Enforceability Of Subcontract “Pay-When-Paid” Provisions – An Important Update
June 15, 2020 —
Patrick McNamara - Porter Law GroupA California Court of Appeals opinion published earlier this month brings a change to payment bond claims brought by unpaid subcontractors and suppliers. The decision (Crosno Construction, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America) places limitations on a payment bond surety’s ability to rely on subcontract “pay-when-paid” language, stating that a payment provision typically found in subcontracts is contrary to the “reasonable time” statutory requirement and will not be enforced. This represents a major shift in California construction payment bond claim rights.
Plaintiff Crosno Construction, Inc. (“Crosno) was a subcontractor to general contractor Clark Brothers (“Clark”), who was principal on a public works payment bond issued by Travelers. The owner was a public agency district (“District.”) Crosno had completed most of its subcontract work when a dispute between District and Clark arose, causing the project to stop. Crosno then sought payment through a payment bond claim against Travelers. Travelers denied the claim, relying on the subcontract’s payment provisions and asserting the defense that it had no obligation to pay on the bond claim because the litigation between Clark and the District had not yet reached its conclusion.
Subcontract. The subcontract between Clark and Crosno contained a “pay-when-paid” provision stating that Clark would pay Crosno within a reasonable time after receiving payment from the District. In defining “a reasonable time,” the subcontract language provided that the time for payment “in no event shall be less than the time [Clark] and [Crosno] require to pursue to conclusion their legal remedies against [District] or other responsible party to obtain payment.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick McNamara, Porter Law GroupMr. McNamara may be contacted at
pmcnamara@porterlaw.com
Massachusetts Roofer Killed in Nine-story Fall
January 08, 2019 —
Johanna Knapschaefer - Engineering News-RecordA 41-year-old roofer from Haverhill, Mass. fell through a roof hole nine stories to his death on Dec. 18 while working on an apartment building project in Haverhill, a city north of Boston.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Johanna Knapschaefer, ENRENR may be contacted at
ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Construction Contract Terms Matter. Be Careful When You Draft Them.
February 01, 2022 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIn a prior post, I discussed the case of Fluor Fed. Sols., LLC v. Bae Sys. Ordinance Sys in the context of the interplay between fraud, contract, and statutes of limitation. Some cases just keep on giving. This time the case illustrates the need for careful drafting of those
pesky, and highly important, clauses in your construction documents.
In the
current iteration of this ongoing saga, the Court considered the contractual aspects of the matter. As a reminder, the facts are as follows: In May 2011, the United States Army (“Army) awarded BAE Systems Ordnance Systems, Inc. (“BAE”) a contract to design and construct a natural gas-fired combined heating and power plant for the Radford Army Ammunition Plant (“RAAP”). On October 7, 2015, BAE issued a request for a proposal from Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC (“Fluor”) to design and build a temporary boiler facility at a specific location on the RAAP property. On October 13, 2015, the Army modified the prime contract to change the location of the boiler facility. On December 10, 2015, the Army modified the prime contract to require BAE to design and construct a permanent boiler facility. On December 30, 2015, Fluor and BAE executed a fixed-price subcontract for Fluor to design and construct the temporary boiler. Throughout 2016, BAE issued several modifications to Fluor’s subcontract to reflect the modifications BAE received from the Army on the prime contract. On March 23, 2016, BAE directed Fluor to build a permanent – rather than temporary – boiler facility. On March 28, 2016, Fluor began construction of the permanent facility and began negotiations with BAE about the cost of the permanent facility. On September 1, 2016, the parties reached an agreement on the cost for the design of the permanent facility, but not on the cost to construct the permanent facility. On November 29, 2016, the parties executed a modification to the subcontract, officially replacing the requirement to construct a temporary facility with a requirement to construct a permanent facility and agreeing to “negotiate and definitize the price to construct by December 15, 2016.” The parties were unable to reach an agreement on the construction price.
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
What if the "Your Work" Exclusion is Inapplicable? ISO Classification and Construction Defect Claims.
February 14, 2023 —
David Humphreys - Carson Law Group, PLLCThis article was first published by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) on their NAHBNow blog
One of the risks faced by a residential builder is that, following completion of construction, the homeowner may assert a claim against the builder for damage to the home caused by an alleged construction defect. One of the ways a builder manages the risk of such construction defect claims is by purchasing commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance.
A builder’s CGL policy covers those sums the builder is legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage caused by an “occurrence,” that is, damage that is accidental rather than being expected or intended by the builder, so long as the claim does not fall within any of the policy’s several “exclusions” from coverage.
When faced with a construction defect lawsuit, our builder clients are often surprised—and dismayed—when their CGL insurer denies coverage and refuses to defend the builder. However, builders shouldn’t take their insurer’s denial of coverage at face value. This article discusses a new argument we recently discovered that has been a game-changer for our builder clients who were denied coverage in construction defect cases.
Whether coverage exists always depends on the specific language of the particular CGL policy, and courts generally construe exclusions against insurers. This allows experienced coverage attorneys to, at times, successfully challenge declinations of coverage and, at a minimum, convince insurers to pay for the builder’s defense.
A typical CGL policy provides products-completed operations coverage, which is sought by businesses that face potential liability arising out of the products that they have sold or operations that they have completed. Products-completed operations coverage allows builders to obtain many years of coverage for a completed project. Over the years, insurers have added to their policies modifications and exclusions that limit their exposure for claims that fall under that coverage.
Exclusion (l) or the “your work” exclusion, will often exclude coverage for a latent defect claim against the builder. A standard “your work” exclusion provides:
This insurance does not apply to: . . . “[p]roperty damage” to “your work” arising out of it or any part of it and included in the “products-completed operations hazard.”
This “your work” and similar exclusions are designed to limit coverage for business risks that are within the contractor’s own control; e.g., a claim that the contractor caused damage to the contractor’s own work. These exclusions apply both to ongoing and completed projects, which can leave a builder unprotected from lawsuits for years after a project is completed.
However, builders who are classified on the declarations page with Code 91580 Contractors— Executive Supervisors or Executive Superintendents, may not be subject to the “your work” exclusion. 91580 is a common classification assigned to builders during insurance underwriting. This classification falls into what is referred to as “dagger class” or “plus sign class,” which indicates that Products and/or Completed Operations coverage is
included as part of and not separate from the Premises/Operations coverage (emphasis added).
It has been noted that dagger” and “plus sign” classifications create confusion because of the seeming contradiction between policy wording and coverage rules.* The CGL policy seems to expressly exclude products and/or completed operations losses for “dagger” or “plus sign” classes. In the definitions section we find the following:
“Products-completed operations hazard”: . . .b. Does not Include “bodily Injury” or “property damage” arising out of:. . . (3) Products or operations for which the classification, listed In the Declarations or in a policy schedule, states that products- completed operations are subject to the General Aggregate Limit.”
This apparent exclusionary language, however, must be read in conjunction with the Insurance Services Office’s (ISO) Rule 25.F.1.:
Rule 25. CLASSIFICATIONS
F. Symbols
1. Plus Sign
A plus sign when shown in the Premium Base column under General Liability insurance in the Classification Table - means that coverage for Products and/or Completed Operations is included in the Premises/Operations coverage at no additional premium charge. When this situation applies, the classification described in the policy schedule or Declarations must state that:
“Products-completed operations are subject to the General Aggregate Limit” to provide Products and/or Completed Operations coverage(s).
When read together then, the exclusionary wording in the policy definition removes any product or operation loss subject to the “dagger” or “plus sign” classification from the definition of Products Completed Operations Hazard. Under the dagger or plus sign classification of Rule 25, coverage for products and/or operations is included in the premises operations coverage. Consequently, a loss can no longer be defined as a product completed loss, and as a result it is no longer subject to the “your work” exclusion.
Recall that the standard “your work” exclusion quoted above excludes coverage for “property damage” to “your work” “arising out of it or any part of it
and included in the “products-completed operations hazard”.” Here, we emphasize “and” because the “your work” exclusion applies only to property damage that is also included in the “products-completed operations hazard.” Since property damage claims arising under “plus sign” classifications are expressly excluded from the “products-completed operations hazard” (they are included in the premises/operations coverage) the “your work” exclusion simply does not apply. This means that, if your CGL insurer denies your construction defect claim based on the “your work” exclusion, do what the title of this article suggests: Check your ISO classification! If 91580 “Executive Supervisors or Executive Superintendents” is listed on your Declarations page, you may be in luck.
This new ISO classification-based coverage argument will likely also apply to other exclusions and endorsements that CGL insurers routinely rely on in denying coverage in construction defect cases. We recently successfully challenged a coverage denial based on the following “prior work” exclusionary endorsement:
”This insurance does not apply to ‘your products’ or ‘your work’ completed prior to” a certain date listed in the endorsement. . .
“Specifically, this insurance does not apply to. . . “property damage”. . . included in the ‘products-completed operations hazard’ and arising out of. . . ‘your work’ performed by or on behalf of you prior to the date shown above.”
Again, this endorsement incorporates the “products-completed operations hazard,” which allowed us to successfully argue that the exclusion was inapplicable to a builder classified as a 91580 “Executive Supervisor or Executive Superintendent.”
To our knowledge, this new ISO classification-based coverage argument has not yet been addressed by a court. Our recent successes with it have concluded with favorable settlements for our clients. Accordingly, for now, the ISO classification-based argument is a powerful new tool to challenge denials of coverage in construction defect cases where the builder is classified under 91580 “Executive Supervisors or Executive Superintendents.”
David Humphreys is a Partner at Carson Law Group, PLLC, and has been representing construction contractors, subcontractors, and owners for more than two decades in Mississippi and throughout the Southeast.
*See “Dagger” or Plus Symbol Classes: What They Mean, Chris Boggs - Virtual University | “Dagger” or Plus Symbol Classes: What They Mean) (independentagent.com)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New York Court Temporarily Enjoins UCC Foreclosure Sale
September 21, 2020 —
Steven E. Ostrow, Timothy E. Davis, Steven E. Coury & Kristen E. Andreoli - White and WilliamsNew York courts have become a battleground for challenges to foreclosure sales under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Another trial court of the New York State Supreme Court (New York County) issued a preliminary injunction in Shelbourne BRF LLC v. SR 677 Bway LLC, halting a mezzanine lender’s August 19, 2020 UCC foreclosure sale. The decision confirms that the impact of the pandemic on the value of commercial real estate, and upon traditional steps taken to conduct a foreclosure auction, are both key factors that courts will continue to consider in determining whether a UCC foreclosure sale scheduled during the pandemic can be conducted in a commercially reasonable manner as required by the UCC.
THE CASE
In Shelbourne, the mezzanine borrowers owned the membership or equity interests in the companies (collectively, the “Property Owner”) that held title to a 12-story office building in Albany, New York. As security for the $3.35 million mezzanine loan, the mezzanine borrowers pledged their equity interests to the mezzanine lender. In May 2020, the mezzanine lender declared a default under the mezzanine loan as a result of the Property Owner’s default under the $28.5 million senior loan secured by a mortgage against the office building. The mezzanine lender then scheduled a public UCC foreclosure sale of the equity interests in the Property Owner for August 19, 2020. If the sale had been held, the equity interests in the Property Owner (and right to control the Property Owner and office building) would have been transferred to the successful bidder, either the mezzanine lender or a third party purchaser.
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams attorneys
Steven E. Ostrow,
Timothy E. Davis,
Steven E. Coury and
Kristen E. Andreoli
Mr. Ostrow may be contacted at ostrows@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Davis may be contacted at davist@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Coury may be contacted at courys@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Andreoli may be contacted at andreolik@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nevada Legislature Burns Insurers' Rights to Offer Eroding Limits
August 28, 2023 —
William S. Bennett - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Nevada’s legislature recently passed a groundbreaking law imposing two prohibitions on insurers. First, the law prohibits insurers from issuing or renewing any liability insurance policy with an “eroding limits” provision. While the first section of the law will have the most immediate effects, the statute goes further, generally prohibiting insurers from limiting the availability of coverage for the costs of defense, legal costs and fees, and other claim expenses. This second section leaves a great deal to interpretation, with the potential to massively expand policyholder rights, and may throw the traditional structure of liability insurance policies into question.
Nevada Statute §679a provides as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an insurer, including, without limitation, an insurer listed in NRS 679A.160, shall not issue or renew a policy of liability insurance that contains a provision that:
- Reduces the limit of liability stated in the policy by the costs of defense, legal costs and fees and other expenses for claims; or
- Otherwise limits the availability of coverage for the costs of defense, legal costs and fees and other expenses for claims.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Bennett may be contacted at
WBennett@sdvlaw.com
Federal District Court Addresses Material Misrepresentation in First Party Property Damage Claim
August 26, 2024 —
James M. Eastham - Traub LiebermanIn Pittsfield Dev. LLC v. Travelers Indem. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117530 (N.D. Ill. July 3, 2024), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois addressed an alleged material misrepresentation by an insured during the course of the adjustment of a water loss claim at an insured property. Subsequent to a pipe burst event which caused damage to a number of the floors in the insured building, the insured submitted a claim to Travelers and also submitted, with the assistance of a retained public adjuster, a damage estimate of the damages at the property. Included within the estimate submitted by the insured was a line item for "Lead Paint & Asbestos Removal" with a corresponding dollar amount of $1,140,000. It was this line item which formed the basis of Travelers' claim of misrepresentation.
At his deposition, the public adjuster testified that the $1,140,000 figure was an oral estimate received over the phone from an asbestos remediation company. Travelers disputed the testimony and contended that no such estimate was ever provided. For support, Travelers pointed to deposition testimony from a remediation company employee that while rough estimates were occasionally given verbally, the largest over the phone estimate she could recall was in the $20,000-$25,000 range. It was also disputed that the company would ever provide an oral quote of that magnitude sight unseen, especially since the largest project the remediation company had ever completed was less than $250,000.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James M. Eastham, Traub LiebermanMr. Eastham may be contacted at
jeastham@tlsslaw.com
What Buyers Want in a Green Home—and What They Don’t
March 19, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFJennifer Goodman interviewed researcher Suzanne Shelton to find out what buyers want in a green home and what they do not. The questions and answers were published in Big Builder. Shelton has studied “Americans’ thoughts on environmental and energy issues” for the last ten years.
Goodman wrote that while the term “high-performance” is often used by “builders and their advisors,” the term doesn’t resonate with buyers. In fact, in last fall’s Energy Pulse study, eighty-four percent of Americans said no when asked “if they could confidently and correctly explain the term ‘high-performance home’ to a friend.”
Goodman and Shelton also discussed the best way to market green features. Shelton pointed out that in surveys “energy-efficient home… clobbered ‘green home’ year over year.” Furthermore, she found that “80 percent of prospective home buyers tell us…all other things being equal, energy efficiency would impact their home selection.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
