Protect Your Right To Payment By Following Nedd
August 03, 2022 —
Denise Motta - Gordon & Rees Construction Law BlogIn order to preserve your right to payment, you must satisfy the contractual requirements supporting a change order for the increased costs or time due to the delay. The key to the successful presentation of change order claims is educating your team on the following:
1. NOTICE
- Review the change order and notice provisions of your contracts. Make your contract searchable and insert the term “Noti” and look for the items listed below.
- Who: Check the designated representative for notice.
- It may not be the project manager.
- Confirm who can authorize the change order.
- Is owner approval required?
- Ensure that the party approving the change order has authority to do so.
- What: Check for specific information required by the contract.
- Provide ALL information available.
- If certain information is not yet available, state that the information will be provided when available.
- Reserve all rights to amend and submit additional information.
- Request both an increase to the Contract Sum and Contract Time.
- Make the request even if you do not believe the delay or time necessary will cause a significant impact.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Denise Motta, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLPMs. Motta may be contacted at
dmotta@grsm.com
Owner Can’t Pursue Statutory Show Cause Complaint to Cancel Lien… Fair Outcome?
June 10, 2024 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIf there is a payment dispute with a construction
lienor — could be a contractor, a subcontractor, or supplier – it is possible, and more than likely, a construction lien may get recorded against real property. This scenario is not uncommon as the lien is the mechanism for the lienor to collateralize their claimed nonpayment. Now, in reality, it does not take much money to record a lien. A lienor should utilize a lawyer to prepare their liens, but maybe they prepare liens in-house. Regardless, the recording of the lien is a nominal cost and the clerk that dockets and records the lien does NOT analyze the merits of the lien. That is not what the clerk is there to do; nor do you really want them the delve into the factual merits.
Well, what if a lien is facially invalid, meaning that the lien, on its face, includes information that demonstrates it is NOT properly perfected. Or what if the lienor failed to properly preserve or perfect its lien rights before recording the lien. This happens! Naturally, an owner of the real property wants the lien removed from the property. The owner does not want the encumbrance.
The owner could transfer the lien to a lien transfer bond under Florida’s Lien Law, but that is easier said than done. And this does not discharge the lien; it just removes the lien from the property to the security of the bond.
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
Amazon Can be Liable in Louisiana
August 05, 2024 —
Michael J. Ciamaichelo - The Subrogation StrategistIn June 2024, the Supreme Court of Louisiana held that: (1) Amazon can be considered a “seller” of defective products sold by third parties on its website; and (2) Amazon can be liable under a theory of negligent undertaking for third-party products. In Pickard v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2023-CQ-01596, 2024 La. LEXIS 1112, a Louisiana man, Archie Pickard, died from burns sustained in a house fire allegedly caused by a defective battery charger purchased on Amazon from a third-party seller located in China. Mr. Pickard’s family filed a lawsuit against Amazon in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana alleging claims under the Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA) and for negligent undertaking. Amazon filed a motion for summary judgment, which prompted the federal court to certify questions to the Supreme Court of Louisiana regarding these two claims.
Amazon Can be a “Seller” Under the Louisiana Products Liability Act
Amazon does not neatly fit within the definition of “seller” under the LPLA because the LPLA was drafted in 1988, before the internet existed. The LPLA defines a “seller” as a person or entity (who is not the manufacturer) who conveys title or possession of the product to another for something of value. La R.S. 9.2800.53(s) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court of Louisiana determined that Amazon was a “seller” because it conveyed “possession” of the charger to Mr. Pickard through the “Fulfillment by Amazon” (FBA) program, which provides storage, delivery, customer service, and returns of third-party products sold on Amazon. Most products on Amazon are sold by third parties, rather than Amazon. Many third-party sellers are small or medium-size companies, and some are individuals seeking to make supplemental income. Amazon offers the FBA program to handle storage and logistics to third-party sellers. When a product is sold through the FBA program, the seller sends the product to Amazon’s warehouses, where it is stored until it is purchased. When an FBA-product is purchased, Amazon collects payment, delivers the product (often in an Amazon van), and handles the potential return of the product. The Supreme Court of Louisiana determined that Amazon was a “seller” of the battery charger even though Amazon did not pass title to Mr. Pickard because: (1) Amazon had physical custody of the charger while stored in the warehouse; and (2) Amazon controlled the transaction and logistics through its FBA program.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael J. Ciamaichelo, White and WilliamsMr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at
ciamaichelom@whiteandwilliams.com
Dump Site Provider Has Valid Little Miller Act Claim
October 19, 2020 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsYou may have thought that a Virginia “Little Miller Act” bond claim, like a mechanic’s lien, could only be brought by those that provide materials and labor incorporated into the construction project. If you did, you aren’t alone.
In fact, Safeco Insurance Co. of America, a surety, made exactly the above argument in Yard Works LLC v. GroundDown Constructors LLC. In that case, a debris hauling company failed to pay Yard Works, the company that provided the dumping site for the debris. Yard Works sued pursuant to the Little Miller Act to get paid. In response, the surety sought to have the claim against the payment bond dismissed and argued that because Yard Works did not actually improve the property or provide improvements and that Yard Works only passively provided a dump site, Yard Works could not claim under the payment bond.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Know your Obligations: Colorado’s Statutory Expansions of the Implied Warranty of Habitability Are Now in Effect
November 04, 2019 —
Luke Mecklenburg - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogThe Colorado legislature had a busy session this year. Among the several significant bills it enacted, HB1170 strengthens tenant protections under the implied warranty of habitability. It became effective on August 2, 2019, so landlords and tenants alike are now subject to its requirements.
The bill makes numerous changes to Colorado’s implied warranty of habitability, and interested parties should review the bill in detail. Landlords in particular may want to consider retaining legal counsel to make sure they have proper procedures in place to promptly deal with any habitability complaints within the new required timelines. This posting is not intended to provide a comprehensive guide to the changed law, but simply to highlight some of the most significant changes.
With that caveat, landlords and tenants should be aware that as of August 2, 2019:
- The following conditions are now deemed to make a residential residence uninhabitable for the purposes of the implied warranty of habitability:
- The presence of mold, which is defined as “microscopic organisms or fungi that can grow in damp conditions in the interior of a building.”
- A refrigerator, range stove, or oven (“Appliance”) included within a residential premises by a landlord for the use of the tenant that did not conform “to applicable law at the time of installation” or that is not “maintained in good working order.” Nothing in this statute requires a landlord to provide any appliances, but these requirements apply if the landlord either agreed to provide appliances in a written agreement or provided them at the inception of the tenant’s occupancy.
- Other conditions that “materially interfere with the tenant’s life, health or safety.”
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mcklenburg, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com
Oregon Supreme Court Confirms Broad Duty to Defend
November 21, 2017 — Theresa A. Guertin - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Blog
Originally published by CDJ on January 13, 2017
The Supreme Court of Oregon issued a decision at the end of last year which perfectly illustrates the lengths to which a court may go to grant a contractor’s claim for defense from its insurer in a construction defect suit. In West Hills Development Co. v. Chartis Claims, Inc.,1 the Court held that a subcontractor’s insurer had a duty to defend a general contractor as an additional insured because the allegations of a homeowner’s association’s complaint could be interpreted to fall within the ambit of coverage provided under the policy—despite the fact that the policy only provided ongoing operations coverage, and despite the fact that the subcontractor was never mentioned in the complaint. The decision is favorable to policyholders but also provides an important lesson: that contractors may avoid additional insured disputes if those contractors have solid contractual insurance requirements for both ongoing and completed operations risks.
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Guertin may be contacted at tag@sdvlaw.com
Appeals Court Affirms Carrier’s Duty to Pay Costs Taxed Against Insured in Construction Defect Suit
November 03, 2016 — Jesse Howard Witt – The Witt Law Firm
One of the key reasons for builders to maintain liability insurance is to cover the cost of hiring defense counsel and paying litigation costs in the event of a construction defect lawsuit. If a builder loses a lawsuit, it will typically be responsible for paying the plaintiff’s litigation costs. Today, the Colorado Court of Appeals clarified that the “supplementary payments” section of a standard Commercial General Liability (CGL) insurance policy covers such costs, even if the carrier has reserved the right to dispute whether it has a duty to indemnify the actual damages awarded. This may seem counter-intuitive, insofar as a carrier may owe costs even if it does not cover the underlying loss, but the court’s decision is consistent with the plain language of the CGL form that most carriers use.
Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, The Witt Law Firm
Mr. Witt may be contacted at his website www.witt.law
Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
The Hidden Dangers of Construction Defect Litigation: A Redux
January 17, 2013 — David McLain, Higgings, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
I previously wrote an article entitled “The Hidden Dangers of Construction Defect Litigation” for the Common Interests magazine, the monthly periodical of the Rocky Mountain Chapter of the Community Associations Institute. In that article, I discussed the potential negative effects of homeowners associations bringing construction defect suits as anything other than a last resort. The purpose of this post is to bring to light, by way of a real life example, the problems discussed in my previous article.
I have recently seen a lawsuit filed by an individual homeowner within a common interest community against the homeowners association, its management company, and the attorneys retained by the association to represent it in a construction defect lawsuit against the original developer, general contractor, and one of the design professionals. In his suit, the homeowner complains that the association’s construction defect attorneys “neglected to amend [their] complaint to include only and specifically the claims for damages for those properties, those buildings or condominium units, either by owner or specific locations, which had sustained damages or had faulty construction for which damages were being sought.” As a result of claiming damages throughout the entire community, the homeowner alleged that the entire community was tarred “with the black brush of litigation.”
As the homeowner explained in his complaint, he purchased a condominium for his daughter-in-law when she moved to Colorado to care for him after the death of his wife.
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain
Mr. McLain can be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com
