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
Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Kept Climbing in January
April 06, 2016 —
Victoria Stilwell – BloombergHome values in 20 U.S. cities kept climbing in January, a sign the limited supply of available properties may push prices out of reach for some buyers.
The S&P/Case-Shiller index of property values increased 5.7 percent from January 2015, following a 5.6 percent gain in the year ended in December, the group said Tuesday in New York. That matched the median projection of 26 economists surveyed by Bloomberg. Nationally, prices rose 5.4 percent year-over-year.
Home values that are rising more quickly than incomes could pose a problem for the housing recovery, as they put purchases out of reach for first-time and low-income buyers. A wider selection of available homes will be needed to help keep price increases in an accessible range.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Victoria Stilwell, Bloomberg
Have the Feds Taken Over Arbitration?
September 25, 2023 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsAll of us in construction have run into mandatory arbitration clauses in our contracts. These clauses are more or less desirable based upon the size of project and other factors that will provide a topic for another post here at Musings or in my class at Solo Practice University (and likely both).
In drafting and considering the usefulness of these clauses, make sure that you keep in mind that the Federal Arbitration Act applies to actions in federal court. In short, the FAA gives parties to a contract containing an arbitration clause the absolute right to a stay of a law suit pending arbitration.
While this seems obvious, a recent U. S. Supreme Court decision expanded the universe of people that can demand such a stay. In Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle, et. al., the Court stated that any person who is allowed to enforce a contract under state law can obtain such a stay. In short, if a person can make an argument that they have some sort of right to enforce a contract’s terms, that person can get a stay, at least until a court says otherwise.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Las Vegas Partner Sarah Odia Named a 2023 Mountain States Super Lawyer Rising Star
August 28, 2023 —
Payne & Fears LLPPayne & Fears’ partner
Sarah J. Odia has been named to the list of 2023 Super Lawyers® Mountain States Rising Stars, recognizing her excellent contributions to the Las Vegas area legal community.
A Super Lawyers® Rising Stars selection is an honor reserved for those attorneys who exhibit excellence in practice. Lawyers nominate fellow attorneys who demonstrate excellence in the legal profession.
Reprinted courtesy of
Payne & Fears LLP
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
4 Lessons Contractors Can Learn From The COVID-19 Crisis
May 25, 2020 —
Patrick Hogan - Handle.comAt the start of 2020, the industry outlook in construction was positive. Many contractors were optimistic about what the year had in store for construction businesses in terms of profit, expansion of operations, and even payment issues. That was until the COVID-19 pandemic put a wrench in everyone’s business plans.
There’s no question about how huge the impact of the novel coronavirus crisis is on business operations. With the federal and state governments implementing strict measures to slow down the spread of COVID-19, construction businesses are experiencing significant delays and disruptions in their operations. Because of the lockdowns and stay-at-home orders, many construction projects are forced to postpone operations or, worse, cancel them altogether.
Nevertheless, there are lessons in the COVID-19 pandemic that contractors can learn. Here are some of them.
1. Contractors need to be proactive in meeting preliminary notice requirements
Cash is tight in times of crisis. As the economy comes to a standstill, construction businesses will need to deal with decreasing profits. They may even have to dip into their own cash reserves to cover fixed expenses and their employees’ salaries.
In times like this, it is crucial that contractors perform due diligence in protecting their right to get paid. The first step in doing so is to prepare
preliminary notices. These notices are an important step in the mechanics lien process and without them, chances contractors will not be able to recover the unpaid compensation for the materials they furnished and services they rendered.
2. Force majeure provisions are crucial parts of a contract
The novel coronavirus pandemic has highlighted the importance of force majeure provisions in construction contracts. Before the COVID-19 crisis hit business operations, force majeure provisions were typically considered as simple boilerplate clauses. This means they were just there as a standard part of contracts.
However, the same force majeure clauses, as well as impossibility of performance provisions, have become crucial in the current crisis. As many construction businesses experience difficulties with their operations, they may not be able to fulfill their contractual responsibilities. The said clauses can give contractors a much-needed reprieve.
As the current crisis continues, contractors should review contracts as these provisions can give them more time to finish the job. And in the hopefully near future when the crisis ends, business owners should review the contract creation process and ensure that these clauses included in contracts will be able to address the impact of situations similar to COVID-19.
3. Having solid internal communication is crucial
There’s a lot of uncertainty with the COVID-19 situation. With work operations temporarily stopping, the circumstances can be quite stressful for employees. There will be doubts and fears within your workforce on whether work will be back to normal as soon as possible or not.
Keeping your workforce well-informed and trusting of your organization is crucial, especially in this time of uncertainty. That is why it is paramount that you have a solid internal communication infrastructure to disseminate information about the current work situation and the next steps that the business will take. In addition, only through proper employee communication can the implementation of social distancing and hygiene measures be effective.
4. Contractors can benefit from flexible work arrangements
As the coronavirus crisis has made it necessary for everyone to stay at home, construction businesses should look for ways to continue operations. Expanded work arrangements such as work-from-home setups may just be the solution.
Of course, most of the physical work that is needed to be done on-site will be impossible to do at home, but office-based functions such as sales, client relations, design, and administrative roles can still continue. This can even have additional benefits to productivity and health. And when the crisis is over, business owners should consider incorporating these work arrangements into their operations permanently.
The COVID-19 crisis is not showing any sign of stopping soon, and even when it ends, it will take quite a long time before we can be back to business as usual. As the crisis continues, however, business owners should take the situation as a learning experience.
Once the COVID-19 crisis is over, it will take a long time for things to go back to normal. In fact, things may not end up going back to the way they were before and businesses will need to adapt to the new normal. However the situation evolves, business owners should take this opportunity to learn new things and maintain resilience in trying times.
About the Author:
Patrick Hogan is the CEO of Handle.com, where they build software that helps contractors, subcontractors, and material suppliers with late payments. Handle.com also provides funding for construction businesses in the form of invoice factoring, material supply trade credit, and mechanics lien purchasing.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarow Equipment v. Travelers- An Update
January 16, 2024 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsPreviously here at Musings, I discussed the application of pay if paid clauses and the Miller Act. The case that prompted the discussion was the Aarow Equipment & Services, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. case in which the Eastern District of Virginia Federal Court determined that a “pay if paid” clause coupled with a proper termination could defeat a Miller Act bond claim. However, as I found out a couple of weeks ago at the VSB’s Construction Law and Public Contracts section meeting, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded this case in an unpublished opinion (Aarow Equipment & Services, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co.)
In it’s opinion, the 4th Circuit looked at some of the more “interesting” aspects of this case. One of these circumstances was that Syska (the general contractor) directed Aarow to construct sedimentary ponds and other water management measures around the project (the “pond work”), which both agreed was outside of the scope of the work defined in their subcontract. Syska asked that the government agree to a modification of the prime contract and asked Aarow to wait to submit its invoice for the pond work until after the government issued a modification to the prime contract and Syska issued a change order to the subcontract.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Flood-Threat Assessment Finds Danger Goes Far Beyond U.S. Homes
October 18, 2021 —
Leslie Kaufman, Rachael Dottle & Mira Rojanasakul - BloombergIf the floods don’t get you, lack of electricity or a swamped hospital might.
Nearly a quarter of U.S. critical infrastructure—utilities, airports, police stations and more—is at risk of being inundated by flooding, according to a new report by First Street Foundation, a Brooklyn nonprofit dedicated to making climate risk more visible to the public.
Around 25% of national critical infrastructure is at risk.
Roughly 14% of Americans’ properties face direct risk from major storms, but the study shows danger extends far from those property lines.
Reprinted courtesy of
Leslie Kaufman, Bloomberg,
Rachael Dottle, Bloomberg and
Mira Rojanasakul, Bloomberg Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Not Everything is a Pollutant: A Summary of Recent Cases Supporting a Common Sense and Narrow Interpretation of the CGL's Pollution Exclusion
October 26, 2020 —
Philip B. Wilusz & Jeffrey J. Vita - Saxe Doernberger & VitaThose of us who suffered through law school are familiar with the argument that there are fundamental rules applicable to contract interpretation and that a certain contract language interpretation would “swallow the rule.” However, insurance companies have long advocated for an interpretation of the CGL policy’s pollution exclusion that would “swallow the coverage” that the insureds thought they were purchasing. Insurers have successfully argued in several states that the pollution exclusion’s definition of “pollutant” should be read literally, and be applied to any “solid, liquid, gaseous, or thermal irritant or contaminant including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals, and waste.” As anyone with children can attest to, the range of items and substances that can be considered an “irritant” is limitless. The logical extent of the insurer’s interpretation brings to mind the high school student who, for his science fair project, convinced his fellow students to ban “dihydrogen monoxide.”1 Citing evidence such as the fact that everyone who has ever died was found to have consumed “dihydrogen monoxide,” he convinced them of the dangers of . . . water. Similarly, an overly expansive reading of the definition of “pollutant” could lead to the absurd result of even applying it to ubiquitous harmless substances such as water. The pollution exclusion, therefore, has run amok in many states and has allowed insurers to avoid liability for otherwise covered claims.
Fortunately, insureds in many states have successfully argued that the pollution exclusion is subject to a more limited interpretation based on several different theories. For example, some courts have agreed that the pollution exclusion, as initially introduced by the insurance industry, should be limited to instances of traditional environmental pollution. Others have held that the exclusion is ambiguous as to its interpretation. The reasonable expectations of the insureds do not support a broad reading of the defined term “pollutant.” Below, this article addresses a number of recent decisions that have adopted a pro policyholder interpretation of the pollution exclusion. As with most insurance coverage issues, choice of law clearly matters.
Reprinted courtesy of
Philip B. Wilusz, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and
Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Wilusz may be contacted at pbw@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Vita may be contacted at jjv@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
