The Show Must Go On: Shuttered Venues Operators Grant Provides Lifeline for Live Music and Theater Venues
March 29, 2021 —
David Rao - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogAlthough it’s been a tough twelve months for many live music venues, movie theaters, and performing arts organizations, help may finally be around the corner. On December 27, 2020, the Economic Aid to Hard-Hit Small Businesses, Nonprofits, and Venues Act was signed into law, creating a $15 billion fund for grants to shuttered venues to be administered by the Small Business Administration’s (“SBA”) Office of Disaster Assistance. The law states that Shuttered Venues Operator Grants (“SVOGs”) will be made available to the following entities and individuals:
- Live venue operators or promoters;
- Theatrical producers;
- Live performing arts organization operators;
- Relevant museum operators, zoos, and aquariums which meet specific criteria;
- Movie theater operators;
- Talent representatives; and
- Each business entity owned by an eligible entity that also meets the eligibility requirements.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Rao, Snell & WilmerMr. Rao may be contacted at
drao@swlaw.com
Providing Notice of Claims Under Your Construction Contract
April 02, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFCraig Martin on his blog Construction Contractor Advisor explained the importance of knowing when to provide notice under your construction contract: “Time and time again, courts rule that contractors must follow notice requirements in order to submit a claim for additional time or compensation.”
Martin cited the case JEM Contracting v. Morrison-Maierle, where the contractor provided verbal notice of a claim to the engineer, but failed to submit in writing until eighteen days later, which was past the notice requirement as stated in the contract. The judge denied the contractor’s claim and sided with the engineer and county.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
FEMA Administrator Slams Failures to Prepare, Evacuate Before Storms
October 23, 2018 —
Christopher Flavelle - BloombergFederal Emergency Management Agency Administrator Brock Long angrily criticized the failure of citizens to heed evacuation warnings and leaders to better prepare for natural disasters such as Hurricane Michael.
"It's frustrating to us because we repeat this same cycle over and over again," Long said during a press briefing Friday at FEMA headquarters in Washington. "If you want to live in these areas, you've got to do it in a more resilient fashion."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Flavelle, Bloomberg
New Jersey Traffic Circle to be Eliminated after 12 Years of Discussion
February 04, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe online publication New Jersey.com reported that on February 6th a “Pre-Construction Public Information hearing” will be held in Little Ferry, New Jersey, to discuss “the upcoming Route 46 Circle Elimination construction project.” The project includes “installation of a storm water pump station” as well as reconfiguring the circle into “a conventional four-way signalized intersection with a brand new traffic signal.”
Conti Enterprises of Edison was awarded the bid “at a cost of $33,837,739,” according to New Jersey.com. The project, which has been discussed for over a decade, stalled over combining the elimination of the traffic school with rehabilitation of a bridge. Improvements include “replacing of the entire bridge deck, structural steel member replacement and strengthening, sidewalk replacement on both sides of the structure and substructure patching, crack sealing and reconstruction where needed.”
The informational meeting will introduce the public to the engineer and contractor for the project. "This information session will help residents learn more about the project and what to expect as the state undertakes this work," Little Ferry Mayor Mauro Raguseo told New Jersey.com. "I wish we could fast forward to the completion of the project so we can realize the benefits without the headaches, but that's not reality. We all need to be prepared."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Damron Agreement Questioned in Colorado Casualty Insurance v Safety Control Company, et al.
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFSafety Control and EMC appealed the judgment in Colorado Casualty Insurance Company versus Safety Control Company, Inc., et al. (Ariz. App., 2012). The Superior Court in Maricopa County addressed “the validity and effect of a Damron agreement a contractor and its excess insurer entered into that assigned their rights to sue the primary insurer.” Judge Johnsen stated, “We hold the agreement is enforceable but remand for a determination of whether the stipulated judgment falls within the primary insurer’s policy.”
The Opinion provides some facts and procedural history regarding the claim. “The Arizona Department of Transportation (“ADOT”) hired DBA Construction Company (“DBA”) to perform a road-improvement project on the Loop 101 freeway. Safety Control Company, Inc. was one of DBA’s subcontractors. As required by the subcontract, Safety Control purchased from Employer’s Mutual Casualty Company (“EMC”) a certificate of insurance identifying DBA as an additional insured on a policy providing primary coverage for liability arising out of Safety Control’s work.”
A collision occurred on site, injuring Hugo Roman. Roman then sued ADT and DBA for damages. “Colorado Casualty tendered DBA’s defense to the subcontractors, including Safety Control. Safety Control and EMC rejected the tender. Roman eventually settled his claims against DBA and ADOT. DBA and ADOT stipulated with Roman for entry of judgment of $750,000; Roman received $75,000 from DBA (paid by Colorado Casualty) and $20,000 from ADOT, and agreed not to execute on the stipulated judgment. Finally, DBA, ADOT and Colorado Casualty assigned to Roman their rights against the subcontractors and other insurers.”
Colorado Casualty attempted to recover what “it had paid to defend DBA and ADOT and settle with Roman. However, Roman intervened, and argued that “Colorado Casualty had assigned its subrogation rights to him as part of the settlement agreement.” The suit was not dismissed, but the Superior Court allowed Roman to intervene. “Roman then filed a counterclaim against Colorado Casualty and a cross-claim against the subcontractors.”
All claims were settled against all of the defendants except Safety Control and EMC. “The superior court ruled on summary judgment that EMC breached a duty to defend DBA and that as a result, ‘DBA was entitled to settle with Roman without EMC’s consent as long as the settlement was not collusive or fraudulent.’ After more briefing, the court held the stipulated judgment was neither collusive nor procured by fraud and that EMC therefore was liable to Roman on the stipulated judgment and for his attorney’s fees. The court also held Safety Control breached its subcontract with DBA by failing to procure completed-operations insurance coverage and would be liable for damages to the extent that EMC did not satisfy what remained (after the other settlements) of the stipulated judgment and awards of attorney’s fees.” Safety Control and EMC appealed the judgment.
Four reasons were given for the decision of the ruling. First, “the disagreement between Roman and Colorado Casualty does not preclude them from pursuing their claims against EMC and Safety Control.” Second, “the settlement agreement is not otherwise invalid.” Third, “issues of fact remain about whether the judgment falls within the EMC policy.” Finally, “Safety Control breached the subcontract by failing to procure ‘Completed Operations’ coverage for DBA.”
In conclusion, the Superior Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded . “Although, as stated above, we have affirmed several rulings of the superior court, we reverse the judgment against EMC and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion to determine whether the stipulated judgment was a liability that arose out of Safety Control’s operations. In addition, we affirm the superior court’s declaratory judgment against Safety Control but remand so that the court may clarify the circumstances under which Safety Control may be liable for damages and may conduct whatever further proceedings it deems appropriate to ascertain the amount of those damages. We decline all parties’ requests for attorney’s fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01 without prejudice to a request for fees incurred in this appeal to be filed by the prevailing party on remand before the superior court.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Show Me the Money: The Good Faith Dispute Exception to Prompt Payment Penalties
March 13, 2023 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogCalifornia has a number of
prompt payment penalty statutes on the books. Among them is Civil Code section 8800 which requires project owners on private works projects to pay progress payments to direct contractors within 30 days after demand for payment pursuant to contract or be subject to prompt payment penalties of two percent (2%) per month on the amount wrongfully withheld. Like California’s other prompt payment penalty statutes, however, there is an important carve out: If there is a good faith dispute between the project owner and the direct contractor the project owner may withhold up to 150% of the dispute amount and not be subject to prompt payment penalties. And that, my friends, is a higher-tiered party’s “get out of jail free” card.
In a case of first impression, the 1st District Court of Appeals, in
Vought Construction Inc. v. Stock (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 622, examined whether a project owner’s claim for liquidated damages constitutes a good faith dispute under Civil Code section 8800.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Hirer Liable for Injury to Subcontractor’s Employee Due to Failure to Act, Not Just Affirmative Acts, Holds Court of Appeal
December 11, 2018 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogThe Privette doctrine, named after the court case Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, provides that a higher-tiered party such as an owner or general contractor is not liable for injuries sustained by employees of a lower-tiered party such as a subcontractor on a construction project. There are, however, exceptions to the Privette doctrine. One of these exceptions is known as the “retained control doctrine.”
Under the retained control doctrine, a higher-tiered party cannot avoid liability under the Privette doctrine if the higher-tiered party: (1) retains control over the conditions of the work; (2) negligently exercises control over such conditions; and (3) its negligent exercise of control contributes to the injuries sustained by the employee of the lower-tiered party.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
Fundamental Fairness Trumps Contract Language
September 24, 2014 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorThe Texas Supreme Court recently ruled that a “no-damages-for-delay” clause would not be enforced where the delay was caused by the owner. The court’s ruling flies squarely in the face of the contract language that attempted to insulate the owner from any delay claims, even those it caused.
In the case of Zachary Construction v. Port of Houston underlying contract, proposed by the Port of Houston, was heavy handed, to say the least. The contract provided:
“[Contractor] shall receive no financial compensation for delay or hindrance to the Work. In no event shall the Port Authority be liable to [Contractor] … for any damages arising out of or associated with any delay or hindrance to the Work, regardless of the source of the delay or hindrance, including events of Force Majeure, AND EVEN IF SUCH DELAY OR HINDRANCE RESULTS FROM, ARISES OUT OF OR IS DUE IN WHOLE OR IN PART, TO THE NEGLIGENCE, BREACH OF CONTRACT OR OTHER FAULT OF THE PORT AUTHORITY. [Contractor’s] sole remedy in any such case shall be an extension of time.”
Wow, that’s some one-sided language. If the contract was enforced, the contractor could not get any damages for delay, even those damages caused by the active interference of the Port of Houston.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
