Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Beyond the Flow-Down Clause: Subcontract Provisions That Can Expose General Contractors to Increased Liability and Inconsistent Outcomes

December 10, 2024 — Phillip L. Parham III - ConsensusDocs
Flow-down clauses in construction subcontracts—blanket clauses providing that some or all of the terms and conditions in the prime contract between the general contractor and the property owner apply equally between the subcontractor and general contractor—are an important component to managing risk for a general contractor and reducing the likelihood of disputes with either/both the owner and subcontractor. Put simply, flow-down provisions can provide continuity between the general contractor’s obligations to the owner and the subcontractor’s obligations to the general contractor. Properly drafted, flow-down clauses reduce the general contractor’s risk by ensuring that the subcontractor is legally bound to meet the owner’s objectives for the project in the same way as the general contractor. But relying on blanket flow-down clauses, alone, to protect the general contractor is like a soldier going into battle with nothing but a helmet, leaving significant other areas exposed and unprotected. In other words, a general contractor should look beyond just a singular, blanket flow down of terms to ensure its bases are properly covered. Accordingly, this article goes beyond the blanket flow-down clause and highlights several key subcontract provisions where inconsistent obligations among the subcontractor, general contractor, and owner expose the general contractor to increased liability and inconsistent outcomes. Specifically, this article will examine disputes resolution clauses, liquidating provisions, notice provisions, and termination provisions. However, this article will not provide a deep examination of these clauses, nor does it highlight every potentially relevant clause. Rather, it focuses on these select clauses to highlight important issues associated with flow-down provisions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Phillip L. Parham III, Jones Walker LLP
Mr. Parham may be contacted at pparham@joneswalker.com

A Win for Policyholders: California Court of Appeals Applies Vertical Exhaustion for Continuous Injury Claims

August 24, 2020 — Celia B. Waters - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Fresh off the heels of the California Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Super. Ct. of L.A. Cty. (“Montrose III”),1 policyholders scored another victory as another California court rejected horizontal exhaustion in the context of continuous injury cases. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Four, in SantaFe Braun Inc. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., adopted a rule of vertical exhaustion, holding that “[absent an explicit policy provision to the contrary] the insured becomes entitled to the coverage it purchased from the excess carriers once the primary policies specified in the excess policy have been exhausted.”2 The dispute in SantaFe Braun began in 1992 when asbestos-related claims were first filed against Braun. In 1998, Braun’s three primary insurers agreed in writing to defend and settle the underlying claims against Braun while resolving allocation among themselves. In 2004, Braun filed the current suit against its excess insurers, seeking a declaration that the excess insurers were obligated to help cover the costs of the underlying asbestos-related lawsuits. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Celia B. Waters, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Ms. Waters may be contacted at cbw@sdvlaw.com

“Bound by the Bond”

September 02, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
A New York trial court granted judgment in favor of a performance bond surety on a construction project, based upon the failure of the claiming party to abide by the terms of the bond. The “AIA Document A312” bond form – described by the court (quoting surety law authority) to be “one of the clearest, most definitive, and widely used type of traditional common law ‘performance bonds’ in private construction” – contains various procedures which must be honored as a “condition precedent to an action to recover” on the bond/against the surety. One of those prerequisites is a “declaration of default” concerning the contractor principal (here, a subcontractor). The case involved the construction of an 85-story skyscraper in midtown Manhattan, and the performance of the subcontract for the building’s superstructure. The bonded contract was at a value of approximately $25,000,000 and obligated the sub to provide a performance bond “in a form similar to the [A312 bond],” and which was otherwise satisfactory to the obligee/construction manager. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

Death, Taxes and Attorneys’ Fees in Construction Disputes

July 18, 2022 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
According to Benjamin Franklin there are two certainties in this world: Death and taxes. Let me humbly add a third if you’re ever involved in non-contingency civil litigation: Attorneys’ fees. As such, when it comes to legal disputes, sophisticated parties know that it’s not just about winning but the cost of winning. While winning is never certain – remember Poor Richard’s proverb above – what is certain is that it will most likely cost you to find out whether you’ve won or lost. That’s why the ability to recover (or at least threaten the recovery of attorneys’ fees – that’s a separate discussion altogether) in litigation and arbitration is so important. A few facts:

According to the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) in their 2013 report, Measuring the Cost of Civil Litigation: Findings From a Survey of Trial Lawyers, the median cost of litigation (i.e., attorneys’ fees) for contract disputes, of which most construction disputes would fall under, was $90,575 from case initiation through post-trial disposition.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Construction Attorneys Tell DBR that Business is on the Rise

October 08, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Daily Business Review reported that Florida “attorneys anticipate lawsuits over construction defects, workmanship, change orders and warranties.” "We construction lawyers know this wave of litigation is coming, and we are getting ready," said attorney Jason Kellogg, a partner at Levine Kellogg Lehman Schneider + Grossman in Miami, told the Daily Business Review. Kellogg also stated that “there is a shortage of skilled workers in areas such as plumbing, electrical and other specialities that almost inevitably will lead to subpar work and defect litigation.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Billionaire Row Condo Board Sues Developers Over 1,500 Building Defects

September 29, 2021 — Robert Burnson, Bloomberg
The condo board at one of New York’s tallest and toniest towers sued the building’s developers, claiming design flaws are to blame for flooding, stuck elevators and “horrible and obtrusive noise and vibration.” The residential tower at 432 Park Avenue is a 1,396-foot skyscraper overlooking Central Park that was opened in 2015 on the city’s so-called Billionaire Row. The condo board claims its engineering consultant has identified more than 1,500 construction and design defects — “many of which are described as life safety issues.” The board that represents the condo owners sued the developers, CIM Group and Macklowe Properties, and the company, also known as sponsor, that the developers formed to build the tower. The board is seeking $250 million, plus punitive damages, in the lawsuit, filed Thursday in New York Supreme Court. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Robert Burnson, Bloomberg

The Private Works: Preliminary Notice | Are You Using the Correct Form?

August 20, 2019 — William L. Porter, Esq. - Porter Law Group
The Private Works – Preliminary Notice form which contractors, subcontractors and suppliers had become accustomed to using for many years changed in 2004. Despite this change in law, many in the construction industry have still not started using the correct new form. Changes in the law, championed by the American Subcontractors’ Association, gave a significant new benefit to subcontractors and suppliers by giving the subcontractor or supplier some expectation of actually receiving notice of when a Notice of Completion or a Notice of Cessation has been recorded on many private works projects. The law also changed the language of the California Preliminary Notice that subcontractors and suppliers must use to protect their mechanics’ lien, bond claim and stop payment notice rights. If Owners do not send out the Notice of Completion as required by law they incur a diminishing of the protections afforded to them when they record a Notice of Completion or Notice of Cessation on many private works projects. The revised law requires private project owners to notify all subcontractors and suppliers within 10 days after recording a Notice of Completion or Notice of Cessation that a Notice of Completion or a Notice of Cessation has actually been recorded. In order to receive such notice, the subcontractor or supplier must properly serve the new form of Preliminary Notice. If this properly occurs and the private project owner provides the required notice, then the subcontractor or supplier will have 30 days to record a Mechanics’ Lien. However, if an owner under such circumstances fails to properly notify a subcontractor or supplier within 10 days after recording a Notice of Completion or Notice of Cessation, then the Subcontractor or supplier will have 90 days to record a Mechanics’ Lien. The details of the law can be found in California Civil Code sections 8190, 8414 and 8416. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Esq., Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

What California’s COVID-19 Reopening Means for the Construction Industry

July 05, 2021 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
This past Wednesday, Governor Newsom announced that California would reopen after being in lockdown for over a year due to COVID-19. Gone is Governor’s Stay at Home Executive Order. Gone is California’s Blueprint for a Safer Economy. And gone is the state’s somewhat confusing four-tier, yellow (minimal), orange (moderate), red (substantial) and purple (widespread), risk-level mapping system. So what does this mean for the construction industry? Well it’s not quite business back to usual. CalOSHA’s Standards Board voted this past Thursday to pass revised COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standards (“Revised Standards”). That same day, Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-09-21 implementing the Revised Standards immediately while they are being reviewed by the Office of Administrative Law. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES