Ruling Finds Builder and Owners at Fault in Construction Defect Case
December 30, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFA Minnesota home owners association has been found 30liable for some of the damage to their homes in a jury trial. The Interlachen Propertyowners Association made a claim of construction defects against Keupers Architects and Builders who had constructed the 24-unit town home complex. According to the association’s lawyer, the half-log siding was improperly installed, leading to water intrusion and rot.
The jury did find for the homeowners on the construction defect claim, but found on a claim of negligent repairs that the association was 30% at fault, due to insufficient maintenance of the building. “We don’t think any amount of maintenance would have saved these buildings,” said Jason Tarasek, the lawyer for the association. The association is likely to appeal.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Corps of Engineers to Prepare EIS for Permit to Construct Power Lines Over Historic James River
May 01, 2019 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelOn March 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decided National Parks Conservation Assoc. v. Todd T. Simonite, Lieutenant General, et al. The case involves an application to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for a construction permit to build electric power lines over the “historic James River, from whose waters Captain John Smith explored the New World.”
The Corps concluded after reviewing the thousands of comments submitted to it in connection with this application, and after considering the views of several government agencies and conservation groups, that an Environment Impact Statement (EIS) was not required, and that its Environmental Assessment assured the Corps that the project would not result is significant environmental impacts. The Court of Appeals has concluded that, based on this evidence, the Corps’ refusal to prepare an EIS thoroughly discussing all these points was arbitrary and capricious. The Corps has been ordered to prepare the EIS and to take special note of its obligations under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), the Clean Water Act (CWA) and its obligations under the National Historic Preservation Act.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
New Hampshire’s Statute of Repose for Improvements to Real Property Does Not Apply to Product Manufacturers
April 22, 2019 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn United Services Automobile Association v. Broan-Nutone, LLC, No. 218 2017 CV 01113, [1] the Superior Court of Rockingham County, New Hampshire recently considered whether the eight-year statute of repose for improvements to real property applied to the manufacturer of a ceiling ventilation fan that was installed in the property during its original construction. The court held that New Hampshire’s statute of repose did not apply to the manufacturer because it was not involved in incorporating its product into the property.
In 2012, Chad St. Francis purchased a home in Northwood, New Hampshire. The home was originally constructed in 2008, at which time a Broan-Nutone ceiling ventilation fan was installed in the first-floor bathroom. In 2016, a fire occurred at the home. United Services Automobile Association (USAA) provided property casualty insurance for the home and paid Mr. St. Francis for the damage. In 2017, USAA filed a subrogation lawsuit against Broan-Nutone, alleging that its ceiling fan caused the fire due to a design defect within the product. Broan-Nutone filed a motion for summary judgment on grounds that USAA’s action was barred by New Hampshire’s statute of repose for improvements to real property.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and Williams LLPMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
Subcontractors Must be Careful Providing Bonds when General Contractor Does Not
April 05, 2017 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsAfter I wrote the title to this post, I thought, “Well, that says it all, doesn’t it?” I also considered the fact that for those that read this construction law blog on a regular basis, I am likely stating the obvious. I then thought about the fact that there can be confusion regarding the purpose of bonds versus insurance. Couple this with the fact that Murphy was an optimist, and I thought this would be a good reminder.
Bonds and insurance have one fundamental difference between them. When your construction company buys insurance, that insurance is meant to protect your company. When your company provides a payment and/or performance bond, that bond is there not to protect your company but to protect everyone else on the job and the project itself. Where insurance will pay for your company’s qualifying errors so that that money does not come out of the bottom line, a bond contract will have an indemnification agreement whereby anything paid by the surety will then be reimbursed by you and your company dollar for dollar (as opposed to just the premium).
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
Force Majeure Under the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic
March 08, 2021 —
Lindsay T. Watkins - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCAs COVID-19 disrupts work and life as we know it, the question many contractors have is what protections are available against the inevitable project impacts and delays? Generally, construction contracts require a contractor to timely perform work until project completion or potentially face damages (liquidated or actual) and possible termination. When events occur, however, that are beyond our control (such as a national pandemic), it is important to review and understand what contract provisions or avenues are available for potential relief.
1.
Review Your Contract For A Force Majeure Provision.
A
“force majeure” contract provision is commonly included in construction contracts, service agreements, purchase orders, etc. It typically covers events or conditions that can be neither anticipated nor controlled. These provisions, however, will vary greatly from contract to contract and may not include the language “force majeure” but rather may be included in general delay or impact clauses. For example, some common provisions include:
- Washington State Department of Transportation Clause (2018 Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction): The Contractor shall rebuild, repair, restore, and make good all damages to any portion of the permanent or temporary Work occurring before the Physical Completion Date and shall bear all the expense to do so, except damage to the permanent Work caused by: (a) acts of God, such as earthquake, floods, or other cataclysmic phenomenon of nature, or (b) acts of the public enemy or of governmental authorities; or (c) slides in cases where Section 2-03.3(11) is applicable; Provided, however, that these exceptions shall not apply should damages result from the Contractor’s failure to take reasonable precautions or to exercise sound engineering and construction practices in conducting the Work.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lindsay T. Watkins, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMs. Watkins may be contacted at
Lindsay.Watkins@acslawyers.com
Dust Obscures Eleventh Circuit’s Ruling on “Direct Physical Loss”
October 12, 2020 —
Walter J. Andrews, Michael S. Levine & Daniel Hentschel - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogOn August 18, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a District Court’s 2018 ruling that Sparta Insurance Company need not cover a south Florida restaurant’s lost income and extra expenses resulting from nearby road construction. But, in doing so, the appeals court appears to deviate from even its own understanding of “direct physical loss” under controlling Florida law.
In the underlying coverage action, the insured, Mama Jo’s Inc. operating as Berries in the Grove, sought coverage under its “all risk” commercial property insurance policy for business income loss and incurred extra expenses caused by construction dust and debris that migrated into the restaurant.
Reprinted courtesy of
Walter J. Andrews, Hunton Andrews Kurth,
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Andrews may be contacted at wandrews@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Taking Advantage of New Tax Credits and Prevailing Wage Bonuses Under the Inflation Reduction Act for Clean Energy Construction Projects
September 02, 2024 —
Abby Bello Salinas, Jennifer Harris & Sahara Mokhtari - ConsensusDocsIntroduction: IRA Boosts U.S. Construction Industry
On August 16, 2022, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (the “IRA”) into law.[1] The IRA marked a legislative milestone for clean energy in the United States in part by providing funding mechanisms for clean energy infrastructure projects. This new emphasis on green projects has already created a surge of opportunities across the construction industry—the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) estimates that IRA clean energy projects will create over 1.5 million jobs over the next decade.[2]
But what can contractors do to take advantage of IRA incentives to reduce costs, build a reliable workforce, and gain a competitive advantage in the new infrastructure landscape created by the ever-increasing number of IRA-related projects? The IRS Final Rule, 89 FR 53184 (29 CFR 1), effective August 26, 2024, provides some guidance by outlining the increased credits and deductions available to taxpayers that satisfy the criteria under the IRA, such as prevailing wage and registered apprenticeship requirements.
Reprinted courtesy of
Abby Bello Salinas, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.,
Jennifer Harris, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Sahara Mokhtari, Georgetown Law Class of 2025
Ms. Salinas may be contacted at asalinas@pecklaw.com
Ms. Harris may be contacted at jharris@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Supreme Court Holds “Notice-Prejudice” Rule is “Fundamental Public Policy” of California, May Override Choice of Law Provisions in Policies
November 12, 2019 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia & Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLPOn August 29, 2019, in Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2019 Cal. LEXIS 6240, the California Supreme Court held that, in the insurance context, the common law “notice-prejudice” rule is a “fundamental public policy” of the State of California for purposes of choice of law analysis. Thus, even though the policy in Pitzer had a choice of law provision requiring application of New York law – which does not require an insurer to prove prejudice for late notice of claims under policies delivered outside of New York – that provision can be overridden by California’s public policy of requiring insurers to prove prejudice after late notice of a claim. The Supreme Court in Pitzer also held that the notice-prejudice rule “generally applies to consent provisions in the context of first party liability policy coverage,” but not to consent provisions in the third-party liability policy context.
The Pitzer case arose from a discovery of polluted soil at Pitzer College during a dormitory construction project. Facing pressure to finish the project by the start of the next school term, Pitzer officials took steps to remediate the polluted soil at a cost of $2 million. When Pitzer notified its insurer of the remediation, and made a claim for the attendant costs, the insurer “denied coverage based on Pitzer’s failure to give notice as soon as practicable and its failure to obtain [the insurer’s] consent before commencing the remediation process.” The Supreme Court observed that Pitzer did not inform its insurer of the remediation until “three months after it completed remediation and six months after it discovered the darkened soils.” In response to the denial of coverage, Pitzer sued the insurer in California state court, the insurer removed the action to federal court and the insurer moved for summary judgment “claiming that it had no obligation to indemnify Pitzer for remediation costs because Pitzer had violated the Policy’s notice and consent provisions.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Timothy Carroll, White and Williams and
Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams
Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
