The Top 10 Changes to the AIA A201: What You Need to Know
May 24, 2018 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsFor this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Musings, we welcome back Melissa Dewey Brumback. Melissa is a construction law attorney with Ragsdale Liggett in Raleigh, North Carolina. Aside from the fact that she is a UNC grad and fan, she’s okay!
In 2017, as it does every ten years, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) updated most of its standard form contract documents, including the A201 General Conditions. This cycle, the contract changes are evolutionary in nature, not revolutionary. Even so, it is crucial to know the changes to avoid making a fatal mistake that could cost you money on a construction project. In reverse order, the top 10 changes you need to know include:
# 10: Differing Site Conditions
Prior editions of the A201 provided that upon encountering differing site conditions, the Contractor was to promptly provide notice to the Owner and Architect, before the conditions are disturbed, and in no event later than 21 days after the conditions were first observed. A201–2017 shortens the time for notice from 21 to 14 days.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Settlement Agreement? It Ain’t Over ‘Til it’s . . . Final, in Writing, Fully Executed, and Admissible
April 12, 2021 —
Todd Likman - Colorado Construction LitigationAs litigators we have all been there: nearing the end of a hard-fought mediation that lasted all day. Your significant other texts to ask what is for dinner; daycare closes in thirty minutes; the dog needs to be let out. The mediator, a retired judge, gently reminds you of his prior commitment—a speaking engagement at a volunteer charity dinner event that night. Though the parties started the day at opposite ends of the spectrum, after numerous counteroffers, persistent negotiation, and mediation tactics, they finally strike a deal.
As the mediator prepares a document memorializing the terms of settlement, the parties wait with bloodshot eyes, and a sense of guarded accomplishment considering compromises were
made, but alas, an outcome seems certain. You text your significant other to indicate that you will pick something up for dinner on your way home.
Then, the mediator informs you that computer problems are preventing finalization and transmission of the document for signature. The mediator offers to send an e-mail setting forth the material settlement terms and asks each party to respond via e-mail to confirm the terms are correct, which the parties do. After a quick e-mail to your experts and case team asking them to cease trial preparation work, you leave for home.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Todd Likman, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellMr. Likman may be contacted at
likman@hhmrlaw.com
New Jersey Court Rules on Statue of Repose Case
May 26, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFA three-judge panel issued a per curium ruling on May 23 in Fairview Heights Condo. v. Investors (N.J. Super., 2011), a case which the members of a condominium board argued: “that the judge erred by: 1) dismissing plaintiff’s claims against RLI based upon the statute of repose; 2) dismissing the breach of fiduciary duty claims against the Luppinos based upon a lack of expert opinion; 3) barring the testimony of Gonzalez; and 4) barring the May 23, 1989 job site report.” The court rejected all claims from the condominium board.
The court found that the building must be unsafe for the statute of repose to apply. They noted, “the judge made no findings on whether the water seepage, or the property damage caused by such seepage, in any way rendered the building, or any of the units, unsafe.” Further, “without a specific finding on the question of whether the defects had rendered the building ‘unsafe,’ defendants were not entitled to the benefit of the ten-year statute of repose.“
On the second point, the court also upheld the lower court’s findings regarding the management company:
“The report submitted by Berman establishes that the EIFS product was defective in its design and would therefore have failed from the outset. The defects in that product were, according to Berman, not prone to repair or other mitigation. Therefore, even if defendants did not appropriately inspect or repair the EIFS, their failure to do so would have had no impact on the long-term performance of the EIFS exterior cladding. As plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on these questions, the judge properly granted summary judgment to the Luppinos on plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty claim.”
On the final two points, the judges noted “plaintiff maintains that the judge committed reversible error when he excluded the Gonzalez certification and the 1989 job site report prepared by Raymond Brzuchalski.” They saw “no abuse of discretion related to the exclusion of the Gonzalez certification, and reject plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary.” Of the job site report, they found, “no abuse of discretion in the judge's finding that the Brzuchalski 1989 job site report did not satisfy the requirements of N.J.R.E.803(c)(6).”
Read the court’s decision
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
SEC Approves New Securitization Risk Retention Rule with Broad Exception for Qualified Residential Mortgages
November 26, 2014 —
Neil P. Casey & Lori S. Smith – White and Williams LLPThe Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and five other federal agencies recently approved a joint rule (the “Risk Retention Rule”) mandating that sponsors of certain types of securitizations retain a minimum level of credit risk exposure in those transactions and prohibiting such sponsors from transferring or hedging against that retained credit risk.[i]The final Risk Retention Rule will be effective one year after its publication in the Federal Register for securitizations of residential mortgages, and two years after publication for securitizations of all other asset types. The SEC vote was 3-2, with sharp dissents from Commissioners Gallagher and Piwowar concluding that the adopting agencies had missed a prime opportunity to rein in risky mortgage lending practices that had precipitated the 2008 financial crisis.
Background
Following the meltdown of the securitization markets in 2007 (particularly subprime residential mortgage-backed securities), and the resulting global financial crisis, the Dodd-Frank Act mandated that the U.S. federal banking, securities and housing agencies adopt and implement rules to require sponsors of most new securitizations to retain not less than five percent of the credit risk of any assets that the securitizer, through the issuance of an asset-backed security, transfers, sells or conveys to a third party. It was thought that requiring securitization sponsors to keep “skin in the game” would align the interests of the sponsors with the interests of investors and thereby incentivize the sponsors to ensure the quality of the assets underlying the securitization through appropriate due diligence and underwriting procedures when selecting assets for securitization. Although the Dodd-Frank Act explicitly exempted securitizations of certain types of mortgage loans called “qualified residential mortgages” (or “QRMs”) from this risk retention requirement, it invited the rulemaking agencies to define that key term, provided that their definition could be no broader than the definition of “qualified mortgage”adopted by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act.[ii] In considering how to define QRM, the rulemaking agencies were directed by the Dodd-Frank Act to take into consideration “underwriting and product features that historical loan performance data indicate result in a lower risk of default.”[iii]
Reprinted courtesy of
Neil P. Casey, White and Williams LLP and
Lori S. Smith, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Casey may be contacted at caseyn@whiteandwilliams.com; Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Choice of Law Provisions in Construction Contracts
October 07, 2024 —
Victoria Davies - ConsensusDocsIf you have used a ConsensusDocs® construction agreement or another industry association construction agreement for one of your projects, you are accustomed to seeing the laws of the state where the construction project is located as the governing law. There are good reasons for the laws of the state where the project is located to govern the construction agreement for the project. Even if not headquartered in the state, the parties have a presence there by virtue of their participation in the project in the state. Personnel and records that may be needed to resolve a claim may be located in the state. If there are experts that need to be engaged, they will likely need to visit the site. These reasons of efficiency and convenience, alone, may justify the parties’ decision to select the project state’s laws to govern their construction contract. However, there is also the policy interest of the project state, whose laws may even mandate that the project state’s laws govern construction contracts for in-state projects and that the parties resolve their disputes in state as well.
Several states have laws that require construction disputes for projects in the state to be resolved under its laws and/or litigated or arbitrated in the state. Some states require only that its laws govern and do not also require that the dispute resolution take place in the state, but some require both – that its laws govern and the disputes be resolved there. There may be different triggers as to when the statute applies. For example, in some states, the statute applies to any construction contract for a project in the state. In others, the law may only be triggered if one of the parties is domiciled in the state.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Victoria Davies, Jones Walker LLPMs. Davies may be contacted at
vdavies@joneswalker.com
Differing Rulings On Construction Defect Claims Leave Unanswered Questions For Builders, and Construction Practice Groups. Impact to CGL Carriers, General Contractors, Builders Remains Unclear
March 07, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFIn the past year a number of state and federal courts have rendered a number of conflicting decisions that promise to alter or perhaps shift entirely the paradigm, of how builders manage risk.
According to a report today by Dave Lenckus in Property Casualty 360 “Nine state and federal courts and one state legislature over the past year have addressed whether a construction defect a defective product or faulty workmanship is fortuitous and therefore an occurrence under the commercial general liability insurance policy. Four jurisdictions determined it is; three said no; two ruled that a construction defect that causes consequential damage to property other than the work product is an occurrence; and one federal court contributed its conflicting case law that has developed in Oregon since its high court ruled in 2000 that a construction defect is not an occurrence”.
The article strongly suggests that in the absence of a clear consensus over what the recent rulings mean for builders and contractors coverage disputes will intensify and continue to proliferate.
Doing this on a state-by-state basis has caused a lot of confusion among buyers and sellers, said Jeffrey A. Segall, a Tampa-based senior vice president and the Florida Construction Practice leader at Willis of Florida, a unit of Willis Group Holdings.
Read Full Story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rio de Janeiro's Bursting Real-Estate Bubble
September 17, 2015 —
Juan Pablo Spinetto & Peter Millard – BloombergAt opposite ends of downtown Rio de Janeiro, projects tied to Donald Trump and Eike Batista-- one a billionaire-turned-politician, the other Brazil’s most famous ex-billionaire -- have come to represent the city’s real estate bust.
The 23-story Serrador building, a granite-and-glass art deco tower near Rio’s Santos Dumont airport, has sat empty since Batista’s failed empire of commodities companies abandoned it last year. Four miles away, in the city’s gritty port district, an ambitious office project that Trump lent his name to is still nothing more than a weed-filled lot about a year after construction was slated to begin.
Reprinted courtesy of
Juan Pablo Spinetto, Bloomberg and
Peter Millard, Bloomberg Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Negligence Claim Not Barred by Gist of the Action Doctrine
February 18, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the insureds' negligence claim survived because it was not based upon breach of a duty created by the policy, but upon the alleged breach of a duty imposed by tort law. Bruno v. Erie Ins. Co,, 2014 Pa. LEXIS 3319 (Dec. 15, 2014).
After purchasing their home, the insureds obtained a homeowner's policy from Erie. A separate endorsement covered loss to the property caused by "fungi," which was included as any form of mold. The endorsement obligated Erie to pay up to $5,000 for loss caused by mold. The policy required Erie to pay the cost of testing the air to confirm the absence or presence of mold. If mold was present, Erie was to pay for the cost of removal, including the cost of tearing out any part of the property needed to gain access to the mold.
While renovating the basement, the insureds discovered two areas of black mold in close proximity to leaking water pipes. Erie was notified and sent an adjuster to view the mold. The adjuster took no action, but returned a couple of days later with an engineer. The adjuster and engineer informed the insureds that the mold was harmless and that health problems associated with mold were a media frenzy and overblown.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
