Choice of Law Provisions in Construction Contracts
October 07, 2024 —
Victoria Davies - ConsensusDocsIf you have used a ConsensusDocs® construction agreement or another industry association construction agreement for one of your projects, you are accustomed to seeing the laws of the state where the construction project is located as the governing law. There are good reasons for the laws of the state where the project is located to govern the construction agreement for the project. Even if not headquartered in the state, the parties have a presence there by virtue of their participation in the project in the state. Personnel and records that may be needed to resolve a claim may be located in the state. If there are experts that need to be engaged, they will likely need to visit the site. These reasons of efficiency and convenience, alone, may justify the parties’ decision to select the project state’s laws to govern their construction contract. However, there is also the policy interest of the project state, whose laws may even mandate that the project state’s laws govern construction contracts for in-state projects and that the parties resolve their disputes in state as well.
Several states have laws that require construction disputes for projects in the state to be resolved under its laws and/or litigated or arbitrated in the state. Some states require only that its laws govern and do not also require that the dispute resolution take place in the state, but some require both – that its laws govern and the disputes be resolved there. There may be different triggers as to when the statute applies. For example, in some states, the statute applies to any construction contract for a project in the state. In others, the law may only be triggered if one of the parties is domiciled in the state.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Victoria Davies, Jones Walker LLPMs. Davies may be contacted at
vdavies@joneswalker.com
When is a Residential Subcontractor not Subject to the VCPA? Read to Find Out
December 01, 2017 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsThe Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA) can and often does apply to residential construction. The transaction between a residential contractor and an homeowner has been held to fall under the consumer transaction language of the VCPA and on occasion been used to avoid the issues with the economic loss doctrine in Virginia. However, there are limits to how far down the contractual chain the VCPA applies, particularly in the case where a supplier or subcontractor does not provide the services or materials for a personal, consumer purpose.
An example of this fact is found in the case of Johnston v. Stephan. In that case, a couple hired a general contractor to build a home and the general contractor hired Cole Roofing System, Inc. to provide the roof of the home. The first couple subsequently sold the home and the second homeowners sought further work on the roof from Cole Roofing. After Cole Roofing refused further work, the homeowners brought an action seeking to enforce a warranty and for a violation of the VCPA. For the warranty claim, the homeowners relied on the contract between them and the prior homeowners that referenced a 10 year warranty on the roof and the subcontract between the homebuilder and Cole Roofing. Cole Roofing sought dismissal of the VCPA and warranty claims by demurrer and further sought by demurrer to have the matter dismissed as being filed after the running of the statute of limitations.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Will a Notice of Non-Responsibility Prevent Enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien?
March 05, 2015 —
William L. Porter – Porter Law Group, Inc.The “Notice of Non-Responsibility” is one of the most misunderstood and ineffectively used of all the legal tools available to property owners in California construction law. As a result, in most cases the answer to the above question is “No”, the posting and recording of a Notice of Completion will not prevent enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien.
The mechanics lien is a tool used by a claimant who has not been paid for performing work or supplying materials to a construction project. It provides the claimant the right to encumber the property where the work was performed and thereafter sell the property in order to obtain payment for the work or materials, even though the claimant had no contract directly with the property owner. When properly used, a Notice of Non-Responsibility will render a mechanics lien unenforceable against the property where the construction work was performed. By derailing the mechanics lien the owner protects his property from a mechanics lien foreclosure sale. Unfortunately, owners often misunderstand when they can and cannot effectively use a Notice of Non-Responsibility. As a result, the Notice of Non-Responsibility is usually ineffective in protecting the owner and his property.
The rules for the use of the Notice of Non-Responsibility are found in California Civil Code section 8444. Deceptively simple, the rules essentially state that an owner “that did not contract for the work of improvement”, within 10 days after the owner first “has knowledge of the work of improvement”, may fill out the necessary legal form for a Notice of Non-Responsibility and post that form at the worksite and record it with the local County Recorder in order to prevent enforcement of a later mechanics lien on the property.
What commonly occurs however is that early in the process the owner authorizes or even requires its tenant to perform beneficial tenant improvements on the property. This authorization is often set forth in a tenant lease or other written document. The dispositive factor for determining whether the Notice of Non-Responsibility will be enforceable though is that the owner knows that these improvements will be made to the property and intends that they be made, usually long before the work begins. Indeed, the owner has usually negotiated these very terms into the lease contract. The owner then mistakenly believes that once work on the property commences it has 10 days to post and record a Notice of Non-Responsibility and thereby protect itself from a mechanics lien.
The usual error is two-fold. First, the statute states that the Notice is available when the owner “did not contract for the work of improvement”. The fact though is that the owner did contract for the work of improvement. It did so through the lease contract. This is true even though the owner’s contract was not with the contractor or supplier directly. Secondly, the 10 day period to post and record the Notice begins when the owner first “has knowledge” of the work of improvement. This knowledge was of course gained when the lease was negotiated and signed, providing knowledge typically many days before the work has begun. Thus, the 10 day period can also seldom be met. The Notice of Non-Responsibility will therefore fail both rules because the owner has in fact contracted for the improvement and because he does not act within 10 days of gaining this knowledge.
The next event in the typical scenario occurs when the tenant does not pay its contractor. The contractor then has nothing to pay its subcontractors. Material suppliers also go unpaid. Mechanics liens are then recorded by the unpaid claimants, followed by foreclosure actions within ninety days thereafter. Owners will typically point to the Notice of Non-Responsibility they posted and recorded, claiming its protection. Claimants then in turn point to the lease or other evidence that the owner knew of the pending improvements and contracted in some way that the improvements be performed, often also more than 10 days before they posted the Notice. Judges generally agree with the unpaid mechanics lien claimants and the Notice of Non-Responsibility is deemed ineffective.
The fact that the Court does not enforce the Notice of Non-Responsibility under these circumstances is not an unfair result. Since the owner authorized the work to be performed and it received a substantial benefit in the form of those improvements, it is not unfair that the owner should pay for those benefits. It would be inequitable for the owner to obtain the benefit of the improvements which it authorized but for which it did not pay, while allowing those who provided the benefit to go unpaid. Moreover, without such a system in place the door would be open to owners setting up sham “tenants” who would enter into contracts to have work performed, only to disappear when the work is completed, leaving the contractor without a source of payment. The system in place as described above prevents such duplicity. Owners would do well to arm themselves with proper knowledge of when the Notice of Non-Responsibility will and will not protect them and then responsibly use the Notice of Non-Responsibility.
For the legal eagles among you, the following cases illustrate the view of the courts, consistent with the above: Baker v. Hubbard (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 226; Ott Hardware v. Yost (1945) 69 Cal. App.2d 593 (lease terms); Los Banos Gravel Co. v. Freeman (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 785 (common interest); Howard S. Wright Construction Co. v. Superior Court (2003); 106 Cal.App.4th 314 (participating owner).
William L. Porter of
Porter Law Group, Inc. located in Sacramento, California may be contacted at (916) 381-7868 or bporter@porterlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Foreman in Fatal NYC Trench Collapse Gets Jail Sentence
December 21, 2016 —
Mary B. Powers – Engineering News-RecordWilmer Cueva, a construction foreman for Queens, N.Y.-based excavation subcontractor Sky Materials, was sentenced on Dec. 15 to up to three years in prison for causing the death of 22-year-old worker Carlos Moncayo, and endangering other workers at a lower Manhattan retail project site. Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance said the workers were in an unprotected 13-ft trench that collapsed in 2015.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-RecordENR may be contacted at
ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Occurrence-Based Insurance Policies and Claims-Made Insurance Policies – There’s a Crucial Difference
April 13, 2017 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogI’ve yet to find reading through an insurance policy on anyone’s “bucket list.”
But read them you should. Or have your attorney read through them (wink, wink).
Because when you need to tender a claim there’s probably no more important document in the world.
In Tidwell Enterprises, Inc. v. Financial Pacific Insurance Company, Inc., Case No. C078665 (November 29, 2016), a client whose attorney did read the policy, bested the insurer of a policy it issued.
Tidwell Enterprises, Inc.
In 2006 or 2007, Tidwell Enterprises, Inc. installed a fireplace at a single-family home located in Copperopolis, California. At the time, Tidwell had a general commercial liability policy issued by Financial Pacific Insurance Company, Inc. which expired in March 2010.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
Quick Note: Be Careful with Pay if Paid Clauses (Both Subcontractors and General Contractors)
June 17, 2015 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsAside from waiver of lien rights (something that will be illegal in Virginia after July 1, 2015), the most troublesome contractual impediment to payment for a subcontractor or supplier on a project often is the “pay if paid” clause. As a general rule, in Virginia, these clauses where drafted in the proper fashion, are enforceable. As I have said many times, in Virginia freedom of contract almost always wins out.
While this is the case, I emphasize that such clauses must be very explicit and specific. Furthermore, and in something that should be obvious, these clauses are generally limited by the Courts of Virginia to only be enforceable and to only forgive the need for payment if the upstream contractor on the construction job has not been paid for the work that the sub claiming non payment has done.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PCMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
The Comcast Project is Not Likely to Be Shut Down Too Long
July 13, 2017 —
Wally Zimolong - Supplemental ConditionsJan Von Bergen at the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that work on Comcast’s new tower came to a halt this morning when striking members of Local 542 picketed the Comcast tower project and other union trades refused to cross the picket line. However, this show of solidarity (during the afternoon on the Friday before the Fourth of July) is unlikely to last past the long weekend. Why? Because any conduct by Local 542 aimed at encouraging a work stoppage by other union members is illegal and the companies that employ the sympathetic union members are in breach of contract if they do not work on Tuesday.
Any actions by Local 542 to encourage members of a different trade unions to honor their picket line is a secondary boycott. The National Labor Relations Act prohibits secondary boycotts. Specifically, the NLRA prohibits a union for inducing employees of an employer not subject to a labor dispute to refuse to work.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLCMr. Zimolong may be contacted at
wally@zimolonglaw.com
Design & Construction Case Expands Florida’s Slavin Doctrine
January 21, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to Amanda Baggett of Rogers Towers, Florida’s “Fourth District Court of Appeal appears to have expanded the Slavin doctrine in the context of design professional liability” in the case McIntosh v. Progressive Design and Engineering, Inc. (Jan. 7, 2015). McIntosh, a personal injury case, involved whether the design and construction of an intersection with multiple traffic signals in close proximity created confusion for drivers.
Baggett stated that McIntosh expanded the Slavin doctrine in two ways: “first, the ruling eliminates the requirement that the ultimate owner of a project accept the project before the Slavin doctrine may be invoked. Second, the decision applies the Slavin doctrine to completed and accepted design plans without regard to the completion of the project for which they were prepared.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
