A Quick Virginia Mechanic’s Lien Timing Refresher
February 27, 2023 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsAs those who read Construction Law Musings on a regular basis know,
mechanic’s liens are a big part of my construction law practice. These
tricky and strictly enforced statutory collection tools are very powerful when correctly recorded and utterly useless if they aren’t recorded in a timely fashion and with the correct information contained within them. Couple that fact with recent
changes to the mechanic’s lien form in 2019, and I feel the need to give a quick refresher.
If you’ve kept up with Musings, you know about the two big numbers for Virginia mechanic’s lien timing, 90 and 150. These should be kept in mind for every general contractor, subcontractor, or supplier on any construction project in Virginia.
Virginia Code Section 43-4 sets out the reasons to keep these numbers in mind. The code section sets out why you need to know these numbers.
The 90 refers to the deadline for recording a lien. This number affects the right to a lien in Virginia. In order to preserve lien rights, a construction contractor must record the lien within ninety days of the last day of the last month in which the last work was performed or no later than ninety days from the date of completion of the project or other termination of work. The short version is that most general contractors on commercial projects have 90 days from the last work in which to record their lien and most subcontractors have 90 days from the last day of the last month of work. However, the best practice is to simply calculate the 90 days from the last work performed or material supplied to avoid issues and arguments between attorneys regarding timing.
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
Court Strikes Down Reasonable Construction Defect Settlement
December 20, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Court of Appeals of Washington has struck down a construction defect settlement between a building owner and the companies she hired to repair the siding, among other repairs to bring the building up to code. Yuan Zhang hired Hawk Construction LLC to do repair work. Hawk, in turn, hired Ready Construction LLC for some aspects of the project. Hawk and Ready were both insured by Capital Specialty Insurance Corporation.
There were several problems with Ready’s work. After removing old siding, they did not protect the building, nor did they remove all of the damaged layers. Ready covered, but did not fix, a mildew problem under the old siding. When new siding was reattached, the nails used were too short to adequately attach it.
After paying for an inspection of the work, Zhang had Hawk and Ready begin the repairs again, but the work was abandoned without being completed. Zhang sued Hawk for breach of contract. Hawk then sued Ready, claiming that “Ready was liable to Hawk to the extent that Hawk was liable to Zhang.” Capitol retained defense for both contractors.
Zhang settled with Hawk, in an agreement that gave her “the right to collect and/or pursue all costs and attorney fees paid by Hawk or its insurance company defending against the Zhang’s claims and pursuing claims against Ready.” Subsequently, she also settled with Ready. Both companies ceased operations.
Zhang had the settlements reviewed by a court, which concluded that the settlements were reasonable. Capital was allowed to appeal, claiming that the settlement included costs that were Zhang’s responsibility. The appeals court did not examine the question of the reasonableness of the settlement, concluding that Capitol’s interests were relevant only to “questions of bad faith, collusion, and fraud.”
In the case of Zhang, the court concluded that the relationship between Zhang and her former contractors was collusive. The court noted that “bad faith or collusion may exist when the evidence indicates a joint effort to create, in a non-adversarial atmosphere, a resolution beneficial to both parties, yet highly prejudicial to the insurer as intervener.” The court noted that both companies had minimal assets which were, in any case, exempted from the agreement. Further, the court found that the agreements failed to determine “what amount of the repairs related to preexisting water damage.” Zhang’s calculation of costs also included her expenses for architectural and engineering services, which the court points out, “where always Zhang’s costs to bear.”
The court concluded that “the overall structure of the settlements is highly probative of collusion, fraud, or bad faith.” Zhang’s agreements with Hawk and Ready allowed her to collect compensation from Hawk and then collect Ready’s compensation to Hawk for their portion of the settlement, allowing Zhang to collect the monies twice. Further, she was allowed to pursue Capitol for Hawk’s attorney expenses, even though Hawk had none. “The right to recover Hawk’s fees merely set up a windfall recovery for Zhang.” The court described the agreements among Zhang, Hawk, and Ready as “precisely the type of manipulation [the law] is intended to preclude.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
What Buyers Want in a Green Home—and What They Don’t
March 19, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFJennifer Goodman interviewed researcher Suzanne Shelton to find out what buyers want in a green home and what they do not. The questions and answers were published in Big Builder. Shelton has studied “Americans’ thoughts on environmental and energy issues” for the last ten years.
Goodman wrote that while the term “high-performance” is often used by “builders and their advisors,” the term doesn’t resonate with buyers. In fact, in last fall’s Energy Pulse study, eighty-four percent of Americans said no when asked “if they could confidently and correctly explain the term ‘high-performance home’ to a friend.”
Goodman and Shelton also discussed the best way to market green features. Shelton pointed out that in surveys “energy-efficient home… clobbered ‘green home’ year over year.” Furthermore, she found that “80 percent of prospective home buyers tell us…all other things being equal, energy efficiency would impact their home selection.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A Court-Side Seat: NWP 12 and the Dakota Access Pipeline Easement Get Forced Vacations, while a Potential Violation of the Eighth Amendment Isn’t Going Anywhere
August 10, 2020 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelHere’s a report on several new decisions made over the past few days.
U.S. SUPREME COURT
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Northern Plains Resources Council
On July 8, 2020, the Court has issued a partial stay of the decision of the U.S. District Court for Montana, which had held that the nationwide use by the Corps of Engineers of its Nationwide Permit 12 to permit oil and gas pipelines must be vacated because the Corps, when it reissued these permits in 2012, failed to follow the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. The breadth of this ruling seems to have surprised and alarmed many past and perspective permittees of the Corps. The stay will not apply to the ongoing Ninth Circuit litigation.
FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEAL
Vega, et al. v. Semple (The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit)
On June 29, 2020, the court refused to dismiss a putative class action by past and present inmates of Connecticut’s Garner Correctional Institution who alleged that state correctional officials exposed them to excessive amounts of radon gas in violation of the Eighth Amendment. These officials are alleged to have been “deliberately indifferent” to inmate safety. A 1993 Supreme Court decision, Helling v. McKiney, clearly established the law in this area, and the Garner facility opened in 1992. The defense clams of limited immunity as to federal law violations were rejected.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Construction Defects Are Occurrences, Says South Carolina High Court
December 20, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe South Carolina Supreme Court has left the legislature’s new, expanded definition of “occurrence” in place, declining to declare it unconstitutional. South Carolina included faulty workmanship as an occurrence in response to a Supreme Court decision, which the court later reversed. One of the parties in that earlier decision, Harleysville Insurance, challenged the new law, claiming that the legislature didn’t have the power to pass a law to overturn a court ruling. The court did not concur.
However, the court did determine that the law was not retroactive and covered only claims filed after the law became effective in May 2011. The Chief Justice of South Carolina noted that “insurance coverage for construction liability lacks clarity, particularly with respect to whether construction defects constitute ‘occurrences’ under construction general insurance policies.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
General Contractors Have Expansive Common Law and Statutory Duties To Provide a Safe Workplace
February 18, 2020 —
Paul R. Cressman Jr. - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCOn November 21, 2019, the Washington Supreme Court handed down its decision in Vargas v. Inland Washington, LLC.[1]
At the time of the incident in May 2013, Mr. Vargas, the plaintiff, was helping pour the concrete walls for what would become a parking garage for an apartment building. He was employed by Hilltop Concrete Construction. Inland Washington was the general contractor, and subcontracted with Hilltop to pour concrete. Hilltop, in turn, entered into agreements with Ralph’s Concrete Pumping and Miles Sand & Gravel to provide a pump truck, certified pump operator, and supply concrete.
A rubber hose carrying concrete whipped Mr. Vargas in the head. It knocked him unconscious and caused a traumatic brain injury.
Vargas, through his guardian ad litem, along with his wife and children, sued Inland Washington, Ralph’s, and Miles.
The trial court initially dismissed on summary judgment Vargas’ claims that Inland Washington was vicariously liable for the acts of Hilltop, Ralph’s, and Miles. Later, the trial court also granted Inland Washington’s motion for summary judgment that it was not directly liable as a matter of law.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Paul R. Cressman Jr., Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Cressman may be contacted at
paul.cressman@acslawyers.com
California Imposes New Disabled Access Obligations on Commercial Property Owners
October 07, 2016 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogThe following article was written by my colleague
David Goldman on the new ADA accessibility legislation which was signed into law this past month by Governor Brown.
Since July 1, 2013, California Civil Code section 1938 has required commercial property owners to disclose in every commercial lease whether the property being leased has been inspected by a Certified Access Specialist (“CASp”). A CASp is an individual certified by the State of California as qualified and knowledgeable of construction-related access to public accommodations by persons with disabilities. In addition to disclosing whether or not the property being leased has been CASp inspected, if a CASp inspection has occurred, the commercial lessor must disclose in the lease whether the premises has or has not met all the applicable construction-related accessibility standards established by law. These lease requirements, along with other disability access obligations, were discussed in an
earlier article written in 2012.
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
Claim Preclusion: The Doctrine Everyone Thinks They Know But No One Really Knows What it Means in Practice
April 25, 2023 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogGenerally, I think restraint in litigation is a good thing. Don’t go crazy on your claims, don’t go nut-so in your discovery, and don’t present your case at trial in a way that causes the judge and/or jury to raise their eyebrows or shake their heads in disbelief. But, as with nearly everything, there’s always an exception. One of which is: don’t hold back on a claim because you “think” you might be able to bring it later, because you might not be able to as the next case, 5th and LA v. Western Waterproofing Company, Inc., 87 Cal.App.5th 781 (2023), demonstrates.
The 5th and LA Case
At the outset, let me first say how much I enjoyed reading this case based on the writing alone. The case, as the 2nd District Court of Appeals states, involves “a second lawsuit about an increasingly leaky roof.”
In 2012, property owner 5th and LA hired roofing contractor Western Waterproofing Company, Inc. to remove and recoat a parking lot that served also served as the roof over retail and office space below. Western completed its work in July 2012 and almost immediately 5th and LA noticed water that the coating was failing causing water leaks to the interior of the building.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
