Beyond the Flow-Down Clause: Subcontract Provisions That Can Expose General Contractors to Increased Liability and Inconsistent Outcomes
December 10, 2024 —
Phillip L. Parham III - ConsensusDocsFlow-down clauses in construction subcontracts—blanket clauses providing that some or all of the terms and conditions in the prime contract between the general contractor and the property owner apply equally between the subcontractor and general contractor—are an important component to managing risk for a general contractor and reducing the likelihood of disputes with either/both the owner and subcontractor. Put simply, flow-down provisions can provide continuity between the general contractor’s obligations to the owner and the subcontractor’s obligations to the general contractor. Properly drafted, flow-down clauses reduce the general contractor’s risk by ensuring that the subcontractor is legally bound to meet the owner’s objectives for the project in the same way as the general contractor. But relying on blanket flow-down clauses, alone, to protect the general contractor is like a soldier going into battle with nothing but a helmet, leaving significant other areas exposed and unprotected. In other words, a general contractor should look beyond just a singular, blanket flow down of terms to ensure its bases are properly covered.
Accordingly, this article goes beyond the blanket flow-down clause and highlights several key subcontract provisions where inconsistent obligations among the subcontractor, general contractor, and owner expose the general contractor to increased liability and inconsistent outcomes. Specifically, this article will examine disputes resolution clauses, liquidating provisions, notice provisions, and termination provisions. However, this article will not provide a deep examination of these clauses, nor does it highlight every potentially relevant clause. Rather, it focuses on these select clauses to highlight important issues associated with flow-down provisions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Phillip L. Parham III, Jones Walker LLPMr. Parham may be contacted at
pparham@joneswalker.com
Insurer's Appeal of Jury Verdict Rejected by Tenth Circuit
March 06, 2023 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiAfter a jury awarded damages related to the insurer's delayed payment under the claim and the insurer's post trial motions to set aside the verdict were denied, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. US General, LLC v. GuideOne Mut. Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 34066 (10th Cir. Dec. 12, 2022).
Crossroads American Baptist Church submitted a claim to GuideOne for hailstorm damage. Crossroads hired US General as the general contractor to perform the repairs and later assigned its interest in the insurance policy to US General.
Numerous disputes arose between Crossroads and GuideOne regarding the cost of the repairs. There were delayed payments and portions of the repairs were never paid for. The delayed payments meant GuideOne's ability to begin making the repairs was hindered because it was more expensive to start and stop a project.
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
Ninth Circuit Clears the Way for Review of Oregon District Court’s Rulings in Controversial Climate Change Case
February 27, 2019 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelOn December 26, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit accepted an interlocutory appeal of the presiding District Court’s pre-trial rulings in the novel climate change case that is being tried in Oregon. The case is Juliana, et al. v. United States of America.
In its ruling, the Ninth Circuit held that the District Court certification of this case for interlocutory appeal satisfied the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Ninth Circuit precedents authorize such an appeal when a District Court order “involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion”—which aptly characterizes the U.S. Supreme Court’s view of this litigation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Drafting or Negotiating A Subcontract–Questions To Consider
June 21, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen it comes to drafting and negotiating a subcontract, there are provisions that should be important to you from a risk assessment standpoint. From the subcontractor’s standpoint, below are questions you should ask, or issues you should consider, as you go through the subcontract. These are the same questions and issues that are also important to a contractor as the contractor will want to ensure these issues are included in the subcontract. By asking yourself these questions, you can check to see how the subcontract addresses these issues, and how the risk should be negotiated. Hopefully, you are working with counsel to make sure you understand what risk you are assuming and those provisions you want to try to push back on. Asking yourself these questions, or considering these questions, will help you go through the subcontract with a purpose based on the risk profile of the project and certain risk you don’t want to assume.
- Prime Contract –> Does the subcontract incorporate the prime contract? Make sure to request the prime contract since the subcontract will identify the prime contract as part of the Subcontract Documents and will require you to assume towards the contractor the same obligations the contractor is required to assume towards the owner.
- Scope of Work –> What is the scope of work? Is it clear. Make sure the scope is clear and you understand the scope.
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
Broken Buildings: Legal Rights and Remedies in the Wake of a Collapse
October 11, 2021 —
David J. Pfeffer - Construction ExecutiveA tragedy transpired on June 24 in Surfside, Florida, when the Champlain Towers South suddenly fell, becoming one of the country’s most deadly unintentional building collapses. It is imperative that construction industry professionals be aware of the legal issues that are raised by such ill-fated events.
Who Is Held Responsible?
Who can be held responsible for such disasters lies among several possible parties:
- The building’s design professionals, particularly its architects and structural engineers. They are charged with ensuring that the building’s design is safe. They must take many factors into account, including, but not limited to, the materials that are used, the foundation, the weight and the height.
- General contractors and the subcontractors. General contractors implement the design created by the architects and engineers and are responsible for appropriate materials. The general contractor also supervises the subcontractors aiding with multiple areas of the building’s construction and which also share the responsibility of executing the design and maintaining the building’s structural integrity.
Reprinted courtesy of
David J. Pfeffer, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Pfeffer may be contacted at
dpfeffer@tarterkrinsky.com
Professional Liability Alert: California Appellate Courts In Conflict Regarding Statute of Limitations for Malicious Prosecution Suits Against Attorneys
April 28, 2014 —
David W. Evans & Stephen J. Squillario – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn conflict with an earlier decision by a different division within the same District, and with a prior decision of another District which followed the earlier case, Division Three of the Second Appellate District has concluded, contrary to established precedent, that the general two-year limitations period set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1 (“Section 335.1”) applies to malicious prosecution claims against attorneys, rather than the specific one-year statute of limitations for claims against attorneys codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 (“Section 340.6”).
In Roger Cleveland Golf Co., Inc. v. Krane & Smith, APC (filed April 15, 2014, Case No. B237424, consolidated with Case No. B239375), Roger Cleveland Golf Co., Inc. (“Cleveland Golf”), filed a malicious prosecution action against Krane & Smith (“the Attorneys”), who had unsuccessfully prosecuted the underlying breach of contract matter for their client against Cleveland Golf. In that action, on April 26, 2010, the trial court entered its order granting a motion for nonsuit and dismissing the complaint in favor of Cleveland Golf. On May 24, 2011, or approximately 13 months after the trial court had dismissed the underlying complaint, Cleveland Golf commenced a malicious prosecution action against the Attorneys. In the interim, the Attorneys initiated an appeal of the underlying judgment, which was eventually dismissed approximately seven months later. In response to the complaint, the Attorneys filed a special motion to strike, commonly referred to as an anti-SLAPP motion, which included the argument that the malicious prosecution claim was time-barred under the one-year limitations period of Section 340.6. The trial court granted the Attorneys’ motion based on the statute of limitations (and Cleveland Golf’s failure to demonstrate a probability of success on the merits) and dismissed the case. Cleveland Golf’s appeal followed.
Reprinted courtesy of
David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com, Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Governor Inslee’s Recent Vaccination Mandate Applies to Many Construction Contractors and their Workers
September 13, 2021 —
Brett M. Hill - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCThis month Governor Jay Inslee enacted COVID vaccination requirements that apply to certain construction contractors and their workers in Washington state. Inslee’s vaccine proclamation becomes effective October 18, 2021 and requires construction contractors, subcontractors, and their workers to be fully vaccinated to perform work onsite on certain covered projects.
The following are types of covered projects where the vaccine mandate applies:
- State agencies: All contractors working at projects for Washington state agencies (including WSDOT, DES, DNR, etc.) if the work is required to be performed in person and onsite, regardless of the frequency or whether other workers are present. The vaccine mandate applies to indoor and outdoor settings and there is no exemption even if social distancing requirements can be met.
- Education/Higher Education/Child Care: All contractors performing work onsite for K-12, higher education (community colleges, technical colleges, and 4-year universities), child care and other facilities where students or persons receiving services are present. New and unoccupied projects are exempt but it does apply to public and private projects.
- Medical facilities: All contractors performing work at a “healthcare setting” where patients receiving care are present. “Healthcare setting” is defined as any public or private setting that is primarily used for the delivery of in-person health care services to people. “Healthcare setting” includes portions of a multi-use facility, but only the areas that are primarily used for the delivery of health care, such as a pharmacy within a grocery store. Additional information is on the state’s Q&A page.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brett M. Hill, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Hill may be contacted at
brett.hill@acslawyers.com
Georgia Court Reaffirms Construction Defect Decision
August 27, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFIn 2011, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that construction defects could count as “occurrences” under a general liability policy. John Watkins, writing in Law360, notes that the ruling “has potentially broad implications for Georgia insureds.” He goes on to look at a later Georgia Supreme Court case, in which the court reaffirmed its decision in the 2011 Hathaway case.
In the 2013 case, Taylor Morrison Services Inc. v. HDI-Gerlins Ins., the court held that the property damage had to happen to something other than the work performed by the insured, and that a breaches of warranty without fraud claims may be covered. But Watkins notes that this points to “the continuing efforts of insurers to deny coverage for construction defects under CGL policies.”
This overruled some of the past decisions of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Watkins noted that the Eleventh Circuit seemed to wonder about the scope of Hathaway, but with Taylor Morrison, “the Georgia Supreme Court provided a clearly stated response.”
Looking at the implications, he gives an example in which if a window installer work causes a window to leak and the water intrusion damages a floor, the floor, but not the window would be covered. But he cautions, “the result may turn on the policy language and the particular facts.” In any case, he assures us that “coverage disputes regarding construction defects are sure to continue.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
