Veterans Day – Thank You for Your Service
December 05, 2022 —
Travis Colburn - Ahlers Cressman & SleightHappy Veterans Day
[1] to our country’s servicemembers past and present! ACS would like to express its deepest gratitude and respect in saying thank you to those that have served, or are serving, in our armed forces. It undoubtedly takes incredible bravery, fortitude, integrity, respect, and a commitment to our country’s evolving ideals. Some of those same attributes that are necessary for service are also well-geared toward a post-military career in construction. As some already know, Veterans have unique construction contracting opportunities at both the state and federal level. The following is a high-level overview of the process and opportunities for veterans who are not aware or who are considering a career in construction.
There are federal and state level opportunities for Veteran-owned businesses. The initial step in accessing federal and state level contracting opportunities is different for each but begins with certification/verification.
At the federal level, effective January 1, 2023, all responsibilities for the verification of Veteran-owned small businesses (“ VSOB”) will transfer from the Department of Veterans Affairs to the Small Business Administration.
[2] Verification is the process that establishes eligibility for access to Veteran-specific benefits, including certain government contracts and the purchase of surplus government property, by confirming that VSOBs and service-disabled Veteran-owned small businesses (“SDVOSB”) are operated by Veterans.
[3] Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Travis Colburn, Ahlers Cressman & SleightMr. Colburn may be contacted at
travis.colburn@acslawyers.com
The Connecticut Appellate Court Decides That Construction Contractor Was Not Obligated To Continue Accelerated Schedule to Mitigate Its Damages Following Late Delivery of Materials by Supplier
April 11, 2022 —
Robert M. Barrack - Gordon & ReesIn United Concrete Prods. v. NJR Constr., LLC, 207 Conn. App. 551, 263 A.3d 823 (2021), the Connecticut Appellate Court has issued a decision that should be of interest to the Connecticut construction industry and the construction bar. The lawsuit arose out of the late delivery of materials on a construction project, which is a frequent problem on construction projects. In United Concrete Products, the defendant general contractor, NJR Construction, LLC (“NJR”) was retained by the State of Connecticut Department of Transportation (“DOT”) to replace a bridge over the Hockanum River (“Project”). Id. at 555-58 (2021). The Prime Contract provided that NJR with an eight-week time-frame to perform the work, at which time the road would be closed to traffic. Id. The Prime Contract also provided for a bonus of $3,000 for each day the road was opened to traffic prior to the eight week deadline of August 8, 2016, and for liquidated damages of $3,000 for each day the road remained closed beyond the deadline. Id.
NJR subsequently entered into a purchase order (“Subcontract”) with the plaintiff, United Concrete Products, Inc. (“United”), whereby United agreed to provide certain concrete components for the Project, including ten pre-stressed concrete beams. Id. The Subcontract required that United deliver the concrete beams by June 7, 2016, but, NJR did not actually schedule the delivery until June 29, 2016. Id. Nevertheless, even with that schedule NJR could have reopened the road by July 19, 2016, which would have allowed it to receive the full $60,000 incentive bonus. However, United did not deliver the concrete beams until July 26, 2016, which caused NJR to lose the incentive bonus, be assessed liquidated damages by the DOT, and to incur additional delay damages. Id. After deducting the amount of $179,500 in damages that it incurred due to United’s late delivery of the beams, NJR paid United the balance of $66,074.75. Id.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Robert M. Barrack, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLPMr. Barrack may be contacted at
rbarrack@grsm.com
New Jersey Federal Court Examines And Applies The “j.(5)” Ongoing Operations Exclusion
October 07, 2019 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia and Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLPIn PJR Construction of N.J. v. Valley Forge Insurance Company, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127973 (D.N.J. July 31, 2019) (PJR Construction), a New Jersey federal court held that the “j.(5)” “Ongoing Operations Exclusion” applied to bar coverage for property damage to property on which a construction company allegedly performed faulty work. The court’s opinion follows prior New Jersey state court precedent, including Ohio Casualty Insurance Company v. Island Pool & Spa, Inc., 12 A.3d 719 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2011) (Island Pool), but also provides additional guidance on the elements which can make the Ongoing Operations Exclusion applicable to exclude coverage.
In PJR Construction, a commercial property owner engaged a construction company to build a 26,000 square foot swim club and related 3,000 square foot pavilion building in New Jersey. After about 75% of the work was completed, the property owner fired the construction company and denied it access to the property. The owner later sued the construction company in New Jersey state court alleging “shoddy workmanship” in, among other things, sealants, flashing, water resistant barriers, masonry and the handicap ramps. The construction company sought coverage from its CGL insurer, which denied coverage based on, among other things, the j.(5) Ongoing Operations Exclusion. After the denial of coverage, the company sued the insurer in New Jersey federal court seeking a declaration of coverage.
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and
Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Safeguarding History: Fire Risks in Renovating Historic Buildings
January 28, 2025 —
Birgitte Messerschmidt - Construction ExecutiveThe renovation of historic and unique buildings is both a labor of love and a huge responsibility. Rich in stories and architectural beauty, these structures link communities to their past. However, giving new life to these iconic buildings through renovation projects can place them in jeopardy, as fire-related risks remain a significant challenge. This is evidenced by the number of devasting fire tragedies that have happened during work on these structures, including at the
Glasgow School of Art in 2014 and 2018 and the
Notre-Dame Cathedral in 2019, showcasing how vulnerable these buildings are amid the status quo of renovation protocols.
Preventing these types of fire-related incidents during future historic building renovations, maintaining compliance with codes and standards such as NFPA 241, Standard for Safeguarding Construction, Alteration, and Demolition Operations, and NFPA 914, Code for the Protection of Historic Structures, must be a top priority for all workers on site. These resources provide workers with the proper tools and guidelines to address the intricate challenges that come with these operations.
Reprinted courtesy of
Birgitte Messerschmidt, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Utility of Arbitration Agreements in the Construction Industry
December 30, 2019 —
Brian L. Gardner & Jason R. Finkelstein - Construction ExecutiveIn today’s ever-evolving world of employment law, it is far from an easy task for construction industry employers to operate their business while successfully navigating all of the potential legal potholes that continue to abound and multiply seemingly with every passing day. This is particularly true in the face of the onslaught of claims lodged by current and former employees in recent years for alleged unpaid wages. While there may not be a “sure bet” way of avoiding such claims, one tool that employers should strongly consider in their arsenal are arbitration and class action waiver agreements.
To that end, last year, the United States Supreme Court rendered its ground-breaking decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U.S. ___ (2018). In Epic Systems, the Supreme Court held that arbitration agreements containing class and collective action waivers of wage and hour disputes are enforceable. At the time of the decision, a split of authority existed among courts across the country as to whether such agreements were viable. On the one hand, several courts contended that class waivers unfairly violated employees’ rights to collectively bargain under the National Labor Relations Act. On the other hand, many other courts were finding that such agreements were fully enforceable and supported by the policies promoted under the Federal Arbitration Act. The Epic Systems Court sided with this latter viewpoint, concluding that the FAA’s clear policy promoting arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism and private parties’ rights to freely negotiate contracts outweighed any potential arguments against such agreements under the NLRA.
With wage and hour lawsuits being filed against construction industry employers practically daily, the Epic Systems decision is critically important. Construction employers can now freely enter into arbitration and class waiver agreements with their laborers and thereby potentially limit the cost, expense and exposure of fighting such actions in a public forum on a collective or class-wide basis. To be clear, such agreements will not eliminate employees from bringing such wage and hour claims entirely, nor should the use of those agreements signal to employers that they need not make every good-faith effort to comply with their obligations under the Federal Labor Standards Act and/or any applicable state wage and hour laws. But the reality is that arbitration and class waiver agreements can work to avoid tens or hundreds or even thousands of employees from banding together in some of the massive wage and hour lawsuits being filed across the country. Instead, employers can require that those legal battles be conducted by a single plaintiff in a more controlled environment before an arbitrator (or panel of arbitrators).
Reprinted courtesy of
Brian L. Gardner & Jason R. Finkelstein, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Mr. Gardner may be contacted at bgardner@coleschotz.com
Mr. Finkelstein may be contacted at jfinkelstein@coleschotz.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
French Laundry Spices Up COVID-19 Business Interruption Debate
April 20, 2020 —
Jeffrey J. Vita & Melanie A. McDonald - Saxe Doernberger & VitaOn March 26, 2020, Michelin-rated Napa Valley restaurants, French Laundry and Bouchon Bistro, and their celebrity chef, Thomas Keller, filed the second known
coronavirus-related declaratory judgment (DJ) lawsuit by a restaurant. The restaurants filed their DJ against Hartford Fire Insurance Company just seven days after Napa County issued a Shelter at Home Order.1 Chef Keller’s suit comes on the heels of the first such suit by a restaurant seeking to recover business income losses, filed by iconic New Orleans French Quarter restaurant Oceana Grill2 on March 17, just four days after the Louisiana governor issued an order prohibiting gatherings of more than 250 people.
As local governments seek to protect their citizens and prevent an onslaught of cases in area hospitals, they are issuing various “stay home,” “shelter at home,” and similar orders to force social distancing and to help flatten the curve of the growth in COVID-19 cases. Restaurants nationwide are especially hard hit by these orders, as many of these orders contain size limitations on gatherings, which have required that restaurants and bars limit capacity (as in the March 13th Louisiana order). Other such orders require non-essential businesses to “cease all activities in the County” (as in the Napa County Shelter at Home order). The Napa County order does not exempt restaurants as “essential businesses,” except when providing food for take-out or delivery. Other orders, still, directly address restaurants and require them to cease allowing public consumption of food and beverages (as in the subsequent, March 17th Louisiana order).
Reprinted courtesy of
Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Melanie A. McDonald, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Vita may be contacted at jjv@sdvlaw.com
Ms. McDonald may be contacted at mam@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
When is a Contract not a Contract?
January 21, 2019 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsAs I’ve stated numerous times here at Musings, in Virginia the contract is king. The courts of Virginia will read a contract as written and where there is a contract (read as foreshadowing), the courts will assume the parties knew what they were doing and enforce it by its terms. However, there has to be a contract in the first place.
When can something look like a contract but still not be a contract? When there isn’t mutual assent according to the case of Knox Energy, LLC v. Gasco Drilling, Inc. In the Knox case, along with a ruling on discovery abuse that is a topic of other blogs, considered a jury instruction on mutual assent given by the district court in a case where Knox contended that it inadvertently sent an unexecuted drilling contract form to Gasco and then inadvertently executed it when Gasco returned it. While this would not normally cause this series of events to be a non-contract, Knox also contended that Gasco knew that Knox had no intention to enter into the drilling contract and that Gasco jumped at the deal.
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
Boston Team Obtains Complete Defense Verdict for Engineering Firm in Professional Liability Matter
June 08, 2020 —
Kenneth Walton & Oliver Vega - Lewis BrisboisBoston, Mass. (June 5, 2020) - Boston Partner Kenneth B. Walton and Associate Oliver J. Vega recently obtained a complete defense verdict after a 10-day bench trial in the U.S District Court for the District of South Carolina. The plaintiff in this matter, who is the owner of a newly acquired food processing facility, alleged breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims against our client, a Massachusetts engineering firm, arising out of allegedly defective design and construction management services provided during the renovation of and addition to said facility.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kenneth Walton, Lewis Brisbois and
Oliver Vega, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Walton may be contacted at Ken.Walton@lewisbrisbois.com
Mr. Vega may be contacted at Oliver.Vega@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
