The Job is Substantially Complete, the Subcontract was Never Signed, the Subcontractor Wants to be Paid—Now What?
July 28, 2016 —
John P. Ahlers – Ahlers & Cressman PLLCA recent case in North Carolina illustrates the types of problems created when a general contractor accepts a subcontractor’s bid and then allows the subcontractor to perform the work without obtaining a signed subcontract.[i] In this case, the general contractor (Choate Construction Company – “Choate”) accepted a bid from a foundation subcontractor (Southeast Caissons, LLC – “SEC”). Choate sent the subcontract to SEC. SEC provided its changes in a “Proposed Addendum” to the subcontract stating, “[SEC] hereby accepts the terms of the attached Subcontract, subject to and conditioned upon Choate[’s] acceptance of the terms set forth in this Addendum[.]” After that, Choate called SEC and exchanged emails concerning the subcontract terms, but did not reach an agreement. SEC then performed its subcontract and sought payment, and acknowledged it had not signed the subcontract. Choate agreed it owed SEC something, but refused to pay because SEC did not have a signed subcontract, asserting the subcontract was not binding on Choate.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John P. Ahlers, Ahlers & Cressman PLLCMr. Ahlers may be contacted at
jahlers@ac-lawyers.com
Road to Record $199 Million Award Began With Hunch on Guardrails
June 17, 2015 —
Patrick G. Lee – BloombergIt started with a hunch about malfunctioning highway guardrails. It led to the biggest known whistle-blower award in U.S. history.
Joshua Harman, a Virginian with two small highway safety companies, made a discovery in late 2011 that perhaps only a guardrail maker could: A big competitor had changed the dimensions of its roadside safety device by as much as an inch here and there, he said, without telling federal regulators.
As designed, Trinity Industries Inc.’s ET-Plus system was meant to turn the end of a guardrail into a de facto shock absorber. The altered units, as Harman saw it, were locking up when hit, spearing cars and their occupants.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick G. Lee, Bloomberg
Trial Date Discussed for Las Vegas HOA Takeover Case
February 04, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFJeff German of the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that Justice Department attorneys filed papers January 28th demanding the trial involving 11 defendants charged in a scheme to take over the Las Vegas Valley homeowners associations to be held no later than September 2nd. The prosecutors claimed “they have gone out of their way to ease the burden on the defense as they have turned over mountains of evidence in the past year.”
However, the defense attorneys allege that they need “at least a year and likely more time” to go through the “more than 3 million pages of documents” and to create a trial strategy, according to German. The defense “asked for an initial late January 2015 trial date.”
The case involves charges against “lawyers, former police officers and corrupt board members” for “packing HOA boards to gain legal and construction defect contracts for themselves.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Be Proactive Now: Commercial Construction Quickly Joining List of Industries Vulnerable to Cyber Attacks
June 15, 2017 —
Jeffrey M. Dennis & Nathan Owens – Newmeyer & Dillion LLPCommercial contractors have long faced their own unique business risks - labor and material shortages, delay claims, bonding issues, and defects in workmanship. But, in today's ever-evolving cyber world, it is imperative that contractors understand they are vulnerable to risks beyond finishing a project on time and on budget. As we are seeing more and more each day, cyber threats impact all businesses, including the construction industry, and the failure to protect against these threats will cost your company millions in damages and reputational harm.
UNDERSTANDING CYBER THREATS
Traditionally, cyber threats are thought of as the theft of employee and customer information over the internet. Given the construction industry is the largest employer in the world, the need to protect this information is obvious. The release or loss of personnel or consumer data could lead to extensive liability under a variety of potential claims, including statutory fines. In addition to securing confidential information, companies have to protect against outside agents accessing control of a company’s security protocols, equipment or encrypting files using malicious software. The recent “WannaCry” attack demonstrates that no business is immune from cyber attacks.
EXAMPLES OF RELATED BREACHES
For those that think these scenarios do not happen, here are two examples of these types of breaches:
* In May 2013, Chinese hackers stole floor plans, server information, and security system designs from an Australian prime contractor. Fearing the risks of compromised physical and network security, the contractor incurred additional costs of $132.6 million in project delays and costs to rework the various components that had been stolen.
* Then, in December 2014, a German governmental office reported that a steel mill suffered massive damage when malware prevented a blast furnace from being properly shut down. Hackers gained access to key technology within the company, which eventually allowed them to control the production line.
THE NEW WORLD OF THE IoT
In addition to these types of “traditional” hacking threats, cybersecurity risks continue to evolve and become more complicated every day. Some of these new threats are driven by the development of a phenomenon known as the Internet of things, or IoT. The IoT is most basically defined as the interconnection of devices with on / off switches to the Internet and each other. Since the IoT is estimated to be 20 billion or more devices within 3 years, and can be combined with malicious software, IoT poses one of the most challenging risks for contractors to protect against.
The technology included in today's commercial buildings clearly opens this avenue of risk. A centralized computer control center, typically employed in new buildings, controls and maintains the systems that are vital to the operation of the building, e.g., power, elevators, HVAC, lighting, and security. What happens if a hacker gains control to one of these systems, let alone all of them? What if a hacker simply utilizes an IoT attack to overwhelm a building’s computer systems? In either scenario, at a minimum, significant disruption would occur. Worse, the health and safety of those within the building could be jeopardized. A hacker may utilize ransomware in combination with an IoT attack to take over control of the building and hold it and possibly the occupants “hostage” until a ransom is paid.
The first significant IoT attack happened in October 2016 when a major web hosting company was attacked through the IoT, causing the host site to crash. The attack did not steal information, it simply caused the site to crash. But, that crash caused world-wide disruption across the Internet.
Hackers used malicious software to access a hundred thousand common household devices — web cameras, fitness trackers, DVR’s, smart TVs and even baby monitors — to flood the hosting company’s servers with incredibly high internet traffic. This attack showed that everyday items can be hacked and controlled by cyber criminals and then used against anyone else.
As we have all seen in recent news, the WannaCry cyber attack impacted businesses across the globe. Days after the attacks, hospitals were still left feeling its impact with continued appointment and planned operation cancellations, and delays in service. We should expect to see these types of attacks increasing in frequency.
PAY ATTENTION OR FACE THE CONSEQUENCES
Make no mistake about it, the stakes are incredibly high in the realm of cyber security protection. By 2021, the annual worldwide cost attributable to cyber attacks is estimated to reach the trillions of dollars. If any of these potential attacks occur, a contractor faces significant exposure, in many forms, including:
* Monetary. Cybersecurity events result in direct monetary losses in the form of notification costs, data recovery costs, and, of course, legal and public relations fees. States are also starting to impose strict standards on companies which will result in significant regulatory punishment in the cases of cyber breaches, including the added costs associated with agency investigations, regulatory fines and consumer redress funds.
* Reputation. Perhaps more important than the monetary risk, a contractor may incur substantial reputational harm if such a breach or attack is successful. Recent data has shown that small to medium-sized companies that experience a significant cybersecurity breach go out of business within six months of the breach – due to not only high monetary costs, but severe reputational damage.
* Criminal. The recently passed New York cybersecurity regulations place potential criminal penalties on compliance personnel. Other states are likely to follow New York.
As a business leader and commercial builder, the time to act is now. While the purchase of specific cyber insurance is an important part of protecting against the risks of a cyber attack, many cyber policies contain exclusionary language embedded in the policy making coverage potentially illusory. Additional steps can and need to be taken immediately, including an honest discussion of internal cybersecurity protections, examination of risk management strategy, and the training of employees. Failure to take these important steps could result in a disastrous cybersecurity breach and the loss of millions of dollars.
Jeffrey M. Dennis currently serves as Newmeyer and Dillion’s Managing Partner and, as a business leader, advises his clients on cybersecurity related issues, introducing contractual and insurance opportunities to lessen their risk. You can reach Jeff at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com.
J. Nathan Owens is the Managing Partner for Newmeyer & Dillion’s Las Vegas office. With more than 10 years in the construction industry as a former contractor himself, Nathan understands the complex issues builders and developers face in all aspects of development and construction. You can reach Nathan at nathan.owens@ndlf.com.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit http://www.newmeyeranddillion.com/.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
AB5 Construction Exemption – A Checklist to Avoid Application of AB5’s Three-Part Test
February 18, 2020 —
Blake Dillion - Payne & Fears LLPConstruction companies have a unique opportunity to avoid the application of the restrictive new independent contractors law that took effect this year. This article provides a checklist that will help construction companies determine whether their relationships with subcontractors qualify for this exemption.
California’s Assembly Bill 5 (“AB5”), which went into effect Jan. 1, 2020, enacts into a statute last year’s California Supreme Court decision in
Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), and the Court’s three-part standard (the “ABC test”) for determining whether a worker may be classified as an employee or an independent contractor.
Certain professions and industries are potentially exempt from this standard, including the construction industry. The ABC test does not apply to the relationship between a contractor and an individual performing work pursuant to a subcontractor in the construction industry, if certain criteria are met. In order for the “construction exemption” to apply, the contractor must demonstrate that all of the following criteria are satisfied.
- The subcontract is in writing;
- The subcontractor is licensed by the Contractors State License Board and the work is within the scope of that license;
- If the subcontractor is domiciled in a jurisdiction that requires the subcontractor to have a business license or business tax registration, the subcontractor has the required business license or business tax registration;
- The subcontractor maintains a business location that is separate from the business or work location of the contractor;
- The subcontractor has the authority to hire and to fire other persons to provide or assist in providing the services;
- The subcontractor assumes financial responsibility for errors or omissions in labor or services as evidenced by insurance, legally authorized indemnity obligations, performance bonds, or warranties relating to the labor or services being provided; and
- The subcontractor is customarily engaged in an independently established business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.
The contractor must be able to establish each of the above criteria for the construction exemption to apply. If the contractor is successful, the long standing multi-factor test for determining independent contractor vs. employee status as described in
S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dep’t of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal. 3d 341 (1989) will apply.
You should review your processes and procedures for engaging subcontractors to ensure that you can satisfy the above criteria. If you have questions about the application of AB5, the construction exemption, or the
Borello factors, you should speak with an attorney.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Blake A. Dillion, Payne & FearsMr. Dillion may be contacted at
bad@paynefears.com
Even Fraud in the Inducement is Tough in Construction
November 06, 2023 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsI have discussed how hard it is in the Commonwealth of Virginia to make out a claim for fraud when a construction contract is involved. On limited exception is where a claim for “fraud in the inducement” is involved. Essentially, such a claim states that one party was hoodwinked into entering the contract in the first place. Because of the initial fraud (for instance misrepresenting the class or existence of a contractor’s license), the courts may bypass the terms of the contract and allow a claim for fraud to go forward.
While you may think that this would lead to many claims making it past a Motion to Dismiss, at least one court here in Virginia makes it clear that such claims will not be taken lightly and must be supported by specific and substantial allegations that would support more than just “advertising” or opinion. In County of Grayson v. Ra-Tech Services Inc., the U. S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia reviewed an amended complaint from the Plaintiff seeking to make out a claim for fraud in the inducement based upon the defendant’s statements in support of a proposal that certain brands of equipment would be used. The Court further considered general allegations that the Defendant never intended to provide those particular brands of equipment.
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
EPA and the Corps of Engineers Repeal the 2015 “Waters of the United States” Rule
January 13, 2020 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelThe pre-publication version of the final rule to be promulgated by EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) to repeal the 2015 redefinition of the Clean Water Act’s term “Waters of the United States” which is the linchpin of these agencies’ regulatory power under the CWA, was made available on September 12, 2019. The rule should be published in the Federal Register in the next few weeks, and it will be effective 60 days thereafter. Many challenges are expected to be filed in the federal courts.
The 2015 rule was very controversial, and petitions challenging the rule were filed in many federal district courts, several courts of appeal, and finally in the Supreme Court (see NAM v. Department of Defense), which held that all initial challenges must be filed in the federal district courts. The upshot of these challenges is that, at this time, the 2015 rule has been enjoined in more than half the states while the other states are bound by the 2015 rule, a situation which is frustrating for everyone.
In addition to repealing the 2015 rule, the agencies also restored the pre-2015 definition had had been in place since 1986. As a result, the pre-2015 definition of waters of the U.S. will again govern the application of the following rules: (a) the ACOE’s definition of “waters of the U.S.” at 33 CFR Section 328.3; (b) EPA’s general Oil Discharge rule at 40 CFR Section 110; (c) the SPCC rules at 40 CFR Part 112; (d) EPA’s designation of hazardous substances at 40 CFR Part 116; (e) EPA’s hazardous substance reportable quantity rule at 40 CFR Part 117; (f) the NPDES permitting rules at 40 CFR Part 122; (g) the guidelines for dredged or fill disposal sites at 40 CFR Part 230; (g) Exempt activities not requiring a CWA 404 permit (guidelines for 404 disposal sites at 40 CFR Part 232); (h) the National Contingency Plan rules at 40 CFR Part 300; (i) the designation of reportable quantities of hazardous substances at 40 CFR Part 302; and (j) EPA’s Effluent Guidelines standards at 40 CFR Part 401.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
New Hampshire Applies Crete/Sutton Doctrine to Bar Subrogation Against College Dormitory Residents
May 17, 2021 —
Kyle Rice - The Subrogation SpecialistPursuant to the Sutton Doctrine, first announced in Sutton v. Jondahl, 532 P.2d 478 (Okla. Ct. App. 1975), some jurisdictions consider a tenant a coinsured of its landlord absent an express agreement to the contrary. In Ro v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2019-0620, 2021 N.H. LEXIS 34 (Mar. 10, 2021), the Supreme Court of New Hampshire held that the Sutton Doctrine, adopted by New Hampshire in Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Crete, 846 A.2d 521 (N.H. 2004), extends to resident students in a college dormitory. Thus, absent specific language to the contrary, a student is an implied coinsured under the fire insurance policy issued for his or her dormitory.
In 2016, two students at Dartmouth College, Daniel Ro and Sebastian Lim, set up a charcoal grill on a platform outside of a fourth-floor window in the Morton Hall dormitory. The grill started a fire on the platform that ultimately spread to the roof of the dormitory. During fire suppression efforts, all four floors of the dormitory sustained significant water damage. Following the loss, the building’s insurer, Factory Mutual Insurance Company (Insurer), paid $4,544,313.55 to the Trustees of Dartmouth College for the damages.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kyle Rice, White and WilliamsMr. Rice may be contacted at
ricek@whiteandwilliams.com
