The Requirement to State a “Sum Certain” No Longer a Jurisdictional Bar to Government Contract Claims
November 13, 2023 —
Marcos R. Gonzalez - ConsensusDocsThe Boards of Contract Appeals, Court of Federal Claims, and the Federal Circuit have long held that the elements of a claim under the Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”) to be jurisdictional. Those requirements are as follows:
(a) Claims generally.–
(1) Submission of contractor’s claims to contracting officer.–Each claim by a contractor against the Federal Government relating to a contract shall be submitted to the contracting officer for a decision.
(2) Contractor’s claims in writing.—Each claim by a contractor against the Federal Government relating to a contract shall be in writing.
(3) Contracting officer to decide Federal Government’s claims.–Each claim by the Federal Government against a contractor relating to a contract shall be the subject of a written decision by the contracting officer.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Marcos R. Gonzalez, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Mr. Gonzalez may be contacted at
mgonzalez@pecklaw.com
Insurer Must Pay for Matching Siding of Insured's Buildings
December 02, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Seventh Circuit found that the insurer was obligated to pay for siding of a building that was not damaged by hail so that it matched the replaced damaged portions of the siding. Windridge of Naperville Condominium Association v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. App. 23607 (7th Cir. Aug. 7, 2019).
A hail and wind storm damaged buildings owned by Windridge. The storm physically damaged the aluminum siding on the buildings' sought and west sides. Philadelphia Indemnity, Windridge's insurer, contended that it was only required to replace the siding on those sides. Windridge argued that replacement siding that matched the undamaged north and east elevations was no longer available, so Philadelphia had to replace the siding on all four sides of the buildings to that all of the siding matched.
Windridge sued and moved for summary judgment. The district court ruled that matching was required. The only sensible result was to treat the damage as having occurred to the building's siding as a whole.
The policy was a replacement-cost policy. Philadelphia promised to "pay for direct physical 'loss' to 'Covered Property' caused by or resulting from" the storm, with the amount of loss being "the cost to replace the lost or damaged property with other property . . . of comparable material and quality . . . and . . . used for the same purpose." The loss payment provision offered four different measures for loss, leaving Philadelphia free to choose the least expensive: (1) pay the value of the lost or damaged property; (2) pay the cost of repairing or replacing the lost or damaged property; (3) take all or any part of the property at an agreed or appraised value; or (4) repair, rebuild or replace the property with other property of like kind and quality.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Court Says KBR Construction Costs in Iraq were Unreasonable
August 27, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFMike Bosse of Bernstein Shur, analyzed a case involving Kellogg Brown and Root Services Inc. (KBR) and the U.S. Army for services that KBR provided during Operation Iraqi Freedom, according to JDSupra Business Advisor: “The court case involved KBR’s construction of dining facility services near Mosul, Iraq under a cost-plus fee arrangement. Under this contractual arrangement, all allowable costs were reimbursed by the government plus the contractor was paid an additional fee.”
KBR first started on a prefabricated metal dining hall that would serve 2,500 people, but part way into building they were told to stop construction and to instead start on a new reinforced concrete building that would serve almost three times as many people.
“After construction was finished, a defense contract auditing agency suspended some of the payments to KBR and instead of the $12.5 million it expected to receive, KBR was paid only $6.7 million,” reported JDSupra Business Advisor. “After trial, the court concluded KBR did not meet its burden to show the costs it incurred were reasonable under the circumstances.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California’s Skilled and Trained Workforce Requirements: Public Works and AB 3018, What You Need to Know
December 09, 2019 —
Brenda Radmacher & Nicholas Krebs - Gordon & Rees Construction Law BlogDo you have the proper skilled and trained workforce for your construction projects? If you take on public works projects in California, you may not be in compliance with the new changes in the law. To avoid civil penalties or nonpayment and potentially being precluded from future bids on public works contracts, you must critically review your team and proposal prior to accepting an award. Once awarded a public contact requiring a skilled and trained workforce, diligent reporting practices and oversight are required to maintain compliance.
Compliance with California’s skilled and trained workforce requirements for contractors, engineers, architects, design professionals, and suppliers competing for public works construction projects in California is mandated through enforcement with the enactment of AB 3018. Signed by Governor Brown in his last legislative session, AB 3018 dramatically increased the penalties for non-compliance with the existing skilled and trained workforce requirements in California. The new penalties include civil fines by the Labor Commissioner up to $10,000 per month per non-compliant contractor, disqualification from bidding on future public works contract, and withholding of payment for delinquent contractors. This update provides information on California’s skilled and trained workforce requirements, identifies key issues on compliance to avoid penalties, and discusses the impact of enforcement on construction professionals’ business practices.
Reprinted courtesy of
Brenda Radmacher, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani and
Nicholas Krebs, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
Ms. Radmacher may be contacted at bradmacher@grsm.com
Mr. Krebs may be contacted at nkrebs@grsm.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Professional Services Exclusion in CGL Policies
December 05, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA professional services exclusion in a commercial general liability policy means something. It’s an exclusion an insurer will rely on to avoid insurance coverage based on “professional services” performed or rendered by the insured. Don’t take it from me. Take it from the recent opinion in Colony Insurance Company v. Coastal Construction Management, LLC, 2022 WL 16636697 (M.D.Fla. 2022) where the trial court granted a commercial general liability insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings based on the professional services exclusion.
Here, an owner sued, among other parties, an entity performing only construction management services based on construction defects at its project. The construction manager did not perform any design or physical construction. It was hired to make site inspections of the construction, review construction quality and finish standards, ensure workmanship quality, coordinate the punchlist process, and supervise management and administration of the project.
The construction manager’s commercial general liability insurer sued for declaratory relief claiming it owed no duty to defend or indemnify based on the professional services exclusion.
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
Bert L. Howe & Associates Brings Professional Development Series to Their San Antonio Office
March 28, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFMirroring similar seminars currently provided in other regional markets, BHA’s Professional Development Series provides seminar attendees with a heightened level of knowledge and understanding on a wide range of subjects covering construction and construction defect litigation, tailored to the unique needs of local counsel and insureds.
The first seminar in this series will be presented on May 9th, and is entitled THE RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION PROCESS & CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LITIGATION.
This course has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of Texas Committee on MCLE in the amount of 1.0 credit hours, of which 0.0 credit hours will apply to legal ethics/professional responsibility credit.
The seminar will be presented by Don MacGregor, general contractor and project manager, at BHA’s San Antonio office during the noontime hour, and luncheon will be provided. As with all BHA Professional Development activities, there is no cost for participation.
Water intrusion through doors, windows and roofing systems, as well as soil and foundation-related movement, and the resultant damage associated therewith, are the triggering effects for the vast majority of homeowner complaints today and serve as the basis for most residential construction defect litigation.
The graphic and animation-supported workshop/lecture activity will focus on the residential construction process from site preparation through occupancy, an examination of associated damages most often encountered when investigating construction defect claims, and the inter-relationships between the developer, general contractor, sub trades and design professionals.
Typical plaintiff homeowner/HOA expert allegations will be examined in connection with those building components most frequently associated with construction defect and claims litigation.
The workshop will examine:
* Typical construction materials, and terminology associated with residential construction
* The installation process and sequencing of major construction elements, including interrelationship with other building assemblies
* The parties (subcontractors) typically associated with major construction assemblies and components
* The various ASTM standard testing protocols utilized to field test buildings
* An analysis of exposure/allocation to responsible parties
Attendance at THE RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION PROCESS & CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LITIGATION seminar will provide the attendee with:
* A greater understanding of the terms and conditions encountered when dealing with common construction defect issues
* A greater understanding of contractual scopes of work encountered when reviewing construction contract documents
* The ability to identify, both quickly and accurately, potentially responsible parties
* An understanding of damages most often associated with construction defects, as well as a greater ability to identify conditions triggering coverage
* Assistance in the satisfaction of important continuing education requirements.
Course #: 901290467 / Sponsor #: 14152
To register for the event, please email Don MacGregor at dmac@berthowe.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Congratulations 2019 DE, MA, NJ, NY and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars
December 09, 2019 —
White and Williams LLPFifteen White and Williams lawyers have been named by Super Lawyers as a Delaware, New Jersey or Pennsylvania "Super Lawyer" while eight received "Rising Star" designations. Each lawyer who received the distinction competed in a rigorous selection process which took into consideration peer recognition and professional achievement. The lawyers named to this year's Super Lawyer list represent a multitude of practices throughout the firm.
Super Lawyers 2019
John Balaguer, PI Defense: Med Mal
David Chaffin, Business Litigation
Kevin Cottone, PI Defense: Med Mal
Steven Coury, Real Estate: Business
John Eagan, Tax: Business
Randy Friedberg, Intellectual Property
Bridget La Rosa, Estate Planning & Probate
Christopher Leise, Civil Litigation: Defense
Randy Maniloff, Insurance Coverage
David Marion, Business Litigation
John McCarrick, Insurance Coverage
Peter Mooney, Business Litigation
Michael Olsan, Insurance Coverage
John Orlando, General Litigation
Wesley Payne, Insurance Coverage
Daryn Rush, Insurance Coverage
Anthony Salvino, Workers’ Comp
Patricia Santelle, Insurance Coverage
Jay Shapiro, Business Litigation
Heidi Sorvino, Bankruptcy: Business
Craig Stewart, Business Litigation
Andrew Susko, Civil Litigation: Defense
Robert Wright, Insurance Coverage
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams LLP
Harmon Towers Duty to Defend Question Must Wait, Says Court
March 01, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Harmon Towers project in Las Vegas was eventually halted short of the planned forty-seven stories after “it was determined that there was substantial defective construction, including defective installation of reinforcing steel throughout the Harmon.” The American Home Insurance Company and Lexington Insurance Company put forth a claim that they had no duty to defend Perini Construction, the builder of the defective Harmon Towers. Further, American Home seeks to recover the monies American reimbursed Perini. The United States District Court of Nevada ruled in the case of American Home Assurance Co. v. Perini Building on February 3, 2012.
The two insurance companies covered Perini and its subcontractors, Century Steel, Pacific Coast Steel, and Ceco Concrete Construction. Century Steel was the initial subcontractor for the reinforcing steel; they were later acquired by Pacific Coast Steel. In this current case, Perini Construction is the sole defendant.
Perini sought a dismissal of these claims, arguing that without the subcontractors joined to the case, “the Court cannot afford complete relief among existing parties.” The court rejected this claim, noting that the court can determine the duties of the insurance companies to Perini, which the court described as “separate and distinct from those of the subcontractors.” The subcontractors “have not claimed an interest in the subject matter of the action.” The court concluded that it could determine whether Perini was entitled or not to coverage without affecting the subcontractors. The court rejected Perini’s claim.
Perini also asked the court to abstain from the case, arguing that it was better heard in a state court. The court noted that several considerations cover whether a case is heard in state or federal courts. The court noted that if the case weighed heavily on state law, the state courts would be the obvious location. Further, if there were a parallel action in the state courts, “there is a presumption that the whole suit should be heard in state courts.” This is, however, no parallel state suit, although the court noted that Perini has “threatened” to do so.
However, the issue of who is to blame for the problems at Harmon Towers has not been resolved. The court concluded that until the “underlying action” was concluded, it was premature to consider the issues raised in this case while the earlier lawsuit was still in progress. The court denied Perini’s motion to dismiss the case. Given that the outcome of the earlier construction defect case may lead to further litigation in state court, the District Court granted Perini’s motion to abstain, but staying their judgment until the construction defect case is resolved.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
