For US Cities in Infrastructure Need, Grant Writers Wanted
July 22, 2024 —
Patrick Sisson - BloombergIt’s a big windfall of federal investment. Together, bills like the Inflation Reduction Act, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and the CHIPS Act present a substantial shift in how the US government funds local economic development, clean energy and environmental justice efforts, potentially giving cities and towns a huge boost.
That is, if the nation’s 90,000-plus municipalities and tribal governments can finish filling out all the paperwork.
The trillion-dollar trifecta of Biden administration legislation from 2022 underscores just how important grant writing has become. In many ways, the ability of cities to enact new policies and tap federal resources rests on the desks of the staffers or contract workers who research, write and submit applications for funding. Uncle Sam will cheerfully write a check for cities to install solar panels via Clean Electricity Investment and Production Tax Credits, for example, or provide tax credits for buying electric vehicles. But first, you have to ask.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick Sisson, Bloomberg
Challenging a Termination for Default
September 23, 2024 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesNo contractor wants to be terminated for default. It is the harshest contractual recourse. It is a recourse that has implications, particularly in the public sector. However, a party needs to be in a position to support the basis of the termination for default, and the terminated party, in most instances, should not be in a position to imply accept the basis of the default. This applies regardless of the project.
In the federal context: “When a contractor challenges a default termination, the government bears the burden of establishing the validity of the termination.” Sergent’s Mechanical Systems, Inc. v. U.S., 2024 WL 4048175, *7 (Fed.Cl. 2024) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Once the government establishes the default, “the contractor bears the burden of establishing that the default was excused by fault of the government.” Id. at *8 (internal quotation and citation omitted).
Relevant considerations as to whether the contractor is in default include the contractor’s failure to meet contract specifications or the required schedule. Sergent’s Mechanical Systems, supra, at *8. “[T]here is ‘a requirement that the contractor give reasonable assurances of performance in response to a validly issued cure notice.” Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Indiana Federal Court Holds No Coverage for $50M Default Judgment for Lack of Timely Notice of Class Action
August 26, 2019 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia and Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLPIn Greene v. Kenneth R. Will, a CGL insurer recently prevailed in a declaratory judgment action arising from an underlying class action alleging pollution and nuisance claims against the insured, VIM Recycling LLC, an Indiana-based waste-recycling facility.[1] “[T]his case has some whiskers on it,” the Indiana federal district court recounted in its exhaustive decision granting the insurer relief. The court relieved the insurer of indemnifying a $50 million default judgment against the insured, which, the court observed, “proved to be a bad neighbor” and “nuisance in both the legal and colloquial sense.” The court held that the insured failed to provide timely notice of the class action.
“The judgment against the [insured] came about when a group of nearby homeowners decided that they had had enough of VIM’s polluting behavior and brought this class action to recover damages for environmental violations, nuisance and negligence based on the impact of the waste facility on their homes and property,” the court explained. Eventually, the court entered a default judgment against the insured for $50,568,750, plus an award of $273,339.85 in attorney’s fees. Because the insured was “judgment-proof,” the class action plaintiffs “aligned” with the insured “hoping to collect on their monumental judgment” from the insured’s CGL insurer. Within a few weeks’ time, the class action plaintiffs sued the insurer seeking a declaration of coverage for the default judgment against the insured.
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and
Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court Strikes Down Reasonable Construction Defect Settlement
December 20, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Court of Appeals of Washington has struck down a construction defect settlement between a building owner and the companies she hired to repair the siding, among other repairs to bring the building up to code. Yuan Zhang hired Hawk Construction LLC to do repair work. Hawk, in turn, hired Ready Construction LLC for some aspects of the project. Hawk and Ready were both insured by Capital Specialty Insurance Corporation.
There were several problems with Ready’s work. After removing old siding, they did not protect the building, nor did they remove all of the damaged layers. Ready covered, but did not fix, a mildew problem under the old siding. When new siding was reattached, the nails used were too short to adequately attach it.
After paying for an inspection of the work, Zhang had Hawk and Ready begin the repairs again, but the work was abandoned without being completed. Zhang sued Hawk for breach of contract. Hawk then sued Ready, claiming that “Ready was liable to Hawk to the extent that Hawk was liable to Zhang.” Capitol retained defense for both contractors.
Zhang settled with Hawk, in an agreement that gave her “the right to collect and/or pursue all costs and attorney fees paid by Hawk or its insurance company defending against the Zhang’s claims and pursuing claims against Ready.” Subsequently, she also settled with Ready. Both companies ceased operations.
Zhang had the settlements reviewed by a court, which concluded that the settlements were reasonable. Capital was allowed to appeal, claiming that the settlement included costs that were Zhang’s responsibility. The appeals court did not examine the question of the reasonableness of the settlement, concluding that Capitol’s interests were relevant only to “questions of bad faith, collusion, and fraud.”
In the case of Zhang, the court concluded that the relationship between Zhang and her former contractors was collusive. The court noted that “bad faith or collusion may exist when the evidence indicates a joint effort to create, in a non-adversarial atmosphere, a resolution beneficial to both parties, yet highly prejudicial to the insurer as intervener.” The court noted that both companies had minimal assets which were, in any case, exempted from the agreement. Further, the court found that the agreements failed to determine “what amount of the repairs related to preexisting water damage.” Zhang’s calculation of costs also included her expenses for architectural and engineering services, which the court points out, “where always Zhang’s costs to bear.”
The court concluded that “the overall structure of the settlements is highly probative of collusion, fraud, or bad faith.” Zhang’s agreements with Hawk and Ready allowed her to collect compensation from Hawk and then collect Ready’s compensation to Hawk for their portion of the settlement, allowing Zhang to collect the monies twice. Further, she was allowed to pursue Capitol for Hawk’s attorney expenses, even though Hawk had none. “The right to recover Hawk’s fees merely set up a windfall recovery for Zhang.” The court described the agreements among Zhang, Hawk, and Ready as “precisely the type of manipulation [the law] is intended to preclude.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Three Firm Members Are Top 100 Super Lawyers & Ten Are Recognized As Super Lawyers Or Rising Stars In 2018
July 28, 2018 —
Scott MacDonald - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCWith the Fourth of July festivities still ringing in our collective ears, we are having our own celebration at Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC. We avoid using this blog as a platform for self-promotion as we want to keep relevant construction industry news and notes hitting your inboxes. Longtime readers will know, however, that we make an exception to recognize the Super Lawyers of the firm, who are each humbled to receive this peer-voted award. We also share this news in recognition of our clients and industry-partners who have put their trust and confidence in us. Without these relationships, these industry acknowledgments would have no significance.
Super Lawyers is a wholly independent company that identifies outstanding lawyers in the profession. It selects attorneys using a patented multiphase selection process based on legal excellence, industry involvement, and civic leadership. Super Lawyers’ initial pool of candidates is based on peer nominations and evaluations from outside the firm, which is then combined with Super Lawyers’ own third-party research. Only five percent of all lawyers in Washington State are selected for the honor of Super Lawyers and no more than 2.5 percent are selected for the honor of Super Lawyers Rising Stars. What makes this award meaningful is it is based upon evaluation of individual merit—as opposed to a “pay-to-win” award.
John P. Ahlers, one of the firm’s founding partners, is again recognized as one of the 10-Best Lawyers in the State of Washington across all practicing industries.
Founding partner Paul R. Cressman, Jr. and partner Brett M. Hill are also recognized as two of the 100-Best Lawyers across all practicing industries in Washington State.
In addition, three other firm members are also recognized as Super Lawyers: Founding partner Scott R. Sleight, Bruce A. Cohen (of counsel), and Lawrence S. Glosser (partner). In addition, Ryan W. Sternoff (partner), Lindsay (Taft) Watkins (partner), Ceslie A. Blass (associate), and Scott D. MacDonald (associate) were selected as Super Lawyers Rising Stars. Well over half of the firm’s lawyers received Super Lawyers distinction.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scott MacDonald, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. MacDonald may be contacted at
scott.macdonald@acslawyers.com
‘Hallelujah,’ House Finally Approves $1T Infrastructure Funding Package
November 15, 2021 —
Tom Ichniowski - Engineering News-RecordAfter nearly three months in a holding pattern and a long day of back-and-forth negotiations among House Democrats, the chamber approved a sweeping, multi-year infrastructure funding package late on Nov. 5 that will provide an estimated $1 trillion for a wide range of infrastructure categories, including highways, transit, rail, water, power and broadband.
Reprinted courtesy of
Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Litigation Roundup: “A Fastball Right to the Bean!”
May 06, 2024 —
Daniel Lund III - LexologyThe Metropolitan Municipality of Lima, Peru, filed suit in federal court in Washington DC to vacate two separate arbitration awards rendered against the city in international arbitration proceedings subject to the Federal Arbitration Act.
The city had contracted to build, improve, and maintain various highways in and around the city. To pay for this infrastructure, Lima agreed that the contractor would “receive revenues from existing and new toll booths.”
Apparently, the City of Lima forgot how much citizens of the area loathed tolls, and, according to the court, the local public officials “quickly truckled” (how apropos for a road project!) to the pressure. As a result, revenues promised to the contractor were not forthcoming, and the city did nothing about it.
The contractor initiated arbitration, and the city countered by arguing that the contractor had bribed its way into the contract. The city lost and was held in breach.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
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
