DOD Contractors Receive Reprieve on Implementation of Chinese Telecommunications Ban
September 14, 2020 —
Lori Ann Lange & Sabah Petrov - Peckar & AbramsonIn our previous
alert, we discussed the expansion on the Section 889(a)(1)(B) ban on certain Chinese telecommunications equipment and services to contractors and subcontractors who use the equipment and services in their internal operations. Effective August 13, 2020, federal agencies were prohibited from procuring, obtaining, extending, or renewing a contract with a contractor that uses equipment, systems, or services that use covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component or as critical technology, unless an exception applies or a waiver is granted. Since then we have received feedback from contractors, complaining about the difficulties in determining whether their internal operations use covered telecommunications equipment and services and the need for additional time to become compliant or even obtain enough information to submit a waiver request.
Now it seems that Department of Defense (DoD) contractors and subcontractors may be getting a temporary reprieve. The DoD Under Secretary for Acquisition and Sustainment requested a waiver that would allow DoD to continue to execute procurement actions providing supplies, equipment, services, food, clothing, transportation, care, and support necessary to execute the DoD mission. The Director of National Intelligence granted the temporary waiver until September 30, 2020 pending a further review of waiver request. Depending upon the outcome of this additional review, the temporary waiver may be continued beyond September 30, 2020 if it is in the national security interests of the United States.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lori Ann Lange, Peckar & Abramson and
Sabah Petrov, Peckar & Abramson
Ms. Lange may be contacted at llange@pecklaw.com
Ms. Petrov may be contacted at spetrov@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
One to Watch: Case Takes on Economic Loss Rule and Professional Duties
June 28, 2011 —
Douglas Reiser, Builders Council BlogAccording to the Supreme Court of Washington Blog, The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Jackowski v. Hawkins Poe on Thursday, June 16, 2011. The court’s synopsis of the case can be found on the Washington State Court website.
In short, two home purchasers brought a lawsuit against the home’s sellers, the sellers’ agent and the purchasers’ own agent, alleging claims of fraud, fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation and breach of common law and statutory duties. The trial court dismissed the buyers’ claims on the basis of the economic loss doctrine and Division II reversed, opining that the ELR does not apply to professional duties. The Supreme Court will now look at applying the Independent Duty Doctrine established last year, and whether professional duties (those of the real estate agents) should be reviewed under a different light.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court Holds That Self-Insured Retentions Exhaust Vertically And Awards Insured Mandatory Prejudgment Interest in Stringfellow Site Coverage Dispute
October 19, 2017 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn State of California v. Continental Ins. Co. (No. E064518; filed 9/29/17), a California appeals court ruled that after Continental was ultimately held to pay its policy limits for remediation of the Stringfellow hazardous waste site, the insured State of California was entitled to mandatory prejudgment interest on the full amount dating back to 1998, when a federal district court had issued a judgment under F.R.C.P. 54 declaring the State liable under both the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and state law. To get there, the state appeals court held that vertical exhaustion applied to the attachment of Continental’s excess policies.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Terminating the Notice of Commencement (with a Notice of Termination)
July 19, 2017 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThe notice of commencement is important for purposes of construction lien priority. Stock Bldg. Supply of Florida, Inc. v. Soares Da Costa Const. Services, LLC, 76 So.3d 313, 317 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (“[A] notice of commencement serves to determine the priority of liens under the Construction Lien Law.”). A lien relates back in time to the date the notice of commencement was recorded assuming the notice of commencement is still in effect when the lien is recorded (or an amended noticed of commencement is recorded). Lien priority is very important and the reason why a contractor should always want to ensure there is an effective notice of commencement in place rather than an expired notice of commencement.
For the same reasons why a contractor wants to ensure there is an effective notice of commencement, there are times an owner wants to terminate a notice of commencement. An owner may want to terminate the potential priority of a construction lien. For instance, say the owner is refinancing or obtaining a construction loan in the midst of construction. A lender will want to ensure its mortgage maintains first priority and certainly priority over a potential construction lien. Otherwise, why would a lender finance the construction if it does not maintain first priority. It generally will not. Thus, an owner needs to terminate the notice of commencement so that the closing occurs on the loan and the mortgage recorded before a new notice of commencement is recorded and construction continues.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
Dadelstein@gmail.com
Reminder: Know Your Contractor Licensing Rules
January 09, 2023 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIn the course of my construction law practice, I have the pleasure of speaking with and talking to contractors and subcontractors that are based in Virginia and also based in other states. With the more nationalized construction landscape due to the constricted construction economy, I have more and more interaction with the latter category.
When I get a call from an out of state contractor (often when that construction company has an issue), one of my first questions is always whether that contractor has obtained its contractors license here in Virginia. In most cases, the answer is “Yes” and we can move on. However, in some instances, the answer is no and we have to discuss the potential consequences.
Among the consequences for failure to obtain the proper contractor license prior to performing work in Virginia are as follows:
- Inability to record a mechanic’s lien
- Possible criminal charges
- Possible inability to collect for construction work performed
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
Stucco Contractor Trying to Limit Communication in Construction Defect Case
November 13, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFSouth Carolina State Plastering claimed in the South Carolina Court of Appeals that communication between attorneys and residents of a retirement community could undermine the judgment in the case. Residents of Sun City had filed a class action lawsuit over problems with stucco in the community.
Phillip Segul, the plaintiffs’ attorney, noted that plasterer was “directly communicating with the class members and getting them to sign opt-outs and releases of their claims,” although this was something that Everett Kendall, the plasterer’s attorney denied.
The lawsuit has been grinding along for six years. Some residents fear they won’t outlive the construction defect lawsuit.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court of Appeals Issues Decision Regarding Second-Tier Subcontractors and Pre-Lien Notice
February 06, 2023 —
Travis Colburn - Ahlers Cressman & SleightVelazquez Framing, LLC (“Velazquez”) v. Cascadia Homes, Inc. (“Cascadia”) is a Court of Appeals, Division 2 case where the primary issue on appeal was whether a second tier subcontractor was required to provide pre-lien notice under RCW 60.04 for its labor.
The defendant, Cascadia, was the general contractor that planned to build a home on property it owned in Lakewood, Washington.[1] High End Construction, LLC (“High End”), submitted a bid to Cascadia for framing work on the home. High End began work on Cascadia’s home, but later subcontracted with Velazquez to complete the framing work.[2] Velazquez did not submit a prelien notice for its work on Cascadia’s home, and Cascadia claimed it was unaware that High End subcontracted with Velazquez for framing at the project.
High End invoiced Cascadia and was paid for its work, but High End never paid Velazquez. Subsequently, Velazquez recorded a lien for both labor and materials, and later filed a complaint to foreclose its lien. Cascadia, due to the fact Velazquez did not provide it with prelien notice, moved for summary judgment, arguing prelien notice was required under RCW 60.04.031(1)[3] and the labor portion of a lien cannot be segregated where a subcontractor’s lien includes both labor and materials. Velazquez argued that no prelien notice was required under RCW 60.04.021[4] and RCW 60.04.031 and claimed that subcontractors can segregate the labor portion from the materials portion. The trial court granted Cascadia’s motion and ruled Velazquez did not fall within one of the exceptions for prelien notice in RCW 60.04.031(2), and therefore, could not enforce the lien. Velazquez appealed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Travis Colburn, Ahlers Cressman & SleightMr. Colburn may be contacted at
travis.colburn@acslawyers.com
Virginia Allows Condominium Association’s Insurer to Subrogate Against a Condominium Tenant
August 10, 2020 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn Erie Insurance Exchange v. Alba, Rec. No. 190389, 2020 Va. LEXIS 53, the Supreme Court of Virginia considered whether the trial court erred in finding that a condominium association’s property insurance provider waived its right of subrogation against a tenant of an individual unit owner. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision, holding that the insurance policy only named unit owners as additional insureds, not tenants, and thus the subrogation waiver in the insurance policy did not apply to tenants. The court also found that the condominium association’s governing documents provided no protections to the unit owner’s tenant because the tenant was not a party to those documents. This case establishes that, in Virginia, a condominium association’s insurance carrier can subrogate against a unit owner’s tenant where the tenant is not identified as an additional insured on the policy.
The Alba case involved a fire at a condominium building originating in a unit occupied by Naomi Alba (Alba), who leased the condominium under a rental agreement with the unit owner, John Sailsman (Sailsman). The agreement explicitly held Alba responsible for her conduct and the conduct of her guests. An addendum to the lease stated that Sailsman’s property insurance only applied to the “dwelling itself” and that Alba was required to purchase renters insurance to protect her personal property. Along with the rental agreement, Alba received the condominium association’s Rules & Regulations, Declarations and Bylaws.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and WilliamsMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
