Understanding the Miller Act
February 26, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFJohn P. Ahlers of Ahlers & Cressman PLLC, explained who is covered by the Miller Act in regards to Federal public works projects on the firm’s blog. Ahlers stated that “[t]he Miller Act requires that all general contractors post payment bonds on contracts in excess of $25,000.00.”
In his blog post, Ahlers goes over coverage and the distinction between subcontractor and supplier. Ahlers commented, “While, at first glance, it may seem fairly simple to sort out who is and who is not covered by the Miller Act payment bond, the analysis can at times be factually and legally complex. This is an area that, if faced, the contractor should seek legal advice of an experienced construction lawyer before jumping to conclusions.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick Haggerty Promoted to Counsel
May 24, 2021 —
Patrick Haggerty - White and Williams LLPWhite and Williams is pleased to announce the promotion of Patrick Haggerty to the position of Counsel. Pat is a member of the Real Estate and Finance groups and practices in the Philadelphia office.
Pat focuses his practice on a wide range of commercial real estate transactions and financings. He represents real estate developers, owners, and investors, international and domestic banks, private equity firms, hedge funds, and insurance companies in the financing, acquisition, development, repositioning and disposition of commercial real estate assets.
“Pat’s unique skillset and impressive experience enhances the services which we can provide to our real estate and finance clients. We are proud to promote such a talented lawyer,” said Tim Davis, Chair of the Business Department. “We look forward to his continued success.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick Haggerty, White and Williams LLPMr. Haggerty may be contacted at
haggertyp@whiteandwilliams.com
Court Finds That SIR Requirements are Not Incorporated into High Level Excess Policies and That Excess Insurers’ Payment of Defense Costs is Not Conditioned on Actual Liability
April 22, 2019 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Deere & Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co. (No. A145170, filed 2/25/19), a California appeals court held that the insured was not required to pay additional self-insured retentions (SIRs) in order to trigger higher level excess coverage because the retained limits applicable to the first layer of coverage did not also apply to the higher-layer excess policies.
In Deere, the insured was sued for injuries from alleged exposure to asbestos-containing assemblies used in Deere machines. In a declaratory relief action against its umbrella and excess insurers, the case was tried on: (1) whether the higher-layer excess policies were triggered once the first-layer excess policy limits, which were subject to an SIR paid by Deere, had been exhausted; and (2) whether the insurers’ indemnity obligation extended to Deere’s defense costs incurred in asbestos claims that had been dismissed. The trial court found in favor of the insurers, concluding that the retained limits in the first layer of coverage also applied to the higher-layer excess, which was not triggered until Deere paid additional SIRs. The court also concluded that the insurers were not obligated to pay defense costs when underlying cases were dismissed without payment to a claimant either by judgment or settlement.
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Massachusetts Couple Seek to Recuse Judge in Construction Defect Case
September 30, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFAfter seeing their $1 million jury award overturned on appeal by a judge who called the award “against the weight of evidence and likely due to misapprehension, confusion or passion,” Kathryn and Christian Culley are seeking to have him removed from the case. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has rejected their claim.
The Culleys claim that Judge Thomas R. Murtagh’s decision was influence by him membership in the Andover Country Club which is represented by the opposing counsel in their construction defect case. Justice Margot G. Botsford had denied the Culley’s request, ruling that they had other remedies available to them.
The SJC noted in their ruling that if the Culleys are alleging judicial misconduct a request must be made to the Commission on Judicial Conduct. Their lawyer plans to file a new motion for recusal with the SJC.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Hidden Price of Outdated Damage Prevention Laws: Part I
November 21, 2018 —
Brigham A. McCown - Construction ExecutiveExcavators know that dialing 811 triggers a process that requires all utilities operating in the service area to find and mark the location of their underground facilities so that they are not damaged during the excavation process. In addition, marking the location of the utilities is intended to keep the public safe, for instance by preventing an excavator from striking a gas line.
But excavators also know that in most states, the laws and regulations that govern these procedures are weak and that enforcement is even weaker. It’s an unfortunate fact that excavators and the public – typically the least culpable parties – suffer the consequences of weak damage prevention laws and lack of strong enforcement regimes.
Reprinted courtesy of
Brigham A. McCown, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Specific Source of Water Not Relevant in Construction Defect Claim
June 28, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Nebraska Court of Appeals has concluded that a lower court came to the correct conclusion in a construction defect case involving water intrusion. The Hiatts built a home in North Platte, Nebraska, in in 2004 which they sold to the Oettingers in May, 2006. Shortly thereafter, the Oettingers started experiencing problems with water intrusion and contacted the Hiatts. The Hiatts responded by replacing the septic lift. Subsequently, the Oettingers landscaped their yard, which they allege was done with the assistance of the Hiatts. The water problems continued and “the parties took substantial remedial measures, including excavating the sidewalk and inspecting the downspouts.” The water problems continued, getting worse and requiring increasingly aggressive responses.
The Oettingers then had a series of inspections, and they hired the last of these inspectors to actually fix the water intrusion problem. At that point, they filed a lawsuit against the Hiatts alleging that the Hiatts “breached their contact by constructing and selling a home that was not built according to reasonable construction standards,” and that they “were negligent in the repair of the home in 2009.”
During the trial, Irving Hiatt testified that they “tarred the outside of the basement and put plastic into the tar and another layer of plastic over the top of that.” He claimed that the problem was with the Oettingers’ landscaping. This was further claimed in testimony of his son, Vernon Hiatt, who said the landscaping lacked drainage.
The Oettingers had three experts testify, all of whom noted that the landscaping could not have been the problem. All three experts testified as to problems with the Hiatts’ construction. The court concluded that the Hiatts had breached an implied warranty, rejecting the claim that the water intrusion was due to the landscaping. The Hiatts appealed the decision of the county court to the district court. Here, the judgment of the lowest court was confirmed, with the district court again finding a breach of the implied warranty of workmanlike performance.
The Hiatts appealed again. They alleged that the district court should not have held a breach of implied warranty existed without proving the source of the water intrusion, and that damages should have been apportioned based on the degree to which the Oettingers’ landscaping and basement alterations were responsible. The appeals court dispensed with the second claim first, noting that “they do not argue this error in their brief nor do they explain how or why the trial court should have apportioned damages.” The court also noted that although the Oettingers made a negligence claim in their suit, the case had been decided on the basis of a breach of implied warranty.
The appeals court upheld the Oettingers’ claim of a breach of implied warranty. In order to do this, the court noted that the Oettingers had to show that an implied warranty existed, that the Haitts breached that warranty, damage was suffered as a result, and that no express warranty limited the implied warranty. That court noted that “the record is sufficient to prove that the Hiatts breached the implied warranty in the method in which they constructed the basement” and that “this breach was the cause of the Oettingers’ damages.”
The court concluded that the Oettingers “provided sufficient evidence that the Hiatts’ faulty construction allowed water, whatever its source, to infiltrate the basement.” The court rejected the Hiatts’ claim that the Oettingers’ repairs voided the warranty, as it was clear that the Hiatts were involved in carrying out these repairs. The court’s final conclusion was that “the evidence in the record supports the trial court’s factual finding that the Hiatts’ flawed construction caused water damage to the Oettingers’ basement.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
No Trial Credit in NJ Appellate Decision for Non-Settling Successive Tortfeasors – Must Demonstrate Proof of Initial Tortfeasor Negligence and Proximate Cause
January 11, 2021 —
Kevin C. Cottone, Robert Wright, & Monica Doss - White and Williams LLPWhere an initial tortfeasor settles in a successive negligence case, the non-settling tortfeasors do not get a credit at trial, says the New Jersey Appellate Division. The court held in Glassman v. Friedel [1], that non-settling successive tortfeasors are not entitled to a pro tanto credit after the initial tortfeasor settles and its negligence is undetermined. Rather, successive tortfeasors have the burden at trial to demonstrate that (1) the initial tortfeasor was negligent, and (2) the initial tortfeasor’s negligence was the proximate cause of the second event.
In Glassman, the plaintiff, as executor of his deceased wife’s estate, sued a restaurant and property owner of the site where his wife fell and fractured her ankle. Afterwards, the plaintiff added defendants including the doctors and the medical center that cared for his wife after she fractured her ankle. The plaintiff alleged that they had been negligent during his wife’s surgery, which led to postoperative complications and injuries to his wife’s leg, ultimately resulting in a fatal pulmonary embolism.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kevin C. Cottone, White and Williams LLP,
Robert Wright, White and Williams LLP and
Monica Doss, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Cottone may be contacted at cottonek@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Wright may be contacted at wrightr@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Doss may be contacted at dossm@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Vacation during a Project? Time for your Construction Documents to Shine!
October 09, 2023 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North CarolinaHappy Lazy Day Everyone! What’s that? You didn’t know that August 10th is considered National Lazy Day? Well, it is. And it ties nicely in with today’s theme: how to take a vacation during the thick of the construction project.
Everyone needs a break. You are no different. It can seem, however, that it is impossible to disconnect from the ongoing onslaught of questions, requests for information, change orders, pay applications, and the like. But you can. The key to taking–and enjoying–your vacation is to plan ahead. This is the time for your construction documents to shine. Make sure that your designs are on schedule; make sure that the change orders and RFIs have been processed so there is no backlog. And make sure that your second in command is familiar enough with the day to day details to step into your shoes for the duration.
Then– be sure to give everyone notice. Is it any of their business that you are taking some time off? No. However, everyone procrastinates. So, if you give the entire team advance notice that you will be “off grid” starting on X date, they will be more inclined to get pending issues to you sooner rather than later. They won’t want to be stalled on progress, and with a heads up on when you are out of pocket, they will make it a priority to get requests to you ahead of your departure date.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale LiggettMs. Brumback may be contacted at
mbrumback@rl-law.com
