Top 10 Construction Contract Provisions – Changes and Claims
November 03, 2016 —
James R. Lynch – Ahlers & Cressman PLLCThis is the seventh post in our “Top 10 Construction Contract Provisions” series. Prior posts discussed
Price and Payment,
Liquidated Damages,
Consequential Damages – Part I and
Part II,
Indemnity,
Scope of Work, and
Flow-Down Provisions.
Today’s topic, Changes and Claims, is a contender for the top spot on our list, for both day-to-day impact on the job and importance in disputes. In fact, these provisions[i] are so variable and are involved in so many reported construction law decisions, that this post will not attempt to survey all their various forms, uses, or potential legal ramifications, but instead focuses on bottom line “best practices”—questions to consider as a general contractor, subcontractor, or owner when drafting, negotiating, or managing the Changes and Claims provisions of a contract. There is no “ideal” here, and the changes and claims procedures should be suited to the project, owner, contractor(s), likely issues, and other project-specific considerations. Key considerations include the following:
1. How prescriptive is the Change Order process? At one end of the spectrum, a Change Order provision may include requirements for written direction and request by the owner and formal response by the contractor, with pricing and specific supporting data or documentation, in addition to strict timelines for response, execution, and performance, precise methods to determine the resulting contract adjustment, limits on the type or extent of adjustment, or terms defining the effect of a signed Change Order, e.g. to what extent related claims or impacts might be extinguished. At the other end of the spectrum, the Change Order provision might simply recognize that the owner may direct changes, and the parties intend to document the directions and resulting compensation in a Change Order, with no further elaboration. There is no universal ideal on this spectrum. A highly defined and prescriptive process may be appropriate for a complex, high value, multi-stakeholder project on which significant changes are likely. The same process would be an inefficient waste of resources on a small and simple project where significant changes are unlikely and the parties would be unlikely to comply with more formal procedures.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James R. Lynch, Ahlers & Cressman PLLCMr. Lynch may be contacted at
jlynch@ac-lawyers.com
Not All Work is Covered Under the Federal Miller Act
May 24, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThe recent opinion out of the Eastern District Court of Virginia, Dickson v. Forney Enterprises, Inc., 2021 WL 1536574 (E.D.Virginia 2021), demonstrates that the federal Miller Act is not designed to protect ALL that perform work on a federal construction project. This is because NOT ALL work is covered under the Miller Act.
In this case, a professional engineer was subcontracted by a prime contractor to serve on site in a project management / superintendent capacity. The prime contractor’s scope of work was completed by January 31, 2019. However, the prime contractor was still required to inventory certain materials on site, which was performed by the engineer. The engineer claimed it was owed in excess of $400,000 and filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit on February 5, 2020 (more than a year after the project was completed).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Flood Sublimit Applies, Seawater Corrosion to Amtrak's Equipment Not Ensuing Loss
November 10, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe insurers were granted summary judgment on three issues regarding Amtrak's claim for damages caused by Hurricane Sandy. Amtrak v. Aspen Sec. Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16074 (2nd Cir. Aug. 31, 2016).
Hurricane Sandy caused flooding which damaged two of Amtrak's tunnels under the East and Hudson Rivers. Seawater from the flooding caused extensive damage to equipment in the tunnels. The district court granted summary judgment to the insurers on the following issues: (1) the damage caused by an inundation of water in the tunnels was subject to the policies' $125 million flood sublimit; and (2) the corrosion of equipment after Amtrak pumped out the seawater was not an "ensuing loss" and therefore was also subject to the flood sublimit.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
As Some States Use the Clean Water Act to Delay Energy Projects, EPA Issues New CWA 401 Guidance
August 26, 2019 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelIn just the past few weeks, three states have used their Clean Water Act 401 authority to delay, for an indefinite period, FERC-authorized pipeline expansion projects. On May 6, 2019, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality denied, without prejudice, Jordan Cove’s application for a Section 401 water quality certification. Jordan Cove plans to build an LNG export terminal at Coos Bay, Oregon, if it can obtain the necessary federal and permits. Under Section 401(a) of the Clean Water Act, any applicant for a federal permit to conduct any activity, including the operation of facilities which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters, shall provide the permitting agency a certification from the State in which the discharge may originate that any such discharge will comply with the applicable provisions of the Clean Water Act, including effluent limitations and state water quality standards. The States have a “reasonable time”—which shall not exceed one year after the receipt of the 401 application—in which to act, or the state’s authority may be waived by this inaction. The Oregon DEQ concluded that Jordan Cove has not demonstrated that its project, as presently configured, will satisfy state water quality standards. The 401 applications submitted by Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co. (Transco) to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the New York State Department of Environmental Protection were similarly rejected without prejudice on May 15, 2019 (New York) and June 5, 2019 (New Jersey). This use of the states’ 401 authority has frustrated plans to build and operate LNG pipelines around the country.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Settlement Payment May Preclude Finding of Policy Exhaustion: Scottsdale v. National Union
December 11, 2013 —
Heather Anderson — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC.In the last year, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado found that a settlement payment from an excess insurance carrier to another primary insurance carrier precluded a finding of vertical exhaustion sufficient to trigger the primary carrier’s duty to indemnify. See Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 2012 WL 6004087 (D. Colo. 2012). The Scottsdale case arose out of the construction of a 507-unit apartment complex in Arapahoe County, Colorado in which a number of defects became apparent during construction. As a result, the owner of the project sued the general contractor and/or the construction manager, seeking to recover more than $22 million for various construction deficiencies. Id. at *1.
The general contractor was insured under policies issued by several carriers. Scottsdale Insurance Co. (“Scottsdale”) and National Union Fire Ins. Co. (“National Union) provided umbrella coverage, and CNA and American Zurich Ins. Co. (“Zurich”) provided primary insurance under commercial general liability policies. About five years later, the construction defect case settled for $8.5 million dollars.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Heather AndersonHeather Anderson can be contacted at
anderson@hhmrlaw.com
Top 10 Insurance Cases of 2024
January 21, 2025 —
Jeffrey J. Vita & Michelle A. Grieco - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Federal and state courts tackled a myriad of interesting insurance-related issues this past year. The U.S. Supreme Court also surprisingly addressed coverage issues in 2024, in not one—but two—decisions. It is rare for the Supreme Court to confront insurance coverage issues which usually involve matters of state law. The highest court’s assessment of the nuances of insurance to resolve maritime choice of law issues and interpret an insurer’s role in bankruptcy proceedings is indicative of the significant role that insurance coverage plays in resolving commercial disputes.
Additionally, 2024 included a pivotal opinion from the 5th Circuit, which welcomed the principle that negligent construction can constitute “property damage” under a CGL policy if it causes a harmful change to the property. Elsewhere in the country, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that reckless conduct can qualify as an “accident” under a CGL policy’s definition of “occurrence”; however, the court simultaneously ruled that greenhouse gases fall within the scope of “pollutants” under the policy’s pollution exclusion. Cyber coverage decisions were also prominent, and the 5th Circuit chimed in with an interesting decision interpreting the scope of coverage afforded under a “system failure” provision. These decisions represent a mere sampling of the multitude of insurance issues courts nationwide have grappled with in 2024.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Michelle A. Grieco, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Vita may be contacted at JVita@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Grieco may be contacted at MGrieco@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Late Filing Contractor Barred from Involving Subcontractors in Construction Defect Claim
March 01, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Colorado Court of Appeals looked at that state’s Construction Defect Action Reform Act in determining if a general contractor could add subcontractors as third-party defendants to a construction defect lawsuit. Shaw Construction, LLC was the general contraction of the Roslyn Court condominium complex, and was sued by the homeowners’ association in a construction defect case. United Builder Services was the drywall subcontractor on the project. MB Roofing had installed roofs, gutters, and downspouts. The certificate of occupancy for the last building was issued on March 10, 2004. The project architect certified completion of all known remaining architectural items in June, 2004.
The HOA filed a claim against the developers of the property on January, 21, 2009. A week later, the HOA amended its complaint to add Shaw, the general contractor. Shaw did not file its answer and third-party complaint until March 29, 2010, sending its notice of claim under the CDARA on March 30.
The subcontractors claimed that the six-year statute of limitations had ended twenty days prior. Shaw claimed that the statute of limitations ran until six years after the architect’s certification, or that the HOA’s suit had tolled all claims.
The trial court granted summary judgment to the subcontractors, determining that “substantial completion occurs ‘when an improvement to real property achieves a degree of completion at which the owner can conveniently utilize the improvement of the purpose it was intended.’”
The appeals court noted that “Shaw correctly points out that the CDARA does not define ‘substantial completion.’” The court argued that Shaw’s interpretation went against the history and intent of the measure. “Historically, a construction professional who received a complaint responded by ‘cross-nam[ing] or add[ing] everybody and anybody who had a part to play in the construction chain.’” The court concluded that the intent of the act was to prevent unnamed subcontractors from being tolled.
The court further rejected Shaw’s reliance on the date of the architect’s certification as the time of “substantial completion,” instead agreeing with the trial court that “the architect’s letter on which Shaw relies certified total completion.”
The appeals court upheld the trial court’s determination that the statute of limitation began to run no later than March 10, 2004 and that Shaw’s complaint of March 29, 2010 was therefore barred. The summary judgment was upheld.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Subcontractor Strikes Out in its Claims Against Federal Government
July 08, 2024 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIs it a good idea for a subcontractor to sue the federal government? A recent case would suggest NO–way too many huge hurdles for the subcontractor to overcome. No matter how creative the arguments may be, it’s a high mountain to climb.
In Fox Logistics & Construction Co. v. U.S., 2024 WL 2807677 (Fed.Cl. 2024), a subcontractor sued the federal government when it was not paid by the prime contractor. The subcontractor claimed it was a third-party beneficiary under the government’s modifications to the prime contractor’s payment procedure, or alternatively it had an implied-in-fact contract with the government. The Court of Federal Claims granted summary judgment in favor of the government. The subcontractor, while creative, struck out in its claims based on the hurdles in a subcontractor suing the federal government.
This case involved upgrading an air force base. The subcontractor performed most of the work. The prime contractor had cash flow problems and did not pay the subcontractor. The government got involved to enforce provisions of its contract to force the prime contractor to pay subcontractors and even modified the payment procedure by having future payments to the prime contractor deposited into a new bank account that government could monitor. This ultimately did not work, and the prime contractor filed for bankruptcy. The subcontractor claimed it was owed millions–apparently, it was not able to recover the money through the prime contractor’s bankruptcy—and pursued claims against the federal government in an effort to recover money it was owed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
