English v. RKK. . . The Saga Continues
December 16, 2019 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsRemember back in 2018 when I thought I’d told you the end of the English Construction story regarding its various consultants, etc.? I was wrong. The matter went up on appeal to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals where the Appeals Court considered the summary judgment granted to the defendant Rummel, Klepper & Kahl (“RKK”) based upon what came down to a contributory negligence reading of the indemnity clause that was allowed to survive in the first district court opinion relating to these ambiguous contracts finding that English was negligent so couldn’t recover. The 4th Circuit also considered the finding that defendant CDM Smith did not breach its contract as a matter of law and that English’s negligence was the cause of the damages.
The Court of Appeals reversed both of the holdings by the Western District of Virginia court, essentially stating that there was enough of a factual dispute to render any summary judgment to be premature.
As to English’s arguments regarding the indemnity scheme in the contracts, the court found that the interpretation was at least ambiguous enough that summary judgment was inappropriate, stating:
While we are not prepared to settle conclusively these interpretation disputes at the summary judgment stage, English’s proffered interpretation is, at the very least. reasonable. Indeed, of the two interpretations, English’s seems to be more closely aligned with the actual language in the contract. The district court thus erred in rejecting English’s interpretation and adopting RK&K’s interpretation as a matter of law.
[A]t bottom, while the district court was authorized to construe unambiguous language as a matter of law, it could not resolve genuine disputes regarding the meaning of ambiguous contractual language against the nonmoving party on summary judgment. We therefore vacate the court’s grant of summary judgment to RK&K and remand for further proceedings.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
CDJ’s #5 Topic of the Year: Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, et al.
December 31, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFSteven M. Cvitanovic and Whitney L. Stefko of Haight Brown & Bonesteel analyzed the Beacon decision, and discussed how it affects developers and general contractors: “On July 3, 2014, the California Supreme Court (the “Court”) came out with its decision in Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, et al. The Beacon decision settled a long-standing dispute in California about whether design professionals such as architects and engineers owe a duty to non-client third parties. In finding that the plaintiffs in Beacon could state a claim against the architects of the Beacon project, the Court also sowed the seeds of change in the way contracts are structured between developers, architects, engineers, and even general contractors.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Contractors Battle Bitter Winters at $11.8B Site C Hydro Project in Canada
October 30, 2023 —
Jonathan Keller & Scott Blair - Engineering News-RecordHalf the year spent in bone-aching cold. Soils frozen hard as concrete. Mountains of snow. A seemingly unending flow of machinery, workforce and earthen material to and from the site. A temporary city to house thousands of workers for nearly a decade. Wildfires encroaching dangerously close. Working under the ever-watchful eyes of regulators, stakeholders and environmentalists.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jonathan Keller, Engineering News-Record and
Scott Blair, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Keller may be contacted at kellerj@enr.com
Mr. Blair may be contacted at blairs@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Facts about Chinese Drywall in Construction
September 10, 2014 —
William M. Kaufman – Construction Lawyers BlogMost of us have heard that there are problems with Chinese drywall, but do not really know what specifically is wrong with it when it comes to construction in the United States.
Let’s begin with a brief overview about why Chinese drywall came to be used in the United States in the first place. Chinese drywall was first imported into the United States beginning in 2001. Most of the homes that have Chinese drywall were built between 2001 and 2008. During the construction boom, Chinese drywall was being imported into the U.S. partly due to the shortage of American-made drywall as a result of several hurricanes that devastated Florida in 2004-2005, and the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina. Hundreds of millions of pounds of Chinese drywall were imported into the United States during that time period. While this is only a fraction of the percentage of drywall used in American homes, the problem has been concentrated in certain regions of the country, mostly the South.
So what is the problem with Chinese Drywall? To understand it, we must first explore what constitutes drywall. Drywall is a building material made of a gypsum-based sheet of plaster covered with heavy paper on both sides. Drywall is also referred to as plasterboard or sheetrock. Testing of Chinese drywall has found unusually high instances of pyrite. There is speculation that the pyrite oxidation results in sulfur compounds being released by the drywall during periods of high heat and humidity. The combination of high temperatures and humidity is ripe for bringing out problems associated with Chinese drywall. That is why most cases associated with Chinese drywall are found in the Southeastern United States. Reports show that homeowners typically complain of corroding copper in their homes, and a rotten egg odor emanating from copper surfaces that, in turn, turn black and exhibit a powdery ash type substance. Experts opine that this is a result of a reaction of the copper with hydrogen sulfide. Much of wiring or piping found in homes is made of copper. Exposure to Chinese drywall can result in nose bleeds, headaches, coughs, upper respiratory or sinus problems, rashes, and difficulty breathing. There have also been cases reported of pets dying due to exposure to Chinese drywall.
Reprinted courtesy of
William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP
Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Can’t Get a Written Change Order? Document, Document, Document
August 29, 2018 —
Todd M. Heffner - Smith CurrieMost construction contracts require that any changes to the work be made formally, in writing, via a change order, work directive, or similar written document. Frequently, however, changes to the work or extra work are communicated orally by the architect, engineer, or owner’s representative, instead of in writing. What is the contractor to do in such a situation? The best option is follow the provisions of the contract and demand a written change order before performing changed work. Unfortunately, the realities of construction sometimes make it impossible to get the changes in the proper format in a timely manner. Savvy contractors will maintain schedule and produce written documentation of the change in lieu of a formal change order or directive. But many contractors will simply proceed with the changed work, relying on the owner, architect, or engineer to do the right thing and stand by their oral instructions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Todd M. Heffner, Smith CurrieMr. Heffner may be contacted at
tmheffner@smithcurrie.com
Recommencing Construction on a Project due to a Cessation or Abandonment
October 26, 2017 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThere are instances where the owner of a construction project terminates its general contractor prior to the completion of the project. There are instances where the owner suspends the work prior to the completion of the project, meaning there is a cessation in the construction. And, there are instances where the project is simply abandoned. I have been involved in all instances, and the owner’s reasons vary…from an owner claiming a termination for default, termination for convenience, or a suspension or abandonment due to the market or financial factors. Regardless of the owner’s reasoning, at some point—hopefully—the owner will want to resume or, more properly stated, recommence construction and complete the project.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
Dadelstein@gmail.com
Comparing Contracts: A Review of the AIA 201 and ConsensusDocs - Part I
March 22, 2018 —
Michael Sams and Amanda Cox – Construction Executive, A publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All Rights Reserved.Here’s a helpful comparison of and analysis of some important contract sections in the
AIA 201 (2007 and 2017 versions) and
ConsensusDocs (2014 and 2017 versions). While not intended to be all inclusive, this summary comparison of the contract documents will run as a three-part series. Part I covers Financial Assurances, Design Risk, Project Management and Contract Administration. Part II will cover Schedule/Time, Consequential Damages/LDs, Claims and Disputes/ADR. Part III will cover Insurance and Indemnification and Payment.
FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
- What assurances are there that the owner can pay for the project?
- The Contractor should have the right to request and obtain proof that the Owner has funding sufficient to pay for the Work. The provision should also provide that the Contractor may terminate the Contract if the Owner refuses to allow a review of funding documents, or should the Contractor reasonably determine that the Owner does not have sufficient funds to pay for the Work.
Relevant Sections:
- A201 2007 Section 2.2.1; 2017 Section 2.2.1-2.2.2 A201
- 2014 & 2017 ConsensusDocs 200: Section 4.2
AIA:
- Section 2.2.1 A201 2007 & 2017: Both editions require the Owner, upon Contractor’s written request, to provide, “reasonable evidence that the Owner has made financial arrangements to fulfill the Owner’s obligations under the Contract.” Thereafter, the Contractor may only request such evidence if (1) the Owner fails to make payments; (2) a change in the Work materially changes the Contract Sum; or (3) the Contractor identifies in writing a reasonable concern regarding the Owner’s ability to make payment when due. If the Owner does not comply, the Contractor may stop work.
- Additionally, A201 2017 Section 2.2.2 awards costs to the Contractor for demobilization and remobilization.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Sams , Kenney & Sams and
Amanda Cox, Kenney & Sams
Mr. Sams may be contacted at mpsams@KandSlegal.com
Ms. Cox may be contacted at ajcox@KandSlegal.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Design and Construction Defects Not a Breach of Contract
February 14, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe California Court of Appeals tossed out a breach of contract award in Altman v. John Mourier Construction. The decision, which was issued on January 10, 2013, sent the construction defect case back to a lower court to calculate damages based on the conclusions of the appeals court.
The case involved both design issues and construction issues. According to the plaintiffs’ expert, the design plans did not make the buildings sufficiently stiff to resist the wind, and that the framing was improperly constructed, further weakening the structures, and leading to the stucco cracking. Additionally, it was alleged that the roofs were improperly installed, leading to water intrusion. The contractor’s expert “agreed the roofs needed repair, but disputed what needed to be done to repair the roofs and the cost.”
The jury rejected the plaintiffs’ claims of product liability and breach of warranty, but found in their favor on the claims of breach of contract and negligence. The plaintiffs were awarded differing amounts based on the jury’s conclusions about their particular properties.
Both sides sought new trials. JMC, the contractor, claimed that the jury’s verdicts were “inconsistent in that the relieved JMC of liability for strict products liability and breach of warranty, but found JMC liable for breach of contract and negligence.” The plaintiffs “opposed the setoff motion on the ground that the jury heard evidence only of damages not covered by the settlements.” Both motions were denied. After this, the plaintiffs sought and received investigative costs as damages. JMC appealed this amended judgment.
The appeals court rejected JMC’s claims that evidence was improperly excluded. JMC sought to introduce evidence concerning errors made by the stucco subcontractor. Earlier in the trial, JMC had insisted that the plaintiffs not be allowed to present evidence concerning the stucco, as that had been separately settled. When they wished to introduce it themselves, they noted that the settlement only precluded the plaintiffs from introducing stucco evidence, but the trial court did not find this persuasive, and the appeals court upheld the actions of the trial court. Nor did the appeals court find grounds for reversal based on claims that the jury saw excluded evidence, as JMC did not establish that the evidence went into the jury room. Further, this did not reach, according to the court, a “miscarriage of justice.”
The court rejected two more of JMC’s arguments, concluding that the negligence award did not violate the economic loss rule. The court also noted that JMC failed to prove its contention that the plaintiffs were awarded damages for items that were covered in settlements with the subcontractors.
The appeals court did accept JMC’s argument that the award for breach of contract was not supported by evidence. As the ruling notes, “plaintiffs did not submit the contracts into evidence or justify their absence; nor did plaintiffs provide any evidence regarding contract terms allegedly breached.”
The court also did not allow the plaintiffs to claim the full amount of the investigative costs. Noting that the trial court had rational grounds for its decision, the appeals court noted that “the jury rejected most of the damages claimed by plaintiffs, and the trial court found that more than $86,000 of the costs itemized in plaintiffs’ invoices ‘appear questionable’ as ‘investigation’ costs/damages and appeared to the trial court to be litigation costs nonrecoverable under section 1033.5.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
