Force Majeure Under the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic
March 08, 2021 —
Lindsay T. Watkins - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCAs COVID-19 disrupts work and life as we know it, the question many contractors have is what protections are available against the inevitable project impacts and delays? Generally, construction contracts require a contractor to timely perform work until project completion or potentially face damages (liquidated or actual) and possible termination. When events occur, however, that are beyond our control (such as a national pandemic), it is important to review and understand what contract provisions or avenues are available for potential relief.
1.
Review Your Contract For A Force Majeure Provision.
A
“force majeure” contract provision is commonly included in construction contracts, service agreements, purchase orders, etc. It typically covers events or conditions that can be neither anticipated nor controlled. These provisions, however, will vary greatly from contract to contract and may not include the language “force majeure” but rather may be included in general delay or impact clauses. For example, some common provisions include:
- Washington State Department of Transportation Clause (2018 Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction): The Contractor shall rebuild, repair, restore, and make good all damages to any portion of the permanent or temporary Work occurring before the Physical Completion Date and shall bear all the expense to do so, except damage to the permanent Work caused by: (a) acts of God, such as earthquake, floods, or other cataclysmic phenomenon of nature, or (b) acts of the public enemy or of governmental authorities; or (c) slides in cases where Section 2-03.3(11) is applicable; Provided, however, that these exceptions shall not apply should damages result from the Contractor’s failure to take reasonable precautions or to exercise sound engineering and construction practices in conducting the Work.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lindsay T. Watkins, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMs. Watkins may be contacted at
Lindsay.Watkins@acslawyers.com
Arizona Court of Appeals Upholds Judgment on behalf of Homeowners against Del Webb Communities for Homes Riddled with Construction Defects
February 26, 2015 —
Law Offices of Kasdan Weber Turner LLPARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS UPHOLDS LOWER COURT DECISION APPROVING $13,703,039 JUDGMENT ON BEHALF OF 460 SUN CITY GRAND HOMEOWNERS AGAINST DEL WEBB COMMUNITIES, INC., A SUBSIDIARY OF PULTEGROUP, INC., FOR HOMES RIDDLED WITH CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS
--
In a separate case, an Arizona Superior Court awards $10,619,640 to another 279 Sun City Grand homeowners who sued Del Webb over construction defects, which Del Webb has appealed--
PHOENIX, Arizona – The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, [on Tuesday] issued a unanimous ruling upholding a lower court decision awarding $13,703,039 to 460 Sun City Grand homeowners who sued developer Del Webb Communities, Inc., a subsidiary of PulteGroup, Inc., for numerous construction defects that severely damaged the plaintiffs’ homes. Sun City Grand is an age-restricted community located in Surprise.
In a separate case, an Arizona Superior Court awarded $10,619,640 to another group of 279 Sun City Grand homeowners for multiple construction defects in their homes.
Stephen Weber, the managing partner in the Phoenix office of Kasdan Weber Turner LLP, which represents the homeowners, said that the case is based on construction defects that damaged the plaintiffs’ homes and took several years to resolve. The defects include defective windows, poorly installed stucco, expansive soil conditions that resulted in cracking of drywall, and deteriorating concrete foundation systems, among other problems.
“Del Webb placed an arbitration clause in the sales contracts and the homeowners honored it. The binding arbitration that includes the owners of 460 homes in Sun City Grand was completed in late 2011 when the arbitration panel unanimously awarded the homeowners $13,703,039. Del Webb then challenged the award in Superior Court and the Superior Court confirmed the award in full,” Weber explained. “Del Webb did not like the Superior Court ruling either and challenged it in the Court of Appeals. And now three justices of the Arizona Court of Appeals have unanimously affirmed the Superior Court order and the arbitration award stands. Now they will have the funds to repair their homes, restore their value, and live in comfort,” Weber said.
The $13,703,309 award includes amounts for home repairs, attorney fees, expert fees, court costs and pre-judgment interest. An additional $1,401,236 in post-judgment interest also accrued while the case was on appeal. The other construction defect case that awarded $10,619,640 to homeowners was not covered by binding arbitration.
Del Webb has also appealed that case which will now go through the appeals process. That could take two to three years and again the homeowners will have to wait for the final judgment, Weber noted.
Ken Kasdan, senior and managing partner of the Kasdan Weber Turner firm and one of the nation’s leading experts on construction defect litigation, said the defects are egregious. “The multiple defects rob them of pride of ownership,” he said. “A home is something that a homeowner wants to be proud of. Unfortunately, defective workmanship and poor construction have caused damage to the homes. Now these homes can be repaired and the homeowners will no longer have to deal with defective windows and cracked slabs. Developers need to understand that arbitration awards are final and binding,” Kasdan noted.
The Kasdan Weber Turner law firm has offices in Phoenix, Arizona and in Irvine, California and Walnut Creek, California. The firm represents property owners in major construction defect litigation. For more information on the firm, visit www.kasdancdlaw.com. Stephen Weber may be contacted at (602) 224-7800.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Litigation Roundup: “Ursinus is Cleared!”
March 11, 2024 —
Daniel Lund III - LexologyUrsinus University in Pennsylvania – a “private, nonprofit liberal arts college” – funded a construction project for a new building utilizing monies loaned by the Montgomery County Health and Higher Education Authority, a public economic development authority “formed by the Board of County Commissioners… authorized to issue bonds relative to projects for eligible educational institution such as Ursinus.”
Loans up to the amount of $23,000,000 became available to the University, and construction proceeded using the loans as construction funds. At issue: whether a project was to be considered publicly funded project such that prevailing wage rates were required to be paid. IBEW filed a related grievance with the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry’s Bureau of Labor Law Compliance, which was refused by the Bureau, on the basis that because work was “financed completely by loans from the Authority, which Ursinus was required to repay in their entirety, the Project was ultimately funded through private sources and exempt from coverage under the [Pennsylvania Prevailing Wage Act].” A grievance to the Prevailing Wage Appeals Board ensued, and the Board took a different position.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
New Jersey Appellate Decision Reminds Bid Protestors to Take Caution When Determining Where to File an Action
March 13, 2023 —
Brian Glicos & Nicholas J. Zaita - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.On February 21, 2023, the New Jersey Appellate Division held that University Hospital is not a “state administrative agency” and, therefore, the Appellate Division does not have original jurisdiction to determine the merits of an action commenced by an unsuccessful bidder to challenge the award of a contract. In re Protest of Contract for Retail Pharmacy Design, Constr., Start-up & Operation, Request for Proposal No. UH-P20-006, A-1667-20, 2023 WL 2125002 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Feb. 21, 2023).
Pursuant to Rule 2:2-3(a)(2) of New Jersey’s Rules of Court, final decisions or actions of any state administrative agency or officer may be appealed directly to the Appellate Division as of right. Accordingly, where an unsuccessful bidder chooses to challenge the award of a contract issued by, for example, the New Jersey Department of Transportation, the unsuccessful bidder must file its action directly with the Appellate Division. On the other hand, where an unsuccessful bidder wishes to challenge a contract award made by a local municipality (among a slew of other public entities), the Superior Court Law Division maintains original jurisdiction over the dispute.
Reprinted courtesy of
Brian Glicos, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Nicholas J. Zaita, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Glicos may be contacted at bglicos@pecklaw.com
Mr. Zaita may be contacted at nzaita@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Colorado Passes Compromise Bill on Construction Defects
May 03, 2017 —
Jesse Witt - The Witt Law FirmAfter four failed attempts, Colorado legislators have finally reached a compromise on construction defect legislation.
This afternoon, HB17-1279 gained unanimous approval from the House Committee on State, Veterans, and Military Affairs. The bill is expected to pass both chambers easily and be signed into law by Governor John Hickenlooper.
Proponents say that a bill is needed spur more condominium construction in the state. They contend that homebuilders have been reluctant to construct multifamily projects in recent years based on a perceived fear that small groups of homeowners can file lawsuits in the name of their community associations without adequate the consent of other members. A 2013 study found that quality control and insurance costs only reduce homebuilder profits by a small amount, but concerns about litigation have nevertheless prompted some construction professionals to focus on constructing apartments and other products.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jesse Howard Witt, Acerbic Witt
Mr. Witt may be contacted at www.witt.law
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Builder Waits too Long to Dispute Contract in Construction Defect Claim
May 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Louisiana Court of Appeals has affirmed the lower court’s judgment in the case of Richard v. Alleman. The Richards initiated this lawsuit under Louisiana’s New Home Warranty Act, claiming that they had entered into a construction contract with Mr. Alleman and that they quickly found that his materials and methods had been substandard. They sued for the cost of repairing the home and filing the lawsuit. Mr. Alleman countersued, claiming the Richards failed to pay for labor, materials, and services. By his claim, they owed him $12,838.80.
The trial court split the issues of liability and damages. In the first trial, the court concluded that there was a contact between Alleman and the Richards and that the New Home Warranty Act applied. Mr. Alleman did not appeal this trial.
The second trial was on the issue of damages. Under the New Home Warranty Act, the Richards were found to be entitled to $36,977.11 in damages. In a second judgment, the couple was awarded $18,355.59 in attorney’s fees. Mr. Alleman appealed both judgments.
In his appeal, Alleman contended that the trial court erred in determining that the Home Warranty Act applied. This was, however, not the subject of the trial, having been determined at the earlier trial. Nor did the court accept Alleman’s claim that the Richards failed to comply with the Act. The trial record made clear that the Richards provided Alleman with a list of problems with their home by certified mail.
The court did not establish whether the Richards told Alleman to never return to their home, or if Alleman said he would never return to the home, but one thing was clear: Alleman did not complete the repairs in the list.
A further repair was added after the original list. The Richards claimed that with a loud noise, a large crack appeared in their tile flooring. Mr. Alleman stated that he was not liable for this as he was not given a chance to repair the damage, the Richards hired the flooring subcontractors, and that the trial court rejected the claim that the slab was defective. The appeals court found no problem with the award. Alleman had already “refused to make any of the repairs.”
Finally Alleman made a claim on a retainage held by the Richards. Since Alleman did not bring forth proof at trial, the appeals court upheld the trial courts refusal to award a credit to Alleman.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Quick Note: Attorney’s Fees and the Significant Issues Test
November 03, 2016 —
David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal UpdatesAttorney’s fees become a component of damages that parties seek to recover whenever there is a contractual or statutory basis for them to recover their fees. Parties want to be able to recover all or substantially most of the attorney’s fees they incurred in pursuing their claim. (In my experience, recovering all of the fees incurred is very challenging.) But, to be entitled to attorney’s fees, a party has to be deemed the
prevailing party. There is the sentiment that as long as you recover a positive net judgment (even if it is for $100 when your claim was for $50,000) then you will be able to recover your attorney’s fees which will likely exceed the amount that was ever in dispute.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Katz, Barron, Squitero, Faust, Friedberg, English & Allen, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@katzbarron.com
Hurry Up and Wait! Cal/OSHA Hits Pause on Emergency Temporary Standards for COVID-19 Prevention
June 14, 2021 —
Michael Studenka & Jasmine Shams - Newmeyer DillionEmployers scrambling to prepare for the June 15th Reopening announced by Governor Newsom have spent the last week pouring over the revised Emergency Temporary Standards for COVID-19 Prevention (“Revised ETS”) approved by the Cal/OSHA Standards Board on June 3, 2021. After last night’s meeting of the Standards Board, however, it’s time to hit pause.
Last night, the Cal OSHA Standards Board held a specialty meeting to reconsider its Revised ETS in light of the latest guidance on face coverings issued by the California Department of Public Health (“CDPH”) on June 7, 2021. Following a presentation by the CDPH and extensive public comment, the Cal OSHA Standards Board voted unanimously to withdraw the Revised ETS and to take up the issue again at its next scheduled meeting on June 17, 2021. The net result in the interim is that California employers who intend to reopen on June 15 must initially comply with all of the requirements of the Cal/OSHA Standards Board Emergency Temporary Standards for COVID-19 Prevention as originally issued on November 20, 2020, including but not limited to, its social distancing, physical partitioning and mask wearing requirements.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael J. Studenka, Newmeyer Dillion and
Jasmine Shams, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Studenka may be contacted at michael.studenka@ndlf.com
Ms. Shams may be contacted at jasmine.shams@ndlf.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
