A Word to the Wise: The AIA Revised Contract Documents Could Lead to New and Unanticipated Risks - Part II
October 16, 2018 —
George Talarico - Construction ExecutivePart I addressed general conditions, revised insurance terms, revisions that affect owner’s required insurance and revisions that affect contractor’s required insurance.
REVISIONS THAT AFFECT DISPUTE RESOLUTION
A seemingly minor but noteworthy change is to the definition of “Claim.” Under Section 15.1 a “Claim” is defined to:
- include a request for a modification of contract time; and
- exclude any requirement that an owner must file a claim to impose liquidated damages.
Notably, any request relating to contract time must be brought within the specified time period for Notice of Claim and in the prescribed manner. There are at least two traps for the unwary. First, even though email is regularly used for communications among the parties, the revised contract documents do not recognize email as an acceptable form of delivery of a Notice of Claim. Second, an unwary contractor may wrongly assume that an owner’s failure to assert a claim for LDs means that LDs will not be imposed. This may lull the contractor into failing to timely assert its own claim for a time extension and thereby waiving its ability to do so.
Reprinted courtesy of
George Talarico, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Talarico may be contacted at
gtalarico@sillscummis.com
A Race to the Finish on Oroville Dam Spillway Fix
October 09, 2018 —
Scott Blair - Engineering News-RecordThe Lake Oroville spillway’s 400-acre construction site is an intense flurry of activity. In one corner, an excavator driver uses an old tire as a squeegee to clean away loose rock and prep a foundation. In the steeply sloping spillway chute, a crane operator flies in a rebar cage to workers who tie it into neighboring chute wall segments. Everywhere, dump trucks buzz around the circuitous roadways while rock crushers and batch plants keep pace with dozens of dozers and excavators. Drones hover in the sky photographing and surveying the site, while inspectors pour over every detail of the finished assets.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scott Blair, ENRMr. Blair may be contacted at
blairs@enr.com
Several Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in Sacramento Magazine’s 2023 Top Lawyers!
October 30, 2023 —
Wilke Fleury LLPWilke Fleury is extremely proud of its incredibly talented attorneys! Congratulations to
Steven Williamson,
Islam Ahmad,
Matthew Powell,
Adriana Cervantes,
Daniel Foster,
Neal Lutterman,
Aaron Claxton,
George Guthrie,
Trevor Stapleton,
David Frenznick,
Michael Polis,
Daniel Egan, and
Stephen Marmaduke, who are all featured in Sacramento Magazine’s 2023 List of Top Lawyers!
Reprinted courtesy of
Wilke Fleury LLP
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Alabama Court Determines No Coverage For Insured's Faulty Workmanship
June 28, 2013 —
Tred EyerlyThe Alabama Supreme Court found there was no coverage for the insured cabinet maker for claims arising from alleged faulty workmanship. Shane Traylor Cabinetmaker, L.L.C. v. Am. Resources Ins. Co., Inc., 2013 Ala. LEXIS 42 (May 3, 2013).
The insured was sued by a homeowner for property damage caused by faulty workmanship. The insurer refused to defend, contending there was no "occurrence." The trial court granted summary judgment to the insurer.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred EyerlyTred Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Michigan: Identifying and Exploiting the "Queen Exception" to No-Fault Subrogation
May 13, 2014 —
Robert M. Caplan – White and Williams LLPIn Michigan, an employee’s entitlement to compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident is governed by both the Workers’ Disability Compensation Act of 1969, MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 418.801 et seq., and Chapter 31 of The Insurance Code of 1956, MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 500.3101 et seq., commonly referred to as the “no-fault act.” Polkosnik v. United Canada Ins. Co., 421 N.W.2d 241, 242 (Mich. App. 1988).
PIP1 benefits payable arising from a motor vehicle accident in Michigan include, principally, (1) medical benefits unlimited in amount and duration, and (2) 85% of lost wages for up to three years. See DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL SERVICES, Brief Explanation of Michigan No-Fault Insurance. As of October 2013, lost wages are capped at $5,282 per month. Id. Such benefits constitute an injured worker’s “economic loss.” See generally Wood v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 668 N.W.2d 353, 355 (Mich. 2003).
Michigan’s no-fault legislation is no different than other no-fault legislation in regard to its purpose: The automobile insurer pays without any right of reimbursement out of any third party tort recovery. Sibley v. Detroit Auto. Inter-Ins. Exch., 427 N.W.2d 528, 530 (Mich. 1988). Moreover, just like in New York, for example, “where benefits are provided from other sources pursuant to state or federal law, the amount paid by the other source reduces the automobile insurer’s responsibility.” Id. at 530.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Robert M. Caplan, White and Williams LLPMr. Caplan may be contacted at
caplanr@whiteandwilliams.com
Court Voids Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case
September 01, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFA U.S. District Court Judge in Florida has ruled in favor of a company that sought to void a settlement agreement. The case, Water v. HDR Engineering, involved claims of construction defects at Florida’s C.W. Bill Young Regional Reservoir. The Tampa Bay Water Authority attributed these to both HDR Engineering’s design and Bernard Construction Company which had built the embankment. Bernard Construction filed a complaint against their subcontractor, McDonald.
Tampa Bay Water settled with Bernard Construction and McDonald, in an agreement that set a minimum and maximum settlement, but also would “prohibit Barnard and McDonald from presenting any evidence on several claims and positions of TBW, to require Barnard to call certain witnesses at trial, to preclude Barnard and McDonald from calling other witnesses, and to restrict the filing of trial and post-trial motions.” HDR Engineering moved to void the agreement as collusive.
The judge that the agreement¬? contained “133 paragraphs of ‘Agreed Facts’ that the parties stipulated would survive any order declaring the Settlement Agreement void or unenforceable.” He characterized these as stipulating “that Barnard neither caused nor contributed to TBW’s damages.” HDR motioned that a summary judgment be given to Barnard Engineering.
The court found that “the evidence identified by TBW is patently insufficient to survive summary judgment.” Further, TBW’s expert initially held Barnard responsible for “lenses, pockets, streaks and layers within the embankment,” but then later withdrew this assigning the responsibility to HDR. Further, the court notes that, “TBW’s arguments that lenses, pockets, streaks, and layers in the soil wedge caused or contributed to its damages and that Barnard is liable for those damages have been foreclosed by the Agreed Facts.”
As TBW failed to provide sufficient evidence to withstand summary judgment, the court granted summary judgment, mooted the claim against McDonald, and terminated the agreement between TBW and the other parties.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Water Drainage Case Lacks Standing
March 28, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Texas Court of Appeals has ruled in the case La Tierra de Simmons Familia Ltd. V. Main Event Entertainment, LP. The trial court had found for Main Event. On appeal, the court threw out some of the grounds on which the trial court had reached its decision.
The case involved two commercial lots in northwest Austin, Texas. The uphill tract (Phase III of the Anderson Arbor development) diverts its runoff onto the lower tract (the “Ballard tract”). The owners of the Ballard tract claim that “the drainage system was designed or constructed in a manner that has damaged and continues to damage the Ballard tract.”
Both tracts have undergone changes of ownership since the construction of the drainage system in 2004. At the time the drainage system was constructed, the parcel was owned by Sears Roebuck and Co. Sears later sold the property. Main Event Entertainment is the current tenant. Likewise, the Ballard tract was previously owned by the Ballard Estate which sold the property to La Tierra on an “as is” basis in 2007.
After La Tierra bought the Ballard tract, La Tierra’s engineer “witnessed and videotaped what he described as ‘flooding’ on the Ballard tract caused by storm water discharge from the Anderson Arbor drainage system during a rainfall event.” La Tierra determined that an adequate drainage system would cost about $204,000. Development plans were put on hold.
La Tierra sued Main Event and various other parties associated with the uphill tract, seeking “actual damages for (1) decrease and loss in rental income due to delay in obtaining the development permit, (2) interest on carrying costs during that time period, (3) the cost to build a water conveyance system on the Ballard tract, (4) engineering fees incurred to redesign the water conveyance system, (5) unspecified out-of-pocket real estate expenses, and (6) property devaluation occasioned by the need to construct an expensive water conveyance system.” The trial court never reached these claims, ruling instead that La Tierra lacked standing, that its claims were barred under the statute of limitations, and that there was no evidence of damage.
La Tierra appealed, arguing that “(1) the summary-judgment evidence does not conclusively establish that property damage claims accrued or were discovered prior to September 11, 2007, which is within the limitations period and was after La Tierra purchased the property; (2) even if the property was damaged before La Tierra acquired ownership of the Ballard tract, standing exists based on the assignments of interest from the Ballard Estate heirs, and the discovery rule tolls limitations until the injury was discovered on September 11, 2007; (3) limitations does not bar La Tierra's request for injunctive relief; (4) La Tierra's water code claim against Main Event and M.E.E.P. is viable based on their control over the drainage system, which makes them necessary and indispensable parties for injunctive relief; (5) La Tierra presented more than a scintilla of evidence to raise a fact issue on damages, causation, and other essential elements of its causes of action; and (6) the trial court abused its discretion when it sustained the defendants' objections to La Tierra's summary-judgment evidence.”
The appeals court concluded that La Tierra’s second claim was irrelevant to standing, as La Tierra “obtained assignments from the Ballard Estate heirs ? nearly one year after the lawsuit was initially filed.” Nor did the court accept their first point. The water system had been operating unaltered since January, 2004, with monthly maintenance and inspection to maintain its designed operation. Further, a feasibility report La Tierra received stated that “over sixteen acres drain into those ponds, and thus onto this site.” The court noted that “the underlying facts giving rise to a cause of action were known before La Tierra acquired ownership of the Ballard tract.”
The court concluded that the drainage issue is a permanent injury, but that it “accrued before La Tierra acquired an ownership interest in the property.” As La Tierra has standing, the appeals court ruled that it was improper for the trial court to rule on the issues. The appeals court dismissed the questions of whether the case was barred under the statute of limitation and also the question of whether or not La Tierra had damages.
As the issue of standing would not allow La Tierra to bring the suit, the appeals court found for the defendants, dismissing the case for this single reason, and otherwise affirming the ruling of the lower court.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New York Building Boom Spurs Corruption Probe After Death
August 19, 2015 —
Chris Dolmetsch & David M. Levitt – BloombergNew York’s building boom has spurred the formation of a task force to probe corruption in the construction industry.
The group of prosecutors and inspectors plan to go after companies that ignore or hide safety violations or commit other crimes including bid rigging and extortion.
The formation of the task force was announced the same day two men and their companies were indicted for causing a worker’s death in April by failing to address repeated warnings about safety at a construction site in Manhattan’s Meatpacking District.
Reprinted courtesy of
Chris Dolmetsch, Bloomberg and
David M. Levitt, Bloomberg
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
