Record Keeping—the Devil’s in the Details
July 30, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contract AdvisorAnother court has found that poor record keeping will prevent recovery on a claim. The court in Weatherproofing Tech., Inc. v. Alacran Contracting, LLC found that a contractor’s documents were a mess and that no reasonable jury could base a verdict on the contractor’s records.
The underlying project involved the construction of an army training facility. The total project cost approximated $13 million. Alacran, the general contractor, subcontracted about $3 million of the work to Weatherproofing Tech. Alacran paid Weatherproofing $700,000 for its work, even though Weatherproofing submitted invoices of more than $2 million. Alacran justified its refusal to pay Weatherproofing on the grounds that the parties had agreed to split the profit and loss on the project and the project was out of money. Not surprisingly, Weatherproofing sued Alacran for the amount owed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
Badly Constructed Masonry Walls Not an Occurrence in Arkansas Law
May 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe US District Court for Maryland has granted a summary judgment in the case Konover Construction Corp. v. ATC Associates to Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company and denied a request for dismissal from ACT. Konover (KBE) was contracted by Wal-Mart to build a Wal-Mart store and a Sam’s Club in Port Covington, Maryland. Superus, Inc. was hired by KBE to build the masonry walls. Superus purchased a policy from Massachusetts Bay Insurance which named KBE as an additional insured. Wal-Mart hired ATC Associates to independently test and inspect the concrete structural steel, and masonry.
After the building was in use, a large crack appeared which was attributed a latent construction defect. Other cracks were discovered. Upon investigation, it was discovered that there were “voids or foam in the concrete block surrounding the reinforcing steel that should have been filled with grout,” and in some cases, “reinforcing steel was missing or not installed in accordance with the specifications.” KBE paid for the repair and remediation and Wal-Mart assigned all rights and interests against ATC to KBE.
KBE filed suit against ATC. ATC called for dismissal on the grounds that Wal-Mart had no claims as the problems had been remediated. Wal-Mart then provided KBE with additional agreements to give them enforceable rights against ATC and Superus. KBE filed a fourteen claims against ATC, Superus, and Massachusetts Bay. In the current case, Massachusetts Bay sought summary judgment and ATC sought dismissal of all claims against it.
Massachusetts Bay claims that they need not indemnify Superus, as “there is no evidence adequate to establish that Superus’ defective work caused any collateral and/or resulting damage that was not subject to an Impaired Property exclusion, and that, in any event, no damage occurred during the policy period.”
As Wal-Mart is headquarted in Arkansas, certain contracts were under Arkansas law. Under the Arkansas courts, “defective workmanship, standing alone and resulting in damages only to the work product itself, is not an ‘occurrence.’” The court determined that collateral or resultant damage would be covered. The court found that “it is clear under Arkansas law, and the parties appear to agree, that Massachusetts Bay is not obligated to indemnify KBE for any repairs to the masonry walls themselves, including any cracks or gaps in the walls.” The court also found that “there is no evidence adequate to prove that any allegedly resultant property damage was caused by Superus’ faulty construction of the walls.” The court also noted that “if the building code violation and structural integrity problem were ‘property damage,’ insurance coverage would be barred by the Impaired Property Exclusion.” Based on these findings, the court concluded that Massachusetts Bay is entitled to summary judgment.
While the court dismissed the case against Massachusetts Bay, the court declined ATC’s motion to dismiss. The court noted that ACT’s alleged negligence in conducting inspections “created only a risk of economic loss for KBE.” Although hired by Wal-Mart, ATC “transmitted its daily testing and inspection reports of the Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club projects directly to KBE.” The court found that “KBE has made a plausible claim.”
ATC also claimed that KBE contributed to the negligence due to the negligence of its subcontractor. The court concluded that it was plausible that “ATC will not be able to carry its burden of proving KBE was contributorily negligent.” The court was less sanguine about KBE’s fraud claim, but though it “may not now appear likely to have merit, it is above the ‘plausibility’ line.”
In conclusion, KBE may not continue its case against Massachusetts Bay. However, the judge allowed the other proceedings to continue.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wildfire Is Efficient Proximate Cause of Moisture Reaching Expansive Soils Under Residence
November 05, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court considered whether a wildfire (covered risk) or moisture in the soils (excluded risk) was the cause of damage to the insureds' home. Encompass Ins. Co. v. Berger, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142870 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2014).
In May 2009, the Jesusita Fire caused damage to the insureds' home and surrounding area. The west wall of the house was burned, causing damage to a bedroom. A shed, hot tub, wooden decks and some vegetation, including eucalyptus trees, were damaged.
The insureds submitted a claim to Encompass. Eventually, Encompass spent $400,000 repairing the property.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
NYC Supertall Tower Condo Board Sues Over Alleged Construction, Design 'Defects'
October 04, 2021 —
James Leggate - Engineering News-RecordThe condominium board at a 1,396-ft-tall residential tower on New York City’s Billionaires’ Row has sued the building’s developers, claiming to have identified more than 1,500 construction and design defects in common areas alone.
Reprinted courtesy of
James Leggate, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Attorneys’ Fees and the American Arbitration Association Rule
September 09, 2024 —
Bill Wilson - Construction Law ZoneA common question from clients, when a dispute arises on a construction project, is whether they can recover their attorney’s fees from the other side if they pursue a case and win. More often than not, such fees are not recoverable. As a general rule (commonly known as the “American Rule”), each party to a dispute must bear their own attorney’s fees unless there is some statutory provision or contractual agreement between the parties allowing otherwise. Since most construction disputes involve claims for breach of contract and/or negligence, no realistic statutory provision often allows for attorney’s fees. Many construction contracts do not typically provide a prevailing party the right to collect attorney’s fees from the other side. However, even if the American Rule applies, there may be another path to recovering attorney’s fees if the parties agree to arbitrate their dispute under the American Arbitration Association (AAA) rules.
Reprinted courtesy of
Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLP
Mr. Wilson may be contacted at wwilson@rc.com
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Congratulations to BWB&O’s Newport Beach Team for Prevailing on a Highly Contested Motion to Quash!
January 08, 2024 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPCongratulations to Newport Partners Tyler Offenhauser and Jonathan Cothran, and Associate Anisha Kohli, who recently prevailed on behalf of BWB&O’s client before the Orange County Superior Court on a highly contested Motion to Quash Service based on Plaintiff’s failure to timely file and serve a DOE Amendment, naming our client.
BWB&O’s client was the owner of a building where Plaintiff, a licensed electrician, was electrocuted while performing an upgrade to the building’s electrical infrastructure. Plaintiff’s original lawsuit named only the building’s tenant, who was also represented by BWB&O. BWB&O was successful earlier this year on a Motion for Summary Judgment under the Privette Doctrine and won judgment on behalf of the client/tenant. While that MSJ was pending, Plaintiff surreptitiously added the building’s owner to the suit with a DOE Amendment, after several months earlier learning the owner and then tenant were entities operated by the same individual. However, Plaintiff never informed counsel or any other party of the filing. Moreover, after the MSJ was granted, Plaintiff then waited several more months to serve the building’s owner.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
3 Common Cash Flow Issues That Plague The Construction Industry
August 20, 2019 —
Patrick Hogan, HandleThe construction industry has its fair share of serious cash flow problems. The nature of the industry with long periods between billing and collection, the unpredictability of some business factors, and even the day-to-day decisions of stakeholders have a huge effect on cash reserves.
So how can you protect your business from these cash flow problems? Having a greater awareness of the most common cash flow problems is the key to maintaining your financial stability. Here are some of the top cash flow issues that construction companies need to watch out for.
1. Uncontrolled business growth
The growth of a business as a cash flow problem sounds unintuitive. It is supposed to be a positive thing. So how could it hurt your construction business? When it goes out of control.
During the growth phase, the company will need to expand its operations to meet the increasing demand. This means renting a larger office space, hiring more staff, and buying more inventory, all of which can burn through the company’s cash quickly. The more substantial the level of your growth is, the more your cash flow is affected.
Growth is a good thing, but it is important to be aware of the pitfalls that you could encounter that can lead to cash flow problems. If you are dealing with a volatile growth instead of a stable one, you have to think twice before expanding your operations. A quarter with a large number of construction project deals does not guarantee the same happening in a subsequent quarter.
2. Change of scope or scope creep
The scope, or the statement of work, is the foundation that guides a construction project from start to finish. It specifies all the deliverables needed by the project as agreed by all stakeholders. When the existing requirements are altered, new features are added, or project goals are changed uncontrollably, what happens is scope creep and it can hurt a company’s cash flow.
Construction projects can take a long time before they are finished. A lot of factors can result in changes in the scope. There may be changes in the market strategy, market demand, and other unpredictable variables that make changes in the project requirements a necessity. These changes build up and the project may shift away from what was intended, causing delays, loss of quality, and the rise of planned costs.
One way to prevent scope creep from affecting cash flow significantly is charging a fee for variations of the scope of work. However, having a solid and clear scope baseline is still the best way to combat scope creep. Reminding clients of what you signed up for by referring to the baseline is a good strategy to deal with pushy clients.
3. Payment delays and nonpayment
As previously mentioned, the construction industry tends to have a lengthy period between sending an invoice and collecting payments. And if you are too passive in your collection, clients are more likely to extend pay periods and delay paying you.
Unexpected delays in payment and other payment issues can have a devastating effect on companies that have little to no cash reserves. Without a cash cushion to fall back on, payment issues can threaten the existence of the business itself. If you are unable to manage your receivables, you will not have enough cash to pay the bills, pay employees, and fund your growth.
Payment delays and nonpayment can happen for several reasons. They can be simple like mistakes in the invoicing or the person needed to approve the invoice is unavailable. More serious reasons like a client unsatisfied with your service or, worse, trying to scam you are also possibilities. For these reasons, it is crucial to communicate with clients properly and see if you can agree with a payment structure or pursue legal action.
The construction industry operates slightly differently from other industries. Different projects produce different cash flow issues and require different strategies. By being aware of the top cash flow problems that can hurt your construction business, you will be better equipped in dealing with them in case they happen.
About the Author:
Patrick Hogan is the CEO of Handle, where they build software that helps contractors, subcontractors, and material suppliers secure their lien rights and get paid faster by automating the collection process for unpaid construction invoices. Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick Hogan, CEO, Handle
Reminder: A Little Pain Now Can Save a Lot of Pain Later
April 28, 2016 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsI know, you think you hear it enough from me here at Construction Law Musings. I am seemingly constantly beating the drum of early advice from a construction attorney and the benefits of spending a bit of money now to avoid spending a lot of money later. I do this because real world examples of both the costs of failing to prepare early and the benefits of following this advice abound.
An example of the costs of failing to prepare early can be
found at the Construction Payment where the zLien folks discuss a New Hampshire case where a contractor lost two thirds of its potential damages because it did not properly set out the contractual terms and what was to be included in contractual damages. Without any clear line to go on, the Court found liability against the NHDOT for negligent misrepresentation and could only award damages up to a cap that was approximately a third of the damages awarded by the jury and about half of what the trial court had determined to be the damages.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PCMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
