Mediation in the Zero Sum World of Construction
September 26, 2022 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsConstruction is a zero sum game. What do I mean by that? I mean that even where you, a construction professional with a great construction lawyer, have reviewed and edited a subcontract presented to you or provided a well-drafted contract to the other party that contains an attorney fees provision, every dollar that you spend on litigation is a dollar less of profit.
Couple the fact that no construction company can or should bid or negotiate work with an eye toward litigation (aside from having a well written contract that will be enforced to the letter here in Virginia). Particularly on “low bid” type projects, contractors and subcontractors cannot “pad” their bids to take into account the possibility of attorney fees, arbitration, or litigation. Furthermore, the loss of productivity when your “back office” personnel are tied up dealing with discovery, phone calls, and other incidents of litigation that do nothing but rehash a bad project and increase the expense sap money from the bottom line. While the possibility of a judgment including attorney fees may soften this blow, you are still out the cash.
All of this said, if you are in commercial construction for any significant period of time disputes will arise and I have discussed the process in some detail at other places here at Construction Law Musings. As a construction litigator, I am fully aware of this fact of life. Efficient management of these disputes is key, particularly when they escalate to the point where some form of outside “help” (read arbitrator or judge) is necessary.
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
Look Up And Look Out: Increased Antitrust Enforcement Of Horizontal No-Poach Agreements Signals Heightened Scrutiny Of Vertical Agreements May Be Next
November 28, 2022 —
John F. Finnegan, III & Dominick Weinkam - ConsensusDocsIn the current regulatory environment, it is important for contractors to remain vigilant of heightened anti-competitive enforcement in the construction and procurement spheres by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ). Such vigilance should include, among other things, regular review of applicable laws and implementation of related updates to compliance policies, as well as careful evaluation of joint venture (JV), subcontractor, and teaming agreements.
Recent DOJ Activity Opens The Door To Broader Antitrust Exposure For Contractors
Many contractors include exclusivity and non-compete clauses in their vertical agreements, including subcontractor agreements and certain types of JV and teaming agreements. In fact, many widely available “checklists” for drafting these agreements recommend including such provisions; however, under U.S. antitrust law, particularly as enforced by the DOJ in the last 1-2 years, exclusivity and non-compete clauses may be construed as unduly competition-restricting. Although no court has yet held that exclusivity and non-compete clauses in vertical agreements violate antitrust laws, recent aggressive enforcement activity by the DOJ with regard to horizontal no-poach agreements suggests that the investigatory headwinds may be blowing in that direction.
Reprinted courtesy of
John F. Finnegan, III, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs) and
Dominick Weinkam, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Mr. Finnegan may be contacted at jfinnegan@watttieder.com
Mr. Weinkam may be contacted at dweinkam@watttieder.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wisconsin Court Enforces Breach of Contract Exclusion in E&O Policy
July 21, 2018 —
TLSS Insurance Law BlogIn its recent decision in Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co. v. GHD Inc.,2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111827 (E.D. Wisc. July 5, 2018), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin had occasion to consider the application of a breach of contract exclusion in a professional liability policy.
Crum’s insured, DVO, was sued in connection with its contract to construct a biogas converter mechanism. The underlying suit alleged a sole cause of action; namely, breach of contract based on DVO’s failure to have fulfilled its obligations to design the mechanism to specification.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
Fifth Circuit Confirms: Insurer Must Defend Despite Your Work/Your Product Exclusion
February 14, 2022 —
Nathan A. Cazier & Scott S. Thomas - Payne & FearsThe United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently confirmed that liability insurers have a duty to defend their insureds in construction defect cases when the underlying complaint alleges damage to property beyond the product and work of the insured – even if the complaint merely implies that the insured seeks such damage, without explicitly alleging so. Siplast, Incorporated v. Employers Mutual Casualty Company, No. 20-11076, 2022 WL 99303 (5th Cir. Jan. 11, 2022).
The Archdiocese of New York replaced the roof over Cardinal Spellman High School in the Bronx, using a roofing membrane manufactured by Siplast, Inc. (“Siplast”). After a rainstorm a few years later, school officials reported water damage to the ceiling tiles throughout the school, and repair attempts only made the leaking worse. Siplast disputed that the leaks were its fault and refused to replace the roof, so the Archdiocese sued.
Reprinted courtesy of
Nathan A. Cazier, Payne & Fears and
Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears
Mr. Cazier may be contacted at nac@paynefears.com
Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Texas Supreme Court Holds Stipulated Extrinsic Evidence May Be Considered in Determining Duty to Defend
May 10, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiResponding to certified questions from the Fifth Circuit, the Texas Supreme Court held that in limited circumstances, extrinsic evidence may be considered in determining the duty to defend. Monroe Guar. Ins. Co. v. Bitco Gen. Ins. Corp., 2022 Tex. LEXIS 148 (Tex. Feb. 11, 2022).
The two insurers each provided CGL coverage to the insured, 5D Drilling & Pump Service, Inc., at different times. BIitco provided two consecutive one-year CGL policies covering October 2013 to October 2015. Monroe's CGL policy covered 5D from October 2015 to October 2016.
5D was sued by David Jones for breach of contract and negligence, seeking damage allegedly resulting from 5D's drilling operations on Jones's property. Jones contracted with 5D in the summer of 2014 to drill a 3600-foot irrigation well on his farmland. The complaint did not detail when 5D's purportedly negligent acts occurred or even when 5D began or stopped the work.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Panel Declares Colorado Construction Defect Laws Reason for Lack of Multifamily Developments
January 22, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFDennis Huspeni writing for the Denver Business Journal provided reactions from panelists at a ULI Colorado event on January 9th at the Embassy Suites Denver – Downtown/Convention Center hotel regarding a report on “Emerging Trends in Real Estate.” According to Huspeni’s article, panelists discussed “the lack of for-sale multifamily development and attributed it to Colorado’s construction defect laws.”
John Beeble, chairman and CEO of Saunders Construction, one of the panelists, said that Saunders does not build condos because of Denver’s construction defect laws: “We’ve been in business for 42 years and never been sued for construction defects,” Beeble said, according to the Denver Business Journal. “But the odds are close to 100 percent that we’d be in court defending ourselves if we did condos.”
Jeff Hawks, principal at ARA Colorado, claimed, “Colorado has some of the worst construction defect laws in the country. It’s stupid to try and build a condo development until that changes,” as reported by the Denver Business Journal.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Contractor Liable for Soils Settlement in Construction Defect Suit
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe California Court of Appeals ruled on January 9 in Burrow v. JTL Dev. Corp., a construction defect case in which houses suffered damage due to improperly compacted soil, upholding the decision of the lower court.
Turf Construction entered into a deal with JTL to develop a parcel they acquired. A third firm, Griffin Homes, withdrew from the agreement “when a geotechnical and soils engineering firm reported significant problems with soil stability on 14 of the lots.” Turf Construction then took over compacting and grading the lots. Turf “had never compacted or graded a residential tract before.” Robert Taylor, the owner of Turf, “testified he knew there was a significant problem with unstable soils.”
After homes were built, the plaintiffs bought homes on the site. Shortly thereafter, the homes suffered damage from soil settlement “and the damage progressively worsened.” They separately filed complaints which the court consolidated.
During trial, the plaintiff’s expert said that there had been an inch and a half in both homes and three to five inches in the backyard and pool areas. “He also testified that there would be four to eight inches of future settlement in the next fifteen to twenty years.” The expert for Turf and JTL “testified that soil consolidation was complete and there would be no further settlement.”
Turf and JTL objected to projections made by the plaintiffs’ soil expert, William LaChappelle. Further, they called into question whether it was permissible for him to rely on work by a non-testifying expert, Mark Russell. The court upheld this noting that LaChappelle “said that they arrived at the opinion together, through a cycle of ‘back and forth’ and peer review, and that the opinion that the soil would settle four to eight inches in fifteen to twenty years was his own.”
Turf and JTL contended that the court relied on speculative damage. The appeals court disagreed, stating that the lower court based its award “on evidence of reasonably certain damage.”
Turf also that it was not strictly liable, since it did not own or sell the properties. The court wrote that they “disagree because Turf’s grading activities rendered it strictly liable as a manufacturer of the lots.” The court concluded that “Turf is strictly liable as a manufacturer of the lots.”
Judge Coffee upheld the decision of the lower court with Judges Yegan and Perren concurring.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Is It Time to Digitize Safety?
October 24, 2022 —
Peter Grant - Construction ExecutiveIt’s valid to ask whether digitizing a safety program actually makes companies safer. Here is what the data says.
All contractors face unique risks that call for custom safety measures. But they also face a handful of similar challenges in this area—including time-consuming paperwork, scattered documentation, as well as a lack of visibility into safety performance.
A new report from Foresight Commercial Insurance, “The State of Safety in High Hazard Work Environments,” offers insights into companies’ safety struggles and points to possible solutions. Based on a survey of workers from high-risk industries like construction, the report outlines challenges that are painfully familiar. For example, four out of 10 respondents reported that they have felt pressured to work unsafely in order to complete tasks more quickly or to meet upcoming deadlines.
Reprinted courtesy of
Peter Grant, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
