Considerations in Obtaining a Mechanic’s Lien in Maryland (Don’t try this at home)
December 21, 2020 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsFor this week’s Guest Post Friday at Construction Law Musings I welcome Matthew Evans. Matt is the owner of Law Offices of Matthew S. Evans, III, LLC located in Annapolis, Maryland. He has practiced construction, real estate and land use law in Maryland and D.C. for thirteen years. Prior to opening his own firm in May 2011, Mr. Evans was a partner at a mid-sized firm in Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Mr. Evans lives in Historic Annapolis (only three short blocks from his office) with his wife Margaret, and three children, Matthew (5), Bo (4) and Peyton (2).
Some of the most common calls I get are from irate contractor or subcontractor clients who have not been paid demanding that I “lien the property”. Many times after calming the client down, I determine, to their dismay, that they are not entitled to a mechanic’s lien. In Maryland, the mechanic’s lien law is driven by statute, which contains specific requirements which must be met before the client is entitled to a lien.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Bid Protests: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Redeux)
September 17, 2014 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogThis past week I gave a presentation on a panel entitled “Bid Protests: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly” before my local bar association. Thanks to those who attended, my co-presenters and the bar association for sponsoring.
Rather than letting my notes gather dust I thought I would share some of the highlights.
What is a bid protest?
A bid protest is the procedure by which a bidder protests the rejection of its bid or award of a public works contract to another bidder.
A bid protest may occur in one of two situations: (1) A public entity rejects the bid of an apparent low bidder and the apparent low bidder protests the rejection; or (2) A public entity awards the contract to the apparent low bidder and another bidder protests the award.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & GirardMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@kmtg.com
California Court Invokes Equity to Stretch Anti-Subrogation Rule Principles
June 18, 2019 —
Gus Sara & William L. Doerler - The Subrogation StrategistIn Western Heritage Ins. Co. v. Frances Todd, Inc. 2019 Cal. App. Lexis 299, the Court of Appeals of California, First Appellate District, addressed whether a commercial condominium association’s carrier could subrogate against the tenants (aka lessees) of one of its member unit owners. After examining the condominium association’s declarations, as well as the lease terms between the owner and the lessees, the court held that the association’s carrier could not subrogate against the lessees because they were implied co-insureds on the policy. To reach its decision, the court explained that an insurer steps into the shoes of its insured, not the party with whom it is in privity. Although the first-party property portion of the association’s insurance policy did not, as required by the association’s declarations, have the owner listed as an additional named insured, the court held that it would be inequitable to treat the association as the sole insured for purposes of determining Western Heritage’s right to bring a subrogation action.
In Western Heritage, William R. de Carion d/b/a Surfwood Properties (de Carion or Lessor), owned a commercial unit within a multi-unit commercial building. The building was managed by the East Shore Commercial Condominiums Owners’ Association (the Association). As a unit owner, de Carion was a member of the Association. The Association’s Declarations of Codes, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) required the Association to procure fire insurance for the commercial units by adding the unit owners as additional named insureds. The CC&Rs also prohibited owners and their “tenants” from procuring their own fire insurance policies for the premises. In 2013, de Carion leased his commercial space to Frances Todd, Inc. d/b/a The Wooden Duck, Eric Todd Gellerman and Amy Frances Feber (Lessees).
Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP and
William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Flint Water Crisis Prompts Call for More Federal Oversight
August 28, 2018 —
Associated Press - Engineering News-RecordWASHINGTON (AP) — A federal watchdog is calling on the Environmental Protection Agency to strengthen its oversight of state drinking water systems nationally and respond more quickly to public health emergencies such as the lead-in-the water crisis in Flint, Michigan .
In a 74-page report released Thursday, the EPA's inspector general report pointed to "oversight lapses" at the federal, state and local levels in the response to Flint's contaminated drinking water.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Engineering News-RecordENR may be contacted at
ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
More Fun with Indemnity and Construction Contracts!
June 04, 2024 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsWell, I’m back. It’s been quite a while since my last post due to some busy family times and running my law practice. Hopefully, you will hear from me more often in the future.
Now. . . on with the post:
I have often discussed indemnity provisions here at Construction Law Musings. I’ve posted on a range of things relating to indemnity from when those
sticky clauses are unenforceable to
what to look out for in such a clause when reviewing your construction contract. A recent case out of Fairfax examines another wrinkle in these indemnity clauses. In
Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, LLC v. Paramount Constr. Servs., LLC, the Court examined the language of a fairly typical indemnity clause in a construction contract.
The general facts of the case are as follows. The Plaintiff alleged that it owns the property at 6129 Leesburg Pike, that it entered into a contract with Paramount Construction Services LLC to install clothes washers and dryers in individual units at the property, and that, in the process, Paramount (or one of its subcontractors) negligently severed a water pipe, which caused significant damage to the property. The plaintiff’s property insurance carrier agreed to pay the plaintiff $2,598,918.41. But the actual damages exceeded that payment by $952,020.90. The plaintiff sued Paramount for $952,020, pursuant to an indemnity provision in the contract. Paramount demurred to the Complaint arguing that the indemnity clause did not apply to create liability for Paramount.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Biden’s Solar Plans Run Into a Chinese Wall
May 23, 2022 —
Liam Denning - BloombergA new and unexpected obstacle to President Joe Biden’s green ambitions has emerged: a tiny solar-power company based in San Jose.
Auxin Solar Inc., which accounts for all of 2% of U.S. solar-module manufacturing, recently persuaded the Commerce Department to open a potentially devastating trade inquiry. After the U.S. imposed anti-dumping measures against Chinese solar-cell and module manufacturers just over a decade ago, alternative suppliers sprang up in South Korea and Southeast Asia. Auxin now contends that those other Asian suppliers are effectively used by Chinese companies to circumvent the anti-dumping measures.
If Commerce ultimately agrees, then more than four-fifths of solar-module imports to the U.S. and half of all cells could suddenly be subject to steep tariffs, perhaps levied retroactively. The Solar Energy Industries Association warns of dire consequences for U.S. solar-power development — critical to Biden’s decarbonization targets — claiming that some suppliers are already backing away because of the risk. Heavyweight NextEra Energy Inc. warns that the investigation may delay 2.8 gigawatts of projects slated for this year. Timothy Fox of ClearView Energy Partners, a Washington-based analysis firm, says Commerce’s “structural” inclination toward protectionism may lead it to concur with Auxin.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Liam Denning, Bloomberg
Homeowners Should Beware, Warn Home Builders
November 20, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFIn the aftermath of a tornado in central Illinois, home builders are warning homeowners to be wary of scam artists. “We need to protect consumers from repair scams,” said Lisa Scott, the executive director of the Home Builders Association of Greater Peoria. “After a devastating storm, people come in from outside the area to offer help,” she said, noting that some will be offering help they won’t actually provide.
“This isn’t about supporting our members,” she said, “this is about having somebody who stands by their work instead of paying cash for a roof job and having no one to call when a few months later, it starts leaking.” She further warns, “you shouldn’t be paying cash. You should have a contract.”
One home builder, David Whitehurst, owner of P & W Builders, noted that “there will be a lot of people out there trying to make a quick buck that aren’t qualified to do the work.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Harsh New Time Limits on Construction Defect Claims
April 26, 2011 —
Scott F. Sullan, Esq., Mari K. Perczak, Esq., and Leslie A. Tuft, Esq.A recent Colorado Supreme Court decision, Smith v. Executive Custom Homes, Inc., 230 P.3d 1186 (Colo. 2010), considerably shortens the time limit for bringing many construction defect lawsuits. Homeowners and homeowner associations risk losing the right to seek reimbursement from builders, developers and other construction professionals unless they carefully and quickly act upon discovery of evidence of any potential construction defect.
The Statute of Limitations for Construction Defect Claims
Colorado’s construction defect statute of limitations limits the time for homeowners and homeowners associations to bring lawsuits for construction defects against “construction professionals,” including developers, general contractors, builders, engineers, architects, other design professionals, inspectors and subcontractors. The statute requires homeowners and associations to file suit within two years “after the claim for relief arises.” A claim for relief “arises” when a homeowner or association discovers or reasonably should have discovered the physical manifestation of a construction defect.
The two-year time limitation applies to each construction defect separately, and will begin to run upon the appearance of a “manifestation” of a construction defect (which may include, for example, a condition as simple as a roof leak or drywall cracks), even if the homeowner or association does not know the cause of the apparent problem.
The Smith Opinion and its Effect on the Statute of Limitations
In Smith v. Executive Custom Homes, Inc., the plaintiff homeowner, Mrs. Smith, slipped on ice that had accumulated on her sidewalk because of a leaking gutter and suffered injury. When she first noticed the leak, she reported it to her property manager, who reported it to the builder. The builder attempted to repair the gutter, unbeknownst to Mrs. Smith, and she did not notice further problems until approximately one year after she first observed the leak, when she fell and suffered serious injury. She sued the builder within two years of her injury, but nearly three years after she first learned of the leak.
The Colorado Supreme Court dismissed Mrs. Smith’s claims as untimely and held that under the construction defect statute of limitations, the two-year period for suing for injuries due to construction defects begins when the homeowner first observes the physical manifestation of the defect, even if the resulting injury has not yet occurred. The court acknowledged that this ruling could result in “unfair results,” especially if a serious and unforeseeable injury occurs more than two years after the first time the homeowner noticed the problem, and as a result the victim is unable to seek redress from those responsible for the defect.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Scott F. Sullan, Esq., Mari K. Perczak, Esq., and Leslie A. Tuft, Esq. of Sullan2, Sandgrund, Smith & Perczak, P.C., and they can be contacted through their web site.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
