Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment in Landis v. Fannin Builders
April 20, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFThe Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in Landis v. William Fannin Builders. Landis contracted Fannin Builders to build their home. The case involved staining problems on the T1-11 siding chosen by the plaintiffs.
After a year and a half of discussion on how to resolve the problem of uneven staining on the siding, Landis filed suit “against Fannin Builders, alleging claims for breach of contract, breach of the express limited warranty, and violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (“OCSPA”). Fannin Builders, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against 84 Lumber, alleging claims for breach of contract and indemnification. With the trial court’s leave, Fannin Builders also later amended its answer to add a counterclaim against appellees for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. In the counterclaim, Fannin Builders alleged that appellees still owed it $3,908.98 for the construction of appellees’ home.”
“In its decision, the trial court found in appellees’ favor on their breach of contract claim and against appellees on their claims for breach of the express limited warranty and violation of the OCSPA. Additionally, the trial court found in Fannin Builders’ favor on its counterclaim for breach of contract and against Fannin Builders on its third-party claims for breach of contract and indemnity. The trial court determined that appellees’ damages amounted to $66,906.24, and after setting off the $3,908.98 that appellees owed Fannin Builders under the construction contract, the trial court awarded appellees $62,997.26. The trial court reduced its decision to judgment on May 18, 2010.”
Fannin Builders appealed this judgment and assigned the following errors:
[1.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant Breached its Contract with Appellees when it provided a Semi-Transparent Oil-Based Stain that Simply did not Meet their Approval.
[a.] The Contract does not Contain a Satisfaction Clause.
[b.] Even if the Court Implies a Satisfaction Clause, the Court Should Apply an Objective Standard.
[2.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Failing to Consider Appellant’s Right to Cure.
[3.] The Trial Court committed Reversible Error by not Assessing Damages Using “Diminished Value Standard,” and by Creating a Remedy that Constitutes Economic Waste.
[4.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant is Barred from Seeking Indemnification When 84 [Lumber] Never Fulfilled its Obligations Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement Entered on August 2, 2005.
In response to the first assigned error, the Court of Appeals stated: “Because the failure to provide siding of a uniform color, not appellees’ displeasure, breached the contract, we reject Fannin Builders’ contention that the trial court implied a satisfaction clause into the contract and found a breach of that clause. Accordingly, we overrule Fannin Builders’ first assignment of error.”
The Court of Appeals overruled the second assignment of error and provided the following reasoning: “Although Fannin Builders depends upon a term of the limited warranty for its right to cure, the trial court concluded that no breach of the limited warranty occurred. Fannin Builders breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIA’s Quality Standards. Consequently, the limited warranty does not apply to this case, and thus, it does not prevent appellees’ recovery of damages.”
The Appeals Court found “the trial court’s award of damages” was “both reasonable and supported by competent, credible evidence,” and therefore concluded “that the trial court did not err in setting appellees’ damages at $62,997.26.” The Fannin Builders third assignment of error was overruled.
The fourth and final assignment of error was also overruled by the Court of Appeals. “While Fannin Builders correctly asserts that 84 Lumber never installed the replacement siding, it ignores the fact that it ordered 84 Lumber to remove the replacement siding from appellees’ property. Thus, Fannin Builders precluded 84 Lumber from completely performing under the August 2, 2005 letter agreement. […] Consequently, Fannin Builders cannot now claim that the letter agreement is unenforceable or that it is entitled to indemnification from 84 Lumber. Because Fannin Builders assumed all liability for the defective siding in the letter agreement, it is responsible for appellees’ damages.”
James A. Zitesman, Columbus, Ohio Business Attorney, compared the case to Jones v. Centex (Ohio App. 2010), which had a different verdict:
“The common thread is the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the Jones case, the Court found that the buyers had in fact waived all implied warranties, including the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the contract between Jones and Centex, the builder stated that it “…would not sell the property to Purchasers without this waiver.” Probably should have been a sign to the buyers.
In the Landis case, the Court stated, “Contracts for the future construction of a residence include a duty, implied by law, that the builder must perform its work in a workmanlike manner.” The Court gave significant weight to the concept of the implied warranty of good workmanship. The builder relied upon the BIA Warranty which limits builders’ liability and exposure to legal issues. The trial court concluded there was no breach of the limited warranty, rather the builder “breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIAs Quality Standards.”
The Supreme Court of Ohio has accepted the Jones v. Centex Homes case for review.
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
When a Request for Equitable Adjustment Should Be Treated as a Claim Under the Contract Disputes Act
August 29, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn federal contracting, contractors are sometimes torn about submitting a request for equitable adjustment (known as an “REA” under 48 C.F.R. 252.243-7002) or submitting a formal claim under the Contract Disputes Act (41 U.S.C. s. 7103), the latter requiring a final decision by the contracting officer and starts the clock with respect to interest and preserving rights. It is also sometimes not easy for the contracting officer receiving an REA to determine whether the REA is actually a claim under the Contract Disputes Act requiring more immediate action. This recent take by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit hits the nail on the head:
We recognize that contracting officers will sometimes face the difficult challenge of determining whether a request for equitable adjustment is also a claim. Contractors must choose between submitting a claim—which starts the interest clock but requires the contracting officer to issue a final decision within 60 days—and submitting a mere request for equitable adjustment—which does not start the interest clock but gives the contractor more time to negotiate a settlement and possibly avoid hefty legal fees. The overlap between these two types of documents might create room for gamesmanship. For example, a contractor could submit a document that is a claim—starting the interest clock—but appears to be a mere request for equitable adjustment—causing the contracting officer to not issue a final decision within the 60-day deadline and allowing interest to accrue for months or years. But the government has tools to address this challenge: The contracting officer can communicate to the contractor that she is going to treat the document as a claim and issue a final decision within 60 days. Or the government can explicitly require the contractor to propose settlement terms and attempt to settle disputes before submitting a claim to the contracting officer for a final decision.
Zafer Construction Company v. U.S., 2022 WL 2793596, *5 (Fed.Cir. 2022).
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
Do Not File a Miller Act Payment Bond Lawsuit After the One-Year Statute of Limitations
November 01, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesUnder the Miller Act, a claim against a Miller Act payment bond must be commenced “no later than one year after the date on which the last of the labor was performed or material was supplied by the person bringing the action.” 40 U.S.C. s. 3133(b)(4). Stated another way, a claimant must file its lawsuit against the Miller Act payment bond within one year from its final furnishing on the project.
Filing a lawsuit too late, i.e., outside of the one-year statute of limitations, will be fatal to a Miller Act payment bond claim. This was the outcome in Diamond Services Corp. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America, 2022 WL 4990416 (5th Cir. 2022) where a claimant filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit four days late. That four days proved to be fatal to its Miller Act payment bond claim and lawsuit. Do not let this happen to you!
In Diamond Services Corp., the claimant submitted a claim to the Miller Act payment bond surety. The surety issued a claim form to the claimant that requested additional information. The claimant returned the surety’s claim form. The surety denied the claim a year and a couple of days after the claimant’s final furnishing. The claimant immediately filed its payment bond lawsuit four days after the year expired. The claimant argued that the surety should be equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations in light of the surety’s letter requesting additional information. (The claimant was basically arguing that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled.) The trial court dismissed the Miller Act payment bond claim finding it was barred by the one-year statute of limitations and that equitable estoppel did not apply.
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
CDJ’s #7 Topic of the Year: The Las Vegas Harmon Hotel Year-Long Demolition & Trial Begins
December 31, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe 26-story tower in MGM’s $9 billion Las Vegas, Nevada CityCenter project, is being demolished piece by piece after a structural engineer reported that an earthquake of 7.7 could bring it down. While litigation began as early as 2010, the trial didn’t begin until October of 2014, and expectation is it will last through almost all of 2015 as well, according to Carri Geer Thevenot of the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sanctions Issued for Frivolous Hurricane Sandy Complaint Filed Against Insurer
February 26, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court for the district of New Jersey cracked down on a Texas law firm that filed 250 Hurricane Sandy related cases against insurers without adequate investigation. Lighthouse Point Marina & Yacht Club, LLC v. Int'l Marine Underwriters, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6430 (D. N.J. Jan. 20, 2015).
The Texas firm filed more that 250 actions in New Jersey courts against insurers to recover for alleged property damage caused by Hurricane Sandy. The original complaints were nearly identical with the same typos. The complaint in this case alleged that the insurer did not pay benefits under the policy for "extreme external and internal damages, as well as other wind-related loss," but did not specify the value or nature of the damage. The insurer answered that it sent an adjuster to the property soon after the storm and found wind damages to two fences, but no damage to any building on the property. The adjuster valued the claim at $1,612.00 and recommended a payment of $612.00, after applying the $1000 deductible.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up 05/04/22
May 23, 2022 —
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogConstruction payment apps are on the rise, the European Union proposes to block Russians from buying European real estate, warehouse vacancy rates hit a 27-year low, and more.
- The Metaverse Group has made itself one of the most prominent virtual land owners, having invested more than $10 million into digital real estate purchases. (Katie Canales, Business Insider)
- The European Union proposed to block Russians from buying European real estate in its six package of sanctions following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. (Jorge Valero and Alberto Nardelli, Bloomberg)
- Although smart office buildings are able to easily identify viruses, they are susceptible to hacks, raising privacy and cybersecurity concerns in the market. (Konrad Putzier, The Wall Street Journal)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team
Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act Enacted
July 14, 2016 —
Michael B. McClellan & Jason L. Morris – Newmeyer & Dillion LLPOn May 11, 2016, President Obama signed the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) into law,
creating a private federal civil cause of action for trade secret misappropriation. This landmark
legislation, a product of bipartisan backing and significant support from the business
community, will affect businesses and individuals operating in almost every economic sector
across the country. The DTSA will potentially be at issue any time an employee with access to
confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information moves on to a competitor or launches
a startup that competes with the former employer. This will be true so long as the product
or service that the trade secret relates to is either used in or intended for use in interstate
or foreign commerce. Under present commerce clause jurisprudence, the vast majority of
businesses providing products and services in the United States will be affected by this new law.
The DTSA will provide, for the first time, a codified federal civil remedy for
misappropriation of trade secrets. Although most states have adopted some version of the
Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“UTSA”), there remains significant variation between the states in
their application of the UTSA and litigants face significantly different statutory frameworks
depending upon which state holds jurisdiction over the dispute. In addition, prior to this
new law, litigants were limited to pursuing their claims for misappropriation of trade secrets
in state courts, unless federal diversity jurisdiction applied to the dispute. The DTSA changes
that dynamic, providing original federal subject matter jurisdiction over trade secret disputes.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael B. McClellan, Newmeyer & Dillion and
Jason L. Morris, Newmeyer & Dillion
Mr. McClellan may be contacted at Michael.mcclellan@ndlf.com
Mr. Morris may be contacted at Jason.morris@ndlf.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
DHS Awards Contracts for Border Wall Prototypes
September 20, 2017 —
Engineering News-RecordThe Dept. of Homeland Security has awarded eight contracts to companies to develop prototypes for the Trump administration’s proposed wall along sections of the nearly 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border. The contracts are divided evenly between concrete and nonconcrete options. DHS’s Customs and Border Protection agency didn’t specify what sort of materials would be used in the nonconcrete barriers.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Engineering News-RecordENR staff may be contacted at
ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
