Mediating is Eye Opening
September 17, 2015 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsAs anyone that reads this construction law blog on any sort of regular basis knows, I am a big advocate for mediation in most cases (construction or otherwise). I took this truly to heard about four years ago when I decided to go through the training and mentorship to become a certified mediator here in Virginia. This training led to many opportunities to act as a mediator in the General District Courts here in Virginia and has recently given me the great privilege of helping parties that were not court referred resolve their disputes.
I’ve discussed this first category of mediations at other times here at Musings, but it is the second category that has opened my eyes lately. The non-court referred mediations are those where the parties actively seek out the assistance of a mediator because they, like me, know that more often than not the control and ability to come to some form of negotiated solution (not to mention short circuiting the litigation process in a way that saves money) is a better way to go than to go through the expensive (though as a construction attorney I acknowledge sometimes necessary) process of litigation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PCMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Construction Contract Basics: No Damages for Delay
May 06, 2024 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsAfter WAY too long a hiatus, I am back with another in my series of “Construction Contract Basics” posts. In past posts, I’ve covered venue provisions, attorney fee provisions, and indemnity clauses. In this post, I’ll share a few thoughts (or “musings”) on the topic of so-called “no damages for delay” clauses. These clauses essentially state that a subcontractor’s only remedy for a delay caused by any factor beyond its control (including the fault of the general contractor), after proper notice to the owner or general contractor, is an extension of time to complete the work.
These types of clauses generally make it impossible for a subcontractor (if found in a Subcontract) or Contractor (if found in a Prime Contract) that is delayed through no fault of its own to recover any damages relating to the expenses that are inevitably caused by such delays. Such expenses/damages could include additional supervisory time (including more high-dollar superintendent payments), acceleration costs, demobilization/mobilization costs, and other related expenses. These can add up to real money. Couple that with the inevitable liquidated damages or delay damages that will occur should a contractor or subcontractor cause any delay, and this becomes a very one-sided proposition.
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
“Good Faith” May Not Be Good Enough: California Supreme Court to Decide When General Contractors Can Withhold Retention
March 22, 2018 —
Erinn Contreras and Joy O. Siu – Construction & Infrastructure Law BlogIt is industry standard in California for owners of a construction project to make monthly payments to a contractor for work it has completed, less a certain percentage that is withheld as a guarantee of future satisfactory performance. This withholding is called a retention. Contractors generally pass these withholdings on to their subcontractors via a retention clause in the subcontract. Under such clause, if a subcontractor fails to complete its work or correct deficiencies in its work, the owner and the general contractor may use the retention to bring the subcontractor’s work into conformance with the requirements of the contract.
When and how retention payments must be released are governed by, among other statutes, Civil Code section 8800
et seq. Specifically, Civil Code section 8814, subdivision (a), states that a direct contractor must pay each subcontractor its share of a retention payment within ten days after the general contractor receives all or part of a retention payment. Failure to make payments in accordance with Section 8814 can subject an owner or a contractor to a (1) two percent penalty per a month on the amount wrongfully withheld, and (2) claim for attorney’s fees for any litigation required to collect the wrongfully withheld retention payments. (Civ. Code, § 8818.)
Reprinted courtesy of
Erinn Contreras, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP and
Joy Siu, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
Ms. Contreras may be contacted at econtreras@sheppardmullin.com
Ms. Siu may be contacted at jsiu@sheppardmullin.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Montana Supreme Court: Insurer Not Bound by Insured's Settlement
December 02, 2019 —
K. Alexandra Byrd - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.In Draggin’ Y Cattle Co., Inc. v. Junkermier, et al.1 the Montana Supreme Court held that where an insurer defends its insured and the insured subsequently settles the claims without an insurer’s participation, a court may approve the settlement as between the underlying plaintiff and underlying defendant, but the settlement will not be presumed reasonable as to the insurer. Therefore, an insurer who defends its insured cannot be bound by a stipulated settlement that the insurer did not expressly consent to.
The case involved Draggin’ Y Cattle Company (the “Cattle Company”), a ranching and cattle business that utilized the services of an accounting firm, Junkermier, Clark, Campanella, Stevens, P.C. (“Junkermier”), to structure the sale of real property to take advantage of favorable tax treatment. It was discovered that Junkermier’s employee misinformed the Cattle Company’s owners of the tax consequences of the sale. The Cattle Company’s owners subsequently filed suit against Junkermier and its employee and alleged nearly $12,000,000 in damages due to the error. Junkermier’s insurer, New York Marine, provided a defense for Junkermier and its employee.
The Cattle Company’s owners offered to settle the claims against Junkermier and its employee for $2,000,000, the policy limit of the New York Marine policy. New York Marine refused to give its consent or tender the policy’s limit. Subsequently, Junkermier, its employee, and the Cattle Company entered into their own settlement agreement for $10,000,000. The settlement was contingent upon a reasonableness hearing to approve the stipulated agreement.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
K. Alexandra Byrd, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Byrd may be contacted by
kab@sdvlaw.com
Definitions Matter in Illinois: Tenant Held Liable Only for Damage to Apartment Unit
September 09, 2024 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn Phila. Indem. Ins. Co. v. Gonzalez, No. 1-23-0833, 2024 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1372, the Appellate Court of Illinois considered whether the terms of a lease agreement limited a tenant’s liability for fire damages, a fire caused by her negligence, to her apartment unit only. The plaintiff insured the subject apartment building, which incurred damage to several units as result of a fire in the tenant’s unit. The lease defined “Premises” as the specific apartment unit occupied by the tenant and held the tenant responsible for damage caused to the Premises. While the court found that the lease permitted the plaintiff to subrogate against the tenant, it held that the lease terms limited the damages to the tenant’s apartment unit only.
In Gonzalez, the plaintiff’s insured owned a multi-unit apartment building in Chicago. In September 2019, the building owner entered into a lease agreement with the defendant for apartment Unit 601. The lease stated that Unit 601 was the “Leased Address (Premises).” Another provision stated that building owner “hereby leases to Tenant(s) and Tenant(s) hereby leases from Landlord(s) for use as a private dwelling only, the Premises, together with the fixtures and appliances (if any) in the premises…” The lease also stated that “Tenant shall be liable for any damage done to the premises as a result of Tenant’s or Tenant’s invitees, guests or others authorized to reside in the Premises [sic] direct action, negligence, or failure to inform Landlord of repairs necessary to prevent damage to the Premises.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and WilliamsMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
“For What It’s Worth”
October 21, 2024 —
Daniel Lund III - LexologyThe legal doctrine of quantum meruit is essentially referring to recovering “for what it’s worth,” incorporating the Latin phrase for “as much as one has deserved.”
Quantum meruit recovery occurs when there is no contract between parties for the particular item for which recovery is sought. Hence, quantum meruit recovery is generally a means of last resort to endeavor to make oneself whole.
So, it was for a subcontractor seeking nearly $14,000,000 for work it performed on a construction project in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. The subcontractor sued on contract as well as quantum meruit/unjust enrichment. The court initially dismissed the quantum meruit/unjust enrichment claims – because there was a contract claim – whereupon the contract claim was dismissed on summary judgment: the subcontractor failed to timely submit change proposals and, consequently, “lost contract remedies available to recover amounts it sought in the change proposals.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
Beam Fracture on Closed Mississippi River Bridge Is at Least Two Years Old
May 31, 2021 —
Jim Parsons - Engineering News-RecordThe Arkansas Dept. of Transportation (ARDOT) has terminated the employee responsible for inspecting the Interstate-40 Mississippi River bridge after two-year-old drone footage revealed the presence of a tie-beam fracture that forced
last week’s emergency shutdown.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Powering Goal Congruence in Construction Through Smart Contracts
February 22, 2021 —
Michael Matthews - Construction ExecutiveThe $814 billion U.S. commercial construction market requires a unique assembly of designers, contractors, subcontractors and suppliers to work together in a highly orchestrated manner to make sure that the right labor, material, equipment, tools and information all comes together at the right place and time. Alignment and coordination between companies is critical for a project to be successful; completed safely, on time, on budget and resulting in an asset that performs as designed.
Yet the industry is slowed by an operating model bogged down by transactional and informational barriers that destroys value across the construction supply chain. Companies are connected through contracts and purchase orders that are undercut by mistrust that yields adversarial relationships and conflicting priorities that result in restricted transparency, elongated payment cycles and an abundance of resource-sucking reconciliations, audits and disputes.
With margins already razor thin, company protectionism cascades down from owners, developers and operators to contractors, subcontractors and suppliers with each player focused on optimizing their piece at the expense of the whole. Perhaps this is part of the reason 98% of megaprojects experience cost overruns or delays, 95% of projects are unable to meet even one business objective; and 70% of all construction projects are not completed within 10% of the proposed budget.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Matthews, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
