Approaches to Managing Job Site Inventory
August 30, 2017 —
Jessica Stark - Construction InformerThere is no question that organization on the job site can mean the difference between efficient performance and costly errors. A simple mistake can cost a company thousands, which is why details are carefully articulated and supervisors become better scrutinizers than magazine editors. But for some reason, many companies don’t consider managing job site inventory under this same attentive category, or perhaps they don’t know about the technology available to help them do it.
Whole Inventory, Big to Small
For contractors, keeping track of every piece of material and equipment lowers losses and keeps crews busy. This is especially true for contractors in the trades who often have specialized equipment in inventory such as power supplies, HVAC “smart energy” components or inspection equipment. Once everything is accounted for, the possibility of loss is decreased and there’s a chance to evaluate the use of all materials and equipment. This can show the efficiency of allotted resources. Is there enough equipment on the site to get tasks completed? Is there a need for more? Less? Having excess equipment can sometimes prepare a crew for problem scenarios. But it can also mean the construction company is overpaying for unneeded resources. However, the only way to know is by effectively managing job site inventory. That includes all equipment and materials.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jessica Stark, Construction Informer
Wait! Don’t Sign Yet: Reviewing Contract Protections During the COVID Pandemic
April 13, 2020 —
Danielle S. Ward - Balestreri Potocki & HolmesAs the circumstances of the COVID pandemic change day by day, and we all rush to keep business moving where and when we can, companies should consider hitting the “pause button” before renewing or executing any new contracts. Developing contracts often takes considerable time and expense, and companies are not in the habit of reworking them often. A change in law may prompt a company to revisit their contract terms, but otherwise business is often carried out with a standard form contract for a period of years. With the COVID pandemic affecting nearly every business and industry, life is not business as usual, and companies should make sure their contracts consider what previously seemed like an unforeseeable event.
Force Majeure clauses are included in many contracts to excuse contract performance when made impossible by some unforeseen circumstance. These clauses typically fall under two categories: general and specific. General force majeure clauses excuse performance if performance is prevented by circumstances outside the parties’ control. By contrast, specific force majeure clauses detail the exhaustive list of circumstances (acts of god, extreme weather, war, riot, terrorism, embargoes) which would excuse contract performance. Force majeure clauses are typically interpreted narrowly. If your contract has a specific clause and pandemic or virus is not one of the listed circumstances it may not apply. Whether a particular existing contract covers the ongoing COVID pandemic will vary depending on the language of the contract.
Force majeure clauses previously made headlines when the great economic recession hit in 2008. A number of courts held that simple economic hardship was not enough to invoke force majeure. The inability to pay or lack of desire to pay for the contracted goods or services did not qualify as force majeure. In California, impossibility turns on the nature of the contractual performance, and not in the inability of the obligor to do it. (Kennedy v. Reece (1964) 225 Cal. App. 2d 717, 725.) In other words, the task is objectively impossible not merely impossible or more burdensome to the specific contracting party.
California has codified “force majeure” protection where the parties haven’t included any language or the circumstances in the clause don’t apply to the situation at hand. Civil Code section 1511 excuses performance when “prevented or delayed by an irresistible, superhuman cause, or by the act of public enemies of this state or of the United States, unless the parties have expressly agreed to the contrary.” (Civ. Code § 1511.) What qualifies as a “superhuman cause”? In California, the test is whether under the particular circumstances there was such an insuperable interference occurring without the party's intervention as could not have been prevented by the exercise of prudence, diligence and care. (Pacific Vegetable Oil Corp. v. C. S. T., Ltd. (1946) 29 Cal.2d 228, 238.)
If you find yourself in an existing contract without a force majeure clause, or the statute does not apply, you may consider the doctrine of frustration of purpose. This doctrine is applied narrowly where performance remains possible, but the fundamental reason the parties entered into the contract has been severely or substantially frustrated by an unanticipated supervening circumstance, thus destroying substantially the value of the contract. (Cutter Laboratories, Inc. v. Twining (1963) 221 Cal. App. 2d 302, 314-15.) In other words, performance is still possible but valueless. Note this defense is not likely to apply where the contract has simply become less profitable for one party.
Now that COVID is no longer an unforeseeable event, but rather a current and grave reality, a party executing a contract today without adequate protections may have a difficult time proving unforeseeability. Scientists are not sure whether warm weather will suppress the spread of the virus, as it does with the seasonal flu, but to the extent we get a reprieve during the summer we may see a resurgence of cases this Fall or Winter. Companies should take care in reviewing force majeure clauses, and other clauses tied to timely performance such as delay and liquidated damages before renewing or executing new contracts.
Your contract scenario may vary from the summary provided above. Please contact legal counsel before making any decisions. During this critical time, BPH’s attorneys can be reached via email to answer your questions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Danielle S. Ward, Balestreri Potocki & HolmesMs. Ward may be contacted at
dward@bph-law.com
KF-103 v. American Family Mutual Insurance: An Exception to the Four Corners Rule
October 29, 2014 —
Zach McLeroy – Colorado Construction LitigationIn Colorado, the “complaint rule,” also known as the “four corners rule,” requires an insurer to provide a defense when an underlying complaint alleges any set of facts that may fall within an insurance policy. This can result in a situation where an insurer has a duty to defend although the underlying facts ultimately do not fall within the policy.
In KF-103 v. American Family Mutual Insurance, 2014 WL 4409876, District Court Judge Richard P. Matsch recognized an exception to the complaint rule. In doing so, Judge Matsch determined that a court may look beyond the complaint to judicial orders preceding the filing of the complaint to determine whether an insurer has a duty to defend. Therefore, a party may not be able to assert unsupported facts in a complaint for the sole purpose of triggering an insurance policy.
KF 103 v. American Family arose out of an underlying easement dispute. In the underlying case, KF 103-CV, LLC (“KF 103”) purchased a piece of property from the Infinity Group. As a condition of the purchase agreement, Infinity Group was required to complete improvements to boundary streets and the intersection of Ski Lane and Sorpresa Lane. Several adjoining property owners (the “neighbors”) objected to the modification of the intersection because it violated an express easement (the “easement”) that provided access to their properties.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Zach McLeroy, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McLeroy may be contacted at
McLeroy@hhmrlaw.com
Is the Manhattan Bank of America Tower a Green Success or Failure?
April 15, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFConstruction Digital reported that the Bank of America tower in Manhattan, New York, “has been conversely hailed as both the greenest skyscraper in the world and an energy-guzzling toxic tower that exposes the charade of the LEED rating system.” It is the first skyscraper to ever achieve the highest LEED Platinum rating. However, a critic alleged that the eighty-year old Empire State Building “uses half the energy” of the new Bank of America tower.
The Bank of America tower, designed by architects Cook and Fox, was built with “local and recycled materials,” as well as “floor-to-floor insulated glazing” that maximizes “natural light and traps heat, and lights are automatically dimmed in daylight.” Rainwater is captured for reuse, and “waterless urinals save an estimated 8,000,000 US gallons of water per year.”
However, Construction Digital reported that Sam Roudman in New Republic Magazine “pointed out that buildings contribute more to global warming than any other sector of the economy, consuming more energy and producing more greenhouse gas emissions in America than every car, bus, jet, and train combined; and furthermore, than every factory combined.”
Joel Levy writing for Construction Digital declared, “We can call LEED a failed artifice and even suggest abandoning it as a pointless charade, but unless we want to live in caves and go back to using candles for light, we must accept the fact that the 155,000,000 people that make up America’s workforce power the country and indeed the world’s economy…need somewhere to work.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Summarizing Changes to NEPA in the Fiscal Responsibility Act (P.L. 118-5)
September 05, 2023 —
Anthony B. Cavender & Marcus Manca - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogThe National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was signed into law on January 1, 1970, and it has rarely been amended or revised since then. NEPA is basically a procedural statute which requires Federal permitting authorities, before a major federal project is approved, to carefully consider the significant environmental consequences of the proposed federal action. NEPA has been employed to conduct a probing review of wide variety of federal projects and actions, and the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has promulgated a comprehensive set of rules and guidance documents that must be followed or consulted. (See 40 CFR Section 1500 et seq.) The first set of NEPA rules was issued in 1978, and very little was done to bring the rules up to date until 2020. The first phase of this review has been completed, and a second and final phase will soon be underway. The NEPA review process includes the use of “categorical exclusions,” environmental assessments and environmental impact statements to measure the environmental impact of a proposed project. Over time, the rules and their implementation and judicial interpretation have become ever more complex, and an enormous body of NEPA case law has resulted.
The recent Congressional debt limit deliberations provided an opportunity to revise some of these procedures, and the Fiscal Responsibility Act, signed into law on June 3, 2023, included at Title III, a section devoted to “Permitting Reform.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury and
Marcus Manca, Pillsbury Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Ninth Circuit Court Weighs In On Insurance Coverage For COVID-19 Business Interruption Losses
October 11, 2021 —
Rondi J. Walsh - Newmeyer DillionOn October 1, 2021, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on a trio of cases involving COVID-19 business interruption losses, in a series of written opinions with results favoring the insurers. Despite the slate of wins for insurers in this round of cases, these rulings are limited to cases where policyholders either did not allege the presence of COVID-19 on their premises causing “physical alteration” of the property itself, or had a virus exclusion in their policy, or both. This leaves room for future cases potentially ruling in favor of coverage where the insureds allege the presence of coronavirus on the premises, and that there was a detrimental physical alteration of the property as a result. To date, the Ninth Circuit has not ruled on such a situation.
RULING 1: Mudpie v. Travelers Casualty Insurance Co. of America
The Ninth Circuit first considered a proposed class action brought by a children’s store operator, Mudpie. Mudpie sought business income and extra expense coverage from Travelers after California and local authorities issued shutdown orders impacting Mudpie’s operations due to COVID-19. (Mudpie, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America, Case No. 20-16858, --- F.4th --- (9th Cir. Oct. 1, 2021).) Travelers denied coverage, asserting that the claim did not involve “direct physical loss of or damage to” property “caused by or resulting from a covered Cause of Loss.” Travelers also denied coverage under language excluding “loss or damage caused by or resulting from any virus…that induces…physical distress, illness or disease.” Applying California law, the trial court agreed with Travelers on both accounts.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rondi J. Walsh, Newmeyer DillionMs. Walsh may be contacted at
rondi.walsh@ndlf.com
Quick Note: Aim to Avoid a Stay to your Miller Act Payment Bond Claim
February 23, 2017 —
David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal UpdatesStrategy is important. This is especially true if you are trying to avoid arbitration. In a recent federal district court case, a subcontractor sued the prime contractor and the Miller Act payment bond surety. The subcontractor, however, had an arbitration provision in its subcontract with the prime contractor. The prime contractor moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the subcontract and moved to stay the subcontractor’s Miller Act payment bond claim. The last thing, and I mean the last thing, the subcontractor wanted to do was to stay its claim against the Miller Act payment bond. However, the district court compelled the subcontractor’s claim against the prime contractor to arbitration and stayed the subcontractor’s Miller Act payment bond claim pending the outcome of the arbitration. See U.S. v. International Fidelity Ins. Co., 2017 WL 495614 (S.D.Al. 2017). This is not what the subcontractor wanted.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
Hawaii Federal District Court Remands Coverage Dispute
June 15, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiAccepting the insured's amended complaint, the federal district court of Hawaii remanded the coverage action to state court. Hale v. Lloyd's, London, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9061 (D. Haw. Jan. 17, 2020).
Hale purchased a policy for his home in Hilo, Hawaii, from Defendant Pyramid Insurance Centre. The policy was memorialized by a Lloyd's Certificate issued by Defendant Lloyd's. On September 19, 2017, Hale entered Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. Included in the bankruptcy proceeding was Hale's home and a secured home mortgage loan now owned by Defendant Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC. The Bankruptcy Court issued a discharge order on January 18, 2018.
On May 9, 2018, Hale's home was destroyed, being covered with lava from the Kilauea volcano eruption. Hale filed a claim with Lloyd's based upon the loss of his home. The claim was denied. Subsequently, however, Lloyd's issued a check for the full amount of the policy. Both Hale and Specialized Loan were listed as payees on the check.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
