Your “Independent Contractor” Clause Just Got a Little Less Relevant
January 12, 2015 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogConstruction projects are complex, multi-partied, multi-disciplinary endeavors, in which subcontracting all or a portion of the work to be performed is not uncommon.
When subcontracting work, parties usually make it clear in their contracts that the party performing work is acting as an “independent contractor.” Here’s a fairly typical provision from the AIA A201 General Conditions:
The parties agree that the contractual relationship on Contractor to Owner is one solely of an independent contractor in all respects and that the Contract Documents do not in any way create a partnership, joint venture or any other relationship between Owner and Contractor other than the contractual relationship as specified in this Agreement.
These provisions are intended to shield the contracting party from claims that it is responsible for workers’ compensation premiums, retirement contributions, health care insurance, or other benefits provided for the benefit of employees of the company performing the work. Fair enough.
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
Moving Toward a Telework Future: A Checklist of Considerations for Employers
July 27, 2020 —
Daniel F. Fears & Raymond J. Nhan - Payne & FearsBusinesses contemplating moving to a virtual workplace in this post-COVID-19 world must consider the legal ramifications of such decisions. Virtual workplaces may provide businesses with many benefits, such as cost savings, access to a more geographically diverse worker pool and the possibility of more flexible employment relationships. But a virtual workplace may also include hidden employment-related issues, costs, and traps. This is especially so for California-based companies.
This article identifies some of the significant employment-law issues related to transitioning to a virtual workplace. Specifically, this article analyzes three scenarios: (1) employers seeking to have their workers continue working from home; (2) workers desiring to continue working from home — and specifically, seeking to work outside of California; and (3) the hiring of new employees.
Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel F. Fears, Payne & Fears and
Raymond J. Nhan, Payne & Fears
Mr. Fears may be contacted at dff@paynefears.com
Mr. Nhan may be contacted at rjn@paynefears.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Colorado HB 13-1090: Concerning Payment of Amounts Due Under a Construction Agreement
February 21, 2013 —
David M. McLain — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCOn January 17, 2013 Representative Fischer introduced House Bill 13-1090 into the Colorado House of Representatives. HB 1090 was assigned the House Business, Labor, Economic and Workforce Development Committee.
The bill, sponsored by Senator Tochtrop in the Senate, sets the following requirements for both private and public construction contracts:
The owner and contractor must make regular progress payments approximately every 30 days to contractors and subcontractors for work actually performed.
To receive the progress payments, the contractor and subcontractor must submit a progress payment invoice plus any required documents.
A contractor must pass on the progress payment to the subcontractor within 5 days or by the end of the billing cycle.
Interest accrues on unpaid progress payments.
A contract may extend a billing cycle to 60 days, but the contract must duly warn of this.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David M. McLainmclain@hhmrlaw.com
Suffolk Construction Drywall Suits Involve Claim for $3 Million in Court Costs
November 11, 2024 —
Richard Korman - Engineering News-RecordSuffolk Construction lost a breach-of-contract contract lawsuit in July with a former drywall subcontractor's surety—but the contractor's payout may dramatically increase if the presiding U.S. district court judge in Miami allows the surety to collect $3 million more in requested attorneys' fees and trial costs.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Greystone on Remand Denies Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment To Bar Coverage For Construction Defects
June 28, 2013 —
Tred EyerlyA prior post here discussed the Tenth Circuit's decision in Greystone Constr., Inc. v. National Union Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 661 F. 3d 1272 (10th Cir. 2011). The court found a duty to defend construction defect claims where damage caused by the faulty workmanship was unintentional. The Tenth Circuit remanded for a determination on whether any policy exclusions precluded a defense or indemnity for damage arising from faulty workmanship. On remand, the district court denied National Union's Motion for Summary Judgment, seeking to establish the policy exclusions precluded its duty to defend and to indemnify. See Greystone Constr., Inc. v. v. National Union Fire & Marine ins. Co., 2013 U. S. LEXIS 46707 (D. Colo. March 31, 2013).
Greystone was sued for construction defects in homes it built. The suit alleged that Greystone failed to recognize defects in the soil where the house was built. National Union refused to defend. The district court initially granted summary judgment to National Union because claims arising from construction defects were not covered. As noted above, the Tenth Circuit vacated because the damage in the underlying suit did not categorically fall outside coverage under the policy.
On remand, National Union first argued there was no duty to defend based upon an exclusion precluding coverage for damage arising out of work done by subcontractors unless the subcontractors agreed in writing to defend and indemnify the insured and carried insurance with coverage limits equal to or greater than that carried by the insured. The Tenth Circuit rejected this argument because National Union had to rely on facts outside of the underlying complaint.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred EyerlyTred Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Arizona Court of Appeals Upholds Judgment on behalf of Homeowners against Del Webb Communities for Homes Riddled with Construction Defects
February 26, 2015 —
Law Offices of Kasdan Weber Turner LLPARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS UPHOLDS LOWER COURT DECISION APPROVING $13,703,039 JUDGMENT ON BEHALF OF 460 SUN CITY GRAND HOMEOWNERS AGAINST DEL WEBB COMMUNITIES, INC., A SUBSIDIARY OF PULTEGROUP, INC., FOR HOMES RIDDLED WITH CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS
--
In a separate case, an Arizona Superior Court awards $10,619,640 to another 279 Sun City Grand homeowners who sued Del Webb over construction defects, which Del Webb has appealed--
PHOENIX, Arizona – The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, [on Tuesday] issued a unanimous ruling upholding a lower court decision awarding $13,703,039 to 460 Sun City Grand homeowners who sued developer Del Webb Communities, Inc., a subsidiary of PulteGroup, Inc., for numerous construction defects that severely damaged the plaintiffs’ homes. Sun City Grand is an age-restricted community located in Surprise.
In a separate case, an Arizona Superior Court awarded $10,619,640 to another group of 279 Sun City Grand homeowners for multiple construction defects in their homes.
Stephen Weber, the managing partner in the Phoenix office of Kasdan Weber Turner LLP, which represents the homeowners, said that the case is based on construction defects that damaged the plaintiffs’ homes and took several years to resolve. The defects include defective windows, poorly installed stucco, expansive soil conditions that resulted in cracking of drywall, and deteriorating concrete foundation systems, among other problems.
“Del Webb placed an arbitration clause in the sales contracts and the homeowners honored it. The binding arbitration that includes the owners of 460 homes in Sun City Grand was completed in late 2011 when the arbitration panel unanimously awarded the homeowners $13,703,039. Del Webb then challenged the award in Superior Court and the Superior Court confirmed the award in full,” Weber explained. “Del Webb did not like the Superior Court ruling either and challenged it in the Court of Appeals. And now three justices of the Arizona Court of Appeals have unanimously affirmed the Superior Court order and the arbitration award stands. Now they will have the funds to repair their homes, restore their value, and live in comfort,” Weber said.
The $13,703,309 award includes amounts for home repairs, attorney fees, expert fees, court costs and pre-judgment interest. An additional $1,401,236 in post-judgment interest also accrued while the case was on appeal. The other construction defect case that awarded $10,619,640 to homeowners was not covered by binding arbitration.
Del Webb has also appealed that case which will now go through the appeals process. That could take two to three years and again the homeowners will have to wait for the final judgment, Weber noted.
Ken Kasdan, senior and managing partner of the Kasdan Weber Turner firm and one of the nation’s leading experts on construction defect litigation, said the defects are egregious. “The multiple defects rob them of pride of ownership,” he said. “A home is something that a homeowner wants to be proud of. Unfortunately, defective workmanship and poor construction have caused damage to the homes. Now these homes can be repaired and the homeowners will no longer have to deal with defective windows and cracked slabs. Developers need to understand that arbitration awards are final and binding,” Kasdan noted.
The Kasdan Weber Turner law firm has offices in Phoenix, Arizona and in Irvine, California and Walnut Creek, California. The firm represents property owners in major construction defect litigation. For more information on the firm, visit www.kasdancdlaw.com. Stephen Weber may be contacted at (602) 224-7800.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
“A No-Lose Proposition?”
October 07, 2024 —
Daniel Lund III - LexologyA Miller Act payment bond surety and its principal general contractor both sued in federal court in New Orleans by a project subcontractor sought to compel arbitration the claims against both contractor and surety based on an indisputably enforceable arbitration clause in the subcontract. This was urged to avoid separate actions against the contractor (arbitration) and its surety (litigation), even though the surety was not a party to the subcontract and, therefore, not a party to the arbitration clause.
In the face of the lack of an express agreement to arbitrate, the contractor and contractor argued that “no federal statute or policy prohibits all of Plaintiff’s claims from proceeding to arbitration….” Additionally, those parties urged that the surety should be allowed to affirmatively compel arbitration because the surety “would otherwise have the ability to assert the right to compel arbitration as a defense….”
The New Orleans federal district court was unpersuaded:
“[D]istrict courts within this circuit have recognized that ‘Miller Act claims by a subcontractor for unpaid labor and materials are separate and distinct from those for general breach of contract… [and] arbitration and Miller Act suits, are not, per se, inconsistent with one another.’…[A]bsent express contractual intent to subject Miller Act claims to arbitration, the court [will] not force the parties to arbitrate claims against nonparties to the contract at issue…. [C]laims against a surety, which was a non-signatory to the contract, would not be subject to arbitration without any contractual basis to do so.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
South Carolina Legislature Redefining Occurrences to Include Construction Defects in CGL Policies
April 01, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFThe question of what circumstances must be in place for construction defects to be covered in a general commercial liability (CGL) policies is being raised by the courts and the legislature in South Carolina. The Insurance Journal reports that the American Insurance Association as well as the Property and Casualty Insurers Association of America are speaking out on the issue.
The problem seems to be centered on what defines an “occurrence.” CGL policies were not meant to cover faulty workmanship, according to the filing by the South Carolina Supreme Court. In January of this year, the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the ruling in Crossmann Communities v Harleysville Mutual declaring that “Respondents cannot show the damage here was the result of an occurrence. Rather, the damage was a direct result and the natural and expected consequence of faulty workmanship; faulty workmanship did not cause an occurrence resulting in damage.” They focused their attention on the word “accident,” stating that there is a fortuity element that is not diminished.
The South Carolina legislature reacted by producing a bill that would add new language directly negating the ruling by the Supreme Court. The South Carolina bill S-431 would change the definition of an occurrence in regards to construction defects as follows: “For a liability insurance policy issued to a construction professional, an ‘occurrence’ means, at a minimum: (1) an accident; or (2) continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful condition or substance. No additional requirement of a fortuitous event is needed to constitute an ‘occurrence.’”
S-431 is currently residing in the House Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
