What is a “Force Majeure” Clause? Do I Need one in my Contract? Three Options For Contractors, Subcontractors and Suppliers to Consider
June 20, 2022 —
William L. Porter - Porter Law GroupIn the world of the building and construction industry, the general rules of contracting are fairly simple. A supplier agrees to supply equipment or materials for a specific price and within a certain time frame, does so, and is paid an agreed sum. Likewise, contractors and subcontractors agree to build structures per plans and specifications within certain time frames and are paid accordingly. Pretty simple. But what happens when some outside event makes performance impossible or unduly expensive or substantially delayed? What happens, for example, if a ship is sitting off the coast of Long Beach for three months with equipment ordered for the project and it cannot be unloaded due to a labor shortage? What if government mandates cause factories that build needed equipment to close due to an epidemic or pandemic? What if the supply warehouse holding the equipment until it is ready for installation unexpectedly burns to the ground? What if a Russian missile blows up the factory in Ukraine where the intended equipment is being manufactured? What happens then? Who bears the financial consequence?
A properly constructed “force majeure” clause may provide the answer to these questions. The Marriam-Webster Dictionary defines “force majeure” as a literal translation from the French meaning “a superior or irresistible force.” It further defines the term as “an event or effect that cannot be reasonably anticipated or controlled.” The Oxford Dictionary defines force majeure as “unexpected circumstances, such as a war, that can be used as an excuse when they prevent somebody from doing something that is written in a contract.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Porter, Porter Law GroupMr. Porter may be contacted at
bporter@porterlaw.com
Velazquez Framing, LLC v. Cascadia Homes, Inc. (Take 2) – Pre-lien Notice for Labor Unambiguously Not Required
May 13, 2024 —
Travis Colburn - Ahlers Cressman & SleightPre-lien Notice for Labor Unambiguously Not Required.
In January 2024, almost a year after Division 2 of the Washington Court of Appeals decided Velazquez Framing, LLC v. Cascadia Homes, Inc.,1 the Washington Supreme Court, sitting en banc, reversed and remanded the matter for further proceedings.2
The relevant background facts are that Cascadia Homes, Inc. (“Cascadia”), was a general contractor and also owned the property that was the subject matter of the underlying dispute. Cascadia wished to construct a new home on the property. Cascadia hired High End Construction, LLC (“High End”) – a framing subcontractor – to provide framing for the new home. High End, in turn, hired Velazquez Framing, LLC (“Velazquez”). Velazquez did not provide Cascadia – the owner – with notice of its statutory right to claim a lien.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Travis Colburn, Ahlers Cressman & SleightMr. Colburn may be contacted at
travis.colburn@acslawyers.com
Constructive Suspension (Suspension Outside of an Express Order)
December 13, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn the federal procurement arena, there is a concept known as “constructive suspension.” Constructive suspension, while known in the federal arena, should reasonably apply to all projects when work is stopped outside of an express order to stop the work based on the law below. An unreasonable suspension is an unreasonable suspension and an express order to stop the work does not negate the effects of what really amounts to a suspension.
“Constructive suspension occurs when work is stopped absent an express order by the contracting officer and the government is found to be responsible for the work stoppage.” P.R. Burke Corp. v. U.S., 277 F.3d 1346, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The government delay must be unreasonable to support a constructive acceleration claim. Id.
“To demonstrate such a constructive suspension of work, the contractor must show that the delay (1) was for an ‘unreasonable length of time,’ (2) was proximately caused by the government’s actions, and (3) resulted in some injury to the contractor.” Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. U.S., 2001 WL 36415627, *6 (Fed.Cl. 2001) (citation omitted). “Relative to proving that the delay was directly caused by the government, the contractor must concomitantly show that it was not delayed by any concurrent cause that would have independently generated the delay during the same time period even if it does not predominate over the government’s action as the cause of the delay.” Beauchamp Const. Co. v. U.S., 14 Cl.Ct. 430, 437 (Cl.Ct. 1988).
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
Newmeyer Dillion Announces Jason Moberly Caruso As Its Newest Partner
February 01, 2021 —
Newmeyer DillionProminent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer Dillion is pleased to announce that Newport Beach attorney
Jason Moberly Caruso has been elected to partnership.
"Jason has continually shown himself to be a gifted attorney, both in his ability to expand the firm's offerings in land use, environmental law, and the firm's growing appellate practice, as well as in his exceptional approach to client service," said the firm's Managing Partner, Paul Tetzloff. "His positive presence is felt wherever he goes, and we're honored to have him join the firm's partnership."
Caruso focuses his practice on various aspects of "contaminated sites" environmental legal work, complex litigation, and appellate matters. He counsels and represents current and former facility owners and operators in state and federal proceedings, administrative actions, cost recovery cases, and non-litigation site remediation situations. The litigated matters frequently involve the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and its parallel California Hazardous Substances Account Act (HSSA). When clients must go to court, Caruso applies his significant experience in complex state and federal litigation over a broad range of substantive areas, including environmental, business, real estate, construction, and products liability. His experience extends from pre-litigation through trial and post-trial proceedings.
Caruso's practice also includes a special emphasis on appellate matters. Caruso has briefed and argued multiple appeals in the state and federal courts, obtaining victories for clients in general appellate and extraordinary writ proceedings. Caruso has prosecuted and defended appeals involving the firm's existing cases and clients, but has also been engaged by outside clients after the conclusion of trial court proceedings.
An active member of the community, Caruso serves as a mock trial attorney coach for University High School through the Constitutional Rights Foundation Orange County (CRF-OC) and as a member of CRF-OC's Board of Directors. He also serves as a member and secretary of the Orange County Bar Association's Professionalism & Ethics Committee, and is a member of the executive committee of the William P. Gray Legion Lex Inn of Court. Caruso is also committed to pro bono work, endeavoring always to be representing at least one pro bono client via Orange County's Public Law Center.
Caruso earned his B.A., cum laude, from the University of Southern California, and his J.D., cum laude, from the University of California, Hastings College of Law.
About Newmeyer Dillion
For 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that achieve client objectives in diverse industries. With over 65 attorneys working as a cohesive team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, environmental/land use, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers holistic and integrated legal services tailored to propel each client's operations, growth, and profits. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California and Nevada, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
What is the Implied Warranty of Habitability?
October 02, 2018 —
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’MearaThe implied warranty of habitability plays an important role in our understanding of the relationship between tenant and landlord; it helps to define the parameters and requirements of contracts between tenant and the owner. In doing so, the implied warranty of habitability is meant to ensure that a home or rental unit is in a livable condition. In this article, we’ll take a look at what the warranty of habitability is, how it developed, and what differentiates the warranty of habitability from the previous landlord-tenant law.
Background of the Implied Warranty of Habitability
When someone hears about the warranty of habitability, their first question is usually “what is the implied warranty of habitability?” This is understandable, given that the implied warranty of habitability isn’t exactly well known. Most renters have probably never heard of the implied warranty of habitability, despite the fact that it provides important safeguards for tenant’s rights. In order to gain a better understanding of what the implied warranty of habitability is, it is helpful to understand what state of affairs existed prior to the adoption of an implied warranty of habitability.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara
Surety's Settlement Without Principal's Consent Is Not Bad Faith
January 05, 2017 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Sixth Circuit found that the surety did not act in bad faith when it settled the general contractor's claims against the State of Michigan over delays on a construction project. Great Am. Ins. Co. v. E.L. Bailey & Co., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 20018 (6th Cir. Nov. 7, 2016).
Bailey, the general contractor, entered into a surety agreement under which Great American would issue surety bonds on behalf of Bailey in the construction of a kitchen at a State prison. Bailey, the principal, paid Great American (GAIC), the surety, to provide bonds guaranteeing contract performance to the State, the obligee or owner. GAIC provided a performance bond, guaranteeing performance of the contract work, and a payment bond, guaranteeing payments to subcontractors and suppliers. Under the agreement, Bailey would indemnify GAIC for all payments or other expenses GAIC incurred due on either bond, and would pay upon demand collateral in an amount to be determined by GAIC. In the event of an alleged breach by Bailey, the agreement assigned to GAIC all Bailey's rights under its contract with the State and well as all its claims against any party.
Bailey never finalized completion, and GAIC reached agreement with the State for another contractor to complete the project.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Not Everything is a Pollutant: A Summary of Recent Cases Supporting a Common Sense and Narrow Interpretation of the CGL's Pollution Exclusion
October 26, 2020 —
Philip B. Wilusz & Jeffrey J. Vita - Saxe Doernberger & VitaThose of us who suffered through law school are familiar with the argument that there are fundamental rules applicable to contract interpretation and that a certain contract language interpretation would “swallow the rule.” However, insurance companies have long advocated for an interpretation of the CGL policy’s pollution exclusion that would “swallow the coverage” that the insureds thought they were purchasing. Insurers have successfully argued in several states that the pollution exclusion’s definition of “pollutant” should be read literally, and be applied to any “solid, liquid, gaseous, or thermal irritant or contaminant including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals, and waste.” As anyone with children can attest to, the range of items and substances that can be considered an “irritant” is limitless. The logical extent of the insurer’s interpretation brings to mind the high school student who, for his science fair project, convinced his fellow students to ban “dihydrogen monoxide.”1 Citing evidence such as the fact that everyone who has ever died was found to have consumed “dihydrogen monoxide,” he convinced them of the dangers of . . . water. Similarly, an overly expansive reading of the definition of “pollutant” could lead to the absurd result of even applying it to ubiquitous harmless substances such as water. The pollution exclusion, therefore, has run amok in many states and has allowed insurers to avoid liability for otherwise covered claims.
Fortunately, insureds in many states have successfully argued that the pollution exclusion is subject to a more limited interpretation based on several different theories. For example, some courts have agreed that the pollution exclusion, as initially introduced by the insurance industry, should be limited to instances of traditional environmental pollution. Others have held that the exclusion is ambiguous as to its interpretation. The reasonable expectations of the insureds do not support a broad reading of the defined term “pollutant.” Below, this article addresses a number of recent decisions that have adopted a pro policyholder interpretation of the pollution exclusion. As with most insurance coverage issues, choice of law clearly matters.
Reprinted courtesy of
Philip B. Wilusz, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and
Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Wilusz may be contacted at pbw@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Vita may be contacted at jjv@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Texas LGI Homes Goes After First-Time Homeowners
May 13, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to Big Builder, while many consumers have “gone to rentals…as the homeownership rate fell,” that hasn’t stopped Texas-based builder LGI Homes from marketing to the entry-level buyer: “We do not believe that we’re becoming a renter society,” Eric Lipar, LGI CEO told Big Builder. “We believe there is a need and a desire for homeownership.”
“The real growth will be powered by an aggressive sales and marketing operation that aims to pull renters out of their apartments (or single-family rentals) and into LGI homes,” reported Big Builder. “So far this pitch has worked in Texas (Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and Austin), in addition to Phoenix and Tampa, Fla.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
