Justin Bieber’s Unpaid Construction Bill Stalls House Sale
March 26, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe Toronto Sun reported that Justin Bieber’s Calabasas, California house sale to Khloe Kardashian has been stalled due to a an unpaid construction bill. Bieber sold the home for $7.2 million, but allegedly owes $85,000 to a construction company for home repairs.
Bieber moved out of his mansion in Calabasas “to Atlanta, Georgia after numerous encounters with the police regarding alleged loud parties, speeding in the gated community and 'egging' a [neighbor’s] house,” according to the Toronto Sun.
Bieber has a week to pay the lien, or the house sale does not go through.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
AB 1701 Has Passed – Developers and General Contractors Are Now Required to Double Pay for Labor Due to Their Subcontractors’ Failure to Pay
October 19, 2017 —
Clayton T. Tanaka – Newmeyer & Dillion LLPOn September 13, 2017, the California State Legislators passed a bill that would make developers and general contractors responsible for subcontractors who fail to pay their employees even though they already paid the subcontractors for the work. Assembly Bill 1701 (AB 1701), sponsored by unions who represent carpenters and other building trades, would require general contractors to “assume, and [be] liable for . . . unpaid wage, fringe or other benefit payment or contribution, including interest owed,” which subcontractors owe their employees. Despite vehement opposition from the California Building Industry Association and the Associated General Contractors of California, this bill has been submitted to the Governor and is expected to be signed into law.
NEW REQUIREMENTS
Once signed, this bill would impose the following requirements under Labor Code section 218.7:
- Applies to All Private Works Contracts That Are Entered Starting January 1, 2018.
For private works contracts entered on or after January 1, 2018, a “direct contractor” (i.e., prime contractor or contractor who has direct contractual relationship with an owner) must assume and be liable for any debt which its subcontractor or a lower tier subcontractor incurs “for [a] wage claimant’s performance of labor included in the subject of the contract between the direct contractor and the owner.” (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subds. (a)(1) and (e).)
- The Labor Commissioner and Joint Labor-Management Cooperation Committees May Bring Action to Recover Unpaid Wages on Behalf of Wage Claimants.
The California Labor Commissioner and joint Labor-Management Cooperation Committees established under the federal Labor Management Cooperation Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. § 175a) (typically comprised of labor unions and management) may bring a civil action against the direct contractor for unpaid wages owed to a wage claimant. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subds. (b)(1) and (3).) The Labor Commissioner may also bring its claims through administrative hearings (Labor Code section 98) or by citations (Labor Code section 1197.1). (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subd. (b)(1).)
- Third Parties That Are Owed Fringe or Other Benefit Payments or Contribution on Behalf of Wage Claimants (Labor Unions) May Bring Action.
Third parties who are owed fringe or other benefit payments or contributions on a wage claimant’s behalf (e.g., labor unions) may bring a civil action against the direct contractor for such unpaid benefit payments or contributions. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subd. (b)(2).)
- It Does Not Confer Wage Claimants With Any Right to Sue Direct Contractors.
AB 1701 gives the Labor Commissioner, Labor-Management Cooperation Committees and the unions standing to bring an action against the direct contractor, but it does not confer any private right of action by the wage claimants against the direct contractor.
- Labor-Management Cooperation Committees and Labor Unions Shall Recover as Prevailing Plaintiffs Their Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, Including Expert Fees.
For actions brought by Labor-Management Cooperation Committees or labor unions, “[t]he court shall award a prevailing plaintiff in such an action its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, including expert witness fees.” (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subds. (b)(2)-(3).)
- Direct Contractor’s Property May Be Attached to Pay for Judgment.
AB 1701 authorizes the attachment of direct contractor’s property to pay for any judgment that is entered pursuant to this section. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subd. (c).)
- One-Year Statute of Limitation to Bring Action under This Section.
Actions brought pursuant to this section must be filed within one year of the earliest of: (1) recordation of a notice of completion of the direct contract; (2) recordation of a notice of cessation of the work covered by direct contract; or (3) actual completion of work covered by direct contract. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subd. (d).)
- Rights to Receive Payroll Records and Project Award Information from Subcontractors and to Withdraw All Payments Owed for Their Failure to Comply.
Upon the direct contractor’s request, subcontractors and lower tier subcontractors must provide payroll records and project award information. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subds. (f)(1)-(2).) Direct contractor may withhold as “disputed” all sums owed if a subcontractor does not timely provide the requested records and information without specifying what is untimely and such failure to comply does not excuse direct contractor from any liability under this section. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subds. (f)( 3) and (i).)
- Rights to Receive Payroll Records and Project Award Information from Subcontractors and to Withdraw All Payments Owed for Their Failure to Comply.
Upon the direct contractor’s request, subcontractors and lower tier subcontractors must provide payroll records and project award information. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subds. (f)(1)-(2).) Direct contractor may withhold as “disputed” all sums owed if a subcontractor does not timely provide the requested records and information without specifying what is untimely and such failure to comply does not excuse direct contractor from any liability under this section. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subds. (f)( 3) and (i).)
- Further Legislative Efforts on Subdivision (h) Are Expected in 2018.
Subdivision (h), which states that “[t]he obligations and remedies provided in this section shall be in addition to any obligations and remedies otherwise provided by law . . .” (emphasis added) is potentially misleading since the author and sponsor of the bill have indicated that the bill is not intended to punish direct contractors with liquidated damages or penalties. As such, further legislative efforts on subdivision (h) are expected in 2018.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
While workers should be paid for the work they perform, AB 1701 would place undue burden on general contractors to monitor their subcontractors’ payroll, confirm that all wages and benefits are paid timely and withhold disputed payments from non-compliant subcontractors. General contractors would also need to caution against the chain reaction that could result from such withholding, including work stoppage, increased change order requests, and an overall increase in construction costs. Finally, general contractors would need to brace themselves for at least a year after project completion against any union or a Labor-Management Cooperation Committee actions armed with a prevailing party’s right to recover attorneys’ fees and expert fees, for previously unidentified subcontractor or sub-subcontractor workers.
STRATEGIES DEVELOPERS AND GENERAL CONTRACTORS SHOULD LOOK FOR
In anticipation of AB 1701 being signed into law and its potentially harsh effects, developers and general contractors are advised to consult their attorneys for a review and revision of their existing contracts, to develop plans for accessing and monitoring subcontractor payroll records, and to consider strategies for mitigating claims that may be brought against them, as follows:
- Execute all pending agreements
before January 1, 2018 to avoid the effects of AB 1701;
- Include an audit provision
requiring subcontractors and sub-subcontractors to provide payroll records (at minimum, information set forth in Labor Code section 226) and project award information, regularly and/or upon request, with specific deadlines for such production, as subdivision (f) does not specify what is untimely;
- Include defense and indemnity provisions
that would require subcontractors to defend and indemnify the general contractor for claims that are brought pursuant to this section arising from labor performed by employees for subcontractors and sub-subcontractors, and require subcontractors to include a similar provision in their own contracts with sub-subcontractors that would require lower tier subcontractors to also defend and indemnify the general contractor for claims arising from their respective employees’ work;
- Require subcontractors to provide a payment bond and/or a letter of credit
to satisfy claims that are made against the general contractor under this section;
- Require personal guarantees
from owners, partners or key subcontractor personnel;
- Include withholding and back-charge provisions
that would allow general contractors to withhold or charge back the subcontractors for disputed amounts, for claims brought against them, and for failure to comply with the audit, bond, and guarantee requirements.
- Consider implementing a system to confirm evidence of payments,
such as signed acknowledgment of payment by each subcontractor and sub-subcontractor employees and by third parties entitled to recover fringe and other benefit payments or contribution, possibly working with electronic billing software providers to implement such system.
Clay Tanaka is a partner in the Newport Beach office of Newmeyer & Dillion, focusing on construction, real estate, business and insurance disputes in both California and Nevada. As a licensed civil engineer, Clay has significant experience in design and construction of all types of construction projects, which he has effectively utilized in his litigation, trial and arbitration practice to obtain great results for his clients. For questions related to AB1701, please contact Clay Tanaka (clay.tanaka@ndlf.com) or Newport Beach Partner Mark Himmelstein (mark.himmelstein@ndlf.com).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Clayton T. Tanaka, Newmeyer & Dillion LLPMr. Tanaka may be contacted at
clay.tanaka@ndlf.com
Federal Contractors – Double Check the Terms of Your Contract Before Performing Ordered Changes
July 08, 2019 —
Jonathan Schirmer - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCAs federal contractors may be aware, the general rule when performing a contract for the federal government is that only the contracting officer (“CO”) can bind the government. Often, the CO delegates responsibility to a contracting officer’s representative (“COR”). While in some cases a COR may be able to bind the federal government, the contract may limit that ability exclusively to the CO.
Important for our clients, it is the responsibility of the contractor to determine whether the COR can legally bind the federal government when ordering changes to the scope of work. [1] This is true even when a COR possesses apparent authority to order changes to the work, and when the project is almost exclusively overseen by COR’s. [2]
A recent case highlights the dangers of a contractor relying on the orders of a COR when performing work outside the scope of a contract. In Baistar Mechanical Inc., a contractor was awarded a maintenance and snow removal contract with the federal government. The contract expressly stated that only the CO had contracting authority regarding additional or changed work. [3] However, Baistar, the contractor, argued it was directed by the contracting officer’s representatives to perform work outside of the contract.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jonathan Schirmer, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Schirmer may be contacted at
jonathan.schirmer@acslawyers.com
Attorneys' Fee Clauses are Engraved Invitations to Sue
April 19, 2021 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction LitigationAs we start another trip around the sun, hopefully you are in the process of updating your form contracts, including purchase and sale agreements and express written warranties. Because the law and litigation landscape continually changes, it is a good practice to periodically update the forms you use in order to give yourself a fighting chance if and when the plaintiffs' attorneys come knocking on your door. As you engage in this process, I hope that you will take a critical look at whether your contracts include a prevailing party attorneys' fees clause and, if so, whether you should leave it in there.
In Colorado, parties are entitled to recover attorneys' fees only if provided for by statute or by contract. Historically, plaintiffs' attorneys relied on two statutes, the Colorado Consumer Protection Act and Colorado's Statutory Interest statute, to recover attorneys’ fees in construction defect cases. In 2003, the Colorado legislature capped treble damages and attorneys' fees under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act at $250,000, effectively restricting plaintiffs' attorneys from relying on the CCPA to recoup their attorneys' fees, especially in large cases. In 2008, the Colorado Supreme Court issued its decision in Goodyear v. Holmes, stating that plaintiffs can only claim prejudgment interest under Colorado's Statutory Interest statute, in cases where they have already spent money on repairs, not when they are suing for an estimate of what repairs will cost in the future. Without either the CCPA or the prejudgment interest statute to recover attorneys' fees, plaintiffs' attorneys most often now rely on the prevailing party attorney fee clause in contracts between the owner and builder, or in the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions in situations where a claim is prosecuted by an HOA.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Florida Supreme Court Decision Limits Special Damages Presented to Juries
July 18, 2022 —
John A. Rine & Shannon Murphy - Lewis BrisboisTampa, Fla. (June 16, 2022) - Verdicts in personal injury cases are greatly impacted by the amount of medical expenses a plaintiff can present to juries. In Florida, collateral sources of compensation, such as insurance payments, are generally not disclosed to juries. However, caselaw also typically does not allow plaintiffs to recover the gross amount of medical bills, but instead the amount after insurance adjustments. For decades, Florida courts have considered whether the bills are reduced by the adjustments before or after verdict. The recent Florida Supreme Court decision in Dial v. Calusa Palms Master Association, Inc., No. SC21-43 (Fla. Apr. 28, 2022), has standardized the way past medical expenses are presented to juries where the plaintiff was treated under Medicare.
As is commonly understood, the original amount billed by medical providers is far different than the amount actually paid. Most treatment is subject to some private or government insurance and those insurers typically have negotiated rates for treatment. Thus, the bills are reduced subject to insurance contractual adjustments and the resulting net bills are far lower. For decades, defense attorneys have argued that juries should hear only the lower net amount.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John Rine, Lewis BrisboisMr. Rine may be contacted at
John.Rine@lewisbrisbois.com
Vaccine Mandate Confusion Continues – CMS Vaccine Mandate Restored in Some (But Not All) US States
January 03, 2022 —
David S. Harvey, Jr. & Sarah Hock - Lewis BrisboisTampa, Fla. (December 16, 2021) - As has been widely publicized, the Biden Administration has attempted to impose various forms of vaccine mandates under a variety laws and programs. At the same time, we have seen a flurry of opposition to these efforts ranging from new state laws (for example, in Florida) to court challenges seeking to enjoin the effort.
One of the federal mandates was issued by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and is applicable to staff at Medicare- and Medicaid-certified healthcare providers. Initially, fourteen states sued in opposition to the CMS mandate and were able to obtain a nationwide injunction issued by a federal district judge in Louisiana. That injunction was appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has now issued a decision that awards points to both sides.
The Fifth Circuit ruled the injunction only applies to the 14 states that participated in the Louisiana lawsuit and not nationwide. Those states are Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and West Virginia. This opinion has the potential to revive the CMS vaccine mandate in just over half of U.S. states. We can anticipate new suits will be filed as to other states, with the outcome still uncertain. It is unknown at this point whether the United States Supreme Court will agree to review the issues when such review is sought in the near future.
Reprinted courtesy of
David S. Harvey, Jr., Lewis Brisbois and
Sarah Hock, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Harvey may be contacted at David.Harvey@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Hock may be contacted at Sarah.Hock@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
M&A Representation and Warranty Insurance Considerations in the Wake of the Coronavirus Pandemic
April 06, 2020 —
Lori Smith & Patrick Devine - White and Williams Taking Care of Business BlogIncreasingly, M&A transactions are using representation and warranty insurance (RWI) to bridge the gap between a buyer’s desire for adequate recourse to recover damages arising out of breach of representations in the purchase agreement and a seller’s desire to minimize post-closing risk and holdbacks or purchase price escrows traditionally used as the means to satisfy such obligations. When it works, RWI provides a significant benefit to both parties: it mitigates the buyer’s risk in the event that the seller’s representations and warranties prove untrue, and it permits the seller to reduce the portion of the purchase price that it would otherwise have to leave in escrow to cover future claims for breach of those representations and warranties. However, as the coronavirus pandemic ravages the global economy, insurers are now expressly adding COVID-19 exclusions to their RWI policies. If RWI insurers decline coverage for these losses, the allocation of risk in the representations and warranties (and related indemnity provisions) will be more critical than the parties contemplated when they negotiated the transaction documents.
Unlike in the case of a natural disaster, insurers cannot quantify the economic fallout that may result from the coronavirus pandemic. This uncertainty breeds systemic concern about the number of insurance claims that covered parties of all varieties will bring, which in turn creates an industry-wide reluctance to cover the claims. Based on discussions with market participants, we understand that, at the present time, 70% to 80% of RWI insurers are broadly excluding losses resulting from COVID-19 and similar viruses, epidemics, and pandemics (including government actions in response thereto), 5% to 10% are narrowly excluding specific coronavirus-related losses that are more likely to be implicated in a particular transaction (e.g., losses caused by business interruption), and 10% to 15% may be willing to narrow their exclusions upon completion of the underwriting process, depending on their comfort level after conducting rigorous and heightened diligence. Insurers’ concerns are wide-ranging, but the representations and warranties causing the greatest distress appear to be those regarding customer retention, supply chain matters, undisclosed liabilities, and the absence of changes between the date of the seller’s most recent financial statements and the transaction closing date.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lori Smith, White and Williams and
Patrick Devine, White and Williams
Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Devine may be contacted at devinep@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
McDermott International and BP Team Arbitrate $535M LNG Site Dispute
April 02, 2024 —
Mary B. Powers - Engineering News-RecordBP and Kosmos Energy are seeking “maximum recoverable damages” of about $535 million in binding arbitration with contractor McDermott International over a claim that it failed to meet contract obligations on subsea pipeline installation for an estimated $4.8 billion liquefied natural gas project off Africa.
Reprinted courtesy of
Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
