Some Construction Contract Basics- Necessities and Pitfalls
January 03, 2022 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsRecently, I’ve been on an “advising” kick here at Construction Law Musings. My last two posts have been about communication and trusting your gut when it comes to a smooth construction project. This post will be the third in the trilogy (and who knows maybe I’ll have a 4th and 5th like the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy “trilogy”).
While all construction contractors should use their communication skills and instincts to assure a smooth and hopefully profitable project, all of the gut following and great communication will not help you if your contract is not up to snuff. In the spirit of giving you a few basics things to look at, here’s my list of three basics that you need in your contract and a three things to be on the lookout for in others’ contracts.
First, the good stuff that needs to be there:
- Attorney Fees Clause– without it, a Virginia court (and most other courts) will not award you a judgment for any attorney fees spent to protect your rights.
- Dispute Resolution– whether the specified resolution is through the litigation process, ADR or some combination, such a clause or paragraph will only help define the parameters of what happens with a claim.
- Detailed scope of work– Without the proper detail in the scope of work, the parties cannot properly set expectations and know what happens when things change.
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
$109-Million Renovation Begins on LA's Willowbrook/Rosa Parks Station
October 02, 2018 —
Greg Aragon - Engineering News-RecordThe Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), along with the Los Angeles office of Stantec, recently began work on the $109-million Willowbrook/Rosa Parks Station Improvement Project in Los Angeles.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Greg Aragon, ENRENR may be contacted at
ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
SB 939 Proposes Moratorium On Unlawful Detainer Actions For Commercial Tenants And Allows Tenants Who Can't Renegotiate Their Lease In Good Faith To Terminate Their Lease Without Liability
June 01, 2020 —
Rhonda Kreger – Newmeyer DillionSB 939 is currently working its way through the Senate Judiciary Committee. The legislation would impose new obligations on landlords, and provide protections for commercial tenants who meet specified criteria. SB 939 would impose a moratorium on eviction of those qualified commercial tenants while emergency COVID-19 orders are in effect. Any eviction actions commenced after the date of the emergency COVID-19 order, but before the adoption of SB 939, would be void and unenforceable. The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing for SB 939 on May 22, 2020, at 9:00 a.m.
Who qualifies as a commercial tenant under SB 939?
To qualify under this legislation, a commercial tenant must be a business that operates primarily in California. The commercial tenant must be a small business, nonprofit, an eating or drinking establishment, place of entertainment, or performance venue. Publicly traded companies or any company owned by, or affiliated with a publicly traded company, do not qualify. The commercial tenant must have experienced a decline of at least 40 percent monthly revenue, either as compared to two months before the emergency COVID-19 order, or other local government shelter-in-place orders took effect, or as compared to the same month in 2019. If the commercial tenant is an eating or drinking establishment, place of entertainment, or performance venue, the commercial tenant must also show a decline of 25 percent or more in capacity due to social or physical distancing orders or safety concerns, and show that it is subject to regulations to prevent the spread of COVID-19 that will financially impair the business when compared to the period before the emergency COVID-19 order or other local shelter-in-place orders took effect.
What eviction actions are prohibited while emergency COVID-19 orders are in effect?
If adopted, SB 939 would add Section 1951.9 to the Civil Code. This section would make it unlawful to terminate a tenancy, serve notice to terminate a tenancy, use lockout or utility shutoff actions to terminate a tenancy or otherwise evict a tenant of commercial real property, including a business or nonprofit, during the pendency of the COVID-19 emergency order proclaimed by Governor Newsome on March 4, 2020. Exceptions apply if a tenant poses a threat to the property, other tenants or a person, business or other entity. Any violations of this eviction prohibition would be against public policy and unenforceable.
Any eviction started after proclamation of the state of emergency but before the effective date is deemed void, against public policy and is unenforceable.
Does SB 939 impose new penalties or remedies?
Any landlord who harasses, mistreats or retaliates against a commercial tenant to force the tenant to abrogate the lease would be subject to a fine of $2,000 for each violation. Further, any such violation would be an unlawful business practice and an act of unfair competition under Section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code and would be subject to all available remedies or penalties for those actions under state law.
When is a commercial tenant required to pay unpaid rent due to COVID-19?
If a commercial tenant fails to pay rent during the emergency COVID-19 order, the sum total of the past due rent must be paid within 12 months following the date of the end of the emergency proclamation, unless the commercial tenant has successfully negotiated an agreement with its landlord to pay the outstanding rent at a later date. Nonpayment of rent during the state of emergency cannot be used as grounds for eviction. Notwithstanding lease terms to the contrary, landlords may not impose late charges for rent that became due during the state of emergency.
Are landlords required to provide notice of protections adopted under SB 939?
Landlords would be required to provide notice to commercial tenants of the protections offered under SB 939 within 30 days of the effective date. SB 939 does not preempt local legislation or ordinances restricting the same or similar conduct which impose a more severe penalty for the same conduct. Local legislation or ordinances may impose additional notice requirements.
Does SB 939 impose new protections for commercial tenants when negotiating lease modifications?
If enacted, SB 939 would permit commercial tenants to open negotiations for new lease terms, and provide commercial tenants the ability to terminate the lease if those negotiations fail. A commercial tenant who wishes to modify its commercial lease, may engage in good faith negotiations with its landlord to modify any rent or economic requirement regardless of the term remaining on the lease. The commercial tenant must serve a notice on the landlord certifying that it meets the required criteria, along with the desired modifications.
If the commercial tenant and landlord do not reach a mutually satisfactory agreement within 30 days, then within 10 days, the commercial tenant may terminate the lease without any liability for future rent, fees, or costs that otherwise may have been due under the lease by providing a written termination notice to the landlord. The commercial tenant would be required to pay previously due rent, in an amount no greater than the sum of the following: (1) the actual rent due during the emergency COVID-19 order, or a maximum of three months of the past due rent during that period, and (2) all rent incurred and unpaid during a time unrelated to the emergency COVID-19 order through the date of the termination notice. The payment is due within 12 months from date of the termination notice. The commercial tenant would be required to vacate the premises within 14 days of the landlord's receipt of the termination notice. Upon service of the notice, any lease, and any third party guaranties of the lease would terminate. If the landlord and commercial tenant reach an agreement to modify the lease, the commercial tenant would not have the option to later terminate the lease under this provision.
When is the next Senate Judiciary Committee Meeting for SB 939?
The Senate Judiciary Committee set a hearing for SB 939 on May 22, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. The Senate will livestream the hearing on its website at www.sen.ca.gov. Public comments or testimony may be submitted in writing to the Judiciary Committee by emailing Erica.porter@sen.ca.gov. Alternatively, the public may participate via telephone during the public comment period. Any changes to the Judicial Committee schedule may be found at: https://www.senate.ca.gov/calendar.
Newmeyer Dillion continues to follow COVID-19 and its impact on your business and our communities. Feel free to reach out to us at NDcovid19response@ndlf.com or visit us at www.newmeyerdillion.com/covid-19-multidisciplinary-task-force/.
Rhonda Kreger is Senior Counsel on Newmeyer Dillion's transactional team at our Newport Beach office. Her practice focuses on all aspects of commercial real estate law, with a particular emphasis on the representation of residential developers, merchant builders and institutional investors. You can reach Rhonda at rhonda.kreger@ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Candlebrook Adds Dormitories With $230 Million Purchase
November 05, 2014 —
John Gittelsohn - BloombergCandlebrook Properties LLC, a closely held company with about 5,000 apartments in the eastern U.S., is diversifying into student housing with the $230 million acquisition of five off-campus properties.
Candlebrook joined with Lubert-Adler Partners on the purchase of buildings with about 3,400 beds near colleges in Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky and Virginia. Formerly known as Vantage Properties LLC, Candlebrook began as an investor in New York City apartments in 2005 and later expanded to New Jersey and the Philadelphia area.
“Student housing is a natural extension of our pre-existing business line,” Neil Rubler, president of New York-based Candlebrook, said in a telephone interview. It’s “a business that’s far less crowded than multifamily, which has been our core business.”
Capitalization rates on apartments, a measure of profitability, have dropped as investors drive up property prices. Student housing has become an attractive alternative, luring homebuilder Toll Brothers Inc. (TOL) and private-equity firm Colony Capital LLC to an industry already home to real estate investment trusts American Campus Communities Inc. (ACC), Campus Crest Communities Inc. (CCG) and Educational Realty Trust Inc. (EDR)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John Gittelsohn, BloombergMr. Gittelsohn may be contacted at
johngitt@bloomberg.net
School District Settles Construction Lawsuit
November 07, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Franklin County, Pennsylvania Public Opinion reports that an area school is coming to an end with its construction lawsuit. The school district was sued by its contractors for a combined $1.4 million, which the school district withheld when the project was not completed on schedule. Lobar Inc. claimed that the district additionally owed interest and should pay attorney fees. The school claimed that only $1.15 million was due under the contract. Under the settlement, they will be paying $1.136 million.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Environmental Justice: A Legislative and Regulatory Update
November 01, 2021 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelEnvironmental Justice, as an urgent policy priority of the Federal Government, dates back to 1994, and President Clinton’s issuance of Executive Order 12898. This order directed federal agencies to identify and address, as appropriate, “the disproportionately high and adverse human health and environment effects of its many programs, policies, and procedures on minority populations and low-income populations.” Executive Order 12898 supplements Executive Order 12550 (1980), whose primary legal basis was Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in particular, Sections 601 and 602, which prohibit discrimination in programs and activities receiving federal financial aid and assistance.
Over the years, the Supreme Court has reviewed the scope and importance of Title VI. For example, in Alexander v. Sandoval, decided in 2001, the Court concluded that while private parties could sue to enforce Section 601 or its implementing regulations, Section 601 only prohibits intentional discrimination; which is very difficult to prove. In addition, the Court ruled in Sandoval, that private parties cannot sue to enforce regulations implementing Section 602. Perhaps as an acknowledgement of these shortcomings, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has for many years operated an administrative system to process environmental justice complaints (see 40 CFR Part 7). The process is complex and the results—usually whether a state agency has failed to uphold Title VI—have generally been unsatisfactory. To be successful, many proponents of environmental justice believe that a statutory foundation must be established, and significant efforts have been made to do so.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
New York Court Finds Insurers Cannot Recover Defense Costs Where No Duty to Indemnify
March 01, 2021 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiIn a case of first impression, the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, found the insurer had no right to reimbursement of defense costs paid to defend the insured. Am. W. Home Ins. Co. v. Gjoaj Realty & Mgt. Co., 2020 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8286 (N.Y. App. Div. Dec. 30, 2020).
Gjonaj Realty was sued by Viktor Gecaj when he fell from a ladder at the premises managed by Gjonaj Realty. The matter was not tendered to American Western Home Insurance Company until four years after the accident and after a judgment of $900,000 had been entered against Gjonaj Realty after its default. American denied coverage after late notice was given. Thereafter, the Supreme Court in the underling action vacated the default judgment. American then agreed to defend under a reservation of rights.
The Appellate Division reversed the vacatur of the default judgment and reinstated the default against the insured. American then advised Gjonaj Realty that it was denying coverage and reserving its right to recover any fees and costs incurred in defending the underlying action.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series: The Duty to Defend
February 28, 2022 —
Lorelie S. Masters, Patrick M. McDermott & Rachel E. Hudgins - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogThis post in our
Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series discusses the Montana Supreme Court’s consideration of an insurer’s duty to defend in
National Indemnity Co. v. State, 499 P.3d 516 (Mont. 2021).
For 67 years, W.R. Grace & Company’s mining operations spread asbestos through the town of Libby, Montana,
causing elevated rates of asbestosis and asbestos-related cancer in Libby residents – even among those who never worked in the mine. The Environmental Protection Agency deemed the Libby Mine the
“most significant single source of asbestos exposure” in US history.
In 2000, Libby residents began filing lawsuits against the State of Montana, alleging that the State had failed to warn them about the mine’s danger, and this failure contributed to their bodily injuries. Id. at 521-22. The Libby plaintiffs’ asbestos exposures and related injuries had occurred decades earlier, and so the State searched its storage units for records of any potentially applicable insurance policies.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth,
Patrick M. McDermott, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Rachel E. Hudgins, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com
Mr. McDermott may be contacted at pmcdermott@HuntonAK.com
Ms. Hudgins may be contacted at rhudgins@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
