What California’s COVID-19 Reopening Means for the Construction Industry
July 05, 2021 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogThis past Wednesday, Governor Newsom announced that California would reopen after being in lockdown for over a year due to COVID-19. Gone is Governor’s Stay at Home Executive Order. Gone is California’s Blueprint for a Safer Economy. And gone is the state’s somewhat confusing four-tier, yellow (minimal), orange (moderate), red (substantial) and purple (widespread), risk-level mapping system.
So what does this mean for the construction industry?
Well it’s not quite business back to usual. CalOSHA’s Standards Board voted this past Thursday to pass revised COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standards (“Revised Standards”). That same day, Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-09-21 implementing the Revised Standards immediately while they are being reviewed by the Office of Administrative Law.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
The Project “Completion” Paradox in California
April 06, 2016 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogWe’ve written before about why the date of “completion” on a California construction project is important, and why, if I may be blunt, determining that date can be as frustrating as a one-legged man in a game of kickass.
You see, in California the deadline to record a mechanics lien, serve a stop payment notice, or make a payment bond claim – important construction payment remedies the California State Legislature saw fit to help you get paid – often depends on when a project is “completed.” So, for example, the deadline for direct contractors to record a mechanics lien is 90 days from completion of the project.
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
$24 Million Verdict Against Material Supplier Overturned Where Plaintiff Failed To Prove Supplier’s Negligence Or Breach Of Contract Caused A SB800 Violation
June 05, 2017 —
Jon A. Turigliatto & Chelsea L. Zwart - CGDRB News & PublicationsThe Fourth District California Court of Appeal published its decision, Acqua Vista Homeowners Assoc. v. MWI, Inc. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 1129, holding that claims against a material supplier under SB800 (Civil Code §895, et. seq.) require proof that the SB800 violation was caused by the supplier’s negligence or breach of contract.
In this case, Acqua Vista Homeowners Association (“the HOA”) sued MWI, a supplier of Chinese pipe used in the construction of the Acqua Vista condominium development. The HOA’s complaint asserted a single cause of action for violation of SB800 standards, and alleged that defective cast iron pipe was used throughout the building. At trial, the HOA presented evidence that the pipes supplied by MWI contained manufacturing defects, that they leaked, and that the leaks had caused damage to various parts of the condominium development. The jury returned a special verdict against MWI, and the trial court entered a judgment against MWI in the amount of $23,955,796.28, reflecting the jury’s finding that MWI was 92% responsible for the HOA’s damages.
MWI filed a motion for a directed verdict prior to the jury’s verdict and motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict following the entry of judgment, both on the grounds that the HOA had failed to present any evidence that MWI had caused a SB800 violation as a result of its negligence or breach of contract, and had therefore failed to prove negligence and causation as required by SB800. MWI relied on the Fourth District’s prior decision in Greystone Homes, Inc. v. Midtec, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1194, and its interpretation therein of Civil Code §936, which states, in relevant part, that the statute applies “to general contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, individual product manufacturers, and design professionals to the extent that the general contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, individual product manufacturers, and design professionals caused, in whole or in part, a violation of a particular standard as the result of a negligent act or omission or a breach of contract….” (emphasis added.) However, the trial court denied both motions, relying on the last sentence of Civil Code §936, which states in part, “[T]he negligence standard in this section does not apply to any…material supplier…with respect to claims for which strict liability would apply.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Jon A. Turigliatto, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Chelsea L. Zwart, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com
Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Investigators Eye Fiber Optic Work in Deadly Wisconsin Explosion
July 18, 2018 —
Jeff Yoders – Engineering News-RecordA hole punched into a 4-in.-dia gas pipeline during fiber-optic line laying is blamed for an explosion that killed a 34-year-old fire captain and injured nine other people, including four firefighters, in downtown Sun Prairie, Wis., on July 10. The injured were treated at nearby hospitals and have since been released.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jeff Yoders, ENRMr. Yoders may be contacted at
yodersj@enr.com
WATCH: 2023 Construction Economic Update and Forecast
January 09, 2023 —
Construction ExecutiveConstruction Executive presented its "2023 Construction Economic Update and Forecast" webinar with
Associated Builders and Contractors Chief Economist Anirban Basu on Dec. 14, sponsored by
Aerotek,
Bluebeam,
CMiC and
Raken.
Basu started by announcing the Federal Reserve’s rate increase of 0.5%, the latest in a series of increases aimed at combating inflation. Calling 2022 a “year of tumult and a year of surprise,” Basu further noted that the Russian invasion of Ukraine surprised many, further disrupting global supply chains and causing a shockwave to ripple through global energy prices.
Citing the U.S. Consumer Price Index, with 7.1% year-over-year inflation in November, Basu believes we’ve “peaked in terms of inflation for this cycle”; while inflation hit higher-than-expected levels throughout 2022, it leveled off at lower-than-expected rates by the end of the year. Basu predicted inflation will continue to be problematic through 2023 as it has shifted from transitory inflation due to supply-chain disruptions in 2020 and 2022 to broader inflation due to the labor market, noting that the worst of the supply-chain issues seem to be over, reaching a high point in late 2021.
Blaming the injection of fiscal stimulus coming from the federal government, monetary stimulus from the Federal Reserve and the fact that inflation has now become ingrained in the economy and in people’s expectations, leading to wage and price increases, Basu calls the economy “overheated.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Where Breach of Contract and Tortious Interference Collide
July 18, 2022 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsClaims for breach of contract are numerous in the construction law world. Without these claims we construction attorneys would have a hard time keeping the doors open. A 2021 case examined a different sort of claim that could arise (though, “spoiler alert” did not in this case) during the course of a construction project. That type of claim is one for tortious interference with business expectancy.
In Clark Nexsen, Inc. et. al v. Rebkee, the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia gave a great explanation of the law of this type of claim in analyzing the following basic facts:
In 2018, Clark Nexsen, Inc. (“Clark”) and MEB General Contractors, Inc. (“MEB”) responded to Henrico County’s (“Henrico”) Request for Proposals (“RFP”) for the design and construction of a sport and convocation center (the “Project”). Henrico initially shortlisted Clark and MEB as a “design-build” team for the Project, but later restarted the search, issuing a second RFP. Clark and MEB submitted a second “design-build” proposal, but Henrico selected Rebkee Co. (“Rebkee”) for certain development aspects of the Project. MEB also submitted proposals to Rebkee, and Rebkee selected MEB as the design-builder for the Project. MEB, at Rebkee’s request, solicited proposals from three design firms and ultimately selected Clark as its design partner. From December 2019 to May 2020, Clark and MEB served as the design-build team to assist Rebkee in developing the Project. In connection therewith, Clark developed proprietary designs, technical drawings, and, with MEB, several cost estimates. In February 2020, MEB submitted a $294,334.50 Pay Application to Rebkee for engineering, design, and Project development work. Rebkee never paid MEB. Henrico paid MEB $50,000.00 as partial payment for MEB’s and Clark’s work. MEB then learned that Rebkee was using Clark’s drawings to solicit design and construction proposals from other companies. On July 23, 2020, Rebkee told MEB that Henrico directed it to cancel the design-build arrangement with MEB and Clark and pursue a different planning method. MEB and Clark sued and Rebkee for, among other claims, tortious interference with a business expectancy. Rebkee moved to dismiss the tortious interference claim.
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
Five-Year Statute of Limitations on Performance-Type Surety Bonds
December 01, 2017 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThe statute of limitations on a claim against a performance-type bond is 5 years from the breach of the bond, i.e., the bond-principal’s default (based on the same statute of limitations that governs written contracts / obligations). See Fla. Stat. s. 95.11(2)(b). This 5-year statute of limitations is NOT extended and does NOT commence when the surety denies the claim. It commences upon the default of the bond-principal, which would be the act constituting the breach of the bond. This does not mean that the statute of limitations starts when a latent defect is discovered. This is not the case. In dealing with a completed project, the five-year statute of limitations would run when the obligee (beneficiary of the bond) accepted the work. See Federal Insurance Co. v. Southwest Florida Retirement Center, Inc., 707 So.2d 1119, 1121-22 (Fla. 1998).
This 5-year statute of limitations on performance-type surety bonds has recently been explained by the Second District in Lexicon Ins. Co. v. City of Cape Coral, Florida, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D2521a (Fla. 2d DCA 2017), a case where a developer planned on developing a single-family subdivision.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
UPDATE: ACS Obtains Additional $13.6 Million for General Contractor Client After $19.2 Million Jury Trial Victory
June 27, 2022 —
Kristina Southwell - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCIn March 2022, ACS obtained a $19.2 million jury verdict in favor of its general contractor client after a lengthy trial against the project owner. Since that time, ACS has successfully obtained awards through post-trial motion practice for an additional $13.6 million in favor of the general contractor. These awards increased to total judgment to more than $32 million.
When moving to enter judgment on the jury verdict, ACS successfully argued for and obtained more than $5 million in prejudgment interest on the jury verdict to compensate the general contractor for having to go years without payment for work performed. ACS also successfully obtained a decree of foreclosure on its construction lien and incorporated language in the judgment requiring the owner to pay an additional $1.9 million in Washington State sales tax on the jury award. Finally, under the authority of the Washington construction lien statute (RCW 60.04.181), ACS sought to recover the attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses incurred by the general contractor client during the course of litigation. ACS succeeded in obtaining an award for more than $6.6 million for various expenses and costs including ACS’s attorney fees, all the costs of hiring expert witnesses, costs and expenses related to subcontractors’ presentation of pass-through claims against the owner, and other litigation costs and expenses.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kristina Southwell, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMs. Southwell may be contacted at
wendy.wheatmccoy@acslawyers.com
