Appellate Court of Maryland Construes Notice Conditions of A312 Performance Bond in Favor of Surety
January 02, 2024 —
Joel P. Williams - White and Williams LLPThe Appellate Court of Maryland issued a reported opinion in a case construing an American Institute of Architects (“AIA”) A312 performance bond. In Wildewood Operating Company, LLC v. WRV Holdings, LLC, et al. 2023 Md. App. LEXIS 720 (Oct. 30, 2023), the Appellate Court of Maryland held that a performance bond surety was discharged from liability where the owner/obligee failed to give the surety notice of the contractor’s default termination until after a third party had completed the work.
The project concerned the construction of an assisted living facility in St. Mary’s County, Maryland. The owner, Wildewood Operating Company, LLC, entered into an A312-2010 performance bond with Clark Turner Construction, LLC, as contractor, and First Indemnity of America Insurance Company, as surety. When Clark Turner failed to complete certain stormwater management work adjacent to the site, Wildewood, Clark Turner, and other parties entered into a Work Agreement to address completion of the work. The surety was not a party to the Work Agreement.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Joel P. Williams, White and Williams LLPMr. Williams may be contacted at
williamsj@whiteandwilliams.com
Hawaii Court Looks at Changes to Construction Defect Coverage after Changes in Law
November 06, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFA construction defect case lead at the U.S. District Court for Hawaii involved the insurer’s changed views on what was covered based on court decisions that came after the policy was written. John R. Casciano and Jessica L. Urban of Steptoe & Johnson LLP discuss the case on their firm’s website. They note that in Illinois National Insurance Company v. Nordic PCL Construction, Inc., Nordic built a retail building which soon afterwards had water leaks and property damage, due to alleged defects in the roof construction.
Nordic had purchased comprehensive general liability and umbrella polices, with coverage that included property damage. Mr. Casciano and Ms. Urban note that “at the time of contracting, the Ninth Circuit had predicted that, ‘if the Hawaii Supreme Court examined the matter, it would rule that, for purposes of insurance coverage, construction defects were “not occurrences.”’” After the policy was written, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals did rule that “construction defect claims do not constitute an ‘occurrence’ under a CGL policy.” On the basis of this, Illinois National determined that they had no duty to defend or indemnify their client.
Nordic made a claim of bad faith, but the court determined that “an insurer that denies coverage based on an open question of law does not act in bad faith, an insurer that actually relies on governing law, even if the insurer only belatedly learns of the law, cannot be said to thereby act in bad faith.”
However, the court denied a summary judgment of Nordic’s claim of negligent misrepresentation, determining that there was “a question of fact as to whether the Policies covered [or were represented as covering] only damage to third parties caused by subcontractors’ defective work.” Finally, the court found that “a reasonable jury could infer that, at the time the Polices were issued, the insurers meant to cover claims arising out of the defective work” of Nordic’s subcontractors.
They conclude that the Nordic decision “recognizes the varying consequences for coverage claims when post-contracting changes to the law may not coincide with the expectations of at least one of the parties at the time of contracting.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Should a Subcontractor provide bonds to a GC who is not himself bonded? (Bonding Agent Perspective)
May 03, 2017 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsGuest Post Friday is back, and for this week, Construction Law Musings welcomes Steve Moore. Steve has been the Construction & Surety Manager for Towne Insurance Agency-Invincia, in Chesterfield, VA since 2010. Steve’s experience in the Virginia surety bonding marketplace started in 1985 with USF&G. His underwriting travels took him from USF&G to starting National Grange Mutual’s mid-Atlantic bond department over Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, North & South Carolina, to being Reliance Surety’s “Firemark” bond manager in Virginia. Reliance was purchased by Travelers, where Steve continued to grow the surety book of business and build expertise and relationships. Experience with Travelers and Zurich had Steve handling surety bonds for some of Virginia’s largest and best-of-class contractors. Recently, he was contracted by the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office to serve as a contract surety expert witness on behalf of the state. He is a 1985 graduate of Virginia Tech with double-major B.S. degrees in Finance and Marketing.
Today, Steve has business and relationships with Travelers, The Hartford, Westfield, CNA, CBIC, Selective, Liberty Mutual, Ohio Casualty, Cincinnati, and many other companies. Steve’s strong foundation of insurance knowledge and in bonding principles and practices allow him to serve as a great resource for his clients.
An old Aesop fable comes to mind when I am asked whether a Sub should bond to an unbonded GC:
"A woodsman entered the forest and asked the trees to give him a handle made of the best wood. After giving the woodsman a stave of hickory, the forest watched the woodsman fashion an axe onto the handle. In a flash, the woodsman began to chop down the various oaks and maples in the forest. The oak then said to a pine, “It serves us right, since we gave our adversary the very thing that contributes to our doom…"
When a subcontractor client of mine asks about bonding to an un-bonded general contractor, a number of questions immediately come to mind. Why isn’t the GC bonded? What is the existing relationship between the GC and Sub? How well is the job financed? While wanting to help my subcontractor procure work, and surely enjoying the commissions from writing a bond, I also want to help my sub client manage unforeseen risk. What are the risks to a sub, when posting a bond to an unbonded GC?
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Are Construction Defect Laws Inhibiting the Development of Attached Ownership Housing in Colorado?
October 29, 2014 —
James M. Mulligan, Esq. – Snell & Wilmer, LLPThis article responds to the article published in the September 18, 2014 issue of the Construction Defect Journal. It provides a different perspective to this issue, based on the author's experience with these matters during the past decade of attention to this specific challenge.
During recent years, there has been much discussion about the lack of attached ownership housing construction in Colorado. The main culprit, according to several sources within the community, seems to be our state's construction defect laws.
Since 2001, there has been a periodic series of legislative fixes to our construction defect laws that saw the pendulum swing back and forth between the interests of the consuming public who purchase the homes and certain protections of the developers and homebuilders from excessive and unnecessary litigation. Some say that the current state of the law is more onerous than necessary on the developers and homebuilders and it is artificially inhibiting the development of multifamily ownership housing in a time of high demand and low supply.
A recent opinion article in the September 29th, 2014 issue of the Denver Post stated, in part:
"No one is suggesting that developers escape liability for construction defects or that homeowners be denied the right to sue. But under the state's current defect laws, the scales have tilted too far in favor of litigation as the default tool for resolving disputes. And this appears to be the biggest reason for the collapse in the number of new multifamily [ownership] dwellings in recent years."
Rather than the typical conflict between the plaintiffs’ bar (representing the homebuyer) and the homebuilding industry that has produced the "back-and-forth" nature of our construction defect laws in the past, this 2014 legislative session found new constituents and a different perspective on the issue. A broad ranging coalition that included the Metro Mayors Caucus, major segments of the affordable housing community, and the general business community came together to address what their research showed as an astonishing lack of construction of ownership attached housing. There was a continuing boom going on in the development of multifamily "rental" housing, but an even more unusual deficit in multifamily "ownership" housing. Research apparently showed that, although about 20% + of construction of attached housing was in the ownership format throughout the Rocky Mountain West, Colorado was only producing about 2%. Interviews conducted by the research group that was retained by this coalition revealed that the development and homebuilding community were not willing to commence construction of ownership attached housing because of the continuing threat of litigation available under current interpretations of our state's construction defect laws. Lenders were also reluctant to provide financing for such projects faced with the apparent real threat of litigation that could shut down their projects and materially impact their loan viability and the value of the loan's collateral. Moreover, insurance premiums to cover such claims were so high, and many times unavailable, as to make such projects unfeasible.
This lack of available multifamily ownership housing was creating an ever-increasing concern over the resulting imbalance of housing options in and around the metro area, where the urban character of the metro region would need such ownership options in the attached housing format in order to address the more dense character of the urban setting. This imbalance of ownership attached housing was thwarting the advancement of "community" in the context of creating opportunities for all options of housing so important for a community balance. This included ownership options in this format that address the need for the younger professionals entering the workforce, newly forming households, seniors desiring to scale down their housing size and location, as well as the segment of the market who have limited means and need to address the affordability of homeownership. This was being most clearly felt along the FasTracks lines where attached ownership housing was an important element in originally advancing the TOD communities that are expected to be developed around these transit stops.
Rather than engage the battle of creating more contention in the various aspect of construction defect legislation per se, this coalition attempted to temper their approach and address specific issues that seemed to advance protection of the consuming homeowner while, at the same time, advocating a method of dispute resolution encouraged in the state's laws regarding such issues.
Normally, attached ownership housing is developed under our state laws governing the creation of Common Interest Communities ("CIC's"), including those communities where there are units that are attached and contain common elements. These CIC's will be encumbered by certain recorded documents (normally referred to as "Declarations") that structure the "community" within which the units are located and set up certain rules and restrictions that are intended to respect the common interests of the unit owners within that community. There is also a Homeowners Association ("HOA") organized for the common interest community that is charged with the management of the common elements and the enforcement of the rule and regulations governing the community.
The coalition chose to address their concerns through a bill including a couple of changes in the state laws governing CIC's, which would provide further protection to the homeowner and advance alternative dispute resolution as an expedient approach to resolving disputes should they arise. Those changes included:
1. Majority Owner Vote Re: Litigation -Rather than allowing two owners plus a vote of the HOA Board to determine whether or not to file litigation alleging construction defects in a CIC, the proposed change would require a simple majority vote of the unit owners who are members in the respective HOA where the alleged defect occurred. This approach addressed the increasing concern of unit owners whose homes are unmarketable and not financeable during the course of any such litigation.
This does not prevent an aggrieved owner from pursuing claims regarding that person's own unit, it just requires a majority of the owners to vote for litigation that affects the entire CIC in such litigation. This approach also included a provision for advance notice to the owners of such pending litigation accompanied by several disclosures regarding the potential litigation and its potential impact on the respective owner. This approach to protecting the rights of homeowners in a CIC seemed to be in line with everyone's interests, while not preventing an individual consumer/unit owner to advance its own claims.
2. Alternative Dispute Resolution -This proposal clarified the stated intent of the CIC statutes that advances alternative dispute resolution by providing that any mandatory arbitration provisions that are already contained in the Declaration that encumbers the respective unit in a CIC shall not be changed or deleted without the permission of the Declarant (e.g.; the developer of the CIC). This provision was to affirm a provision that the purchasing unit owner was aware of at the time of purchase and that it follows the spirit and intent of the state statutes governing such CIC's.
Notwithstanding the curative nature of these proposals, the legislation did not address the issue because a legislative maneuver was employed that did not allow for its consideration during the waning days of the session.
More recently, one of Colorado's municipalities, the home rule city of Lakewood, passed a local ordinance addressing this issue in a similar fashion, with a few more definitive suggestions regarding how to alleviate the lopsided nature of our current state of law. Without going into detail at this time with that specific ordinance, or the issue of its ability to address matters of a state-wide concern at the local level, the point is that several of Colorado's local communities, frustrated with the inability of the state legislature to deal with the issue are, at the very least, sending a signal that something must be done and, if the state is unwilling to lead on this matter, local communities will have to act.
This issue has not receded into the back room, and we will see a continuing crusade from an updated coalition to address these reasonable modifications to our state laws that will at least provide some protections to the CIC homeowner regarding unwanted litigation and some relief to the homebuilding industry from excessive litigation.
James M. Mulligan is a partner in the Denver office of Snell & Wilmer, LLP, a full-service commercial law firm located in nine cities throughout the Western United States and in Mexico. The firm’s website is http://www.swlaw.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Architect Not Responsible for Injuries to Guests
September 01, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Texas Court of Appeals has ruled, with one dissent, that the architectural firm that designed a home was not responsible to the injuries caused to guests when a balcony collapsed. Judge David Puryear wrote the majority opinion in Black + Vernooy Architects v. Smith.
Black + Vernooy designed a vacation home for Robert and Kathy Maxfield in 2000. The Maxfields hired a general contractor to build the home. The general contractor hired a subcontractor to build a balcony; however, the subcontractor did not follow the architect’s design in building the balcony.
A year after the house was completed; the Maxfields were visited by Lou Ann Smith and Karen Gravely. The balcony collapsed under the two women. Ms. Gravely suffered a broken finger, a crushed toe, and bruises. Ms. Smith was rendered a paraplegic as a result of the fall. They sued the Maxfields, the general contractor, and the architects for negligence. The Maxfields and the general contractor settled. A jury found that the architects held 10% of the responsibility. The architects appealed the judgment of the district court.
The Appeals Court reversed this judgment, noting that “there has been no allegation that the Architects negligently designed the balcony or that the Architects actually created the defects at issue.” Further, “the Smiths allege that the defect was caused by the construction practices of the contractor and subcontractor when the balcony was not built in accordance with the design plans of the Architects.”
The court found that even though the architects had a duty “to endeavor to guard against defects and deficiencies in the construction of the home and to generally ascertain whether the home was being built in compliance with the construction plans,” this duty did not extend to third parties.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
"Abrupt Falling Down of Building or Part of Building" as Definition of Collapse Found Ambiguous
October 23, 2018 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court predicted the California Supreme Court would find the definition of collapse, calling for the abrupt falling down or caving in of a building or part of a building, to be ambiguous. Hoban v. Nova Cas. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139116 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2018).
The insureds' bowling center had two roof trusses that helped support the roof. The truss failures caused the building ceiling, overhead monitors, and disco ball to drop approximately six to ten inches, and also caused ceiling tiles and a layer of insulation to fall from the ceiling. A general contractor, named Tom Powers, and the county building inspector inspected the damage. The building inspector immediately ordered the business closed until necessary repairs could be completed. Powers was hired to shore up the roof support system to prevent a complete collapse. Thereafter, the insureds were able to re-open the bowling alley.
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
Land a Cause of Home Building Shortage?
June 17, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFDiana Olick of CNBC reported that builders are not keeping up with the housing demand due to a lack of supply of developed lots as well as the increasing price of available land.
"You have to find the land, you've got to be able to buy it and you've got to persuade someone to let you develop it. The one you hear the most about is the last one," Paul Emrath, vice president of survey and housing policy research at the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), told CNBC.
Olick wrote that “[l]and prices have actually surpassed their peak values in many markets where builders are particularly active, especially in Texas.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Sky is Falling! – Or is it? Impacting Lives through Addressing the Fear of Environmental Liabilities
March 30, 2016 —
John Van Vlear and Karl Foster – Newmeyer & Dillion, LLPSix months ago, a couple anxiously relayed to N&D lawyers how the sky was falling – with environmental liabilities at the center of their seemingly real Chicken Little fears. The couple owned two properties in a central California town, one being a former gas station which an oil company had abandoned alleging the lease was void given partial eminent domain actions. Before interviewing us, the couple had spent in excess of $100,000 in legal fees with another law firm trying to force the oil company to take responsibility for potential environmental impacts under the disputed lease.
Reprinted courtesy of
John Van Vlear, Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP and
Karl Foster, Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP
Mr. Van Vlear may be contacted at john.vanvlear@ndlf.com.
Mr. Foster may be contacted at karl.foster@ndlf.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
