Colorado HB 13-1090: Concerning Payment of Amounts Due Under a Construction Agreement
February 21, 2013 —
David M. McLain — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCOn January 17, 2013 Representative Fischer introduced House Bill 13-1090 into the Colorado House of Representatives. HB 1090 was assigned the House Business, Labor, Economic and Workforce Development Committee.
The bill, sponsored by Senator Tochtrop in the Senate, sets the following requirements for both private and public construction contracts:
The owner and contractor must make regular progress payments approximately every 30 days to contractors and subcontractors for work actually performed.
To receive the progress payments, the contractor and subcontractor must submit a progress payment invoice plus any required documents.
A contractor must pass on the progress payment to the subcontractor within 5 days or by the end of the billing cycle.
Interest accrues on unpaid progress payments.
A contract may extend a billing cycle to 60 days, but the contract must duly warn of this.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David M. McLainmclain@hhmrlaw.com
Rattlesnake Bite Triggers Potential Liability for Walmart
February 02, 2017 —
James R. Lynch - Ahlers & Cressman, PLLCA customer shopping at Walmart’s outdoor garden center in Clarkston, Washington, reached down to brush aside a stick covering a price tag for bags of mulch stored on wooden pallets. The “stick” turned out to be a rattlesnake, and bit his hand.
The customer sued Walmart on the legal basis of “premises liability,” claiming that as Walmart’s business invitee (one who enters the owner’s property primarily for the owner’s benefit), the store owed him a duty to warn or guard against hazardous conditions such as the rattlesnake.
In many cases, a property owner’s duty to protect invitees applies only where the owner knows or reasonably should know of the hazardous condition. The owner’s liability therefore often hinges on where the hazard is located, how long it has been present, whether it has occurred in the past, and similar considerations.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James R. Lynch, Ahlers & Cressman, PLLCMr. Lynch may be contacted at
jlynch@ac-lawyers.com
Lump Sum Subcontract? Perhaps Not.
August 20, 2019 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesLump sum subcontract? Perhaps not due to a recent ruling where the trial court said “No!” based on the language in the subcontract and contract documents generally incorporated into the subcontract.
This is a ruling on an interpretation of a subcontract and contract documents incorporated into the subcontract that I do not agree with and struggle to fully comprehend. The issue was whether the subcontract amount was a lump sum or subject to an audit, adjustment, and definitization based on actual costs incurred. Of course, the subcontractor (or any person in any business) is not just interested in recouping actual costs, but there needs to be a margin to cover profit and home office overhead that does not get factored into field general conditions.
In United States v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, 2018 WL 6571234 (M.D.Fla. 2018), a prime contractor was hired to perform work on a federal project. During the work, the Government issued the prime contractor a Modification that had a not-to-exceed value and required the prime contractor to track its costs for this Modification separate from other contract costs. In other words, based on this Modification, the prime contractor was paid its costs up to a maximum amount and the prime contractor would separately cost-code and track the costs for this work differently than other work it was performing under the prime contract.
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
Zurich American Insurance Company v. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company
October 05, 2020 —
Michael Velladao - Lewis BrisboisIn Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co., __F.3d__(July 2, 2020), the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals certified the following questions to the Nevada Supreme Court in connection with a contribution action for defense costs filed by Zurich American Insurance Company and American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company (“Zurich”) against Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company (“Ironshore”) with respect to the defense and settlement of 14 construction defect lawsuits on behalf of eight subcontractors (“lawsuits”) insured by both companies:
Whether, under Nevada law, the burden of proving the applicability of an exception to an exclusion of coverage in an insurance policy falls on the insurer or the insured? Whichever party bears such a burden, may it rely on evidence extrinsic to the complaint to carry its burden, and if so, is it limited to extrinsic evidence available at the time the insured tendered the defense of the lawsuit to the insurer?
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Velladao, Lewis BrisboisMr. Velladao may be contacted at
Michael.Velladao@lewisbrisbois.com
Independent Contractor v. Employee. The “ABC Test” Does Not Include a Threshold Hiring Entity Test
October 03, 2022 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIn 2018, in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.5th 903 (2018), the California Supreme Court overturned nearly thirty years of jurisprudence governing the manner in which workers are classified as employees or independent contractors. The Dynamex decision replaced the “Borello test,” derived from a case of the same name, S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal.3d 341 (1989), in which the California Supreme Court at the time set forth a variety of factors to be considered when determining whether a worker was an employee or independent contractor.
The Dynamex decision replaced with the “Borello test” with the “ABC test.” Under the ABC test, a worker can be deemed an independent contractor if three conditions are met:
- The worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact;
- The worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and
- The worker is customarily engaged in an independent established trade, occupation, or business
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Court Requires Adherence to “Good Faith and Fair Dealing” in Construction Defect Coverage
September 30, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe California Court of Appeals has ruled in the case of Allied Framers, Inc. v. Golden Bear Insurance Company. Allied had been sued in a construction defect case and its primary insurer had become insolvent. Coverage for Allied’s defense was paid for by the California Insurance Guarantee Association through June 8, 2006. When warned that CIGA’s involvement was ending, Allied notified Golden Bear, which declined to provide coverage.
In the matters that followed, Golden Bear claimed that Allied had not exhausted its $1 million in primary insurance. Allied then showed that $1 million had already been paid out in the case. A few months thereafter, Golden Bear offered a $500,000 settlement on behalf of Allied which was rejected. Thereafter, Golden Bear hired new counsel to defend Allied. Golden Bear received, but allegedly did not pay, invoices Allied sent from their former counsel. Golden Bear finally settled the construction defect case for $2 million.
Allied’s original counsel sued Allied for payment. Golden Bear declined coverage. Allied then claimed that Golden Bear liable on several counts, arising from its failure to settle the construction defect action earlier than it did and its failure to pay Allied’s counsel. Golden Bear demurred, arguing that Allied had now exhausted is coverage with the $2 million settlement. The lower court sustained Golden Bear’s demurrer, dismissing Allied’s complaints.
The appeal court reviewed Allied’s seven complaints and sustained most of them. However, the court did reverse the trial court’s order in regard to Allied’s complaint that Golden Bear breached an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The appeals court was not convinced that Golden Bear properly evaluated the settlement demand in the underlying construction defect case. The court found three other ways in which Golden Bear’s actions might show bad faith, in refusing to pay defense fees “after promising [Allied] such costs would be paid in full,” “failing to advise Allied about ‘actual or potential negative consequences of agreeing to the proposed settlement,’” and that their choice of counsel “failed to protect [Allied’s] interests in the negotiation.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Estoppel Certificate? Estop and Check Your Lease
May 06, 2019 —
Lauren Podgorski - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogIf you are leasing space in a building, there may come a time when you receive a request from your landlord to fill out and sign an estoppel certificate. Estoppel certificates are usually sent to tenants in connection with the sale or refinance of a building, and a third party may rely on the accuracy of the statements and information contained in the estoppel certificate in connection with that transaction. Estoppel certificates can range from a very simple, one-page document, to several pages.
I’ve received an estoppel certificate in the mail. What do I do now?
Consider the following:
Check your lease. Your lease may require you to deliver the signed estoppel certificate and may even give you a timeframe within which you are required to return it. A form of estoppel certificate may also be included in your lease as an exhibit. If you’ve previously agreed to a form of estoppel certificate in your lease, check to ensure the one you have received matches the form you previously agreed to and if it doesn’t make sure to review it carefully to make sure it is acceptable.
Review the estoppel certificate and confirm that all of the information is accurate. Be on the lookout for any terms or provisions that you did not agree to in your lease. If it seems like the landlord is trying to modify your lease, you likely do not need to consent to the change in this document. Cross off (or modify or delete, if you have an electronic copy) any information that is inaccurate. Fill in all blanks (if the blank is not applicable, write “N/A”), and if any exhibits are referenced in the body of the document, make sure they are actually attached.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lauren Podgorski, Snell & WilmerMs. Podgorski may be contacted at
lpodgorski@swlaw.com
Hawaii Supreme Court Finds Subcontractor Has No Duty to Defend Under Indemnity Provision
July 14, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Hawaii Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals [see prior post here] and determined that a subcontractor did not have a duty to defend the developer upon tender under an indemnify provision in the parties' contract. Arthur v. State of Hawaii, 2016 Haw. LEXIS 155 (June 27, 2016).
A simplified version of the detailed facts and procedural history follows. The case involved the wrongful death of Mona Arthur. Mona typically gardened on the hillside behind her home. She would cross a concrete drainage ditch and climb over a two-foo-high chain length fence to reach the hillside.
Mona was found lying in a concrete ditch with severe head injuries, which ultimately led to her death. Her husband and estate sued for her wrongful death. Claims were asserted for negligence in failing to build a fence higher than two feet, which would have prevented Mona from having access to the garden. Defendants included the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands; Kamehameha Investment Corporation ("KIC"), the developer; Design Partners, Inc., the architect; Coastal Construction Company, the general contractor; and Sato and Associates, the civil engineer. The second amended complaint sought punitive damages against KIC.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
