Handshake Deals Gone Wrong
May 22, 2023 —
Jessica Allain - ConsensusDocsThe construction industry has it fair share of “handshake deals”, oral agreements relying on the integrity of the people involved. But when it comes to protecting and enforcing legal rights, it is always a better idea to properly paper the deal and get it in writing. Otherwise, contractors relying on verbal promises may find themselves without any legal remedy should the deal go south. After all, it is not just a matter of trust, but also a way to document that everybody agrees on what the terms of the deal actually are.
For example, a recent case out of New York highlights the dangers of unwritten promises. In Castle Restoration, LLC v. Castle Restoration & Construction, Inc., No. 16349-15 (N.Y. App. Div. 2/9/22), 2022 NY Slip Op 50082(U), 2022 WL 402882, 2022 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 485, Castle Inc. and Castle LLC entered into a deal for an asset sale to transfer equipment and a client list from Castle Inc. to Castle LLC. While that initial asset sale was properly papered with sale documents and a promissory note, the parties entered into a subsequent handshake/oral agreement where Castle LLC agreed to provide Castle Inc. with labor and materials on construction projects, and those goods and services would offset the payment obligation under the promissory note. But the problem was that the contract for the asset sale had a provision that the agreement could not be changed by oral agreement; rather, any changes had to be made in writing.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jessica Allain, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Ms. Allain may be contacted at jallain@joneswalker.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
What Construction Contractors Should Know About the California Government Claims Act
May 28, 2024 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIf you work on state or local public works projects in California you should have at least a basic understanding of the Government Claims Act formerly known as the Tort Claims Act (Govt. Code §§ 900 et seq.). In the event of a dispute with a public entity, the Government Claims Act will usually apply, absent contractual provisions providing otherwise (Govt. Code §§930, 930.2) (e.g., in a construction contract), and requires that a “claim” first be presented to a “public entity” before a claimant files a lawsuit against the public entity. Failure to comply with the Government Claims Act can serve as a bar to maintaining a lawsuit against a public entity.
What types of claims does the Government Claims Act apply to?
The Government Claims Act broadly applies to most claims against state and local public entities. This is not limited to construction projects and includes all claims for “money or damage” arising from death, personal injury, breach of contract, and damage to real and personal property, wrongful death, or breach of contract.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Repair Cost Exceeding Actual Cash Value Does Not Establish “Total Loss” Under Fire Insurance Policy
June 05, 2017 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn California FAIR Plan Assn. v. Garnes (No. A143190, filed 5/26/17), a California appeals court ruled that “total loss” under Insurance Code section 2051 refers to physical damage or loss, not the economic fact that the cost of repair exceeds the actual cash value of a home. Thus, where the home is not physically destroyed, the insured is entitled to the actual cost of repair, minus depreciation, even if that amount exceeds the fair market value of the home.
In Garnes, the insured had a fire policy issued by the California FAIR Plan with limits of $425,000. It was agreed that the assessed value of the insured home was only $75,000. The insured suffered a kitchen fire with estimated repair costs of $320,000. The FAIR Plan declared the home a total loss because the cost of repair exceeded the home’s value, and offered to pay the actual cash value as provided by Insurance Code section 2051(b)(1).
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Design-Build Contracting: Is the Shine Off the Apple?
March 09, 2020 —
John P. Ahlers - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCThe design-build delivery method offers many benefits to owners. Among the cited benefits are that projects are generally completed faster, at a lower cost, by allowing innovative approaches through early and continual contractor involvement in the design process. The design contractor serves as a single point of contact responsible for both the design and construction of the project.
The Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) utilized the design-build procurement method on the largest project ($2 billion) of its type in the state of Washington: the Highway 99 Tunnel, which was finished almost three years late after the tunnel-boring machine (“Bertha”) broke down six years ago. The sorted tale of the SR-99 Tunnel Project was the source of many of this firm’s blog articles.[1] The State of Washington staunchly maintained that the design-build contract protected its taxpayers from covering the repair costs to the tunnel-boring machine when it broke down in 2013. Bertha did not resume tunneling for almost two years, putting on hold removal of the Alaska Way viaduct and rebuilding of the Seattle Waterfront without an elevated highway.
In December 2013, the contractor for the project, Seattle Tunnel Partners (“STP”), contended that a 110-foot long 8” steel pipe which Bertha hit caused the breakdown. That pipe had been installed for groundwater testing by WSDOT in 2002 during its preliminary engineering for the viaduct replacement project. The project’s Dispute Review Board (“DRB”) composed of three tunneling experts found that the pipe constituted a “differing site condition” for which the State was responsible to disclose to contractors. The Board, whose views were non-binding, did not opine about how much damage the undisclosed pipe cost.[2] In other words, the mere fact that a differing site condition occurred did not establish that there was a causal connection between the damages which STP was seeking (in excess of $600 million) and the differing site condition (the 8” steel pipe which WSDOT lawyers at trial derisively referred to as “nothing more than a toothpick for Bertha’s massive cutter head”). STP maintained that Bertha had made steady progress except for three days immediately after hitting the pipe. It didn’t help the contractors’ case that during the discovery phase of the two-month trial, WSDOT lawyers uncovered documents showing that the contractor’s tunnel workers encountered and logged the pipe before digging began.[3]
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Ahlers may be contacted at
john.ahlers@acslawyers.com
Additional Insured Not Entitled to Coverage for Named Insured's Defective Work
September 02, 2024 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit determined there was no duty to defend or to indemnify the additional insured for the named insured's defective work. St. Paul Guardian Ins. Co., et al. v. Walsh Construction Co., 99 F. 4th 1035 (7th Cir. 2024).
The City of Chicago contracted with Walsh Construction Company to manage the construction of a canopy and curtain wall system at O'Hare International Airport. Walsh entered into a contract with Carlo Steel Corporation, which in turn subcontracted with LB Steel, LLC to fabricate and install steel columns to support the wall and canopy. LB Steel listed Walsh as an additional insured in its commercial general liability policies. LB Steel's insurers were St. Paul, Travelers, and Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company.
Several years into the project, the City discovered cracks in the welds of the steel columns and sued Walsh. Walsh, in turn, sued LB Steel under its subcontract. Walsh also asked LB Steel's insurers to defend it in the City's lawsuit, but they refused to do so. Walsh eventually secured a judgment against LB Steel, but LB Steel declared bankruptcy. Walsh then sued LB Steel's insurers to recover the costs of defending against the City's lawsuit and indemnification for any resulting losses.
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
Apartment Construction Increasing in Colorado while Condo Construction Remains Slow
March 12, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFDennis Huspeni writing for the Denver Business Journal reported that Colorado is having a surge of new apartment construction, but very little condominium building. According to Huspeni, “some business leaders and government officials worry that Colorado’s construction defect laws” are the reason for the lack of condominium construction.
Huspeni in the Denver Business Journal alleged that there is a large “liability risk for builders, developers and subcontractors” because current state laws “make it easier for homeowners’ associations to file large, class-action lawsuits against builders for construction problems associated with new condominiums.”
Huspeni spoke with John Batug, senior vice president and regional manager of Wells Fargo’s community banking real estate group, who stated that condo development usually occurs at the same rate as apartment development. Batug alleged that construction defect litigation “seems to have pushed that component of the market out.”
A bill that is supposed to “jump-start” the “condominium construction sector will be introduced this session, but its sponsor said he remains unsure what types of legal reform will be a part of it,” reported Ed Sealover in the Denver Business Journal.
Lakewood Mayor Bob Murphy told Sealover that “city and business leaders would like to see two particular changes in the law: 1.They want to require a super-majority of condo owners to have to agree to legal action before any lawsuit is filed — instead of just needing two of them to move forward. 2.They want a requirement to attempt some sort of alternative dispute resolution before a suit can be filed.”
However, not everyone is in favor of the proposed suggestions. Jonathan Harris, vice president of The Point Homeowners Association, told Sealover that the “bill that the Metro Mayors Caucus wants ignores the fact that arbitration can be an expensive process for property owners.”
Read the full story, Huspeni Article...
Read the full story, Sealover Article... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Eastern District of Pennsylvania Clarifies Standard for Imposing Spoliation Sanctions
October 19, 2020 —
Kean Maynard - The Subrogation StrategistCourts are faced with the difficult task of drawing a line to determine when the failure to preserve evidence becomes culpable enough to permit a judicial remedy. In State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Cohen, No. 19-1947, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163681, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (District Court) made clear that a party is not entitled to a spoliation sanction without proof that the alleged spoliation was beyond accident or mere negligence. The District Court emphasized that when evidence goes missing or is destroyed, the party seeking a spoliation sanction must show that the alleged spoliation was intentional and that the alleged spoliator acted in “bad faith” before adverse inferences will be provided.
In Cohen, Joshua Cohen (Cohen) rented a residential property to Lugretta Bryant (Bryant). Bryant’s property suffered damages as a result of a kitchen fire. Bryant’s insurer, proceeding as subrogee, hired a fire investigator to determine the cause and origin of the fire. Based on eyewitness testimony and examination of the burn patterns, the fire investigator concluded that the fire started at the General Electric (GE) microwave located in the kitchen. The investigator advised all parties to preserve the microwave so that a joint examination could take place with the property owner and GE present. In the following weeks, the tenant returned to the property to collect belongings and perform some cleaning in anticipation of repairs beginning. Importantly, the tenant claimed the microwave was preserved during these cleaning efforts and remained at the site as instructed. However, in the fall of 2017, one of Cohen’s workers discovered that the microwave was missing and its whereabouts remain unknown.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kean Maynard, White and WilliamsMr. Maynard may be contacted at
maynardk@whiteandwilliams.com
Condo Developers Buy in Washington despite Construction Defect Litigation
October 22, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFMarc Stiles writing for Puget Sound Business Journal stated that “[t]he belief that contractors have been scared off by the legal liabilities that come with [condo] projects doesn't seem to hold water.” He interviewed Suzi Morris, of Lowe Enterprises, who plans on building a new condo tower in Seattle this November.
Morris stated that they didn’t have any problems getting construction bids for the 24-story tower. According to the Puget Sound Business Journal, “The development team is trying to head off construction defect claims by planning and documenting with photos their work.”
Stiles did admit that an unnamed “source in Seattle who consults on condo projects knows of two large general contracting companies that won't bid on condo projects because of” potential construction defect litigation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
