Construction Contract’s Scope of Work Should Be Written With Clarity
March 06, 2023 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThe scope of work section in your construction contract should never be overlooked. In numerous instances, it is overlooked which leads to a dispute as to the precise nature of the scope of work. This dispute could be the result of an ambiguity in the scope of work section. Or it could be the result of an omission. Or it could be the result of a lack of clarification. Or it could be the result of not properly reviewing and vetting the scope of work section. This is a section—whether included in the body of your contract or attached as an exhibit—you absolutely, positively want clarity. Otherwise, you are potentially setting yourself up for a future dispute that could include (i) an additional work / change order dispute, (ii) an incomplete work dispute, or (iii) a failure to properly perform your work dispute. These are all disputes you want to avoid, and many times can avoid, by going through and negotiating the scope of work section to bring clarity to this section. Remember, clarity is a positive. Ambiguity or uncertainty is a negative.
An example of such an avoidable scope of work dispute can be found in All Year Cooling and Heating, Inc. v. Burkett Properties, Inc., 2023 WL 2000991 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023). Here, an air conditioning contractor was hired to install six new split air conditioning systems. The scope of work provided that there were currently “two split systems that are currently existing, working perfectly and are not to be replaced as part of this contract.” The property manager claimed the air conditioning contractor was required to bring these two existing split air conditioning systems up to code as the contract provided that notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the contractor “will certify and shall ensure that all split systems in the building, upon completion of all the work, will be fully compliant with all codes and regulations and shall be responsible for any costs relates to the implementation and/or remediation of same.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Bailout for an Improperly Drafted Indemnification Provision
February 11, 2019 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent opinion came out that held that even though an indemnification provision in a subcontract was unenforceable per Florida Statute s. 725.06, the unenforceable portion is merely severed out of the indemnification clause leaving the rest of the clause intact. In essence, an otherwise invalid indemnification clause is bailed out by this ruling (which does not even discuss whether this subcontract had a severability provision that states that if any portion of any provision in the subcontract is invalid, such invalid portion shall be severed and the remaining portion of the provision shall remain in full force and effect).
This opinion arose from a construction defect case, CB Contractxors, LLC v. Allens Steel Products, Inc.,43 Fla.L.Weekly D2773a (Fla. 5thDCA 2018), where the general contractor, sued by an association, flowed down damages to subcontractors based on the contractual indemnification provision in the subcontracts. Subcontractors moved to dismiss the contractual indemnification claim because it was not compliant with Florida Statute s. 725.06. The indemnification provision required the subcontractors to indemnify the general contractor even for the general contractors own partial negligence, but failed to specify a monetary limitation on the extent of the indemnification as required by Florida Statute s. 725.06. (The indemnification clause in the subcontract was the standard intermediate form of indemnification that required the subcontractor to indemnify the general contractor for claims regardless of whether the claims were caused in part by the general contractor.)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Applied to Pass-Through Agreements
June 19, 2023 —
Scott D. Cessar - Construction ExecutivePass-through claims are claims by a party that has suffered damages but does not have a contractual relationship with the entity that caused the damages. In the construction industry, subcontractors commonly have claims for additional costs based on actions or inactions by the owner. However, since the subcontractor is not in privity of contract with the owner, it has no direct cause of action against the owner other than, perhaps, on a nongovernment project, a lien claim. In such cases, subcontractors may seek to pass the claim through the general contractor, who is in privity with the owner, to the owner.
Indeed, many construction contracts require the subcontractor, in such cases of owner-caused damages, to pass the claim through the general contractor to the owner. And since the harm visited on a subcontractor by the owner usually also affected the general contractor, the subcontractor’s claim is packaged together with the general contractor’s claim, which is usually greater, for presentation to the owner and, if not resolved, litigation with the owner.
Reprinted courtesy of
Scott D. Cessar, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hawaii Court Finds No Bad Faith, But Negligent Misrepresentation Claim Survives Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Action
November 06, 2013 —
Tred Eyerly — Insurance Law HawaiiJudge Mollway, U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Hawaii, found the insurer was not in bad faith for allegedly leading its insured to believe that construction defects would be covered under the policy. The court, however, allowed the insured's negligent misrepresentation claim to survive summary judgment. Ill Nat'l Ins. Co v. Nordic PCL Constr., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151748 (D. Haw. Oct. 22, 2013).
The insurer denied coverage when Nordic was sued for construction defects related to its construction of two Safeway stores in Honolulu. Prior to the issuance of the policies the Ninth Circuit had issued its opinion in Burlington Ins. Co. v .Oceanic Design & Constr., Inc., 398 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2004), which predicted that Hawaii appellate courts would rule that construction defects were not "occurrences." Nevertheless, Nordic's witnesses contended when the policies were purchased, they believed construction defects were covered. Specifically, Nordic thought the policies provided completed operations coverage for property damage arising out of Nordic's subcontractors' work.
Nordic further contended that only after the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals decided in Group Builders, Inc. v. Admiral Ins .Co., 123 Haw. 142 (Haw. Ct. App. 2010) that construction defect claims did not constitute an "occurrence" did the insurer change its position and decide the policies did not cover construction defects.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred EyerlyTred Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Preserving your Rights to Secure Payment on Construction Projects (with Examples)
March 22, 2017 —
David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal UpdatesAll participants across the construction industry should understand what efforts they should take to maximize and collateralize payment. No one wants to work for free and, certainly, no one in the construction industry wants to work without ensuring there is some mechanism to recover payment in the event they remain unpaid. Being proactive and knowledgeable can go a long way when it comes to recovering your money.
Your Contract – It starts with the contract. You should understand those risks that are allocated to you and those that are allocated to another party. And, you should understand the contractual mechanism to resolve claims and disputes and whether your contract has a prevailing party attorney’s fees provision. In addition to contractual rights, there are tools for you to maximize your collection efforts.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
Construction Litigation Roundup: “How Bad Is It?”
September 25, 2023 —
Daniel Lund III - LexologyHow bad is it?
“Not that bad,” said an Illinois federal court to a surety which was complaining that its subcontract performance bond terms had not been satisfied by the obligees on the bonds (the general contractor and the building owner).
In response to $3.6 million demand by the obligees on the performance bond, the surety filed an action in federal court in Illinois seeking to have the court declare that the surety had no further obligation on its performance bond. The surety urged that the obligees had not fulfilled the prerequisite requirements in the bond to make a claim on the bond (which, although the court never identified the bond form, was a bond form that closely resembled the AIA A312-2010 performance bond).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
In South Carolina, Insurer's Denial of Liability Does Not Waive Attorney-Client Privilege for Bad Faith Claim
October 14, 2019 —
Ashley L. Cooper & Bethany L. Barrese - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Determining the scope of discovery can be challenging, particularly when an insurance bad faith claim is involved. Courts often face the difficult decision of weighing the importance of preserving attorney-client privilege with the public policy rationale of protecting an insured against their insurer’s bad faith behavior. The Supreme Court of South Carolina recently recognized this dilemma by rejecting a hardline approach to bad faith discovery disputes and adopting a case-by-case analysis.
The case, In re Mt. Hawley Ins. Co.,1 arose out of a construction defect claim. ContraVest Construction Company (“ContraVest”) constructed a development in South Carolina and was later sued for alleged defective construction. ContraVest sought coverage for the lawsuit from its insurers, including Mount Hawley Insurance Company (“Mount Hawley”), which had provided excess commercial liability insurance to ContraVest during the relevant timeframe. Mount Hawley denied the claim, which prompted ContraVest to sue it for bad faith, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ashley L. Cooper, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Bethany L. Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Cooper may be contacted at alc@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Barrese may be contacted at blb@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Care, Custody or Control Exclusion Requires Complete and Exclusive Control by Insured Claiming Coverage
July 30, 2019 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn McMillin Homes Construction v. Natl. Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (No. D074219, filed 6/5/19) a California appeals court held that a “care, custody or control” exclusion did not bar coverage for defense of a general contractor as an additional insured under a subcontractor’s policy, because the exclusion requires exclusive control, but the facts and allegations posed a possibility of shared control with the subcontractor.
McMillin was the general contractor on a housing project and was added as an additional insured to the roofing subcontractor’s policy pursuant to the construction subcontract. The homeowners sued, including allegations of water intrusion from roof defects. McMillin tendered to the roofing subcontractor’s insurer, which denied a defense based on the CGL exclusion for damage to property within McMillin’s care, custody or control.
In the ensuing bad faith lawsuit, McMillin argued that the exclusion required complete or exclusive care, custody or control by the insured claiming coverage, which was not the case for McMillin. The insurer argued that the exclusion said nothing about complete or exclusive care, custody or control. Further, the intent to exclude coverage for damage to any and all property in McMillin’s care, custody or control, to whatever degree, was demonstrated by the fact that the additional insured endorsement in question was not an ISO CG2010 form, but a CG2009 form, which expressly adds a care, custody or control exclusion to the additional insured coverage not found in the CG2010 form. The argument was that the CG2009 form evidences an intent to conclusively eliminate coverage for property in the additional insured’s care, custody or control. In addition, the insurer argued that this result was also reinforced by its inclusion of an ISO CG2139 endorsement in the roofer’s policy, which eliminated that part of the “insured contract” language of the CGL form, defining an “insured contract” as “[t]hat part of any other contract or agreement pertaining to your business . . . under which you assume the tort liability of another party to pay for ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ to a third person or organization.” The insurer’s argument was that by having eliminated coverage for contractual indemnity or hold harmless agreements, it had “closed the loop” of eliminating additional insured coverage for construction defect claims.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
