Construction Trust Fund Statutes: Know What’s Required in the State Where Your Project Is Underway
June 22, 2020 —
Christopher D. Cazenave - ConsensusDocsConstruction trust fund statutes have been around for decades. At least 15 states have passed similar statutes. Other states, but not all, do not have an express statute but have interpreted state law to hold that payments received by a general contractor and deposited in a business account establishes a “trust fund.” See e.g., Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 7108.
The purpose of these laws is straightforward—protect contractors and suppliers against nonpayment for the labor and materials provided for the construction or repair of property. But while the purpose is straightforward, each state’s law differs by imposing different requirements, different privileges, and different remedies. This article provides an overview of how these statutes work as well as a sampling of important requirements and potential pitfalls that you should look out for when a construction trust fund statute applies to your project.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher D. Cazenave, Jones Walker LLPMr. Cazenave may be contacted at
ccazenave@joneswalker.com
Is Privity of Contract with the Owner a Requirement of a Valid Mechanic’s Lien? Not for GC’s
January 04, 2021 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsAs any reader of this construction law blog knows, mechanic’s liens make up much of the discussion here at Construction Law Musings. A recent case out of Fairfax County, Virginia examined the question of whether contractual privity between the general contractor and owner of the property at issue is necessary. As a reminder, in most situations, for a contract claim to be made, the claimant has to have a direct contract (privity) with the entity it sues. Further, for a subcontractor to have a valid mechanic’s lien it would have to have privity with the general contractor or with the Owner.
The Fairfax case, The Barber of Seville, Inc. v. Bironco, Inc., examined the question of whether contractual privity is necessary between the general contractor and the Owner. In Bironco, the claimant, Bironco, performed certain improvements for a barbershop pursuant to a contract executed by the two owners of the Plaintiff. We wouldn’t have the case here at Musings if Bironco had been paid in full. Bironco then recorded a lien against the leasehold interest of The Barber of Seville, Inc., the entity holding the lease. The Plaintiff filed an action seeking to have the lien declared invalid because Brionco had privity of contract with the individuals that executed the contract, but not directly with the corporate entity.
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
When a Construction Lender Steps into the Shoes of the Developer, the Door is Open for Claims by the General Contractor
February 18, 2015 —
Kevin Brodehl – California Construction Law BlogThank you to my partner Garret Murai for giving me the opportunity to post again on his excellent California Construction Law Blog. I am the author/editor of the Money and Dirt Blog, where I focus on issues relating to real estate investment, development, and secured lending.
On the
Money and Dirt Blog, I recently posted an
article on an interesting new secured lending opinion from the California Court of Appeal (Fourth District in Riverside), California Bank & Trust v. Del Ponti. That blog post focused on guaranty liability, and the court’s holding that there are limits to the defenses that a guarantor can lawfully waive.
But that same decision also highlights valuable lessons regarding the relationship between construction lenders and general contractors in distressed projects, which I’ll cover here. In short, the court held that when a construction lender “steps into the shoes” of the developer to manage a distressed project, the lender might open the door to liability to the general contractor under theories of breach of contract and promissory estoppel.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kevin Brodehl, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Bordehl may be contacted at
kbrodehl@wendel.com
Three Steps to a Safer Jobsite
January 18, 2021 —
Deb Hilmerson - Construction ExecutiveCreating a conscious and robust safety culture is essential to the bottom line. A history of, and reputation for, stringent safety protocols will help contractors win more bids and reduce potential exposure to costly fines. According to OSHA, one out of every five worker deaths is construction-related. Non-fatal construction-related injuries are rising.
Now is not the time to be complacent, even for contractors with a clean, or relatively clean, safety record. Situations are changing and, in some cases, better, safer and more efficient options are becoming available. There are three areas of concern that deserve construction executives’ close attention.
Safety Glasses or Face Shield Concerns in the Wake of COVID-19
Facial and eye injuries can occur any time a worker is nailing, cutting, grinding, welding, working with concrete or handling hazardous chemicals. Now with COVID-19 protocols requiring face coverings, there is an unanticipated aggravation: fogged safety glasses.
Reprinted courtesy of
Deb Hilmerson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Subcontractors Have a Duty to Clarify Ambiguities in Bid Documents
August 19, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorSeveral months ago, I wrote about an escalator subcontractor that sued a general contractor, demanding payment for work completed based on approved shop drawings. The trial court agreed with the subcontractor, but the general contractor appealed. Ten months later, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the subcontractor had a duty to bring to the general contractor’s attention major discrepancies or errors they detect in the bid documents.
“The subcontractor failed to disclose ambiguities in the plans and must suffer the peril.”
Construction Difficulties
The subcontractor installed 32 inch escalators throughout the project, but the plans called for 40 inch escalators. The general contractor and subcontractor could not reach agreement on how the dispute should be resolved. The subcontractor sued the general to get paid for replacing the escalators and the general sued to subcontractor for concessions it had to pay to the owner.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
Retaining Wall Contractor Not Responsible for Building Damage
July 20, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Court of Appeals of Indiana ruled on July 8 in the case of Rollander Enterprises, Inc. v. H.C. Nutting Co. Judge Baily wrote the opinion affirming the decision of the trial court.
The case involved an unfinished condominium complex, the Slopes of Greendale, in Greendale, Indiana. Rollander is a real estate development company incorporated in Ohio. One of the issues in the case was whether the case should be settled in the Indiana courts or be tried in Ohio. The project was owned by a special purpose entity limited liability corporation incorporated in Indiana.
Rollander hired Nutting to determine the geological composition of the site. Nutting’s report described the site as “a medium plastic clay containing pieces of shale and limestone.” The court summarized this as corresponding with “slope instability and landslides.” Rollander then hired Nutting to design the retaining walls, which were constructed by Scherziner Drilling.
After cracking was discovered on State Route 1, the walls were discovered to be inadequate. More dirt was brought in and a system of tie-backs was designed to anchor the walls. Not only were the tie-backs unsightly, local officials would not approve the complex for occupancy. Further, the failure of the wall below one building lead to damage of that building.
The court concluded that since almost all events occurred in Indiana, they rejected Rollander’s contention that the case should be tried in Ohio. Further, the court notes “the last event making Nutting potentially liable on both claims was an injury that occurred in Indiana and consequently, under the lex loci delicti analysis, Indiana law applies.”
Nor did the court find that Nutting was responsible for the damage to the rest of the project, citing an Indiana Supreme Court ruling, that “there is no liability in tort to the owner of a major construction project for pure economic loss caused unintentionally by contractors, subcontractors, engineers, design professionals, or others engaged in the project with whom the project owner, whether or not technically in privity of contract, is connected through a network or chain of contracts.”
The court concluded:
Because Rollander was in contractual privity with Nutting, and Indy was connected to Nutting through a chain of contracts and no exception applies, the economic loss rule precludes their recovery in tort. Damage to Building B was not damage to "other property," and the negligent misrepresentation exception to the economic loss rule is inapplicable on these facts. The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion by entering judgment on the evidence in favor of Nutting on the Appellants' negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Will the AI Frenzy Continue in 2025?
January 14, 2025 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessIn AEC technology, 2024 was undoubtedly the year of AI. Every company seemed to announce its pledge to embrace artificial intelligence in the coming years, not to mention the numerous startups that peppered their pitch decks with promises of bleeding-edge innovation.
Tech developers who had been using machine learning before the generative AI boom were delighted. They no longer needed to invest significant resources in convincing the industry of AI’s potential. The mainstream success of generative AI in 2024 created a ripple effect, making AEC firms eager to explore and adopt AI solutions.
Many all-digital startups also got a boost from the AI frenzy, even though many significant innovations happened in hardware and material technology that did not rely on AI.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
Subcontractor’s Miller Act Payment Bond Claim
September 07, 2017 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesSince I wrote my ebook on the application of federal Miller Act payment bonds, I have not discussed a case applying the Miller Act. Until now!
Below is a case that reinforces two important points applicable to Miller Act payment bond claims. First, the case reinforces what a claimant needs to prove to establish a Miller Act payment bond claim. Very important. Second, the case reinforces that a subcontractor is going to be governed by its subcontract. This means that those provisions regarding payment and scope of work are very important. Not that you did not already know this, but ignoring contractual requirements will not fly.
In U.S.A. f/u/b/o Netplanner Systems, Inc. v. GSC Construction, Inc., 2017 WL 3594261 (E.D.N.C. 2017), a prime contractor hired a subcontractor to run cabling and wiring at Fort Bragg. The subcontractor claimed it was owed a balance and filed a lawsuit against the general contractor the Miller Act payment bond.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
Dadelstein@gmail.com
