Don’t Get Caught Holding the Bag: Hold the State Liable When General Contractor Fails to Pay on a Public Project
June 21, 2017 —
Sean Minahan - Construction Contractor AdvisorAccording to a quick Google search the term “holding the bag” comes from the mid eighteenth century and means be left with the onus of what was originally another’s responsibility. Nobody wants to be left holding the bag. But that is the situation our client (subcontractor) found themselves in when upon completion of a public project the general contractor went out of business before paying the remaining amount due and owing to our client.
Under Nebraska law, liens are not allowed against public projects. Instead the subcontractor is to make a claim on the payment and performance bond secured by the general contractor at the start of the project. In our case, the general contractor never secured a bond on which to make a claim; consequently leaving our client holding the bag.
Fortunately, we were able to hand the bag back to the State and obtain full payment for the services and materials provided.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sean Minahan, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Minahan may be contacted at
sminahan@ldmlaw.com
Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal Suggests Negligent Repairs to Real Property Are Not Subject to the Statute of Repose
June 29, 2017 —
Nicole Rodolico, Esq. - Florida Construction Law NewsFlorida’s Third District Court of Appeal (“Third District”) recently addressed the applicable statute of limitations for repairs under Section 95.11, Florida Statutes, including the issue of whether a repair constitutes an improvement to real property. In Companion Property & Casualty Group v. Built Tops Building Services, Inc., No. 3D16-2044, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 6584 (Fla. 3d DCA May 10, 2017) (“Companion”), the Third District ruled that the trial court erred in finding that a subrogation action arising out of an alleged defective roof repair was time-barred because the statute of limitations had run.
On February 8, 2016, Companion Property & Casualty Group (“Companion”) filed its complaint against a building services company, Built Tops Building Services, Inc. (“Built Tops”), for negligent repair of its insured’s roof. Companion alleged that the defective roof repair was performed on November 21, 2006. Companion further alleged that as a result of Built Tops’ work, the insured suffered water damage to the condominium building on February 9, 2012. Built Tops moved to dismiss the action on the basis that the applicable four-year statute of limitations had run on Companion’s claim, which Built Tops argued accrued on the date the repair was performed, November 21, 2006. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nicole Rodolico, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.Ms. Rodolico may be contacted at
nicole.rodolico@csklegal.com
“Incidental” Versus “Direct” Third Party Beneficiaries Under Insurance Policies in Which a Party is Not an Additional Insured
April 18, 2023 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogAs they say, when it rains, it pours. Indemnity and insurance are the “Big Two” when it comes to risk avoidance on construction projects. The next case,
LaBarbera v. Security National Security Company, 86 Cal.App.5th 1329 (2022), involves both. It’s an interesting case, which I think could have gone either way, involving claims by a higher-tiered party that they were a third party beneficiary under an insurance policy in which they were not named as an additional insured.
The LaBarbera Case
The Indemnity Provision and Insurance Policy
In June 1016, Chris LaBarbera hired Richard Knight doing business as Knight Construction to remodel his house in Carmichael, California. The construction contract included an indemnity provision which provided that Knight would defend and indemnify LaBarbera from all claims arising out the remodeling work except for claims arising from LaBarbera’s sole negligence and willful misconduct.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Arizona Court of Appeals Decision in $8.475 Million Construction Defect Class Action Suit
May 09, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFIn the case of Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011), which involved an $8.475 million settlement in a construction defect class action suit, the question put forth to the Appeals court was “whether an insured and an insurer can join in a Morris agreement that avoids the primary insurer’s obligation to pay policy limits and passes liability in excess of those limits on to other insurers.” The Appeals court provided several reasons for their decision to affirm the validity of the settlement agreement as to the Non-Participatory Insurers (NPIs) and to vacate and remand the attorney fee awards.
First, the Appeals court stated, “The settlement agreement is not a compliant Morris agreement and provides no basis for claims against the NPIs.” They conclude, “Appellants attempt to avoid the doctrinal underpinnings of Morris by arguing that ‘the cooperation clause did not prohibit Hancock from assigning its rights to anyone, including Appellants.’ This narrow reading of the cooperation clause ignores the fact that Hancock did not merely assign its rights — it assigned its rights after stipulating to an $8.475 million judgment that neither it nor its Direct Insurers could ever be liable to pay. Neither Morris nor any other case defines such conduct as actual ‘cooperation’—rather, Morris simply defines limited circumstances in which an insured is relieved of its duty to cooperate. Because Morris agreements are fraught with risk of abuse, a settlement that mimics Morris in form but does not find support in the legal and economic realities that gave rise to that decision is both unenforceable and offensive to the policy’s cooperation clause.”
The Appeals court further concluded that “even if the agreement had qualified under Morris, plaintiffs did not provide the required notice to the NPIs.” The court continued, “Because an insurer who defends under a reservation of rights is always aware of the possibility of a Morris agreement, the mere threat of Morris in the course of settlement negotiations does not constitute sufficient notice. Instead, the insurer must be made aware that it may waive its reservation of rights and provide an unqualified defense, or defend solely on coverage and reasonableness grounds against the judgment resulting from the Morris agreement. The NPIs were not given the protections of this choice before the agreement was entered, and therefore can face no liability for the resulting stipulated judgment.”
Next, the Appeals court declared that “the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees under A.R.S § 12-341.” The Appeals court reasoned, “In this case, the NPIs prevailed in their attack on the settlement. But the litigation did not test the merits of their coverage defenses or the reasonableness of the settlement amount. And Plaintiffs never sued the NPIs, either in their own right or as the assignees of Hancock. Rather, the NPIs intervened to test the conceptual validity of the settlement agreement (to which they were not parties) before such an action could commence. In these circumstances, though it might be appropriate to offset a fee award against some future recovery by the Plaintiff Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011) class, the purposes of A.R.S. § 12-341.01 would not be served by an award of fees against them jointly and severally. We therefore conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding fees against Plaintiffs ‘jointly and severally.’”
The Appeals court made the following conclusion: “we affirm the judgment of the trial court concerning the validity of the settlement agreement as to the NPIs. We vacate and remand the award of attorney’s fees. In our discretion, we decline to award the NPIs the attorney’s fees they have requested on appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A).”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Expect the Unexpected (Your Design Contracts in a Post-COVID World)
April 18, 2023 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North CarolinaHave you adapted your post-COVID practice to better plan for the “unexpected” ? In particular, have you looked at–and revised– your professional services contracts to give yourself a little more breathing room for unaccounted issues that may arise? If not, no time like the present.
Don’t like that saying? How about ” a stitch in time saves nine?” No? Still nothing? What about a picture of something so completely unexpected it shocks you– say, a fireman commuting home, in fire-fighting regalia, on a tricycle? Okay, here you go…
Now that I have your attention– you should make it a practice to regularly review and update your professional services agreements, and you should consider issues such as:
- Does your agreement provide for extra compensation if you have to spend more time or a longer period providing construction administration services for material delays or labor shortages? If not, it should.
- Does your agreement have a well-written “act of God” provision– one that includes pandemic/epidemics as part of the “act of God” conditions in which a term may become void? If not, add it now!
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale LiggettMs. Brumback may be contacted at
mbrumback@rl-law.com
Gibbs Giden is Pleased to Announce Four New Partners and Two New Associates
January 08, 2024 —
Gibbs Giden Locher Turner Senet & Wittbrodt, LLPWe take great pleasure in announcing that
Richard Marks and
Kyle Marks have joined the firm. They bring a combined 60 years of real property law experience to Gibbs Giden. Well known Title Insurance and seasoned real estate attorneys they have both served as chair of the Title Insurance Subsection of the Los Angeles County Bar Association and are adjunct professors at Southwestern University School of Law. We are excited to welcome these two exceptional partners and their commitment to representing clients with honesty, integrity, and excellence. You can find them in our firm’s Westlake office.
Talented attorneys
Samantha Riggen and
Christopher Trembley have been named partners. Samantha represents clients in all areas of business and commercial matters with an emphasis on construction litigation on both public and private projects. Christopher’s practice also focuses on construction litigation on behalf of a wide spectrum of industry-stakeholder clients, including suppliers, contractors, and owners. Both work in our firm’s Westlake Village office.
We are also pleased to announce we’ve hired two new associates.
Sarah La Mendola and
Madison Wedderspoon. Sarah has developed an expertise in a wide range of real estate, business, and corporate matters. She received her JD from the University of Pavia, one of the top universities in Italy, in 2012 and her LLM from UCLA in 2015. You can find Sarah in our Westlake Village office. Madison recently graduated from the Boyd School of Law cum laude, is based in our Las Vegas office and works in the areas of business law, contracts, healthcare law, construction, real estate, and common interest community transactional and litigation work.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gibbs Giden
White House Proposal Returns to 1978 NEPA Review Procedures
November 15, 2021 —
Karen C. Bennett - Lewis BrisboisWashington, D.C. (October 15, 2021) - The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has requested comments, by November 22, 2021, on proposed revisions to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations. The proposal is Phase I in a two-phased approach that will eventually undo a final rule, effective September 2020, that updated NEPA regulations to reflect decades of agency experience and caselaw interpreting the 1969 Act.
Phase I proposes to reinstitute 1978 definitions for key terms used to determine the scope of review and the range of alternatives required when undertaking any major federal action. Phase II is expected to be an extensive rewrite of the 2020 regulations to incorporate climate change and environmental justice objectives. Businesses with projects, now or in the future, that require federal authorizations will need to pay close attention to these regulatory revisions.
The 2020 update rule intended to scale back the time and cost of producing NEPA analyses by focusing agency resources on evaluating effects that are within the agency’s ability to control and studying only those alternatives that would meet the project purpose. CEQ’s proposal eliminates these efficiencies.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Karen Bennett, Lewis BrisboisMs. Bennett may be contacted at
Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com
Inside New York’s Newest Architectural Masterpiece for the Mega-Rich
May 20, 2015 —
Oshrat Carmiel – BloombergThe newest condominium tower in midtown Manhattan's billionaires district is ready to open its doors to buyers. It took almost a decade to get there.
The skyscraper at 53 W. 53rd St., designed by French architect Jean Nouvel and rising next to the Museum of Modern Art, will start marketing its 139 apartments next week, with prices starting at $3 million. Planned since 2006, the project endured the real estate bust and a global financial crisis that decimated demand for luxury homes. Now it's emerging when buyers can't seem to get enough of them.
"We're very eager to begin,'' said David Penick, the New York-based managing director for developer Hines, which is building the project with Goldman Sachs Group and Singapore-based Pontiac Land Group. "We're confident in what we have to sell in the market we're in, and we'll see how it goes.''
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Oshrat Carmiel, Bloomberg
