Understand and Define Key Substantive Contract Provisions
March 23, 2020 —
Phillip L. Sampson Jr. & Richard F. Whiteley, Construction ExecutiveThe following contract provisions should be clearly understood before undertaking any construction project commences.
Force Majeure
Often referred to as an “Act of God,” a force majeure is an event, typically beyond the parties’ control, that prevents performance under a contract. To determine if a contractor need a force majeure clause in its contract, it should ask whether there may be instances where events beyond the contractor’s control could impact its contractual performance? If so, it will want this clause.
Courts currently treat force majeure as an issue of contractual interpretation, focusing on the express language in the contract. Consequently, the scope and applicability of a force majeure clause depends on the contract’s terms. Using broad language in a force majeure clause may help protect against unforeseen events. But to the extent possible, parties should describe with particularity the circumstances intended to constitute a force majeure.
The law relating to force majeure also fairly consistently provides that parties cannot avoid contractual obligations because performance has become economically burdensome. Courts have refused to apply force majeure clauses where an event only affects profitability. Recent attempts to categorize tariffs on construction materials as a force majeure have failed. Unless a tariff or tax is specifically listed as a force majeure event, it is unlikely to constitute a force majeure because it only affects profitability.
Reprinted courtesy of
Phillip L. Sampson Jr. & Richard F. Whiteley, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hurricane Handbook: A Policyholder's Guide to Handling Claims during Hurricane Season
October 11, 2021 —
Tracy Alan Saxe, Kelly A. Johnson, Samantha M. Oliveira & R. G. Nelson - Saxe Doernberger & VitaSDV's Natural Disaster Recovery Group presents the Hurricane Handbook: A Policyholder's Guide to Handling Claims during Hurricane Season. This handbook intends to be a practical guide on policyholder issues, both homeowners and business owners alike, when preparing for hurricane season and handling claims after a loss due to a hurricane. The handbook is a living document that will evolve over time, as our Natural Disaster Recovery Group members continue to contribute new and expansive content on the complex issues arising in this area. Remember to check back for additional information and updated content regarding the Hurricane Season Policyholder’s Handbook.
I. Are You Adequately Insured for a Hurricane?
Understanding the various types of coverage policyholders can purchase is vital to weathering the financial storm following a natural disaster.
Reprinted courtesy of
Tracy Alan Saxe, Saxe Doernberger & Vita,
Kelly A. Johnson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita,
Samantha M. Oliveira, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and
R. G. Nelson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Saxe may be contacted at TSaxe@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Johnson may be contacted at KJohnson@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Oliveira may be contacted at SOliveira@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Nelson may be contacted at RNelson@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court Rejects Anti-SLAPP Motion in Construction Defect Suit
September 01, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe California Court of Appeals has upheld the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion in Claredon American Insurance Company v. Bishop, Barry, Howe, Haney & Ryder. This case was triggered by a water intrusion problem at a condominium complex, the Terraces at Emerystation, built and sold by Wareham Development Corporation. The insurer, Claredon, retained Risk Enterprise Management as the third party claims administrator. REM retained the law firm Bishop, Barry, Howe, Haney & Ryder. The construction defect case was settled in 2007 and the condo owners moved back by early 2008.
Due to issues with the claims settlement, Claredon filed against REM for “professional negligence, indemnity, apportionment and contribution,” with a cross-complaint that the cross-defendants negligently defended the developer, Wareham.
In response, the cross-defendants filed a motion to strike the cross-complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court denied this motion and now this has been upheld by the appeals court.
The court noted that “The fundamental thrust of the cross-complaint is not protected litigation-related speech and petitioning activity undertaken on another’s behalf in a judicial proceeding.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Suppliers of Inherently Dangerous Raw Materials Remain Excluded from the Protections of the Component Parts Doctrine
December 02, 2015 —
Leah B. Mason & Michael J. Worth – Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLPIn Brady v. Calsol, Inc. 2015 No. B262028, the California Court of Appeal, Second District, reversed summary judgment for a raw materials supplier where there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the benzene levels contained in the supplier’s mineral spirits could have caused plaintiffs’ leukemia.
Plaintiffs were mechanics Ernest Brady and David Gibbs, who used Safety-Kleen solvent to degrease automotive parts. Brady and Gibbs were diagnosed with leukemia allegedly caused by exposure to Safety-Kleen solvent during the course of their employment. In 2008, Plaintiffs sued Calsol, Inc., a distributor of mineral spirits for the ultimate manufacturer, Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc. Plaintiffs asserted negligence and strict products liability claims. Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that benzene, a carcinogen found in mineral spirits, caused their leukemia. Benzene is only carcinogenic to humans at certain levels. The parties dispute the levels of benzene found in the mineral spirits supplied to Safety-Kleen. Calsol contended the benzene levels were present only in low concentrations. Plaintiffs alleged the benzene levels were capable of causing injury.
Reprinted courtesy of
Leah B. Mason, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Michael J. Worth, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Mason may be contacted at lmason@hbblaw.com
Mr. Worth may be contacted at mworth@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Paycheck Protection Flexibility Act Of 2020: What You Need to Know
July 20, 2020 —
Amy R. Patton & Rana Ayazi - Payne & FearsOn June 5, 2020, President Trump signed into legislation the bipartisan bill titled the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020 (PPPFA). The PPPFA modifies the Paycheck Protection Program, which was first introduced under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). The modifications provide borrowers more control over the use of funds and make it easier to obtain forgiveness. The following is a summary of the key changes.
1. Extended Maturity Date From 2 Years to 5 Years
Under the CARES Act, the minimum maturity date for loan amounts after the forgiveness period was not defined. The Small Business Administration (SBA) then released an Interim Final Rule clarifying that the minimum maturity date was two years. The PPPFA has extended the term to five years: “The covered loan shall have a minimum maturity of 5 years and a maximum maturity of 10 years from the date on which the borrower applies for loan forgiveness under that section.”
2. Extension of Covered Period From Eight Weeks to a Maximum of 24 Weeks
Under the CARES Act, the covered period of the loan (i.e., the time period in which you may spend the loan funds) was February 15, 2020 to June 30, 2020, an eight-week period. The PPPFA extended the covered period to 24 weeks from the origination date of the loan, or December 31, 2020, whichever is earlier.
Reprinted courtesy of
Amy R. Patton, Payne & Fears and
Rana Ayazi, Payne & Fears
Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com
Ms. Ayazi may be contacted at ra@paynefears.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Timely and Properly Assert Affirmative Defenses and Understand Statutory Conditions Precedent
August 05, 2024 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent case serves as a reminder to TIMELY and PROPERLY assert affirmative defenses and to understand statutory conditions precedent to construction lien claims. Failing to do one or the other could be severely detrimental to the position you want to take in a dispute, whether it is a lien foreclosure dispute, or any other dispute.
In Scherf v. Tom Krips Construction, Inc., 2024 WL 3297592 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024), the president of a construction company and his wife were building a residence. They orally accepted the proposal from the concrete shell contractor and asked for invoices to be submitted to the president’s construction company. No written contract was memorialized. The president and his wife did not pay the concrete shell contractor and the contractor recorded a lien and sued to foreclose on the lien. Years later (the case had been stayed because the president and his wife filed for bankruptcy and the shell contractor had to get leave of the automatic bankruptcy stay to pursue the lien foreclosure), the shell contractor moved for summary judgment. The president and his wife moved for leave to file an amended answer and affirmative defenses. They claimed the oral contract was with the construction company and the shell contractor was required to serve a Notice to Owner under
Florida Statute s. 713.06. Alternatively, they argued that if the oral contract was with the president and his wife, the shell contractor was required to serve a Final Contractor’s Payment Affidavit at least 5 days before filing its lien foreclosure claim, and did not, as required by s. 713.06.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Reporting Requirements for Architects under California Business and Professions Code Section 5588
December 22, 2019 —
Jordan Golden - Gordon & Rees Construction Law BlogBelow is an overview of the changes to California Business and Professions Code Section 5588 and its effect on the reporting requirements, for architects, in the construction industry.
Section 5588 Prior to 2005 Legislative Changes
Section 5588 of the California Business and Professions Code sets forth the reporting requirements for many business professionals including architects. Since 1979, Section 5588 has required architects and their insurers to report to the California Architect Board (the Board) “any settlement or arbitration award in excess of five thousand dollars ($ 5,000) of a claim or action for damages caused by the license holder’s fraud, deceit, negligence, incompetency, or recklessness in practice.”1
The language of the code section left open for interpretation the question of what types of settlement claims must be reported to the Board. Thus, in 2004, the Attorney General of the State of California published an opinion stating that a reportable settlement includes “any agreement resolving all or part of a demand for money which is based upon an insured architect’s alleged wrongful conduct.”2 He then went on to conclude that the only qualifications placed on the term “claim” for purposes of Section 5588 is that “(1) the demand be premised on the license holder’s alleged ‘fraud, deceit, negligence, incompetency, or recklessness in practice,’ and (2) the value of the claim, as measured by the settlement amount or arbitration award, exceeds $5,000.”3
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jordan Golden, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
Proposed Changes to Federal Lease Accounting Standards
January 19, 2017 —
Susan Elliott & Lori A. Lange - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.The Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) has proposed amendments to federal lease accounting standards found within Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standard (SFFAS) 5, ‘Accounting of Liabilities of the Federal Government,’ and SFFAS 6, ‘Accounting for Property, Plant, and Equipment,’ promulgated by FASAB. The proposals would require entities leasing property to the federal government, such as private landlords, to recognize a lease receivable and deferred revenue at the beginning of the lease term (except on intragovernmental or short-term leases). The proposals are slated to take eff ect in reporting periods following September 30, 2018.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE DUE JANUARY 6, 2017.
The federal government is one of the largest tenants in the country. The General Services Administration (GSA) alone leases space to house over 600,000 government workers. GSA has over 8,000 leases throughout the U.S.
Reprinted courtesy of
Susan Elliott, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Lori A. Lange, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Ms. Elliott may be contacted at selliott@pecklaw.com
Ms. Lange may be contacted at llange@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
