Guidance for Construction Leaders: How Is the Americans With Disabilities Act Applied During the Pandemic?
September 28, 2020 —
Molly Gwin - Construction ExecutiveWith the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous cities and states have mandated infection control practices, including social distancing, mask requirements and sanitization of work areas and tools. As a result, many construction leaders now have questions as to how government guidance related to COVID-19 interacts with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). For example, can a project manager enforce a mask mandate when a construction worker presents a doctor’s excuse noting breathing difficulties? Or, what if the employer is aware that an individual presents a higher risk for severe illness because of an underlying health condition, but that employee does not request an accommodation?
Thankfully, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently published guidance relating to these requests that construction leaders can reference. While our goal is to summarize that guidance and provide practical advice for the construction sector, this article does not substitute for situation specific legal counsel.
SCENARIO 1: AN EMPLOYEE REFUSES TO WEAR A MASK AND PRODUCES A DOCTOR’S NOTE CITING BREATHING DIFFICULTIES. MUST THE EMPLOYER ACCOMMODATE SUCH A REQUEST?
Potentially. Since the request to not wear a mask is considered an accommodation under the ADA, the employer can still require a doctor’s note when considering the accommodation.
Reprinted courtesy of
Molly Gwin, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ms. Gwin may be contacted at
mgwin@isaacwiles.com
Construction in Indian Country – What You Need To Know About Sovereign Immunity
July 22, 2019 —
Edward J. Hermes - Snell & Wilmer Under Construction BlogThere are many legal issues to consider when bidding on and building projects in American Indian Country. Which labor and employment laws apply? Are there contracting or hiring preferences that apply? Do the Prompt Pay Act and other state laws apply? Can I bring a lawsuit to enforce the contract and, if so, where would I file suit? This article addresses the final question, which is often the most important question when contracting with a tribal entity.
Many of the construction projects in American Indian Country are with tribes or entities wholly owned or by a tribe, such as housing authorities, casinos, hospitals, schools or other economic enterprises. Like the state and federal government, tribes (and their tribally—owned enterprises) enjoy sovereign immunity from any lawsuit, meaning they cannot be sued unless the tribe expressly agrees to waive its sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity poses a unique issue for contractors that does not typically arise in other projects, but it need not be a deterrent to doing business with tribes. It is usually in the best interest of both the contractor and tribe to negotiate an acceptable waiver of sovereign immunity. Absent such a waiver, the tribe or tribal entity cannot be sued and the resulting forfeiture of remedies can be devastating for the contractor.
To waive sovereign immunity, the tribe must make it clear in the contract that it can be sued in a specific jurisdiction. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi tribe of Okla., 498 U.S. 505, 509 (1991). It does not matter whether the tribe is operating on or off its lands—if there is no express contractual waiver of sovereign immunity, a contractor will have no recourse in the event of non-payment or other breach of contract. See Kiowa tribe of Okla. v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 118 S.Ct. 1700, 140 L.Ed.2d 981 (1998).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Edward J. Hermes, Snell & WilmerMr. Hermes may be contacted at
ehermes@swlaw.com
Practical Pointers for Change Orders on Commercial Construction Contracts
December 31, 2014 —
John E. Bowerbank - Newmeyer & DillionConstruction projects pose unique challenges, including keeping costs within budget, meeting project deadlines, and coordinating the work of numerous contractors and subcontractors in the wake of inevitable design revisions and changes to the plans. Anticipating potential project challenges and negotiating contract provisions before commencing work on a project is critical for all parties. Careful planning should reduce the number of contract disputes. This, in turn, can facilitate the completion of a project within budget and on schedule.
“Changes” Clauses in Construction Contracts
Most commercial construction contracts have a clause addressing changes to the contract. A “changes” clause typically requires the mutual agreement of the parties on the scope of any modifications to the contract, as well as the effect on the contract price and timeframe for the work to be performed. This results in what is generally referred to as a “change order.” Many projects have a large number of change orders, which can result in significant cost overruns and delays to the project if the contract contains a complicated change order process. Therefore, in order to minimize cost overruns and project delays, it is crucial to keep the change order process as simplified and streamlined as possible.
In the most basic terms, change orders memorialize modifications to the original contract, and typically alter the contract's price, scope of work, and/or completion dates. A typical change order is a written document prepared by the owner or its design professional, and signed by the owner, design professional, and affected contractors and subcontractors. An executed change order indicates the parties’ agreement as to what changes are taking place, including approval for additional costs and schedule impacts.
While the reasons for change orders and the parties initiating them may vary, all change orders have one feature in common. Effective change orders alter the original contract and become part of the contract. Therefore, from a legal standpoint, change orders must be approached with the same caution and forethought as the original contract.
Practice Pointers for Change Orders
In light of the foregoing, some practice pointers for change orders in commercial construction contracts are as follows:
- Carefully Negotiate and Draft Change Order Provisions in the Original Contract.
A carefully negotiated and drafted “changes” clause that accounts for “unexpected circumstances” or “hidden conditions” can protect the parties from downstream costly disputes.
- Immediately Address Changes by Following the Change Order Process, Including Obtaining Necessary Signatures.
Regardless if you are an owner, general contractor or subcontractor, you should address any proposed change order immediately. Even if a decision maker gives “verbal” approval to go ahead with changed work, the work should not proceed without following the change order process in the original contract. This includes making sure to obtain any necessary signatures for the change order, if at all possible.
- Analyze the Plans and Specifications to Determine Whether “Changes” are Within the Scope of the Original Contract, or Whether They are Extra Work.
Prior to entering an original contract, it is imperative that the parties review the plans and specifications for ambiguities regarding work included in the original contract, versus potential extra work that would require a change order. This is important because a careful review of the plans and specifications sometimes reveals that work believed to be a change order is, in fact, original work, or vice versa.
- Make Sure Requests and Approvals for Change Orders are Done by an Authorized Representative.
When a party requests or gives its approval to a change order, it is important to confirm the request or approval came from an authorized representative.
- Avoid Vague and Open-Ended Change Orders.
Indeed, the vaguer a change order, the more likely it can lead to a dispute. Vague and open-ended change orders, including change orders that provide for payment on a time and materials basis, can be difficult for an owner to budget and schedule. This can lead to disputes as to cost and/or time extensions.
- Oral Assurances for Payment Without a Signed Change Order May Not Be Recoverable.
When a party provides verbal assurances to another party for extra work without following the change order process, there is a much higher likelihood that disputes will occur. Although there is case law that may allow a contractor to recover for extra work in private contracts based on oral promises, the parties should avoid placing themselves in such a legal position. Notably, in public contracts, a contractor may not be able to recover for any extra work without a signed changed order, even with verbal assurances of payment from the owner.
About the Author:
John E. Bowerbank, Newmeyer & Dillion
Mr. Bowerbank is a partner in the Newport Beach office and practices in the areas of business, insurance, real estate, and construction litigation. You can reach John at john.bowerbank@ndlf.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hong Kong Property Tycoon Makes $533 Million Bet on Solar
April 02, 2014 —
Ehren Goossens and Benjamin Haas - Bloomberg NewsA Hong Kong real-estate tycoon has spent the past year accumulating stakes in failing solar companies, piecing together what may become the biggest collection of photovoltaic factories in the world.
Zheng Jianming, also known in Cantonese as Cheng Kin Ming, has spent or pledged about $533 million to buy assets that at their peak were worth almost $20 billion, according to regulatory filings in the U.S. and Hong Kong, where he has a home and office.
The transactions, if completed, would transform Zheng, a newcomer to the solar industry, into one of its most powerful leaders. Another Zheng solar investment in 2012, a 30 percent stake in Shunfeng Photovoltaic International Ltd. (1165), has surged more than 2,900 percent and is now worth more than $745 million.
Mr. Goossens may be contacted at egoossens1@bloomberg.net; Mr. Haas may be contacted at bhaas7@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ehren Goossens and Benjamin Haas, Bloomberg News
Bad Faith and a Partial Summary Judgment in Seattle Construction Defect Case
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe US District Court of Washington has issued a ruling in the case of Ledcor Industries v. Virginia Surety Company, Inc. Ledcor was the builder of a mixed-use real estate project in Seattle called the Adelaide Project. Ledcor purchased an insurance policy from Virginia Surety covering the project. After the completion of the project, Ledcor received complaints of construction defects from the homeowners, which they forwarded to Virginia Surety.
Virginia Surety denied coverage on several grounds. Absent any lawsuit, Virginia claimed that there was “not yet any duty to defend or indemnify.” Further, as the policy commenced ten days after work on the project was substantially completed, Virginia cited a provision in the policy that excluded coverage for damage that occurred before the policy began. As problems included water intrusion, Virginia noted an exclusion for fungal damage. Finally, Virginia noted that it was not clear whether damage was due to Ledcor’s own actions.
The homeowners sued over the construction defects. Ledcor settled these suits before trial. In this, they were defended by, and settlements were paid by American Home, another of Ledcor’s insurers. Ledcor claims that Virginia Surety acted in bad faith by denying coverage and by its failure to investigate the ongoing nature of the work at the project.
The judge determined that Virginia Surety acted in bad faith when it invoked the fungus exclusion. Virginia noted that fungal damage “‘would have been’ referenced in the list of construction defects,” however, the HOAs claimed only “water stains” and “water damage,” and made no mention of mold or fungus. The court found that Virginia Surety “was not entitled to deny coverage simply because it may have suspected that mold or fungus damage existed.” The court noted that further proceedings would be needed to determine what portion of the settlement Virginia is obligated to pay.
The court found that there were matters of fact to be determined on the further issues in the case. The judge wrote that although Virginia acted in bad faith in invoking the fungus exclusion, it still had to be determined if they were in breach of contract by failing to defend Ledcor. Ledcor still needs to show that the damages claimed by the HOA were due to work actually covered by Virginia Surety.
Ledcor made an additional claim that Virginia Surety violated Washington’s laws concerning the insurance industry. Here, the court noted that the improper exclusion for fungus issues “constitutes a per se unfair trade practice.” Six other claims were made under this law. The court found that Virginia Surety did not misrepresent “pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions.” It also issued its denial letter promptly, satisfying the fifth provision. However, Virginia Surety did violate the second provision, in that it failed “to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly upon communications with respect to claims.” Two other issues could not be determined.
Judge Martinez’s decision granted a summary judgment to Ledcor on the issue of bad faith. An additional summary judgment was granted that Virginia Surety violated Washington’s Insurance Fair Conduct Act. Judge Martinez did not grant summary judgment on any of the other issues Ledcor raised.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A Teaming Agreement is Still a Contract (or, Be Careful with Agreements to Agree)
November 18, 2019 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsI have discussed teaming agreements in this past here at Construction Law Musings. These agreements are most typically where one of two entities meets a contracting requirement but may not have the capacity to fulfill a contract on its own so brings in another entity to assist. However, these agreements are contracts and are treated as such here in Virginia with all of the law of contracts behind them.
One illustrative case occurred here in Virginia and was decided by the Virginia Supreme Court. That case is CGI Fed. Inc. v. FCi Fed. Inc. While this is not strictly a “construction” case, it helps lay out some of the pitfalls of teaming agreements in general.
In this case, the parties entered into a fairly typical small business (FCI) Big Business (CGI) teaming arrangement for the processing of visas for the State Department. The parties negotiated the workshare percentage (read payment percentage) should FCI get the work and the teaming agreement set out a framework for the negotiation of a subcontract between FCI, the proposed general contractor, and CGI, the proposed subcontractor. After a while working together, FCI submitted a proposal to the State Department and as part of the negotiations of this proposal, the work percentage for CGI was lowered in exchange for some management positions for CGI relative to the work by amendment to the original teaming agreement. However, one day later FCI submitted a proposal to the State Department that not only didn’t include the management positions, but further lowered CGI’s workshare.
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
Loss Ensuing from Alleged Faulty Workmanship is Covered
July 19, 2017 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court found that under Montana law, water damage resulting from alleged faulty workmanship in repairing the insured's roof was covered. Leep v. Trinity Universal Ins Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86759 (D. Mont. June 6, 2017).
The insured's property was damaged in a hail storm. The insured contracted with Sprauge to repair the hail damage. Sprauge tore off and replaced roof lining and shingles. Sprague replaced a vent cap and tubes, but did not replace any vent piping or vents. The contract between the insured and Sprauge provided it was the owners' responsibility to check the exhaust vents for all furnaces and water heaters after the roofing project was completed.
Subsequent to the repairs, water was found dripping from a bathroom fan. Moisture was also found on the second story emanating from the ceiling. Finally, in the attic, the furnace vent piping was disconnected and the furnace exhaust was venting into the attic.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Analysis of the “owned property exclusion” under Panico v. State Farm
March 08, 2011 —
Colorado Construction LitigationThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently concluded that the “owned property exclusion” applied to bar coverage for claims of property damage. See Panico v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 2011 WL 322830 (10th Cir. 2011). In Panico, the plaintiffs sold property in Aspen, Colorado to the Taylors, who sued the Panicos upon discovering the property was not as represented. After refusing to defend, the Panicos sued State Farm for breach of contract. The district court concluded that the Taylors’ claims were not covered under the Panicos insurance policies and granted summary judgment in State Farm’s favor. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
Mr. Panico built the house on the property as well as several additions to the house. As the Taylors lived in Florida, they primarily relied on their real estate agent and an inspector to ensure the property was acceptable. According to their complaint, the Taylors discovered that the house was “virtually uninhabitable due to serious design and construction defects, mold, rodents, and drainage problems.” Id. at *1. In their complaint, the Taylors asserted three claims for relief against the Panicos based upon misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment about the condition of the property.
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Heather M. Anderson of Higgins, Hopkins, McClain & Roswell, LLP. Ms Anderson can be contacted at anderson@hhmrlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
