Quick Note: Subcontractor Payment Bond = Common Law Payment Bond
February 16, 2017 —
David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhat is a common law payment bond? A common law payment bond is a bond not required or governed by a statute. For example, if a prime contractor provides the owner a payment bond, that bond will be a statutory payment bond. On the other hand, if a subcontractor provides the general contractor with a payment bond, that bond will be a common law payment bond. Why? Because there is not a statute that specifically governs the requirements of a subcontractor’s payment bond given to a general contractor. The subcontractor’s payment bond is aimed at protecting the general contractor (and the general contractor’s payment bond) in the event the subcontractor fails to pay its own subcontractors and suppliers. The subcontractor’s payment bond will generally identify that claimants, as defined by the bond, are those subcontractors and suppliers the subcontractor has failed to pay. This common law payment bond is not recorded in the public records so sometimes it can be challenging for a claimant (anyone unpaid working under the subcontractor that furnished the bond) to obtain a copy of the bond. With that said, an unpaid claimant should consider pursuing a copy of this bond in certain situations, particularly if it may not have preserved a claim against the general contractor’s statutory payment bond.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
New York State Trial Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage” for Asbestos Claims and Other Coverage Issues
January 21, 2019 —
Paul Briganti - White and WilliamsOn November 21, 2018, the New York Supreme Court, Onondaga County, issued a summary-judgment ruling on a number of coverage issues arising from asbestos-related bodily injury claims against plaintiffs Carrier Corporation (Carrier) and Elliott Company (Elliott). See Carrier Corp., et al. v. Travelers Indem. Co., et al., Index No. 2005-EG-7032 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 21, 2018).
First, the court held that under New York’s “injury in fact trigger of coverage,” injury occurs from the first date of exposure to asbestos through death or the filing of suit. The court primarily relied on: (1) New York federal court decisions and the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in In re Viking Pump, Inc., 148 A.3d 633 (Del. 2016) holding that injury continues from first exposure through death or the assertion of a claim; and (2) medical and scientific evidence that the plaintiffs had submitted in support of their motion. The court specifically declined to follow Continental Cas. v. Wausau, 60 A.D.3d 128 (1st Dep’t 2008) (Keasbey), in which the New York Appellate Division found a question of fact whether injury occurs from exposure to asbestos through manifestation and that summary judgment was therefore inappropriate. The Carrier court stated that Keasbey was distinguishable because it “involved operations coverage, a non-product claim, and thus the [Keasbey] Court required a more stringent proof of injury in fact than is necessary here, in a products case.” Carrier, op. at 8. The Carrier court was also dismissive of affidavits offered by the defendant-insurer’s medical experts, finding that the affidavits did not create an issue of fact. See Op. at 2-9.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Paul Briganti, White and WilliamsMr. Briganti may be contacted at
brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com
Contractor’s Charge Of Improvements To Real Property Not Required For Laborers To Have Lien Rights
June 13, 2018 —
Matt T. Paxton - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC BlogIn Washington, persons furnishing labor, professional services, material, or equipment for improvements of real property are generally entitled to a lien on that property, but only if their labor is furnished at the direction of the owner or the owner’s “construction agent.”[1] Whether a lien attaches, therefore, can turn on whether the person directing work is the owner’s construction agent. Washington’s mechanic’s lien statute defines “construction agent” as “any registered or licensed contractor, registered or licensed subcontractor, architect, engineer, or other person having charge of any improvement to real property, who shall be deemed the agent of the owner for the limited purpose of establishing the lien created by this chapter.”[2]
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Matt T. Paxton, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Paxton may be contacted at
matt.paxton@acslawyers.com
Challenging and Defending a California Public Works Stop Payment Notice: Affidavit vs. Counter-Affidavit Process
October 21, 2019 —
William L. Porter - Porter Law GroupOne of the most effective collection procedures available to subcontractors and suppliers to California Construction projects is the “stop payment notice” procedure found under California Civil Code sections 9350 – 9364. Under this procedure, the unpaid subcontractor or supplier may serve the stop payment notice on the public entity and the direct or “prime” contractor and cause the public entity to withhold from the direct contractor 125% of the funds identified in the stop payment notice. Thereafter, funds will not generally be released unless the parties reach a settlement agreement or the issue is decided through litigation, arbitration or mediation. There is however an alternative procedure available to direct contractors to expedite the determination of whether a stop payment notice is valid and to possibly obtain an early release of the funds withheld by the public entity. This “summary proceeding” process could result in release of funds to the direct contractor in less than 30 days. The summary proceeding can also be challenged by the unpaid subcontractor or supplier. All public works contractors, subcontractors and suppliers should be aware of the process. The process for direct contractors to release a stop payment notice and for subcontractors and suppliers to challenge the process works as follows:
After a California stop payment notice has been served and the public entity has withheld funds accordingly, the direct contractor may challenge the stop payment notice by serving an “affidavit” (basically a sworn statement showing why the stop notice is not valid) on the public entity, demanding that the public entity release all funds withheld. Upon receipt of such an affidavit, the public entity will serve the subcontractor or supplier who served the stop payment notice with a copy of the affidavit, along with a “demand for release of funds”. If the stop payment notice claimant does not respond with a “counter-affidavit” by the date stated on the notice sent by the public entity (“not less than 10 days nor more than 20 days after service on the claimant of a copy of the affidavit”), then the public entity will be within its rights to release the withheld funds to the direct contractor, and the stop payment notice claimant will relinquish its stop payment notice rights.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Porter, Porter Law GroupMr. Porter may be contacted at
bporter@porterlaw.com
Florida Adopts Daubert Standard for Expert Testimony
October 07, 2019 —
Michael L. DeBona - The Subrogation StrategistSeven months ago, the Florida Supreme Court declined to adopt Daubert as the standard for admitting expert testimony in Florida state courts. In DeLisle v. Crane Co., 258 So. 3d 1219 (2018), the court reaffirmed that “Frye, not Daubert, is the appropriate test in Florida.” On May 23, 2019, however, Florida’s high court did an about-face. In In Re: Amendment to the Florida Evidence Code, No. SC19-107, the Florida Supreme Court overruled its decision in DeLisle and declared that Florida will now apply the Daubert standard to determine whether scientific evidence is admissible.
The Daubert standard comes from the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), which held that the longstanding Frye test[1] for admitting expert testimony was superseded by Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Daubert instructed that federal judges should act as “gatekeepers” to ensure expert testimony is rooted in scientifically valid principles and that those principles are properly applied to the facts at issue. In determining whether scientific evidence should be admitted, Daubert sets forth several factors to consider: the testability of the theory or technique; the peer review and publication of the theory or technique; the error rate for the technique; the standards controlling the technique’s operation; and the general acceptance of the theory or technique.[2] The Daubert standard is generally considered a more onerous test than Frye, precluding expert testimony that might otherwise go to the jury under Frye.[3] Whereas Frye is a single factor test that applies only to new or novel science, Daubert is a multifactor test that applies to all expert testimony.
Since Daubert, a growing number of states have moved away from the Frye test in favor of the Daubert standard; it is now followed by a majority of jurisdictions in the country. In 2013, the Florida State legislature attempted to move Florida in this direction by amending the Florida Evidence Code to codify the Daubert standard. But because the Florida Supreme Court is vested with the power to make procedural rules and it was unclear whether the Daubert standard was a procedural or substantive rule, it was uncertain whether the 2013 Daubert amendments were controlling law. Then in 2017, in In Re: Amendment to the Florida Evidence Code, No. SC16-181, the Florida Supreme Court expressly declined adopting the Daubert amendments to the extent they were procedural. This decision signaled that, if faced with the Daubert standard on appeal from a litigated case, the Florida Supreme Court would reaffirm that Frye – not Daubert – controlled the admissibility of expert testimony in Florida state courts.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael L. DeBona, White and Williams LLPMr. DeBona may be contacted at
debonam@whiteandwilliams.com
One World Trade Center Due to Be America’s Tallest and World’s Priciest
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFAs One World Trade Center rises, so does the price tag. After construction delays and cost overruns, the cost of the building at the site of the September 11 attacks has risen to $3.8 billion. Part of the expense of the skyscraper is the heavily reinforced base of the building. The elevator shafts are also heavily reinforced, all part of guarding against future terrorist attacks.
In comparison, the world’s tallest tower, the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, cost only $1.5 billion, less than half the cost of One World Trade Center. As a result, the Port Authority does not see the building as being profitable in near future. In order to fund it, the agency is raising tolls on bridge and tunnel traffic.
Currently, about the half the unfinished building is leased. Construction is expected to conclude in 2013.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Homeowner's Claim for Collapse Survives Summary Judgment
September 20, 2017 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe insurer failed to present adequate evidence on summary judgment that damage caused by the collapse of a swimming pool was not covered. Klein v. State Farm Ins. Co., 2017 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3030 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. July 11, 2017).
Klein notified State Farm that his in-ground pool collapsed on February 5, 2014, with a side wall falling into the pool, causing damage to brick, borders and the patio around the pool. Upon inspection, State Farm's agent found that the cover of the pool had partially fallen into the pool, and that the vinyl pool liner had a tear. State Farm covered the damage to the pool liner, but denied coverage for the in-ground swimming pool walls, the brick border and the patio surrounding the pool. State Farm maintained that the loss was due to a "collapse," which was excluded under the homeowner's policy.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Only Two Weeks Until BHA’s Texas MCLE Seminar in San Antonio
April 28, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThere are just two weeks remaining to sign up for Bert L. Howe & Associate’s inaugural Texas MCLE seminar, “THE RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION PROCESS & CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LITIGATION.” This activity will be presented on Friday, May 9th at noon in BHA’s San Antonio offices, located at 17806 IH 10, Suite 300, San Antonio, TX 78256. There is no cost for attendance at this seminar and lunch will be provided.
This course has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of Texas Committee on MCLE in the amount of 1.0 credit hours, of which 0.0 credit hours will apply to legal ethics/professional responsibility credit. The seminar will be presented by Don MacGregor, general contractor and project manager.
Water intrusion through doors, windows and roofing systems, as well as soil and foundation-related movement, and the resultant damage associated therewith, are the triggering effects for the vast majority of homeowner complaints today and serve as the basis for most residential construction defect litigation. The graphic and animation-supported workshop/lecture activity will focus on the residential construction process from site preparation through occupancy, an examination of associated damages most often encountered when investigating construction defect claims, and the inter-relationships between the developer, general contractor, sub trades and design professionals. Typical plaintiff homeowner/HOA expert allegations will be examined in connection with those building components most frequently associated with construction defect and claims litigation.
The workshop will examine:
* Typical construction materials, and terminology associated with residential construction
* The installation process and sequencing of major construction elements, including interrelationship with other building assemblies
* The parties (subcontractors) typically associated with major construction assemblies and components
* An analysis of exposure/allocation to responsible parties.
Attendance at THE RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION PROCESS & CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LITIGATION seminar will provide the attendee with:
* A greater understanding of the terms and conditions encountered when dealing with common construction defect issues
* A greater understanding of contractual scopes of work encountered when reviewing construction contract documents
* The ability to identify, both quickly and accurately, potentially responsible parties
* An understanding of damages most often associated with construction defects, as well as a greater ability to identify conditions triggering coverage
Course #: 901290467 / Sponsor #: 14152.
To register for the event, please email Don MacGregor at dmac@berthowe.com. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Don at (210) 540-9017 (office) or (714) 713-4956 (cell).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
