A New Statute of Limitations on Construction Claims by VA State Agencies?
March 27, 2019 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsI have discussed the Hensel Phelps case and the potential issues caused by both poorly drafted indemnity clauses and the lack of a statute of limitations applicable to the Commonwealth of Virginia and its agencies in 2017. New legislation (supported by various contractor groups including my friends at the AGC of Virginia) has been proposed for the 2019 General Assembly session that seeks to address at least part of this issue. While the indemnity provisions of your construction contracts can be addressed by careful drafting with the help of an experienced construction attorney, the proposed legislation (found in HB1667) seeks to address the statute of limitations issue.
The proposed legislation is described as follows:
Provides that no action may be brought by a public body on any construction contract, including construction management and design-build contracts, unless such action is brought within five years after substantial completion of the work on the project and that no action may be brought by a public body on a warranty or guarantee in such construction contract more than one year from the breach of that warranty, but in no event more than one year after the expiration of such warranty or guarantee. The bill also limits the time frame during which a public body, other than the Department of Transportation, may bring an action against a surety on a performance bond to within one year after substantial completion of the work on the project.
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
Nashville Stadium Bond Deal Tests Future of Spectator Sports
December 14, 2020 —
Amanda Albright & Danielle Moran - BloombergAmerica’s country-music capital is making a bet on the world’s most popular sport.
A Nashville, Tennessee agency is selling $225 million of bonds to finance the construction of a 30,000-seat Major League Soccer stadium in Music City, anticipating it could be a boon once spectator sports emerge from the pandemic. Local officials have faith that it will: the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County agreed to step in if revenue from the stadium isn’t enough to cover the debt payments, insulating bondholders from risk.
Reprinted courtesy of
Amanda Albright, Bloomberg and
Danielle Moran, Bloomberg
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
2019’s Biggest Labor and Employment Moves Affecting Construction
January 27, 2020 —
Micah Dawson - Construction ExecutiveThe construction industry is fueled by change, which is the only constant in life and construction. Still, continuous change makes compliance with state and federal laws and regulations more difficult.
While contractors may thrive on the frantic pace, sometimes it is good to look back and ensure they have an understanding of, and are complying with, the newest regulations and laws.
Top 10 Stories Dominating Employment Law in Construction
1. Trio of Federal Joint Employment Rules Expected in December 2019
Joint employment took center stage during the November 20, 2019 release of the Fall Regulatory Agenda, as three separate federal agencies announced plans to move forward with revised joint employment rules in December. While the Department of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board had already released versions of their draft rules, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission also announced that it would weigh in on the topic before the end of 2019. As of January 10, 2020, the EEOC had not done so.
2. NLRB Tightens Union Access to Employer Property
In a ruling that levels the labor relations playing field, the NLRB ruled that employers could rightfully eject outside union representatives soliciting petition signatures from a shared shopping center parking area. When read in conjunction with an earlier 2019 decision conferring greater rights to limit on-premises union activity by abolishing the “public space” exception, the NLRB has significantly restricted union access to private employer property.
Reprinted courtesy of
Micah Dawson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Dawson may be contacted at
mdawson@fisherphillips.com
Court Strikes Down Reasonable Construction Defect Settlement
December 20, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Court of Appeals of Washington has struck down a construction defect settlement between a building owner and the companies she hired to repair the siding, among other repairs to bring the building up to code. Yuan Zhang hired Hawk Construction LLC to do repair work. Hawk, in turn, hired Ready Construction LLC for some aspects of the project. Hawk and Ready were both insured by Capital Specialty Insurance Corporation.
There were several problems with Ready’s work. After removing old siding, they did not protect the building, nor did they remove all of the damaged layers. Ready covered, but did not fix, a mildew problem under the old siding. When new siding was reattached, the nails used were too short to adequately attach it.
After paying for an inspection of the work, Zhang had Hawk and Ready begin the repairs again, but the work was abandoned without being completed. Zhang sued Hawk for breach of contract. Hawk then sued Ready, claiming that “Ready was liable to Hawk to the extent that Hawk was liable to Zhang.” Capitol retained defense for both contractors.
Zhang settled with Hawk, in an agreement that gave her “the right to collect and/or pursue all costs and attorney fees paid by Hawk or its insurance company defending against the Zhang’s claims and pursuing claims against Ready.” Subsequently, she also settled with Ready. Both companies ceased operations.
Zhang had the settlements reviewed by a court, which concluded that the settlements were reasonable. Capital was allowed to appeal, claiming that the settlement included costs that were Zhang’s responsibility. The appeals court did not examine the question of the reasonableness of the settlement, concluding that Capitol’s interests were relevant only to “questions of bad faith, collusion, and fraud.”
In the case of Zhang, the court concluded that the relationship between Zhang and her former contractors was collusive. The court noted that “bad faith or collusion may exist when the evidence indicates a joint effort to create, in a non-adversarial atmosphere, a resolution beneficial to both parties, yet highly prejudicial to the insurer as intervener.” The court noted that both companies had minimal assets which were, in any case, exempted from the agreement. Further, the court found that the agreements failed to determine “what amount of the repairs related to preexisting water damage.” Zhang’s calculation of costs also included her expenses for architectural and engineering services, which the court points out, “where always Zhang’s costs to bear.”
The court concluded that “the overall structure of the settlements is highly probative of collusion, fraud, or bad faith.” Zhang’s agreements with Hawk and Ready allowed her to collect compensation from Hawk and then collect Ready’s compensation to Hawk for their portion of the settlement, allowing Zhang to collect the monies twice. Further, she was allowed to pursue Capitol for Hawk’s attorney expenses, even though Hawk had none. “The right to recover Hawk’s fees merely set up a windfall recovery for Zhang.” The court described the agreements among Zhang, Hawk, and Ready as “precisely the type of manipulation [the law] is intended to preclude.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
2021 Real Estate Trends: New Year, New Reality—A Day of Reckoning for Borrowers and Tenants
February 08, 2021 —
Robert J. Grados & Adam Weaver - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogOn the one-year anniversary of China’s Wuhan lockdown, COVID-19 has become a part of everyday life and as we enter the new year, real estate borrowers and lenders alike will need to understand this new normal and face the reality that is fast approaching. In 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic swept across the United States, many state and local governments instituted eviction moratoria and other protections for real estate tenants and borrowers. These protections created a window of opportunity for tenants and borrowers to negotiate reasonable solutions with their respective landlords and lenders regarding rent and debt payments amid the COVID-19 pandemic. This temporary period of restricted remedies also allowed courts to analyze legal arguments on how the COVID-19 pandemic impacts the real estate industry.
However, with court rulings forthcoming and many of these eviction protections set to expire in 2021, landlords and tenants as well as borrowers and lenders will be forced to have discussions regarding the realities of their industry and their ability to pay their respective rents and mortgages amid the ongoing COVID-19 crisis. Throughout 2020, lenders and landlords were forced to accommodate workout negotiations as their ability to evict or foreclose upon defaulting tenants or borrowers was prohibited. Many commercial real estate parties were able to come to agreements on what borrowers and tenants were able to pay, given the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their respective industries. As the legal protections are rolled back and the leverage shifts back into the hands of the lenders and landlords, we will likely see a trend of aggressive landlords and lenders and an increased number of evictions and foreclosures, especially in industries that are most vulnerable to the COVID-19 pandemic: retail and hospitality.
Reprinted courtesy of
Robert J. Grados, Pillsbury and
Adam Weaver, Pillsbury
Mr. Grados may be contacted at robert.grados@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Weaver may be contacted at adam.weaver@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion on Business Risk Exclusions Fails
November 15, 2017 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe insurer unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment on the CGL policy's business risk exclusions. Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. TL Spreader, LLC, (W.D. La. Oct. 20, 2017).
Helena Chemical Company contracted with its customer Wild Farms to sell and apply certain herbicides and pesticides to Wild Farms' 123 acre rice filed. Helena subcontracted the TL Spreader, LLC (TLS) to apply the chemicals to Wild Farm's rice field. The TLS employee failed to properly neutralize a chemical being used in the spray.
TLS finished its work on May 6, 2014, completing all its work for Helena's contract with Wild Farms. Three days after completion of the spraying, the rice crop first began to exhibit physical damage in the form of abnormal stunting, lesions, yellowing and death.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Corps Issues Draft EIS for Controversial Alaskan Copper Mine
March 27, 2019 —
Pam Radtke Russell - Engineering News-RecordA proposed copper and gold mine in Alaska could impact up to 12,000 acres of wetlands as well as local fisheries but would help meet a worldwide demand for copper, according to the draft environmental impact statement on the Pebble Mine in the Bristol Bay area of Alaska.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pam Radtke Russell, ENRMs. Russell may be contacted at
Russellp@bnpmedia.com
Insurance Policies and Indemnity Provisions Are Not the Same
October 19, 2020 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogJust because you own a pair of Air Jordans doesn’t make you Michael Jordan. In the next case, Carter v. Pulte Home Corporation, Case No. A154757 (July 23, 2020), the 1st District Court of Appeal denied an insurance carrier’s equitable subrogation claim explaining that an insurer’s obligations under its insurance policy are not the same as an idemnitee’s obligations under an indemnity provision. Or, as aptly put by the Court of Appeal, while a “subrogated insurer is said to ‘stand in the shoes’ of its insured, because it has no greater rights than the insured. Here . . . [the insurer] is seeking to stand in a different, more advantageous set of shoes.”
Carter v. Pulte Home Corporation
Pulte Home Corporation was sued for construction defects by 38 homeowners in two housing developments. Various subcontractors had worked on the projects, but under their subcontracts, each subcontractor agreed to indemnify Pulte from and against “all liability, claims, judgments, suits, or demands for damages to persons or property arising out of, resulting from, or relating to Contractor’s performance of work under the Agreement (‘Claims’) unless such Claims have been specifically determined by the trier of fact to be the sole negligence of Pulte . . . ”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
