The Clock is Ticking: Construction Delays and Liquidated Damages
September 18, 2023 —
Tiffany Harrod - ConsensusDocsWith the on-going shortage of construction workers in the industry and other factors ranging from weather to procurement problems, the threat of project delay is real. When a contract contains a liquidated damages clause for assessing project delays, real financial consequences for contractors can result. Courts have long allowed parties to apportion contractual risks as they deem appropriate especially in the commercial context where the parties are considered to be sophisticated even if their bargaining power is not equal. Liquidated damage provisions such as those for delay that are found in construction contracts are not unusual but they must be crafted in such a way as to be enforceable and not violate public policy.
A liquidated damage clause in a construction contract is a customary way for the parties to deal with the possibility of delay in the completion of a project and the potential losses flowing from the delay.[
1] In their most basic form, the party in breach, which is more often than not the contractor, is obligated to pay the non-breaching party, usually the project owner, some fixed sum of money for the period that exceeds the designated completion date that was agreed upon in advance and memorialized in the contract. (It is after all no secret that these provisions are primarily for the owner’s benefit.) The non-breaching party is then compensated for losses associated with the delay without the time and expense of having to prove in either a civil suit or an arbitration proceeding what the actual damages are. This option is particularly attractive to project owners because the liquidated damages assessment can simply be withheld from payments owed to the contractor once the agreed-upon completion date has been passed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tiffany Harrod, Peckar & AbramsonMs. Harrod may be contacted at
tharrod@pecklaw.com
Best Practices for Installing Networks in New Buildings
August 14, 2023 —
Patrick Chown - Construction ExecutiveA previous article, "
How to Install Networks in an Old Building," discussed the various challenges of implementing networking infrastructure in older spaces. The building layout, age of the building and use cases were the major challenges involved. New buildings provide an opportunity to incorporate state-of-the-art networking infrastructure from the ground up. Careful planning and foresight are essential to ensure optimal network performance and avoid future issues.
In new buildings, including corporate offices, multifamily residential complexes, hospitals, educational institutions and retail spaces, the potential use cases and users can vary significantly. Each of these spaces comes with its unique networking requirements. Regardless of the specific network applications, there are fundamental frameworks and best practices that can be employed to build a solid network foundation. By following these guidelines and adapting them to the specific needs of your new building, you can ensure a robust and flexible network infrastructure that accommodates ever-evolving technological demands.
Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick Chown, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Prospective Additional Insureds May Be Obligated to Arbitrate Coverage Disputes
September 07, 2020 —
Danielle S. Ward - Balestreri Potocki & HolmesThe Court of Appeal closed out 2019 by ruling that an additional insured can be bound to the arbitration clause in a policy when a coverage dispute arises between that additional insured and the carrier. (Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. SMG Holdings, Inc. (2019) 44 Cal. App. 5th 834, 837.)
In 2009, Future Farmers of America (“Future Farmers”) entered into a license agreement with SMG Holdings Incorporated (“SMG”) to use the Fresno Convention Center. As part of the agreement, Future Farmers was required to secure comprehensive general liability (“CGL”) coverage and name SMG and the City of Fresno as additional insureds (“AI”) on its policies.
Future Farmers purchased a general liability policy from Plaintiff Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (“Philadelphia”). Neither SMG nor the City of Fresno were added as AIs, but the policy contained a “deluxe endorsement” which extended coverage to lessors of premises for “liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that part of the premises leased or rented” to the named insured. The policy also contained an endorsement that extended coverage where required by a written contract for liability due to the negligence of the named insured. Philadelphia’s policy also stated that if the insurance company and insured “do not agree whether coverage is provided . . . for a claim made against the insured, then either party may make a written demand for arbitration.”
A patron to Future Farmer’s event at the Fresno Convention Center was seriously injured after he tripped over a pothole in the parking lot and hit his head. He sued both Fresno and SMG. In turn, Fresno and SMG tendered their defense to Philadelphia. Philadelphia denied coverage finding that the incident did not arise out of Future Farmer’s negligence, and that SMG had the sole responsibility for maintaining the parking lot. Consequently, Philadelphia concluded that neither Fresno nor SMG qualified “as an additional insured under the policy” for the injury in the parking lot.
The coverage dispute continued, and in 2016, Philadelphia issued a demand for arbitration which was rejected by SMG. Philadelphia then petitioned the state court to compel arbitration arguing that SMG could not avoid the burdens of the policy while seeking to obtain policy benefits. SMG used Philadelphia’s conclusion that it did not qualify as an AI under the policy to argue that Philadelphia was “estopped from demanding arbitration”. In other words, SMG argued that it could not be held to the burdens of the policy without being provided with the benefits of the policy.
The trial court sided with SMG finding that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties. The court noted that while third party beneficiaries can be compelled to arbitration there was no evidence that applied here, and Philadelphia could not maintain its inconsistent positions on the policy as its respects SMG.
Disagreeing with the trial court, the Court of Appeal concluded that SMG was a third-party beneficiary of the policy. The AI obligations in the license agreement and the deluxe endorsement in the Philadelphia policy collectively establish an intended beneficiary status. The Court saw SMG’s tender to Philadelphia as an acknowledgement of that status.
Relatedly, the Court found that SMG’s tender to Philadelphia – its demand for policy benefits – equitably estopped them from avoiding the burdens of the policy. The Court stated it defied logic to require a named insured to arbitrate coverage disputes but free an unnamed insured demanding policy coverage from the same requirement. Conversely, the Court found no inconsistency in Philadelphia’s denial of coverage to SMG and its subsequent demand for arbitration. Philadelphia did not outright reject SMG’s status as a potential insured, but rather concluded that there was no coverage because the injury occurred in the parking lot. In other words, the coverage determination turned on the circumstances of the injury not SMG’s status under the policy.
In short, the Court concluded that the potential insured takes the good with the bad. If one seeks to claim coverage as an additional insured, they can be subject to the restrictions of the policy including arbitration clauses even if they did not purchase the policy.
Securing additional insurance has become increasingly more difficult and limited over the years, and this holding presents yet another hurdle to attaining AI coverage. For those seeking coverage, it is important to note that the Court’s ruling may have turned out differently had the carrier outright denied SMG’s AI status, rather than concluding that the injury was not covered.
Your insurance scenario may vary from the case discussed above. Please contact legal counsel before making any decisions. BPH’s attorneys can be reached via email to answer your questions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Danielle S. Ward, Balestreri Potocki & HolmesMs. Ward may be contacted at
dward@bph-law.com
Fourth Circuit Confirms Scope of “Witness Litigation Privilege”
November 21, 2018 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelOn October 26, in the case of Day v. Johns Hopkins Health Sys. Corp., divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling that the common law “Witness Litigation Privilege” protects an expert witness in a Black Lung Benefits Act benefits proceeding against civil claims that allege a federal RICO violation and Maryland state law claims for fraud, tortious interference, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment attended the testimony of the expert witness.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Couple Gets $79,000 on $10 Million Construction Defect Claim
September 24, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFA Florida couple who sought more than $10 million in damages in a construction defect suit, has received a jury verdict of only $79,000. Leo and Kathryn Vecellio bought the 25,000 square-foot home in 2008, after which they discovered water intrusion issues. They sued both the builder and couple from whom they had bought the house.
Although the Vecellios spent more than $11 million to repair their home, the jury concluded that the builder did not know about the construction defects. The jury did determine that the builder, Dan E. Swanson, did either lie about or conceal certain facts about the construction. He was ordered to pay the $79,000 in damages to the Vecellios.
Lawyers for the defendants argued that the leaks were not from the original construction of the home, but were instead caused by the renovations made by the Vecellios. The Vecellios are pursuing whether they are entitled to money from home warranties. “There will be more evidence to be considered. I’m determined to see this through,” said Leo Vecellio.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Building Stagnant in Las Cruces Region
November 20, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThere was an increase in the number of building permits issued in Las Cruces, New Mexico through the first ten months of 2013, but the 2,162 permits represent only a minimal increase over last year’s 2,158 permits. To make matters worse for building suppliers and workers, builders can “pull all the permits for a subdivision at one time but might not start some of those for six months,” said Lee Rawson, the owner of Rawson Builders Supply.
For a comparison, during the building boom of 2006, Las Cruces issued 3,529 building permits. The values are down too. Although fewer permits were issued in 2012, their valuation was $147 million, while the marginally larger number in 2013 is worth only $128 million.
As a result, the area is losing skilled labor. After 25 consecutive months of declining construction, workers are leaving the construction industry. Mr. Rawson noted that “you can’t just go find that skilled labor, it doesn’t exist.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
ASCE Statement on Devastating Tornado Damages Throughout U.S.
December 20, 2021 —
Tom Smith, Executive Director - American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)WASHINGTON, DC. – We are deeply saddened by the tragic tornado storms that ravaged six states across the Midwest and Southeastern portions of the U.S. last Friday evening, resulting in loss of life in five of those six states. Even though warnings were issued throughout the region, storms of this magnitude can be difficult to prepare for. Nevertheless, as civil engineers, our mission is to continually advance the design and construction of safe, reliable, and resilient building structures and infrastructure systems to mitigate the damage caused by storms.
ASCE 7 — a nationally-adopted, consensus-based engineering standard that is the primary reference of structural design requirements in all U.S. building codes — was recently updated to include a new chapter for tornado loads in the 2022 edition. The new tornado provisions in ASCE 7-22 were a result of a decade-long effort in partnership with the National Institute of Standards and Technology following the 2011 Joplin, MO Tornado. ASCE 7-22 provides updated design requirements for a variety of structures, including many of the types impacted by Friday's storms.
In an effort to assist, the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE is currently offering free access to a report issued after the Joplin, MO tornado in 2011 that killed more than 150 people.
Joplin, Missouri, Tornado of May 22, 2011: Structural Damage Survey and Case for Tornado-Resilient Building Codes presents the observations, findings, and recommendations of an engineering reconnaissance team that surveyed residential structures and schools in the tornado path shortly after the event. The EF 5 tornado cut a seven-mile swath through Joplin, Missouri; it destroyed more than 5,000 buildings and killed more than 150 people.
We will continue to keep those who have been affected in our hearts and thoughts, and we share our heartfelt sympathies.
For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tejon Ranch Co. Announces Settlement of Litigation Related to the Tejon Ranch Conservation and Land Use Agreement
December 05, 2022 —
Tejon Ranch Co.TEJON RANCH, Calif., Nov. 30, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Tejon Ranch Co. is pleased to announce the resolution of a legal dispute involving the Tejon Ranch Conservancy and the signatories to the 2008 Tejon Ranch Conservation and Land Use Agreement (Agreement), namely, Audubon California, Endangered Habitats League, Natural Resources Defense Council, Planning and Conservation League, and the Sierra Club. The dispute stemmed from the signatories' participation in the Antelope Valley Regional Conservation Strategy (AVRCIS), which was subsequently used by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) to oppose Tejon Ranch Co.'s Centennial development.
The 2008 Tejon Ranch Conservation and Land Use Agreement has been widely hailed as a historic conservation achievement in preserving one of California's great natural and working landscapes. Tejon Ranch Co.'s agreement to conserve 90 percent of its landholdings pursuant to the Agreement is a monumental contribution to conservation in California. Tejon Ranch Co. continues to be a leader in balancing the stewardship of the ranch as a natural treasure for California and achieving economic opportunities for its shareholders. The Company demonstrated that leadership with the actions it took to enforce the terms of the Agreement, which led to this legal dispute.
As part of a settlement agreement, the Conservancy and the signatories dismissed with prejudice the lawsuit they filed. They also acknowledge that the AVRCIS does not contain the "best available scientific data" regarding Tejon Ranch Co.'s landholdings, and further, that they will not use, or support the use of, the AVRCIS or any other similar endeavors, to challenge Tejon Ranch Co.'s development projects and/or any Ranch uses consistent with the Agreement.
In turn, Tejon Ranch Co. released from escrow 50% of the advance payments it withheld under the terms of the Agreement. The remaining funds will be released over a three-year period as matching funds to monies raised by the Conservancy as well as others who participate in Conservancy capital raising programs, after which the remaining funds with be released to the Conservancy to further its mission. These funds are the final fulfilment of Tejon Ranch Co.'s full funding obligations under the Agreement, totaling $11,760,000 over the past 14 years, again demonstrating Tejon Ranch Co.'s commitment to fulfilling the implementation of the 2008 Tejon Ranch Conservation and Land Use Agreement.
All parties are glad to put this dispute behind them and move forward in a cooperative manner to achieve the goals envisioned in the historic 2008 Agreement.
About Tejon Ranch Co.
Tejon Ranch Co. (NYSE: TRC) is a diversified real estate development and agribusiness company, whose principal asset is its 270,000-acre land holding located approximately 60 miles north of Los Angeles and 30 miles south of Bakersfield. More information about Tejon Ranch Co. can be found on the Company's website at www.tejonranch.com.
Forward Looking Statements
This press release contains forward-looking statements, including without limitation statements regarding commitments of the parties under the settlement agreement and the achievement of certain goals related to Tejon Ranch Co.'s landholdings. These forward-looking statements are not a guarantee of future results, performance, or achievements, are subject to assumptions and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other important factors that could cause the actual results, performance, or achievements to differ materially from those implied by such forward-looking statements. These risks, uncertainties and important factors include, but are not limited to, the ability and willingness of the parties to the Settlement Agreement to take the actions (or refrain from taking the actions) specified in the Settlement Agreement, and the risks described in the section entitled "Risk Factors" in our annual and quarterly reports filed with the SEC.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
