Build, Baby, Build. But Not Like This, Britain.
March 04, 2024 —
Matthew Brooker - BloombergThe UK needs to do a lot more building. A lack of access to physical and digital connections is holding back the economy, the government says. Besides tackling the housing crisis, the country has to construct more roads, railways, wind farms and reservoirs to open up opportunity and drive productivity. The only problem is that Britain is notoriously inept at delivering infrastructure projects on time and within budget.
The advantage of doing things badly is that at least you get to learn from your mistakes — in theory. Updates this month have offered some illuminating insights into two of the biggest civil-engineering undertakings in the country: High-Speed Rail 2, better known as HS2, and Hinkley Point C, which will be Britain’s first new nuclear power station since 1995. Here are five lessons that can be drawn from the issues encountered by two projects with a combined bill that’s likely to exceed £100 billion ($127 billion):
Don't take budgets too seriously — especially at the start. Fixing an initial budget that was too low may have done much to feed later perceptions that HS2’s costs were spiraling out of control. The original estimate for the expanded train network was set too early and based on “very immature data,” Jon Thompson, appointed executive chair of High Speed 2 Ltd. in February last year, told the House of Commons transport committee. Numbers get more accurate and reliable as work progresses and the quality of information improves. What were viewed as cost blowouts partly reflected this process. The effect was unfortunate, undermining political support for HS2 and providing cover for cutbacks that have reduced the network to a single line between London and Birmingham that fails to fulfill most of its original purpose. To avoid this problem: Stick to a range rather than a single figure, and make sure people understand the uncertainties inherent in early-stage estimates.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Matthew Brooker, Bloomberg
Are You Taking Full Advantage of Available Reimbursements for Assisting Injured Workers?
January 08, 2019 —
Jonathan Schirmer - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCWorkplace injuries are an increasingly expensive cost of doing business. While every business does their best to avoid these injuries, even the most prepared employers must deal with them on occasion. The costs associated with these injuries—increased worker’s compensation premiums, decreased productivity, hiring temporary employees, and the loss of experienced workers—can be mitigated by shrewd employers taking full advantage of available assistance programs.
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
Texas Court of Appeals Conditionally Grant Petition for Writ of Mandamus to Anderson
April 25, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFThe Texas Court of Appeals conditionally grant mandamus relief to Anderson Construction Company and Ronnie Anderson (collectively “Anderson”)… from the trial court in a construction defect lawsuit filed by Brent L. Mainwaring and Tatayana Mainwaring. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.001-.007 (West 2000 & Supp. 2010). Relators contend the trial court abused its discretion by compelling discovery while the case was abated by operation of law.
The Court of Appeals opinion describes what led up to the proceedings: “The Mainwarings’ original petition identified certain defects in their Anderson-constructed home. Those defects concerned the roof trusses and framing, air conditioning, mortar and masonry, exterior doors and windows, and weep holes. With respect to the five areas of defects identified in their original petition, the Mainwarings gave Anderson the statutorily required notice on January 13, 2010. After implementing agreed extensions, Anderson made an offer of settlement for the defects the Mainwarings identified in their notice. Almost eight months later, the Mainwarings filed an amended petition adding defects they had not included in their original petition and notice. The additional defects the Mainwarings included in their amended petition had not been addressed by Anderson’s offer of settlement.”
Following these events, Anderson claimed the Mainwarings did not respond in writing to their settlement offer. “Anderson filed a verified plea in abatement on December 2, 2010. In the trial court, Anderson claimed that the Mainwarings failed to respond in writing to Anderson’s settlement offer, as required by Section 27.004(b) of the RCLA. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(b)(1). The Mainwarings moved to compel discovery responses from Anderson. The Mainwarings alleged that they rejected Anderson’s settlement offer, and that if their response was insufficient, they contend that Anderson’s offer was rejected by operation of law on the twenty-fifth day after the Mainwarings received it. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(i). The Mainwarings’ motion to compel was not supported by affidavit. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(d)(2). On January 13, 2011, Anderson filed a verified supplemental plea in abatement. Anderson alleged that the Mainwarings failed to provide written notice concerning the newly alleged defects and complained the Mainwarings were attempting to circumvent the inspection and resolution procedure of the RCLA. Over Anderson’s objection that the lawsuit had been abated, the trial court granted the Mainwarings’ motion to compel discovery.”
After listening to both sides, the Court of Appeals offered this reasoning for their opinion: “The parties do not dispute that Anderson inspected the property before the Mainwarings alleged the existence of additional defects in their amended pleading, nor do the Mainwarings claim that Anderson has been given an opportunity to inspect the additional defects the Mainwarings identified in their amended pleadings. We conclude the trial court did not have the discretion to deny or lift the abatement until the Mainwarings established their compliance with the statute. In other words, the Mainwarings are required to provide Anderson a reasonable opportunity to inspect the additional defects identified by their amended pleading, which will allow Anderson the opportunity to cure or settle with respect to the newly identified defects.”
The Court of Appeals spoke directly on the issue of mandamus relief: “The Mainwarings contend that mandamus relief is not available because the trial court’s ruling does not prevent Anderson from making settlement offers during the discovery process. ‘An appellate remedy is “adequate” when any benefits to mandamus review are outweighed by the detriments.’ In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004). The failure to abate a case is typically not subject to mandamus. See In re Allstate Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co., 85 S.W.3d 193, 196 (Tex. 2002) (citing Abor v. Black, 695 S.W.2d 564, 567 (Tex. 1985)). In this case, however, the case was abated by operation of law. By ignoring the statutory abatement, the trial court interfered with the statutory procedure for developing and resolving construction defect claims. See In re Kimball Hill Homes Tex., Inc., 969 S.W.2d 522, 525 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, orig. proceeding) (An appeal provides an inadequate remedy for the trial court’s failure to observe automatic abatement pursuant to the RCLA.). The benefits of mandamus review are not outweighed by the detriments of mandamus review in this case.“
In conclusion, “The trial court had no discretion to compel discovery while the case was abated, and Anderson, who has been compelled to respond to discovery during a period the case was under an automatic abatement, has no adequate remedy on appeal. Accordingly, we conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus. The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to vacate its order of February 3, 2011, and fails to refrain from proceeding with the case until a motion to reinstate is filed that establishes compliance with the notice and inspection requirements of the Residential Construction Liability Act.”
Read the trial court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
You’ve Been Suspended – Were You Ready?
April 20, 2020 —
Curtis W. Martin, Patrick J. Greene, Jr. & Levi W. Barrett - Peckar & Abramson“Effective tomorrow … the City is suspending all regular activity at construction sites in Boston.” This was just one of the surprises that greeted contractors last week. Contractors and owners with projects across the country are scrambling to comply with mandated governmental suspensions. Project participants should begin contingency planning for possible project shutdowns.
Reacting to Suspension
Your legal rights and remedies will be largely determined by your contract and the laws applicable to it. But some basic principles will be applicable depending on the source of the suspension.
Suspension by the Owner: An owner work suspension suggests review of the contract’s suspension of work clause. Federal contractors would look to the FAR Suspension of Work clause, FAR 52.242-14, but that is applicable if the suspension is by the Contracting Officer; the US would argue that a systemic suspension was a sovereign act and outside the FAR clause.
Contractors for private work and state or municipal work may have contractual suspension of work clauses. At least some suspension clauses provide relief for time and money.
Reprinted courtesy of Peckar & Abramson attorneys
Curtis W. Martin,
Patrick J. Greene and
Levi W. Barrett
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@pecklaw.com
Mr. Greene may be contacted at pgreene@pecklaw.com
Mr. Barrett may be contacted at lbarrett@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
L.A.’s Modest Solution to the ‘Missing Middle’ Housing Problem
May 24, 2021 —
Kriston Capps - BloombergPractical ideas aren’t often the stuff of architecture contests. Right off the bat, that set Los Angeles’s Low-Rise design challenge apart.
A project led by the mayor’s office and the city’s chief design officer, Christopher Hawthorne, Low-Rise asked entrants to reimagine what an L.A. urban landscape with abundant housing could look like in the years to come. The organizers wanted the participating designers to think about their submissions the way they might approach a project for a local client or community. The results, which were unveiled this week, don’t look like future-forward science fiction, but rather doable local solutions to a thorny problem: the stubborn lack of affordable options across the city.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kriston Capps, Bloomberg
Court finds subcontractor responsible for defending claim
May 18, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFIn an unpublished decision, the California Fourth Appellate District Court has reversed the judgment of Judge Linda B. Quinn of the Superior Court of San Diego. In the case Inland California, Inc. v. G.A. Abell, Inland, a general contractor had subcontracted with Apache Construction and Precision Electric Company (G.A. Abell).
Apache alleged that extra demolition and drywall work was needed due to Precision’s electrical work. Inland tendered a defense of Apache’s claims. However, Precision did not provide any defense. Inland withheld payment from Precision.
At trial, Inland “conceded Precision earned the $98,000 in progress payments Inland withheld.†They were obligated to additionally pay Precision’s costs and attorney fees.
The Fourth Appellate District court has overturned this and remanded the case back to the lower court. The judges determined that Precision was obligated to defend itself against the claims raised by Apache and therefore vacated the judgment against Inland.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Flexible Seattle Off-Ramp Would Retain Shape in Quake
November 23, 2016 —
Tim Newcomb – Engineering News-RecordMoving from the lab to the field, a highway off-ramp bridge under construction in Seattle features memory-retaining metal rods and bendable concrete designed to provide the structure with flexibility sufficient to withstand a major seismic event.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tim Newcomb, Engineering News-RecordEngineering News-Record may be contacted at
ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Builder Waits too Long to Dispute Contract in Construction Defect Claim
May 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Louisiana Court of Appeals has affirmed the lower court’s judgment in the case of Richard v. Alleman. The Richards initiated this lawsuit under Louisiana’s New Home Warranty Act, claiming that they had entered into a construction contract with Mr. Alleman and that they quickly found that his materials and methods had been substandard. They sued for the cost of repairing the home and filing the lawsuit. Mr. Alleman countersued, claiming the Richards failed to pay for labor, materials, and services. By his claim, they owed him $12,838.80.
The trial court split the issues of liability and damages. In the first trial, the court concluded that there was a contact between Alleman and the Richards and that the New Home Warranty Act applied. Mr. Alleman did not appeal this trial.
The second trial was on the issue of damages. Under the New Home Warranty Act, the Richards were found to be entitled to $36,977.11 in damages. In a second judgment, the couple was awarded $18,355.59 in attorney’s fees. Mr. Alleman appealed both judgments.
In his appeal, Alleman contended that the trial court erred in determining that the Home Warranty Act applied. This was, however, not the subject of the trial, having been determined at the earlier trial. Nor did the court accept Alleman’s claim that the Richards failed to comply with the Act. The trial record made clear that the Richards provided Alleman with a list of problems with their home by certified mail.
The court did not establish whether the Richards told Alleman to never return to their home, or if Alleman said he would never return to the home, but one thing was clear: Alleman did not complete the repairs in the list.
A further repair was added after the original list. The Richards claimed that with a loud noise, a large crack appeared in their tile flooring. Mr. Alleman stated that he was not liable for this as he was not given a chance to repair the damage, the Richards hired the flooring subcontractors, and that the trial court rejected the claim that the slab was defective. The appeals court found no problem with the award. Alleman had already “refused to make any of the repairs.”
Finally Alleman made a claim on a retainage held by the Richards. Since Alleman did not bring forth proof at trial, the appeals court upheld the trial courts refusal to award a credit to Alleman.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
