BHA has a Nice Swing: Firm Supports CDCCF Charity at 2014 WCC Seminar
April 29, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFStop by the Bert L. Howe & Associates (BHA) booth at the 2014 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar at the Disneyland Hotel on May 15th and 16th, and Sink A Putt For Charity!
This year, seminar attendees and would-be duffers who try their hand at the golf putting game at the Bert L. Howe & Associates booth will not only have the chance to win a free gift card, they’ll also have the opportunity to help raise funds for a very important cause, the Construction Defect Community Charitable Foundation (CDCCF).
Throughout this year’s seminar, with every hole-in-one made at their booth, BHA will make a $25.00 cash donation in the golfer’s name to the CDCCF.
Bert L. Howe & Associates strongly supports the goals and principles of the CDCCF, and is honored to assist the foundation in fulfilling its mandate of assisting those in the construction defect community who are in need.
Read how the CDCCF assists the construction defect community...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (11/02/22) – Flexible Workspaces, Sustainable Infrastructure, & Construction Tech
November 15, 2022 —
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogThis week’s round-up dives into digital transformation in the construction industry, renewed interest in flexible workspaces, and how the infrastructure sector can become more resilient and sustainable, both economically and environmentally.
- Digital transformation in the construction industry is top of mind for many firms, but most are still in the beginning and intermediate phases of implementing new digital capabilities. (Ursula Cullen, PBC Today)
- Companies could mitigate climate hazards and build resilience into the life cycle of their infrastructure and capital projects by facilitating a comprehensive approach to understanding risk. (Brodie Boland and Daphne Luchtenberg, McKinsey & Company)
- The use of drones in project planning, as well as the incorporation of other technology, is proposed as an alternative solution to addressing the construction industry’s labor shortage. (Shaun Passley, For Construction Pros)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team
South Carolina “Your Work” Exclusion, “Get To” Costs
July 30, 2014 —
Scott Patterson - CD CoverageIn Precision Walls, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., No. 2013-000787 (S.C. Ct. App. July 23, 2014), SYS was the general contractor for a project. SYS contracted with Precision for the supply and installation of exterior insulation board, to include the taping of all joints. After Precision completed its work, another subcontractor began construction of the brick veneer wall over the insulation board. During construction of the brick wall, some of the joint sealing tape installed by Precision began to come loose. To correct the problem, the existing portion of the brick veneer wall had to be torn down, all of the joint sealing tape removed and replaced, and the brick veneer wall rebuilt. SYS deducted the cost of tearing down and rebuilding the brick veneer wall from Precision’s contract. Precision sought reimbursement for this amount from its CGL policy issued by Liberty Mutual.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scott Patterson, CD Coverage
Court Provides Guidance on ‘Pay-When-Paid’ Provisions in Construction Subcontracts
July 13, 2020 —
Ted R. Gropman & Cindy J. Lee - ConsensusDocsOn April 17, the California Court of Appeal decided Crosno Construction, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America,1 effectively narrowing the scope of enforceable “pay-when-paid” provisions in construction subcontracts to the extent the subcontractor seeks recovery against a general contractor’s payment bond surety. Although the Crosno case involved a public works project, the rationale and holding should apply with equal force to private works projects. Basing the bulk of its decision on the Wm. R. Clarke Corp. v. Safeco Insurance Co.2 case, the court found that an open-ended “pay-when-paid” provision in a subcontract is not enforceable against a subcontractor that seeks to recover on a public works payment bond claim. This article discusses the Crosno decision and the implications for contractors on both sides of the contract moving forward.
Brief Case Summary
In Crosno, general contractor Clark Bros., Inc. contracted with the North Edwards Water District (the District) to build an arsenic removal water treatment plant. Clark hired steel storage tank subcontractor Crosno Construction, Inc. to build and coat two steel reservoir tanks. Clark and Crosno’s subcontract included a “pay-when-paid” provision, which stated that Clark would pay Crosno within a “reasonable time” of receiving payments from the owner, but “in no event less than the time Contractor and Subcontractor require to pursue to conclusion their legal remedies against Owner or other responsible party to obtain payment.” After Crosno completed its work, a dispute arose between Clark and the District, and the District withheld payment from Clark (including the monies earmarked for Clark’s subcontractors). Clark sued the District for payment, and Crosno filed its own action against Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, the surety on Clark’s statutory public works payment bond, for recovery of the unpaid subcontract balance. Travelers rejected Crosno’s bond claim as premature, invoking the “pay-when-paid” subcontract language and pointing to Clark’s pending payment action against the District. The issue on appeal was whether the “pay-when-paid” provision in the subcontract blocked Crosno from recovering under the payment bond from Travelers while Clark’s lawsuit against the District was still pending.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ted R. Gropman, Pepper Hamilton LLP and
Cindy J. Lee, Pepper Hamilton LLP
Mr. Gropman may be contacted at ted.gropman@troutman.com
Ms. Lee may be contacted at cindy.lee@troutman.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Don’t Just Document- Document Right!
February 06, 2019 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsI have stated to clients on many occasions that paper is a lawyer’s best friend. Because of a recent case from the Virginia Supreme Court, I should modify that to the correct paper is a lawyer’s best friend. In Commonwealth v. AMEC Civil, LLC, AMEC sued the Virginia Department of Transportation (“VDOT”) seeking more than $21 million in damages. The Mecklenburg County Circuit Court granted AMEC almost all of its damages and found that AMEC’s notice of intent to make a claim was proper under the Virginia Code even if it was not in the proper form.
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
Is it the End of the Story for Redevelopment in California?
October 02, 2015 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogLong, long ago (in 2012 to be exact) in a land not so far away (also known as California), legislation which allowed local governments to establish redevelopment agencies tasked with eliminating blight through the development, reconstruction and rehabilitation of residential, commercial, industrial and retail districts were abolished.
Note: For a relatively concise history of redevelopment in California see the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s working paper
Redevelopment Agencies in California: History, Benefits, Excesses, and Closure (January 2014).
A quite war has been waged ever since. Cities, community development commissions, successor agencies to redevelopment agencies, nonprofit housing corporations and individual taxpayers have fought the legislation (AB 1X 26 (Blumenfield 2011)) which eliminated California’s 425 redevelopment agencies, principally, on constitutional grounds.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
Construction Defect Suit Can Continue Against Plumber
June 28, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Kansas Court of Appeals has reversed a district court ruling that a homeowner’s suit against a plumber was barred under the economic loss doctrine. However, subsequently the Kansas Supreme Court “refused to extend the economic loss doctrine to homeowner claims against construction contractors.” In light of this, the appeals court sent the case back to the lower court.
The case, Coker v. Siler, was brought by Gregory Coker, who had bought a home from J.M.C. Construction. JMC purchased an unfinished house from Michael D. Siler in August 2006. As part of the completion process, John M. Chaney, the president of JMC, installed the water line into the residence. Mr. Coker bought the home in September 2007.
Starting in April 2008, Mr. Coker noticed that his water bills had increased. Mr. Coker could find “no evidence of a leak above the ground,” so he contacted JMC Construction. Mr. Chaney had R.D. Johnson Excavation dig up the water line, after which a gap was discovered that had been allowing water to flow under the foundation. In addition to the higher water bills, an engineer determined that the water “resulted in cracks in the wall and uneven doors.”
Mr. Coker sued, Siler, J.M.C. and Chaney for negligence, breach of implied warranty, strict liability, and breach of express warranty. J.M.C. and Chaney requested a summary judgment. The court dismissed Mr. Coker’s claims of negligence, strict liability, and breach of implied warranty on the basis of the economic loss doctrine, rejecting a petition from Mr. Coker to reconsider. The court, however, allowed Mr. Cocker to proceed with his claim of express warranty. In December, 2011, Mr. Coker accepted an offer from J.M.C. of $40,000.
Mr. Coker then appealed the summary judgment, making the claim that while the court’s decision was based on Prendiville v. Contemporary Homes, Inc., this has now been overruled by David v. Hett. In this case, “the court ultimately found the rationale supporting the economic loss doctrine failed to justify a departure from a long time of cases in Kansas that establish a homeowner’s right to assert claims against residential contractors.” The appeals court concluded that “although the district court properly relied on the law as it existed at the time of its ruling, the intervening change in the law necessarily renders the conclusion reached by the district court erroneous as a matter of law.”
In sending this case back to the district court, the appeals court noted that the lower court will need to determine if the “defendant accused of negligence did not have a duty to act in a certain manner towards the plaintiff,” in which case “summary judgment is proper. Mr. Coker claims that Mr. Chaney did indeed have this duty.
Further, Mr. Coker claimed that Mr. Chaney had a duty arising out of implied warranty. The appeals court questioned whether the district court properly applied the economic loss doctrine to this claim, because despite being president of the construction company, Mr. Chaney “in his individual capacity as a plumber performing work for Coker, was not a party to the J.M.C. contract.” The court found that “Coker’s claim that Chaney breached an implied duty within such a contract fails as a matter of law.”
However, the court did uphold Cocker’s claim of a contractor liability for injury to a third party, noting that “Chaney owed Coker a legal duty independent of Coker’s contact with J.M.C.” The appeals court left it to the district court to determine if the defect that caused the damage was present when the house left J.M.C.’s possession.
The case was reversed and remanded “with directions to reinstate Coker’s claim of negligence against Chaney in his individual capacity as a plumber.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Replacement of Defective Gym Construction Exceeds Original Cost
January 22, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFAustin, Texas has torn down a school gym, the Turner-Roberts Recreation Center at the Overton Elementary School, due to structural problems which became evident after the gym was completed four years ago. The cost of the new gym is $6.4 million, more than the cost of building the gym in the first place. The city is paying $3 million in repair costs with the rest of the money coming from the companies that designed and built the now demolished gym. According to the Austin Statesman, the total cost to the city will be about $8.6 million.
The Turner-Roberts Recreation Center cost $5.6 million to build, but soon after it opened, structural problems were discovered. Cracks formed in walls and glass doors buckled. The settlement with the designer, contractor, and engineering firm did not require the firms to admit fault as they paid $3.4 million to fix the situation. The Statesman was unable to get a breakdown of how much each firm paid. Tom Cornelius, president of the GSC, the architectural firm on the project told the Statesman that "the foundation issues were not caused by design defects."
Initially, the city sought to repair the gym, but early excavation determined that the defects were too extensive. In addition to the structural flaws, it was also determined that the HVAC system was faulty. Excavation also damaged plumbing work. Tearing down the gym turned out to be the most cost-effective response.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
