies in Which a Party is Not an Additional Insured

April 18, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
As they say, when it rains, it pours. Indemnity and insurance are the “Big Two” when it comes to risk avoidance on construction projects. The next case, LaBarbera v. Security National Security Company, 86 Cal.App.5th 1329 (2022), involves both. It’s an interesting case, which I think could have gone either way, involving claims by a higher-tiered party that they were a third party beneficiary under an insurance policy in which they were not named as an additional insured. The LaBarbera Case The Indemnity Provision and Insurance Policy In June 1016, Chris LaBarbera hired Richard Knight doing business as Knight Construction to remodel his house in Carmichael, California. The construction contract included an indemnity provision which provided that Knight would defend and indemnify LaBarbera from all claims arising out the remodeling work except for claims arising from LaBarbera’s sole negligence and willful misconduct. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

California Restricts Principles of “General” Personal Jurisdiction

April 01, 2015 — Kristian B. Moriarty and R. Bryan Martin – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In BNSF Railway Company v. Superior Court (Kralovetz) (Filed 3/27/2015, No. B260798), the California Court of Appeal, Second District, held a Delaware railroad corporation, with its principal place of business in Texas, was not subject to “general” personal jurisdiction in California, despite California housing 8.1% of the corporation’s total workforce, accounting for 6% of the corporation’s revenue, and containing just under 5% of its total track mileage. Plaintiff, Vicki Kralovetz, filed suit in California Superior Court against defendant, BNSF Railway Company (“BNSF”), and others, for wrongful death. Plaintiff contended her husband was exposed to asbestos products manufactured by BNSF in Kansas while working at a dismantling facility owned by BNSF’s predecessor in interest. Plaintiff claimed the exposure caused her husband to contract mesothelioma, which resulted in his death. Reprinted courtesy of Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at mmoriarty@hbblaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Litigation Roundup: “Hold the Pickles, Hold the Lettuce?”

October 02, 2023 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
Hold the pickles, hold the lettuce? You can even hold the service… or at least proof of it! In a dispute over the construction of a Burger King restaurant in Tupelo, Mississippi, a state court suit by the owner against its general contractor and architect was removed to federal court by one of the defendant parties, on the basis of the diversity of citizenship of the defendant parties from the plaintiff, per 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). For its part, plaintiff, upon achieving service of its state court complaint against the various defendants, filed a proof of service as to the party which sought to remove the case, but not as to the other defendants (even though the other defendants were served). Once the case was removed to federal court and after the deadline for removal has passed, plaintiff sought to have the matter remanded based on the lack of the consent of the entirety of the defendant group to the removal, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (“When a civil action is removed solely under section 1441(a), all defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in or consent to the removal of the action.”). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

11th Circuit Affirms Bad Faith Judgement Against Primary Insurer

July 24, 2023 — Ashley Kellgren - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
In American Builders Insurance Co. v. Southern-Owners Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15386, No. 21-13496 (11th Cir. June 20, 2023), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a bad faith judgment against a primary insurer. On April 1, 2019, Ernest Guthrie fell from a roof, causing him to became paralyzed from the waist down. At the time of the accident, Guthrie was employed by his own subcontracting company and was performing work for Beck Construction. Beck Construction was insured under a general liability policy issued by American Builders and an excess policy issued by Evanston. Each of those policies provided $1 million in liability limits. Guthrie’s company was insured under a policy issued by Southern-Owners, which provided a per occurrence limit of $1 million. Under the Southern-Owners policy, Beck Construction was an additional insured and coverage was provided to Beck Construction on a primary basis. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ashley Kellgren, Traub Lieberman
Ms. Kellgren may be contacted at akellgren@tlsslaw.com

Understanding the Miller Act

February 26, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
John P. Ahlers of Ahlers & Cressman PLLC, explained who is covered by the Miller Act in regards to Federal public works projects on the firm’s blog. Ahlers stated that “[t]he Miller Act requires that all general contractors post payment bonds on contracts in excess of $25,000.00.” In his blog post, Ahlers goes over coverage and the distinction between subcontractor and supplier. Ahlers commented, “While, at first glance, it may seem fairly simple to sort out who is and who is not covered by the Miller Act payment bond, the analysis can at times be factually and legally complex. This is an area that, if faced, the contractor should seek legal advice of an experienced construction lawyer before jumping to conclusions.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

COLUMBUS OHIO BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES