When Subcontractors Sue Only the Surety on Payment Bond and Tips for General Contractors
August 13, 2019 —
Ira M. Schulman & Emily D. Anderson - ConsensusDocsPayment bonds have been a staple of public construction projects since 1874, when the U.S. Congress first passed the Heard Act, which required that contractors obtain payment bonds for public projects to ensure that subcontractors and material suppliers have a way to recover their damages if an upstream contractor fails to pay for work performed and materials furnished on the project. The 1874 Heard Act has since been replaced by the 1935 Miller Act, and the concept has been expanded to construction projects funded by the states through state statutes known as “Little Miller Acts.” But the structure remains the same: On most public projects where the project’s cost exceeds $100,000, the prime contractor (the bond principal) is required to obtain a payment bond from a surety equal to the contract price to guarantee to subcontractors and material suppliers (the bond obligees) that the surety will pay for labor and materials under certain statutory or contractual conditions should the contractor fail to make payment.
A surety is jointly and severally liable with the contractor to the subcontractor, which means that the subcontractor may seek recovery against either the contractor or the surety or both, and the contractor and surety will be liable for the damages together. Put another way, in most states and in federal court, an unpaid subcontractor has the right to sue only the surety on the payment bond without joining the contractor because a contract of suretyship is a direct liability of the surety to the subcontractor.1 When the contractor fails to perform, the surety becomes directly responsible at once — it is unnecessary for the subcontractor to establish that the contractor failed to carry out its contract before the obligation of the surety becomes absolute.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ira M. Schulman, Pepper Hamilton LLP and
Emily D. Anderson, Pepper Hamilton LLP
Mr. Schulman may be contacted at schulmani@pepperlaw.com
Ms. Anderson may be contacted at andersone@pepperlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The A, B and C’s of Contracting and Self-Performing Work Under California’s Contractor’s License Law
July 19, 2017 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogThe California Contractors State License Board issues licenses in three general classifications:
- Class A – General Engineering Contractors;
- Class B – General Building Contractors; and
- Class C – Specialty Contractors of which there are currently 42 different Class C specialty contractors license types.
Each of these license classifications has separate contracting rules, and rules regarding when work can be self-performed, which for many can be confusing.
Minor Work Exception
One important (albeit “minor”) exception is that no contractor’s license is required no matter what type of work is being performed if the project has a value of less than $500. Known as the “minor work exception,” the exception is a project-based, not work-based, exception. Thus, for example, if a project owner is remodeling their kitchen at a cost of $6,000 and the cost of doing the flooring is only $300, the person doing the flooring would need to have a contractor’s license in the appropriate classification since the aggregate cost of the work is $500 or more.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
Warranty of Workmanship and Habitability Cannot Be Disclaimed or Waived Under Any Circumstance
May 01, 2023 —
Jason Feld & Stephanie Wilson - Kahana & Feld LLPArizona residential construction and single-family home production is growing at a rapid pace. And just as fast as the homes are sold, homeowners are constantly seeking warranty repairs from their homebuilders. Despite having strong purchase documents with express warranty language, the Arizona Supreme Court in
Zambrano v. M & RC, II LLC, 254 Ariz. 53 (2022) adopted a bright line rule that regardless of the contract, the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability (“implied warranty”) cannot be disclaimed or waived under any circumstance. The Arizona Supreme Court opinion provides clear guidance of the law in this area on the scope of the implied warranty in contracts between homebuyers and builder/vendors, specifically on the issue of whether an express warranty can negate and effectively waive the common law implied warranty – which is a definitive violation of public policy.
The Zambrano decision involved a licensed real estate broker who bought a new single family home for herself in a newly constructed master planned community in Surprise, AZ. Zambrano entered into a valid sales contract with Scott Homes (homebuilder) which contained a stand-alone 45-page pre-printed form express warranty. The express warranty was to be the “only warranty applicable to the home.” The contract further clarified that the buyer was expressly disclaiming (and, thus, waiving) the implied warranty. The sales documents and express warranty were signed and authorized by Zambrano. A short time later, the home developed alleged “design and construction defects” that were “either time barred or outside the coverage” of the express warranty. Zambrano filed suit for the alleged defects based on the implied warranty. Scott Homes filed summary judgment based on the Zambrano’s waiver and disclaimer of the implied warranty in the purchase agreement. The trial court granted summary judgment and the matter was appealed up to the Arizona Supreme Court.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Feld, Kahana & Feld LLP and
Stephanie Wilson, Kahana & Feld LLP
Mr. Feld may be contacted at jfeld@kahanafeld.com
Ms. Wilson may be contacted at swilson@kahanafeld.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mississippi Supreme Court Addresses Earth Movement Exclusion
December 09, 2019 —
Anthony Hatzilabrou - Traub LiebermanRecently, the Mississippi Supreme Court held that structural damages to the foundation of an insured’s home came within the earth movement exclusion in a homeowner’s policy, notwithstanding a provision in the policy which provided coverage for water damage resulting “from accidental discharge or overflow of water … from within … [p]lumbing, heating, air condition or household appliance.”
In Mississippi Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Smith, 264 So. 3d 737 (Miss. 2019), the appellee, Smith, filed a lawsuit against her homeowner's insurance company, Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company (“Farm Bureau”) for its refusal to pay for repairs to the foundation of Smith’s home. Smith alleged that the refusal to pay for repairs amounted to breach of contract and asserted claims for bad faith and tortious breach of contract. In response, Farm Bureau filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis of the policy’s earth-movement exclusion, which provided that Farm Bureau “did not insure for loss caused directly or indirectly by…Earth Movement…[which] means…[a]ny other earth movement including earth sinking, rising or shifting... caused by or resulting from human or animal forces.” Smith filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment on the basis that the earth-movement exclusion did not preclude coverage because her insurance policy also contained a clause expressly covering water damage.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony Hatzilabrou, Traub LiebermanMr. Hatzilabrou may be contacted at
thatzilabrou@tlsslaw.com
Chicago Criticized for Not Maintaining Elevator Inspections
October 29, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to Crain’s Chicago Business, “as few as a fifth of elevators get the required annual checkup,” Chicago Inspector General Joe Ferguson claimed.
Ferguson audited the roughly 5,100 buildings that city inspectors were assigned to inspect elevators, and found that only 965 were actually inspected, reported Crain’s Chicago Business. Furthermore, “when problems were found in inspections conducted by city personnel, they often were not fixed in a timely manner, again according to city records.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California’s Fifth Appellate District Declares the “Right to Repair Act” the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims
September 03, 2015 —
Stephen A. Sunseri – Gatzke Dillon & Balance LLPAugust 26, 2015 - The Fifth Appellate District ruled SB800 (California's "Right to Repair Act" [the "Act"]) provides the sole remedy for homeowners in construction defect actions. The court found "no other cause of action is allowed to recover for repair of the defect itself or for repair of any damage caused by the defect." (McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court of California (Aug. 26, 2015, No. F069370) __ Cal.App.4th __ [2015 WL 5029324].) The court issued a blistering criticism of the Fourth Appellate District's prior opinion in Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98, which severely limited the reach of the Act to actions not involving property damage and allowing property damage claims to proceed freely under common law without any constraints posed by the Act.
In McMillin, the court reviewed whether a homeowner was required to follow the Act's prelitigation procedures even after dismissing a cause of action arising under the Act. In deciding the issue, the court quoted directly from the first line of the Act (Civ. Code § 896) and found "[i]n any action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in, the residential construction … , the claimant's claims or causes of action shall be limited to violation of" the standards set out in the Act. The court recognized the statutory exceptions to this rule, such as for claims arising under contract, or any action for fraud, personal injuries, or statutory violations. (Civ. Code., § 943.) However, this result directly conflicts with the Fourth Appellate District's decision in Liberty Mutual, which found homeowners can circumvent the entire Act by simply alleging property damage claims. McMillin rejects Liberty Mutual's "reasoning and outcome" as being inconsistent with the express language of the Act.
McMillin found that Liberty Mutual failed to fully analyze the statutory language of the Act, which (on its face) limits any action for construction deficiencies to the requirements of the Act. McMillin concludes the Legislature intended that all construction defect actions (for new residences sold on or after January 1, 2003), are subject to the requirements of the Act, including the prelitigation procedures, regardless of whether a complaint expressly alleges a cause of action under the Act or not.
McMillin is a great victory for homebuilders, but battle lines are now clearly drawn between the two appellate districts. McMillin directly conflicts with Liberty Mutual, and because of this conflict, the issue will need to be resolved by the California Supreme Court. Until such review is granted, the conflict will remain and trial courts will likely continue to conflate the issue.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stephen A. Sunseri, Gatzke Dillon & Balance LLPMr. Sunseri may be contacted at
ssunseri@gdandb.com
Measure Of Damages for Breach of Construction Contract
October 18, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesHow do you determine damages for a breach of a construction contract? If you are interested in pursing a breach of a construction contract action, this is something you NEED TO KNOW!
The recent Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision in Cano, Inc. v. Judet, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D2083b (Fla. 4th DCA 201) explains:
Where a contractor breaches a construction contract, and the owner sues for breach of contract and the cost to complete, the measure of damages is the difference between the contract price and the reasonable cost to perform the contract. See Grossman Holdings Ltd. v. Hourihan, 414 So. 2d 1037, 1039-40 (Fla. 1982). In Grossman, the supreme court adopted subsection 346(1)(a) of the Restatement (First) of Contracts (1932), which it concluded was “designed to restore the injured party to the condition he would have been in if the contract had been performed.” Id. at 1039. In other words, the owner will obtain the benefit of his bargain [and this is known as benefit of the bargain damages]. But where there is a total breach of the contract as opposed to a partial breach, an injured party may elect to treat the contract as void and seek damages that will restore him to the position that he was in prior to entering into the contract or the party may seek the benefit of his bargain. See McCray v. Murray, 423 So. 2d 559, 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
In Judet, an owner entered into a fixed price contract with a contractor to repair damage from a lightning strike. The contract amount was $300,000 payable in $30,000 installments. A few months after the contractor commenced performance, the owner terminated the contractor because the owner learned the contractor had not obtained required electrical and plumbing permits. At this time, the owner had paid the contractor $90,000. The contractor recorded a $40,000 lien for an amount it claimed it was owed and filed a lawsuit to foreclose its construction lien. The owner counter-sued the contractor to recover a claimed over-payment and a disgorgement of monies for unpermitted work. The owner was NOT claiming benefit of the bargain damages, but rather, damages for the contractor’s total breach “to restore him to the position that he was in prior to entering into the 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
Contractor Allegedly Stole Construction Materials
October 16, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFA Bronx man has been arrested for the theft of about $5,000 of construction materials and equipment from a New Hyde Park residence. When construction workers informed the homeowner of the missing items, the homeowner contacted Damion Brown, who apparently had previously been doing construction work at the home. Mr. Brown admitted he had taken the items but would not return them to the homeowner. The homeowner contacted police, who took M. Brown into custody.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
