Contractor Walks Off Job. What are the Owner’s Damages?
September 25, 2018 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhat are your damages as the result of a breach of the construction contract? This is an important question, right? It is probably the most important part of your case. If you didn’t have damages, you wouldn’t be in a dispute. So, I repeat, what are your damages as the result of a breach of the construction contract? The below case explains dealing with a contractor that elected to walk off the job mid-construction.
In Forbes v. Prime General Contractors, Inc., 43 Fla.L.Weekly D20194a (Fla. 2d DCA 2018), owners hired a contractor to perform a residential renovation job for $276,000. The owners were to pay the contractor in five draw payments (common for residential jobs) where the third draw payment was due upon the contractor’s completion of the dry-in (as defined in the contract). After the contractor received the first two draw payments totaling $138,000 plus an additional $6,000 for updated architectural plans, the contractor claimed the job doubled in price and demanded that the owners pay the contractor the third draw payment immediately (before it was due) plus an additional $31,450. The contractor refused to continue unless the owners agreed to its terms, and then walked off the job when the owners would not agree to these terms (nor should the owners agree to those terms). At the time the contractor walked off the job, the owners’ home was not habitable due to the construction.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
2017 Construction Outlook: Slow, Mature Growth, but No Decline, Expected
December 21, 2016 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogAs we count down the remaining days of 2016 (thank God) it’s time to think about what the new year will bring (I’m good with pretty much anything at this point).
The economists at Dodge Data & Analytics have a few predictions. According to their 2017 Dodge Construction Outlook, they predict that U.S. construction starts will increase modestly in 2017, up 5% to $713 billion, after rather anemic growth in 2016 following several years of steady growth.
According to Robert Murray, chief economist for Dodge Data & Analytics, while the first half of 2016 lagged behind construction activity in 2015, that shortfall grew smaller as the year progressed, easing concern that the construction industry might be in the early stage of a cyclical decline. Rather, according to Murray, it appears that the construction industry has now entered a more mature phase of expansion, one characterized by slower rates of growth than during the 2012-2015 period and that construction spending can be expected to see moderate gains through 2017 and beyond[.]
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
Texas Federal Court Upholds Professional Services Exclusion to Preclude Duty to Defend
March 16, 2020 —
Jeremy S. Macklin - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogIn Project Surveillance, Inc. v. The Travelers Indemnity Company, No. 4:19-CV-03324, 2020 WL 292247 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 21, 2020), a Texas federal court held that a professional services exclusion in a commercial general liability policy precluded Travelers’ duty to defend its insured.
The underlying lawsuit was a wrongful death action brought by the family of a worker killed on a construction site. Project Surveillance was present at the construction site “to provide safety supervision or other services.” The underlying lawsuit alleged that Project Surveillance negligently failed to inspect or adequately inspect the project and failed to warn or adequately warn the decedent of a dangerous condition. The underlying lawsuit also alleged that Project Surveillance was negligent in failing to stop work.
At the time of the incident, Project Surveillance had commercial general liability insurance through Travelers and professional liability insurance through RLI. RLI agreed to defend Project Surveillance in the underlying lawsuit. Travelers, however, denied owing a duty to defend or indemnify based on an exclusion for “bodily injury” arising out of the rendering or failure to render any “professional service.” The Traveler policy defined the term “professional services” to mean any service requiring specialized skill or training, including “failure to prepare [. . .] any warning,” “supervision,” “inspection,” “control,” “surveying activity or service,” “job site safety,” “construction administration,” and “monitoring [. . .] necessary to perform and of [those] services.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub LiebermanMr. Macklin may be contacted at
jmacklin@tlsslaw.com
Pennsylvania Court Finds that Two Possible Causes Can Prove a Product Malfunction Theory of Liability
September 29, 2021 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn Allstate Ins. Co. v. LG Elecs. USA, Inc., No. 19-3529, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127014, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania considered whether plaintiff’s expert engineer’s opinion that there were two possible causes of a fire—both related to alleged product defects within a refrigerator manufactured by the defendant—was sufficient to support the malfunction theory of products liability. The court found that because both potential causes imposed liability on the product manufacturer and the expert ruled out misuse of the product, as well as all external causes of the fire, it was not necessary for the engineer to identify a specific cause under the malfunction theory. The court also found that the expert’s investigation and opinions met the criteria set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and the Federal Rules of Evidence and, thus, were admissible.
LG Electronics arose from a fire at the home of Thomas and Lisa Ellis. The public sector fire investigator identified the area of fire origin as the top of a refrigerator manufactured by LG Electronics USA, Inc. (LG). The Ellises filed a claim with their homeowner’s insurance carrier, Allstate Insurance Company (Insurer). Insurer retained a fire investigator and an electrical engineer to investigate the origin and cause of the fire. The fire investigator agreed with the public sector investigator that the fire originated at the top of the refrigerator. The engineer conducted a forensic inspection of the scene and ruled out all potential external ignition sources. He then examined the internal components of the refrigerator. He found arcing activity on a wire at the front top of the refrigerator. He opined that there were two possible causes of the fire: either the heater circuit insulation failed over time due to mechanical damage, or the heat from the internal light fixture ignited combustible components of the refrigerator. Since the engineer ruled out improper use of the refrigerator, he opined that the damage was caused by a manufacturing defect.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and WilliamsMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
What Cal/OSHA’s “Permanent” COVID Standards Mean for Employers
March 06, 2023 —
Payne & Fears LLPEffective Feb. 3, 2023, California has implemented new, “permanent,” COVID-19 standards. The new regulations were adopted by Cal/OSHA on Dec. 15, 2022, but only became effective upon the review and final approval by the Office of Administrative Law. These non-emergency regulations—slated to remain in effect for two years—supplant the COVID-19 Prevention Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) that have been in effect since early in the pandemic.
The non-emergency regulations abandon core parts of the ETS, include new definitions for key terms, and update requirements for important provisions. We discuss the primary changes below. The regulation itself is available online, as well as a copy provided by Cal/OSHA comparing the differences between the ETS and the new regulation.
An End to Exclusion Pay
The non-emergency regulations do not require employers to maintain exclusion pay (an excluded employee’s earnings, seniority, rights, and benefits). All that employers must do under the new regulations is inform confirmed COVID-19 cases and close contacts about potential COVID-19 benefits under federal or local laws (where applicable). This does not affect employees who may receive paid time off under other federal, state, and local laws, as well as through collective bargaining agreements or other employer policies.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Payne & Fears LLP
COVID-19 Case Remanded for Failure to Meet Amount in Controversy
September 14, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court remanded to state court a loss of rent claim because the amount in controversy requirement was not met. Geragos & Geragos Fine Arts Bldg., LLC v. Travelers Indemn. Co., 2020 U.S Dist. LEXIS 127427 (C.D. Cal. July 20, 2020).
Geragos suffered loss of rental income due to the COVID-19 tenant relief measures implemented in Los Angeles. The tenant relief orders would remain in effect for the duration of the emergency period, the end date of which was not presently set.
Geragos submitted a claim for loss of rental income to Travelers. When the claim was denied, Geragos sued in state court. Travelers removed to federal district court. Geragos moved to remand the case back to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Miller Act Bond Claims Subject to “Pay If Paid”. . . Sometimes
November 04, 2019 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsThe Federal Miller Act is a great tool that subcontractors and suppliers on Federal projects can use for collection of wrongfully withheld amounts due. However, as a recent federal case from the Eastern District of Virginia points out, the construction contract’s terms affect when a subcontractor or supplier can use this great collection tool and how much it can recover.
In Aarow v Travelers the Court looked at the interaction between a typical termination clause, a “pay when paid” clause, and the Miller Act. The key facts are these. The general contractor on the project at issue, Syska, did not get paid some disputed amounts by the owner and subsequently did not pay Aarow, the plaintiff and a subcontractor on the project. Aarow then refused to continue work and was terminated by Syska who then took over the completion of the work. Aarow sued, seeking damages for the value of its work prior to the termination. Travellers, the surety defended stating that, if Aarow was properly terminated for cause by Syska, then Aarow was not entitled to payment under the contract until such time as the work was completed and accepted by the owner. The termination clauses are set out in the linked opinion.
The Court agreed with Travelers, stating that the pay when paid clause created a situation whereby Aarow could not stop work merely because of a non-payment by Syska attributed to non-payment by the owner. The Court was clear in stating that the Miller Act trumps “pay when paid” in instances where the only cause for non-payment is non-payment by an owner. The Court then reasoned that it is the interaction between the termination and “pay when paid” provisions, and not the “pay when paid” clause itself, that exonerated Travelers because it created the default by Aarow due to its refusal to continue work. In short, Aarow was properly terminated for cause because it left the job without justification and therefore Travelers was not liable.
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
Green Construction Claims: More of the Same
May 10, 2021 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsFor this week’s Guest Post Friday, Musings welcomes back Timothy R. Hughes, Esq., LEED AP. Tim (@timrhughes on Twitter) is a Shareholder in the Arlington, Virginia firm of Bean, Kinney & Korman, P.C. In his practice as a business, corporate, and construction law attorney, Tim was the Chair of the Construction Law and Public Contracts Section of the Virginia State Bar. He was recognized by Virginia Lawyer’s Weekly as a 2010 “Leader in the Law” and a member of the Legal Elite for Construction Law for 2010 by Virginia Business Magazine. A regular speaker and writer, Tim is the lead editor of his firm blog, Virginia Real Estate, Land Use and Construction Law.
Green construction liability risk has received a lot of discussion over time. My take is that sustainable design and construction projects present the same type of risk profile as other construction projects, with the caveat that there may be “a little more”. A little more risk. A little more lack of predictability. A little more process overlay. Thus, green construction claims really are just “more of the same”.
I have watched and participated in the discussion. With regards to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation building, the reality is that any project can face challenges of product specification and performance, green or not. We can see plenty of examples where products have created tremendous risk and liability to the construction industry, the avalanche of EIFS litigation and Chinese drywall standing as just two of the most recent examples. A product failed, but that is nothing truly new.
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
