More Clear, But Not Yet Crystal: Virginia Amends its Prompt Payment Law and Legislation Banning “Pay-If-Paid Clauses in Construction Contracts Effective July 1, 2023
November 16, 2023 —
Hanna Lee Blake - ConsensusDocsThe Virginia General Assembly has joined a minority of jurisdictions that ban pay-if-paid clauses in construction contracts on public and private projects. Senate Bill 550 went into effect applying to contracts executed after January 1, 2023, and most recently has been amended effective July 1, 2023. This update highlights the recent amendments to Virginia’s prohibition against pay-if-paid provisions, of which owners and contractors should be aware to ensure that their contracts comply with developing law in the Commonwealth.
Recap on Senate Bill 550
On April 27, 2022, the Virginia General Assembly passed Senate Bill 550, which amended Virginia Code §§ 2.2-4354 and 11-4.6, which govern both public and private sector contracts. In short, SB 550 (as the bill is commonly known) prohibited pay-if-paid clauses, and established fixed deadlines for the payment of invoices on private projects. Previously, Virginia’s Prompt Payment Act only applied to public projects.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hanna Lee Blake, Watt TiederMs. Blake may be contacted at
hblake@watttieder.com
Texas Law Bars Coverage under Homeowner’s Policy for Mold Damage
July 13, 2011 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiAlthough the insurer paid for some of the mold damage at the insured’s home, the Fifth Circuit eventually determined the homeowner’s policy did not cover such damage. Rooters v. State Farm Lloyds, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 12306 (5th Cir. June 15, 2011).
The policy excluded loss caused by hail to personal property unless the direct force of wind or hail made an opening in the roof allowing rain to enter. Further, the policy excluded loss caused by mold or other fungi.
In 1999, hail and rain caused water damage to the roof and interior of the residence. State Farm paid $19,000 to repair the roof. Another $1,800 was paid for repairs to the interior of the building. In 2002, the insured noticed black mold. State Farm issued an additional check for $4,402 for mold abatement.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2020 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars
November 16, 2020 —
Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman is pleased to announce that Super Lawyers has named nineteen of our attorneys as 2020 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars.
Super Lawyers selects attorneys using a multiphase selection process in which nominations and evaluations are combined with independent research. Each candidate is evaluated on 12 indicators of peer recognition and professional achievement. Selections are made on an annual, state-by-state basis. The objective is to create a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of outstanding attorneys that can be used as a resource for attorneys and consumers searching for legal counsel.
The Super Lawyers designation recognizes the top 5% of attorneys in the U.S. and the Rising Stars designation recognizes the top 2.5% of attorneys in the U.S. under the age of forty, as chosen by their peers and through independent research within their practice area.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman
Attorney Risks Disqualification If After Receiving Presumptively Privileged Communication Fails to Notify Privilege Holder and Uses Document Pending Privilege Determination by Court
May 03, 2017 —
David W. Evans & Stephen J. Squillario - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn McDermott Will & Emery LLP v. Superior Court (4/18/2017 – No. G053623), the Fourth Appellate District, in a 2-1 decision, considered two distinct issues: 1. Whether the attorney-client privilege for a confidential e-mail communication between a client and his attorney had been waived by the client’s inadvertent disclosure of the communication to a third party; and 2. Whether the opposing counsel’s failure to respect the claimed privilege as to the inadvertently produced document or to follow the rules for handling such documents set forth in State Compensation Ins. Fund v WPS, Inc. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 644 (State Fund) supported the trial court’s disqualification of counsel and his law firm.
This case arose from an intra-family dispute over the deceased matriarch’s substantial investment holdings, a related probate matter, and two subsequent legal malpractice actions. The opinion sets forth in great detail the facts surrounding the claimed inadvertent disclosure by the client (i.e., the privilege holder) of the subject attorney-client e-mail communication, its subsequent dissemination to, and use by, the client’s family members, the ultimate receipt and review by an opposing family member’s counsel, the efforts by the client’s counsel to assert the privilege and “claw-back” the document, and in the face of this privilege claim, the opposing counsel’s extensive use of the document during discovery, including depositions, in the legal malpractice actions. The opposing counsel, who had received the subject document from his own client, had independently concluded that the clearly privileged document lost its privileged status, believing that the privilege had been waived either because of disclosure to third parties or that his obligation to return inadvertently disclosed documents only applied to those produced in litigation during discovery. As a result, the opposing counsel refused all demands for the return or destruction of the document and insisted upon continuing to use it. This dispute finally came to a head over two years after the client’s disclosure in the context of the client’s motion for a judicial determination that the document was privileged (which the trial court granted) and then a motion to disqualify the opposing counsel (which the trial court also granted); both decisions were eventually reviewed by the appellate court.
Reprinted courtesy of
David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com
Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Arbitration Clause Found Ambiguous in Construction Defect Case
October 28, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe California Court of Appeals ruled on September 28 in the case of Burch v. Premier Homes. Ms. Burch bought a home after negotiating various addendums to the contract. The contract was a standard California Association of Realtors contract to which both the buyer and seller made additions. At issue in this case was paragraph 17 of the contract which included that “Buyer and Seller agree that any dispute or claim in Law or equity arising between them out of this Agreement or resulting transaction, which is not settled through mediation, shall be decided by neutral, binding arbitration.”
The seller/defendant’s Addendum 2 “included provisions relating to the arbitration of disputes that may arise.” Ms. Burch’s realtor, Lisa Morrin, told Burch that “she had never seen a proposed contractual provision that would require a home buyer to agree to arbitrate with a builder over construction defects.” Ms. Burch told Morrin that she did not want to buy the property if she would have to give up her rights under California law.
As part of Addendum 2, the buyer had to buy a warranty from the Home Buyers Warranty Corporation. The sale was held up for a while, as Ms. Burch waited for a copy of the warranty. When she received it, she took further exception to Addendum 2. Scott Warren of Premier Homes said he could not sell the property without Addendum 2. Ms. Burch told her realtor that despite the claims made by Mr. Warren that this was for her benefit, she felt it was more to the benefit of Premier Homes. Don Aberbrook of HBW agreed to the clause, contained in the final sentence of Addendum 2, being struck.
Subsequent to buying the home, Burch submitted a claim concerning construction defects. HBW denied the claim and Burch began an action against the defendants. Premier filed a motion to compel arbitration which Burch opposed.
The trial court ruled that the striking out of the arbitration clause at the end of Addendum 2 “created a conflict with respect to the parties’ intent as to the scope of arbitration.” The trial court found that “the parties’ intention was to preserve Burch’s right to make state law claims including her right to a jury trial for any non-warranty claims against the builder.”
The appeals court in their ruling looked at the standard of review and concluded that the purchase agreement was ambiguous and that extrinsic evidence was required to resolve that ambiguity. As the contract contained contradictory provisions as to whether or not arbitration was required, it was necessary for the trial court to examine these claims. The appeals court found that the evidence supported the conclusions of the trial court.
Finally, the appeals court found that “there was no valid agreement to arbitrate disputes.” The court noted that arbitration can only happen by mutual consent and “it is clear that Burch did not enter into an agreement to arbitrate any construction defect disputes she might have.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New World to Demolish Luxury Hong Kong Towers in Major Setback
August 04, 2021 —
Shawna Kwan - BloombergNew World Development Co. will demolish two towers at Hong Kong’s most popular housing development in decades and compensate buyers after finding unexpected defects, in a major setback for the real estate company.
The developer will pull down and rebuild the existing floors of Towers 1 and 8 at its Pavilia Farm III project near Tai Wai station after it found the concrete strength in some areas did not meet design requirements, the Hong Kong-based company said in a statement.
Shares of New World fell as much as 4.8% Thursday in Hong Kong, the most in more than seven months, before recovering to close 3.9% lower.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Shawna Kwan, Bloomberg
Federal Court of Appeals Signals an End to Project Labor Agreement Requirements Linked to Development Tax Credits
October 20, 2016 —
Gregory R. Begg & Aaron C. Schlesinger – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.What Action Should Owners, Developers and Contractors Take in Anticipation of Successful Challenges to PLA Requirements?
Recently, a federal court in New Jersey issued a decision which very well may invalidate all Project Labor Agreements (“PLA’s”) entered into as a condition to receipt of tax incentives for private development. Tax incentives utilized to promote private development are different, according to the court, than typical public works projects where PLA requirements have generally been held valid. Owners, developers, contractors and governmental entities must assess the consequences of this decision upon contracts already and to be awarded in the future where tax benefits may be linked to a PLA requirement.
In 1993, in what has become known as the Boston Harbor Case, the United States Supreme Court held that state and local governmental entities may condition the award of public works contracts on the contractor’s agreement to enter into PLA’s.
That decision has been followed nationwide since then to uphold the validity of various state and local law bidding conditions requiring successful bidders to negotiate and enter into project labor agreements as a condition to the award of public works contracts. The rationale is that when the government, like any other private party, is participating in an economic market, it may exercise its discretion in setting terms and conditions it believes best suit its interests in the efficient procurement of goods and services in that market. Therefore, a PLA requirement by a governmental entity engaged in market activity is no more or less valid than a PLA requirement on a purely private project.
Reprinted courtesy of
Gregory R. Begg, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Begg may be contacted at gbegg@pecklaw.com
Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Homeowners Must Comply with Arbitration over Construction Defects
January 06, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe California Court of Appeals has upheld a decision by the Superior Court of Kern County that homeowners must comply with arbitration procedures in their construction defect claim. The California Court of Appeals ruled on December 14 in the case of Baeza v. Superior Court of Kern County, denying the plaintiff’s petition that the trial court vacate its order.
The plaintiffs in the case are homeowners in various developments built by Castle & Cook. The homes were sold with a contract that provided for “nonadversarial prelitigation procedures, including mediation, and judicial reference.” The homeowners made defect claims and argued that Castle & Cooke failed to comply with statutory disclosure requirements and that some of the contracts violate related statutes.
The appeals court found that there was no ground for appeal of the lower court’s order to continue with prelitigation procedures. The court noted that the plaintiffs could not seek a review of the mediation until a judgment was issued, but that then the issue would be moot. The court felt that there were issues presented that needed clarification, and so they reviewed this case. This was cleared for publication.
The court considered the intent of the legislature in passing the Right to Repair Act, noting that “under the statutory scheme, the builder has the option of contracting for an alternative nonadversarial prelitigation procedure,” as established in Chapter 4. The court noted that Chapter 4 “contains no specifics regarding what provisions the alternative nonadversarial contractual provisions may or must include.”
The plaintiffs contended that the builder was in violation of the standards set out in Section 912, however the court responded that these sections set out one set of procedures, but they concluded that “if the Legislature had intended the section 912 disclosure provisions…it could have made the requirements applicable to all builders by locating them in a section outside Chapter 4.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
