Top Talked-About Tech at the 2023 ABC Joint Tech Summit
May 15, 2023 —
Grace Arnold - Construction ExecutiveAt the
2023 ABC Joint Tech Summit in Tysons Corner, Virginia, on April 27, there was talk, of course, of various construction technologies, including AI, VR, autonomous vehicles, impairment detection, digital twins, blockchains and Spot the Robot Dog. All this different tech, however, was discussed for the same two reasons: safety and efficiency.
While some companies are just discovering the vast uses for and benefits of smart technology in construction, other companies are already well into adoption and implementation. Here is a breakdown of some of the contech showcased at the Joint Tech Summit, which was presented by four ABC chapters: Chesapeake Shores, Greater Baltimore, Metro Washington and Virginia.
AUTONOMOUS MACHINES
The talk of the Tech Summit was Spot the Robot Dog from
Boston Dynamics. Spot can walk, run, crawl, climb stairs and tortuous terrain, right itself from a fall, return to its charging port when its battery runs low and is compatible with a variety of add-ons, like 360 cameras. Spot is controlled via tablet and can be programmed to run on its own, allowing for increased worker and jobsite safety and productivity.
Reprinted courtesy of
Grace Arnold, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Common Law Indemnity Claim Affirmed on Justifiable Beliefs
June 30, 2016 —
Rick Erickson – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogYesterday, the Arizona Court of Appeals issued an interesting opinion in Hatch Development v. Solomon. Hatch illustrated two key points in real estate and construction litigation: (1) a contractor’s indemnity does not always require an expressly written obligation; and (2) when facts are undisputed that a contractor is solely at fault for a construction defect, a property owner can be indemnified after paying a neighboring property owner for damages caused by the contractor’s defective work.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rick Erickson, Snell & WilmerMr. Erickson may be contacted at
rerickson@swlaw.com
Statutory Bad Faith and an Insured’s 60 Day Notice to Cure
April 11, 2018 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent case came out in favor of an insured and against a first-party property insurer in the triggering of a statutory bad faith action. Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal in Demase v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D679a (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
held that if an insurer pays a claim after the 60-day notice to cure period provided by Florida Statute s. 624.155(3), this “constitutes a determination of an insurer’s liability for coverage and extent of damages under section 624.155(1)(b) even when there is no underlying action.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
Claims for Negligence? Duty to Defend Triggered
July 09, 2019 —
Michael S. Levine & Adriana A. Perez - Hunton Andrews KurthOn June 17, 2019, the First Circuit held that an insurer’s duty to defend was triggered because the underlying complaint set forth claims that required a showing of intent as well as claims that sought recovery for conduct that “fits comfortably within the definition of an ‘accident.’” In Zurich American Ins. Co v. Electricity Maine, LLC, Zurich sought declaratory judgment that, under a D&O policy, it had no duty to defend the insured, Electricity Maine, an electrical utility company being sued in the underlying class action. Zurich argued it had no duty to defend because the underlying complaint failed to allege that Electricity Maine engaged in conduct that qualified as an “occurrence” or that caused “bodily injury” under the terms of the policy. The First Circuit disagreed.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Adriana A. Perez, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Ms. Perez may be contacted at aperez@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Courts Favor Arbitration in Two Recent Construction Dispute Cases
November 21, 2018 —
Jason Plaza - The Subrogation StrategistRecent court decisions have signaled the courts’ proclivity to prefer arbitration over full-fledged litigation when provisions in construction contracts are called into question. While the courts recognize a party’s constitutional right to a jury trial, the courts also lean strongly towards resolving disputes via arbitration as a matter of public policy, especially if a construction contract carves out arbitration as an alternative to litigation.
In Avr Davis Raleigh v. Triangle Constr. Co., 818 S.E.2d 184 (N.C. App. 2018), the North Carolina Appeals Court reviewed the issue of whether the contracting parties selected binding arbitration as an alternative to litigation. The contract at issue was an AIA A201-2007 form document. Under the terms of the contract, the parties elected to arbitrate claims under $500,000 but to litigate claims over this amount. However, if there were several claims under $500,000 but the aggregate of all claims exceeded $500,000, then the contract implied that all claims would be arbitrated. Since the claims involved were an amalgamation of the two, the contracting parties disagreed about whether the arbitration provision would apply. The plaintiff interpreted this provision to mean litigation was mandatory when at least one claim exceeded $500,000 and that arbitration was mandatory when no single claim exceeded this amount. In contrast, the defendant interpreted this provision as meaning that when there were several claims worth less than $500,000 individually, but more than $500,000 aggregately, then all claims must be arbitrated. The trial court agreed with the plaintiff’s interpretation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Plaza, White & Williams LLP
Tort Claims Against an Alter Ego May Be Considered an Action “On a Contract” for the Purposes of an Attorneys’ Fees Award under California Civil Code section 1717
April 12, 2021 —
Tony Carucci - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogCalifornia Civil Code section 1717 entitles the prevailing party to attorneys’ fees “[i]n any action on a contract,” where the contract provides for an award of attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party, regardless of whether the prevailing party is the party specified in the contract or not. But what about an action that alleges tort causes of action against an alter ego of a contracting party but that does not include a breach of contract claim against the alter ego? This was the question facing the California Court of Appeal in 347 Group, Inc. v. Philip Hawkins Architect, Inc. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 209.
In that case, the plaintiff 347 Group sued and obtained a default judgment for breach of contract against defendant Philip Hawkins Architect, Inc. Id. at 211–12. 347 Group had also sued Philip Hawkins individually as well as Design-Build, Inc., the company Hawkins founded after putting Philip Hawkins Architect, Inc. into bankruptcy. Id. at 212. 347 Group originally alleged claims for breach of contract, fraudulent conveyance, and conspiracy against Hawkins and Design-Build, seeking to establish that Hawkins and Design-Build were the alter egos of the contracting party, Philip Hawkins Architect, Inc., but later dismissed the breach of contract claim. Id. Hawkins and Design-Build eventually prevailed on the tort causes of action, and moved for attorneys’ fees. Id.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tony Carucci, Snell & WilmerMr. Carucci may be contacted at
acarucci@swlaw.com
Mitigating the Consequences of Labor Unrest on Construction Projects
February 14, 2023 —
Cameron Lukas, Alan Winkler & Gregory Begg - ConsensusDocsUntil this past year, we have enjoyed an era of relative labor stability. It’s true, however, that labor unrest frequently coincides with inflationary pressure on prices, something that we are currently experiencing. The recent nationwide rail workers strike was averted only through the extraordinary intervention of the federal government. More recently, thousands of academic workers in the University of California system went on strike. Underscoring this development was a November 2022 New York Times article reporting that polls showed the highest level of support for organized labor since the 1960s. The same article also quoted a professor of labor relations warning that the current economy presents a high potential for strikes. This recalls the sixties and seventies when increased costs due to inflation led to a multitude of strikes.
The construction industry has been historically strike-prone with approximately 22% of all strikes during the 1960s involving construction projects, contrasted with the fact that construction workers themselves accounted for only roughly 5% of the nation’s nonagricultural labor force. Incredibly, in 1969 alone, a record number of nearly 1,000 construction strikes occurred nationwide with 20 million worker days lost, more than five times the lost working time of the rest of the economy.
[1]
Reprinted courtesy of
Cameron Lukas, Peckar & Abramson, P.C,
Alan Winkler, Peckar & Abramson, P.C and
Gregory Begg, Peckar & Abramson, P.C
Mr. Lukas may be contacted at clukas@pecklaw.com
Mr. Winkler may be contacted at awinkler@pecklaw.com
Mr. Begg may be contacted at gbegg@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A Termination for Convenience Is Not a Termination for Default
April 22, 2024 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA termination for convenience is NOT a termination for default. They are NOT the same. They should NOT be treated as the same. I am a huge proponent of termination for convenience provisions because sometimes a party needs to be able to exercise a termination for convenience, but the termination is not one that rises to a basis for default. However, exercising a termination for convenience does not mean you get to go back in time and convert the termination for convenience into a termination for default. It does not work like that. Nor should it.
An opinion out of the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals – Williams Building Company, Inc. v. Department of State, CBCA 7147, 2024 WL 1099788 (CBCA 2024 – demonstrates a fundamental distinction between a termination for convenience and a termination for default, i.e., that you don’t get to conjure up defaults when you exercise a termination for convenience:
Because a termination for convenience essentially turns a fixed-price construction contract into a cost-reimbursement contract, allowing the contractor to recover its incurred performance costs, the resolution of this appeal will involve identifying the total costs that [Contractor] incurred in performing this contract before [Government] terminated it for convenience. Since [Government] terminated the contract for convenience rather than for default, it no longer matters whether, in the past,[Contractor] acted intentionally in overstating the amount of its incurred costs or committed a contract breach. Ultimately, as permitted in response to a termination for convenience, [Contractor] will recover those allowable costs that [Contractor]establishes it incurred in performing the contract.
Williams Building Company, supra.
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
