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
Confidence Among U.S. Homebuilders Declines to Eight-Month Low
March 19, 2015 —
Bloomberg News(Bloomberg) -- Confidence among U.S. homebuilders unexpectedly fell in March to an eight-month low as prospective buyers were in little rush to shop for properties ahead of the busier spring selling season.
The National Association of Home Builders/Wells Fargo sentiment gauge dropped to 53 from 55 in February, figures from the Washington-based group showed Monday. The median forecast in a Bloomberg survey called for a gain to 56.
Sales of single-family homes declined to a five-month low and builder optimism about the outlook failed to improve, the report also showed. Low mortgage rates and job creation may help spur homebuyer interest in coming months.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bloomberg NewsMichelle Jamrisko may be contacted at
mjamrisko@bloomberg.net
Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group Welcomes Quinlan Tom
January 06, 2016 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogThere’s been more cheer than usual at Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group this holiday season.
Earlier this month, Quinlan Tom, a construction and business attorney, joined us from McInerney & Dillon, a venerable and well-respected construction boutique firm (we know a lot of folks there) with local roots like us in Oakland, California. We’ve all known Quinlan for a while, so when he decided to join our band of merry legal practitioners, we were quite thrilled.
Being lawyers though, and better at asking than answering questions, we decided to pose a few questions to Quinlan:
Q. So, you’ve just been sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, under penalty of perjury. So, tell us about your practice.
A. Let me just start with it’s quite an honor to appear in your blog; I’ve been a reader for a while (in secret of course before I got to Wendel Rosen). I’m also excited to join you and the other members of Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group; as you mention, I’ve known each of you professionally for quite some time and respect each of you tremendously.
I started as a construction litigator right out of law school. I completed three years of mechanical engineering at UC Davis and put that on my resume when I was looking for a job after law school. (In addition, my dad retired after 40 years in the trenches as a union electrician). McInerney & Dillon (“M&D”) and a couple of other firms found that interesting and I ended up starting with M&D. I did find that my engineering studies helped with my acclimation to construction disputes. While I never pretend to be an engineer, it has provided me with a foundation of how the construction process works and how the projects are designed. 26 years later, I continue to enjoy counseling my clients in their construction disputes/issues and still find each construction project I am involved with fascinating.
I have tried, arbitrated and litigated cases for 26 years, from the United States District Court to the California Superior Court and the California Office of Administrative Hearings. I have argued cases before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the California Court of Appeal. I counsel my clients into hopefully making the best business decisions available melding the knowledge I have gleaned from my litigation experience with their financial and personal goals.
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
Constructive Notice Established as Obstacle to Relation Back Doctrine
March 01, 2021 —
Nicholas B. Brummel & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Organizacion Comunidad de Alviso v. City of San Jose, the Sixth Appellate District held that the relation back doctrine was inapplicable where a plaintiff received constructive notice of a defendant’s identity months prior to the last date where filing was permitted pursuant to an applicable statute of limitations.
In Organizacion Comunidad de Alviso, Mark Espinoza, an Organizacion Comunidad de Alviso (OCA/Plaintiff) representative, asked the City of San Jose (“the city”) to place him on the public notice list for a proposed rezoning project. He also twice specifically requested a copy of the notice of determination (NOD) documenting the city’s certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) and approval of the project. Despite Espinoza diligently requesting all notices for the project, the city, in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), failed to send Espinoza the legally operative second NOD for the project; the first NOD was provided to OCA, but named an incorrect party in interest.
Reprinted courtesy of
Nicholas B. Brummel, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Brummel may be contacted at nbrummel@hbblaw.com
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Florida Court of Appeals Rejects Insurer’s Attempt to Intervene in Underlying Lawsuit to Submit Special Interrogatories
October 09, 2018 —
Jeremy Macklin - TLSS Insurance Law BlogOn August 10, 2018, the Florida Court of Appeals for the Second District upheld a trial court’s dismissal of an insurance company’s intervention in a tort lawsuit brought against its insured for the purposes of submitting special interrogatories and verdict forms.
In Houston Specialty Ins. Co. v. Vaughn, 2018 Fla. App. LEXIS 11197, 2018 WL 3795785 (Fla. 2d DCA Aug. 10, 2018), the insured, All Florida Weatherproofing and Construction, Inc. (“All Florida”) provided pressure washing, roof coating, and other roof-related services. Houston Specialty issued a general liability policy to All Florida. In 2012, a worker fell off a roof while applying protective coating on behalf of All Florida. The worker and his family sued All Florida in connection with the worker’s injuries.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jeremy Macklin, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLPMr. Macklin may be contacted at
jmacklin@tlsslaw.com
Delaware Settlements with Minors and the Uniform Transfer to Minor Act
October 15, 2014 —
Stephen J. Milewski – White and Williams LLPAs a Delaware lawyer, one of the most frequently asked questions I get from insurance clients is: “Do all personal injury settlements with minors need to be approved by the Court?” The answer is and always has been yes. This is true regardless of the amount of the settlement. There have, however, been some recent changes under Delaware law which may help facilitate the process and even reduce the costs associated with settling small tort cases with minors. Traditionally, when settling cases with a minor, a Petition would be filed with the trial court (Superior Court) and then a hearing would be scheduled for the parties to present to the Court the terms of the settlement, explain the plaintiff’s injuries and itemize the fee breakdown. This would be the settlement approval process. After that, the plaintiff would be required to have a guardian appointed over the proceeds, which had to be approved by Chancery Court (Delaware’s Court of Equity). The purpose of this process was to ensure the settlement money going to the minor was managed properly; the net proceeds were generally placed into a bank account not to be used by the guardian or the minor until the minor reached the age of majority. To both the plaintiff, and the insurance carrier paying out the settlement, this process was burdensome and added disproportionate costs to small settlements.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stephen J. Milewski, White and Williams LLPMr. Milewski may be contacted at
milewskis@whiteandwiliams.com
Federal Judge Dismisses Insurance Coverage Lawsuit In Construction Defect Case
December 09, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFA federal judge dismissed a coverage lawsuit brought by Mid Continent Casualty Company against its insured, Greater Midwest Builders Ltd.
Plaintiff brought this declaratory judgment action in response to a suit filed in Johnson County District Court, seeking a judicial determination that it had no coverage obligation for claims asserted against its insured. This case was stayed until the state court action entered judgment against the insured. The prevailing parties then commenced a garnishment action against the plaintiff, and another insurance company, in state court in Missouri. The court was asked whether it should lift the stay and proceed with the case, or decline jurisdiction in favor of resolution in the Missouri state court.
The court granted the motion to dismiss holding that proceeding with the case would lead to protracted, piecemeal litigation, while deferring to the Missouri state court would decide all the claims involved in the dispute.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Woodbridge II and the Nuanced Meaning of “Adverse Use” in Hostile Property Rights Cases in Colorado
November 23, 2020 —
Luke Mecklenburg - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogEarlier this year, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued an opinion addressing at length “whether the requirement that the use be ‘adverse’ in the adverse possession context is coextensive with adverse use in the prescriptive easement context.” See Woodbridge Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Lo Viento Blanco, LLC, 2020 COA 34 (Woodbridge II), ¶ 2, cert. granted, No. 20SC292, 2020 WL 5405376 (Colo. Sept. 8, 2020). As detailed below, the Woodbridge II court concluded that the meanings of “adverse” in these two contexts are not coextensive—while “hostility” in the adverse possession context requires a claim of exclusive ownership of the property, a party claiming a prescriptive easement is only required to “show a nonpermissive or otherwise unauthorized use of property that interfered with the owner’s property interests.” Thus, the Woodbridge II court reasoned a claimants’ acknowledgement or recognition of an owner’s title alone is insufficient to defeat “adverse use” in the prescriptive easement context.
This significant ruling is at odds with a prior division’s broad statement, while considering a prescriptive easement claim, that “[i]n general, when an adverse occupier acknowledges or recognizes the title of the owner during the occupant’s claimed prescriptive period, the occupant interrupts the prescriptive use.” See Trask v. Nozisko, 134 P.3d 544, 553 (Colo. App. 2006). Perhaps for that reason, Woodbridge II is currently pending certiorari review before the Colorado Supreme Court in a case that should provide some much-needed clarity on what constitutes “adverse use” in the context of a prescriptive easement. As we await the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision, I thought it worthwhile to provide a brief analysis of the Woodbridge II court’s deep dive into the nuances of “adverse use” in this field of Colorado law.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & WilmerMr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at
lmecklenburg@swlaw.com
