Specific Source of Water Not Relevant in Construction Defect Claim
June 28, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Nebraska Court of Appeals has concluded that a lower court came to the correct conclusion in a construction defect case involving water intrusion. The Hiatts built a home in North Platte, Nebraska, in in 2004 which they sold to the Oettingers in May, 2006. Shortly thereafter, the Oettingers started experiencing problems with water intrusion and contacted the Hiatts. The Hiatts responded by replacing the septic lift. Subsequently, the Oettingers landscaped their yard, which they allege was done with the assistance of the Hiatts. The water problems continued and “the parties took substantial remedial measures, including excavating the sidewalk and inspecting the downspouts.” The water problems continued, getting worse and requiring increasingly aggressive responses.
The Oettingers then had a series of inspections, and they hired the last of these inspectors to actually fix the water intrusion problem. At that point, they filed a lawsuit against the Hiatts alleging that the Hiatts “breached their contact by constructing and selling a home that was not built according to reasonable construction standards,” and that they “were negligent in the repair of the home in 2009.”
During the trial, Irving Hiatt testified that they “tarred the outside of the basement and put plastic into the tar and another layer of plastic over the top of that.” He claimed that the problem was with the Oettingers’ landscaping. This was further claimed in testimony of his son, Vernon Hiatt, who said the landscaping lacked drainage.
The Oettingers had three experts testify, all of whom noted that the landscaping could not have been the problem. All three experts testified as to problems with the Hiatts’ construction. The court concluded that the Hiatts had breached an implied warranty, rejecting the claim that the water intrusion was due to the landscaping. The Hiatts appealed the decision of the county court to the district court. Here, the judgment of the lowest court was confirmed, with the district court again finding a breach of the implied warranty of workmanlike performance.
The Hiatts appealed again. They alleged that the district court should not have held a breach of implied warranty existed without proving the source of the water intrusion, and that damages should have been apportioned based on the degree to which the Oettingers’ landscaping and basement alterations were responsible. The appeals court dispensed with the second claim first, noting that “they do not argue this error in their brief nor do they explain how or why the trial court should have apportioned damages.” The court also noted that although the Oettingers made a negligence claim in their suit, the case had been decided on the basis of a breach of implied warranty.
The appeals court upheld the Oettingers’ claim of a breach of implied warranty. In order to do this, the court noted that the Oettingers had to show that an implied warranty existed, that the Haitts breached that warranty, damage was suffered as a result, and that no express warranty limited the implied warranty. That court noted that “the record is sufficient to prove that the Hiatts breached the implied warranty in the method in which they constructed the basement” and that “this breach was the cause of the Oettingers’ damages.”
The court concluded that the Oettingers “provided sufficient evidence that the Hiatts’ faulty construction allowed water, whatever its source, to infiltrate the basement.” The court rejected the Hiatts’ claim that the Oettingers’ repairs voided the warranty, as it was clear that the Hiatts were involved in carrying out these repairs. The court’s final conclusion was that “the evidence in the record supports the trial court’s factual finding that the Hiatts’ flawed construction caused water damage to the Oettingers’ basement.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Can’t Get a Written Change Order? Document, Document, Document
August 29, 2018 —
Todd M. Heffner - Smith CurrieMost construction contracts require that any changes to the work be made formally, in writing, via a change order, work directive, or similar written document. Frequently, however, changes to the work or extra work are communicated orally by the architect, engineer, or owner’s representative, instead of in writing. What is the contractor to do in such a situation? The best option is follow the provisions of the contract and demand a written change order before performing changed work. Unfortunately, the realities of construction sometimes make it impossible to get the changes in the proper format in a timely manner. Savvy contractors will maintain schedule and produce written documentation of the change in lieu of a formal change order or directive. But many contractors will simply proceed with the changed work, relying on the owner, architect, or engineer to do the right thing and stand by their oral instructions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Todd M. Heffner, Smith CurrieMr. Heffner may be contacted at
tmheffner@smithcurrie.com
Robinson+Cole’s Amicus Brief Adopted and Cited by Massachusetts’s High Court
July 31, 2024 —
Erica Whaley - Construction Law ZoneEarlier this year, the
Associated Subcontractors of Massachusetts hired Robinson+Cole attorney
Joseph Barra to submit an amicus brief to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for consideration in the appeal pending before it in
Business Interiors Floor Covering Business Trust v. Graycor Construction Co., Inc. In its June 17, 2024 decision in that case, the Court interpreted the Massachusetts Prompt Pay Act, which applies to private construction projects and “requires that parties to a construction contract approve or reject payment within” an allotted time period and in compliance with certain procedures else such payments will be deemed approved. Two years ago, the Massachusetts Appeals Court, in
Tocci Building Corp. v. IRIV Partners, LLC, decided that an owner who fails to timely advise its general contractor of the reasons as to why it was withholding payment, coupled with failure to certify that such funds are being withheld in good faith, violates the Prompt Pay Act and makes the owner liable for funds owed.
[1] However, the Tocci Building Court left open the question of whether one who violates the Prompt Pay Act forfeits its substantive defenses to non-payment, such as fraud, defective work, or breach of material obligation of the contract.
The facts of Business Interiors involve a general contractor, Graycor, which subcontracted Business Interiors to perform certain flooring work for a movie theatre in Boston’s North End. When Graycor failed to formally approve, reject, or certify, in good faith, its withholding of payment of three of Business Interiors’ applications for payment as prescribed by the Prompt Pay Act, Business Interiors brought suit alleging, among other things, breach of contract. Business Interiors then moved for summary judgement arguing that Graycor’s failure to comply with the Act rendered it liable for the unpaid invoices.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Robinson + Cole
City Wonders Who’s to Blame for Defective Wall
February 14, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFA wall along a beach trail in Treasure Island, Florida is cracking, and opinions are divided over it. One city commissioner, Alan Bildz, said “it looks like somebody was doing their first concrete job.” An engineer from the design firm described it as a “cosmetic issue.” Bildz was overruled on his suggestion that the wall be torn down and rebuilt.
In later sections of the wall, expansion joints seem to have remedied the problem. But while the architect has offered to pay for filling the cracks with epoxy and polyurethane caulk, there’s still the question of adding expansion joints to the project. City Commissioner Phil Collins noted that the city has allocated more than $50,000 to add expansion joints, yet he feels the city should not be responsible for the expense, noting that the design could be considered defective, and under the terms of the contract, “the contractor shall bear the cost.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Miller Act Bond Claims Subject to “Pay If Paid”. . . Sometimes
November 04, 2019 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsThe Federal Miller Act is a great tool that subcontractors and suppliers on Federal projects can use for collection of wrongfully withheld amounts due. However, as a recent federal case from the Eastern District of Virginia points out, the construction contract’s terms affect when a subcontractor or supplier can use this great collection tool and how much it can recover.
In Aarow v Travelers the Court looked at the interaction between a typical termination clause, a “pay when paid” clause, and the Miller Act. The key facts are these. The general contractor on the project at issue, Syska, did not get paid some disputed amounts by the owner and subsequently did not pay Aarow, the plaintiff and a subcontractor on the project. Aarow then refused to continue work and was terminated by Syska who then took over the completion of the work. Aarow sued, seeking damages for the value of its work prior to the termination. Travellers, the surety defended stating that, if Aarow was properly terminated for cause by Syska, then Aarow was not entitled to payment under the contract until such time as the work was completed and accepted by the owner. The termination clauses are set out in the linked opinion.
The Court agreed with Travelers, stating that the pay when paid clause created a situation whereby Aarow could not stop work merely because of a non-payment by Syska attributed to non-payment by the owner. The Court was clear in stating that the Miller Act trumps “pay when paid” in instances where the only cause for non-payment is non-payment by an owner. The Court then reasoned that it is the interaction between the termination and “pay when paid” provisions, and not the “pay when paid” clause itself, that exonerated Travelers because it created the default by Aarow due to its refusal to continue work. In short, Aarow was properly terminated for cause because it left the job without justification and therefore Travelers was not liable.
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
Wait! Don’t Sign Yet: Reviewing Contract Protections During the COVID Pandemic
April 13, 2020 —
Danielle S. Ward - Balestreri Potocki & HolmesAs the circumstances of the COVID pandemic change day by day, and we all rush to keep business moving where and when we can, companies should consider hitting the “pause button” before renewing or executing any new contracts. Developing contracts often takes considerable time and expense, and companies are not in the habit of reworking them often. A change in law may prompt a company to revisit their contract terms, but otherwise business is often carried out with a standard form contract for a period of years. With the COVID pandemic affecting nearly every business and industry, life is not business as usual, and companies should make sure their contracts consider what previously seemed like an unforeseeable event.
Force Majeure clauses are included in many contracts to excuse contract performance when made impossible by some unforeseen circumstance. These clauses typically fall under two categories: general and specific. General force majeure clauses excuse performance if performance is prevented by circumstances outside the parties’ control. By contrast, specific force majeure clauses detail the exhaustive list of circumstances (acts of god, extreme weather, war, riot, terrorism, embargoes) which would excuse contract performance. Force majeure clauses are typically interpreted narrowly. If your contract has a specific clause and pandemic or virus is not one of the listed circumstances it may not apply. Whether a particular existing contract covers the ongoing COVID pandemic will vary depending on the language of the contract.
Force majeure clauses previously made headlines when the great economic recession hit in 2008. A number of courts held that simple economic hardship was not enough to invoke force majeure. The inability to pay or lack of desire to pay for the contracted goods or services did not qualify as force majeure. In California, impossibility turns on the nature of the contractual performance, and not in the inability of the obligor to do it. (Kennedy v. Reece (1964) 225 Cal. App. 2d 717, 725.) In other words, the task is objectively impossible not merely impossible or more burdensome to the specific contracting party.
California has codified “force majeure” protection where the parties haven’t included any language or the circumstances in the clause don’t apply to the situation at hand. Civil Code section 1511 excuses performance when “prevented or delayed by an irresistible, superhuman cause, or by the act of public enemies of this state or of the United States, unless the parties have expressly agreed to the contrary.” (Civ. Code § 1511.) What qualifies as a “superhuman cause”? In California, the test is whether under the particular circumstances there was such an insuperable interference occurring without the party's intervention as could not have been prevented by the exercise of prudence, diligence and care. (Pacific Vegetable Oil Corp. v. C. S. T., Ltd. (1946) 29 Cal.2d 228, 238.)
If you find yourself in an existing contract without a force majeure clause, or the statute does not apply, you may consider the doctrine of frustration of purpose. This doctrine is applied narrowly where performance remains possible, but the fundamental reason the parties entered into the contract has been severely or substantially frustrated by an unanticipated supervening circumstance, thus destroying substantially the value of the contract. (Cutter Laboratories, Inc. v. Twining (1963) 221 Cal. App. 2d 302, 314-15.) In other words, performance is still possible but valueless. Note this defense is not likely to apply where the contract has simply become less profitable for one party.
Now that COVID is no longer an unforeseeable event, but rather a current and grave reality, a party executing a contract today without adequate protections may have a difficult time proving unforeseeability. Scientists are not sure whether warm weather will suppress the spread of the virus, as it does with the seasonal flu, but to the extent we get a reprieve during the summer we may see a resurgence of cases this Fall or Winter. Companies should take care in reviewing force majeure clauses, and other clauses tied to timely performance such as delay and liquidated damages before renewing or executing new contracts.
Your contract scenario may vary from the summary provided above. Please contact legal counsel before making any decisions. During this critical time, BPH’s attorneys can be reached via email to answer your questions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Danielle S. Ward, Balestreri Potocki & HolmesMs. Ward may be contacted at
dward@bph-law.com
Pandemic-Related Construction Materials Pricing Poses Challenges in Construction Lawsuits
September 20, 2021 —
Nick Stewart - Construction ExecutiveDuring the global pandemic the construction industry saw unprecedented inflation in the cost of building supplies as a result of a myriad of issues. On May 7, 2021, lumber prices hit a record high at $1,670.50 per thousand board feet. This was more than six times their pandemic low in April 2020. This significant price spike was related to closure of sawmills during the height of the pandemic, low supply, soaring demand to expand existing homes or purchase new construction, the western U.S. wildfires and tariffs.
More recently, lumber prices have fallen but they are still up nearly 100% from spring 2020. Some experts believe that the recent wildfires in the western United States and upcoming hurricane season will cause prices to jump back up in the upcoming months.
Additionally, since March 2020, steel prices are up roughly 200%. The increase in steel prices is a result of many of the same factors causing lumber pricing spikes. Many steel mills shut down production or drastically reduced production during the early days of the pandemic expecting a deep recession and/or to comply with restrictive government mandates. Despite these industry expectations, demand for steel -elated products like grills and home appliances soared. These household demands for steel-based products impacted the price of steel for construction projects. Prior to the pandemic, hot-rolled steel traded between $500 and 800 per ton but hit an all-time high of $1,825 per ton in early July 2021.
Reprinted courtesy of
Nick Stewart, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Stewart may be contacted at
nstewart@turnerpadget.com
Update Relating to SB891 and Bond Claim Waivers
June 10, 2015 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsSeveral bills were passed and will go into effect on July 1, 2015 that affect the construction industry here in Virginia. The most interesting of these was an amendment to the mechanic’s lien statutes relating to waivers of lien rights.
As I posted in March, SB891 amended the mechanic’s lien statute, Va. Code Section 43-3, to remove proactive waivers of lien and bond rights. This bill has been signed into law with a minor modification.
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
