But I already paid for that! So you have a mechanic's lien; now what? (Part 1)
Your project is coming along fine, despite the economy. You’ve weathered the squalls of bids, design changes, agency approval, and credit (mercifully), and now even construction completion is looking good. You can see the finish line through the haze on the horizon, and you’re fairly pleased with how you have pulled everything together with what has been a long haul through the system. You’re in the home stretch. You’re closing down the last items and payment obligations to ensure everything will get done. You didn’t even have to spend much money on legal fees in drafting the contract or during construction (that alone is reason to cheer for your department’s budget). You may just go on a “road show” to tout your expertise about how projects should be run. And then....
You receive a call from your project manager letting you know that a subcontractor says it wasn’t paid and will file a mechanic’s lien in five days if it doesn’t get a check. Well, how could that be? You have a record of payments to the general contractor, but you cannot find a release for those payments. You get two more calls from unpaid trades.... Yet, you feel somewhat confident; after all, the contract says the general contractor “is responsible” and you have that record showing you did pay him. It’s his responsibility to pay all the people he contracted with, right? Well, yes and no (of course!) is the legal answer your construction lawyer will likely give you.
Unfortunately, this scenario is becoming all too common in this lingering depressed construction environment. Tight bids, job or trade failures, and an ailing economy have trapped many owners and general contractors, causing them to potentially pay twice for work they thought was already “clear” and paid for.
Although each state’s laws on mechanic’s liens govern each party’s obligations and rights, in my next post I will provide you with some simple, general guidelines that owners and general contractors should keep in mind at the beginning of each project to help protect against the possibility of such a double payment.
Not so Ahead of Schedule: OSHA Reform
Contributor: Louis A. Ferreira
Congress has proposed legislation that would amend the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to increase both civil and criminal penalties, expand coverage, and create new obligations for employers. Congress has not acted recently on the bill, named the “Protecting America's Workers Act," but employers should expect action sometime in the new year.
Willful violations of OSHA that result in the death of a worker would be a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison, while willful violations resulting in serious bodily injury would be a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. Currently, the criminal penalty for a willful violations resulting in death is imprisonment for 1 year. There is no criminal penalty under the existing act for a serious bodily injury resulting from a willful violation. In addition, the maximum civil penalties in all OSHA violation categories would increase, and would be adjusted periodically according to the Consumer Price Index.
Oregon-OSHA administers its own regulations for most employers in the state but adopts standards and penalties at least as stringent as federal OSHA. In other words, if federal OSHA standards are changed, these impacts will be enforced in Oregon in short order. Employers should be concerned about the scope of these changes because like most legislation, the devil is in the details of how the law is changed. For instance, a willful violation of an OSHA standard does not necessarily require an intentional decision to violate the regulation. A willful violation is defined to exist where an employer or supervisor “recklessly” disregards the requirements of a regulation. Knowledge of the regulation is usually not required it the employer or supervisor should have known of the regulation or standard.
Additionally, employers would be prohibited from
- adopting or implementing policies or practices that discourage reporting work-related injuries or illnesses, or that discriminate or provide adverse action against any employee reporting such injury or illness; and
- reducing wages or employee benefits while employees participate in or aid workplace inspections
Continue Reading...
You Are a Project Owner or Developer Who Wants to Build a Green Project? So, What Do You Actually Put in Your Contracts?
Despite the explosion of articles, seminars and webinars on green building and development during the last year or so, there is a dearth of information in the development world regarding what project owners and developers who do want to build a green project should actually put in their design and construction contracts.
Here is what I think is important regarding this subject:
General Green Building Certification Goal. The project owner first must decide in general what green building goal it wants to achieve. LEED certification (from the US Green Building Council), at a particular certification level (general, silver, gold, platinum), is an obvious option. But there are other general green building certifications, too, such as Green Globes (Green Building Initiative) and SBTool07 (International Initiative For a Sustainable Built Environment), as examples. The owner should make this basic decision early on, based on good information and analysis and the advice and recommendations of design and green building consultants, as applicable.
Industry-Specific Green Building Certification Goal. Deciding on an overall green building goal such as a LEED certification is not the only certification goal a project owner should consider, however. There also is a growing number of industry-specific certifications that the owner should evaluate, depending on the nature of the project and the owner’s business. For example, there are certifications available for health facilities (Practice Greenhealth), restaurants (Green Restaurant Association) and hotels (Hotel Pure Green). How important an industry-specific certification of this type is to an owner is a question to be addressed at the start of the design process.
Tax and Other Governmental Incentives Goal. Another element of green building goals to be considered is tax and other governmental incentives relating to green building. Particularly in Oregon and under new federal stimulus legislation, there may be tax credits, grants and other public sector incentives for green, sustainable and energy efficient construction that can be of substantial benefit to a project. However, these incentives must be identified as project goals early in a project’s design in order to ensure that the owner is able to take advantage of them.
Making Green Building Goals Explicit. Once an owner has sorted through its optional goals for LEED or other general certification, for industry-specific certification and for tax and other governmental incentives, these goals should be expressly set out in the owner’s design and construction contracts. Otherwise, the owner’s architect and contractor will not have any contractual obligations to achieve the owner’s green building goals. Typical form contracts, including 2007 American Institute of Architects (“AIA”) forms of contract, include minimal references to these kinds of obligations and do not include language in which to make the goals explicit.
Continue Reading...Chinese Drywall Investigation One of Largest in CPSC History
The Consumer Product Safety Commission has spent more than $3.5 Million investigating sulfur-containing drywall in what has become one of the largest investigations in CPSC history, according to Scott Wolfson, spokesman for the CPSC. And the investigation is not done yet. During a press conference last week, the CPSC announced the release of more than 1,800 pages of investigation documents from three separate studies. Additional reports are expected to be released later this month.
Based on this initial information, the CPSC has confirmed that suspect Chinese drywall contains elevated levels of sulfur compounds in comparison to non-Chinese drywall. According to Mr. Wolfson, the measured levels do not pose a human health risk to homeowners. Still, the CPSC has received more than 1,900 complaints about drywall-related health symptoms and other problems. In addition, the CPSC is continuing to work on a 50-home study with the Lawrence Berkeley Livermore Laboratory, and this report may provide the scientific evidence necessary to connect Chinese drywall to the symptoms homeowners have been experiencing.
What is more, the reports due later this month may also answer the question about whether the CPSC will seek a recall of Chinese drywall. So far, the drywall manufacturers have not voluntarily agreed to recall their product, which means that the CPSC will need to clearly establish a link between Chinese drywall and the problems it is believed to have caused. Although the CPSC declined to comment about whether a recall action was imminent, Mr. Wolfson did say that the CPSC is “continuing to try to gather that proof” and that “rigorous scientific evidence is needed” to link the tainted drywall to health problems and excessive corrosion.
Finally, the CPSC recently launched a new website, www.drywallresponse.gov, and a hotline, 1-800-638-2772, to help consumers affected by this issue.
Negligence Claims Take Another Twist in Oregon
Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water, the Oregon Court of Appeals strikes again with another iteration of the “economic loss doctrine” which defines when parties can sue each other in negligence for construction defects. In Abraham v. Henry (September 2, 2009) the Court held that parties to a contract can sue each other in negligence if a rule, code or standard “independent of the contract” has been violated. A prime source for independent rules, held the Court, is the Oregon Building Code. From now on, we can expect to see plaintiffs including in their complaints that one or more provisions of the Oregon Building Code have been violated. It will be easy to find such violations in most construction defect claims.
The prior standard, enunciated in the Jones v. Emerald case, held that there must be a “special relationship” between the contracting parties in order to support a negligence claim. No one really knew what a special relationship was, but most believed that alleging in the complaint that the owner relied on the contractor’s expertise was sufficient to create such a relationship and thus a right to sue in negligence. Abraham may have changed that belief by pointing out that, at least in that case, there was nothing “special” about the arms-length owner/contractor relationship, and, with or without reliance on the “expertise” of the contractor, each party was acting on its own behalf and for its own benefit.
Other decisions from Oregon courts support the argument that the economic loss doctrine does not bar negligence claims if there is physical property damage, but this argument was not made or at least not addressed by the Abraham court.
The principal reason – if not the only reason – why the economic loss rule is relevant is that Oregon’s statute of limitations for breach of contract is six years from the date of breach (which, at the latest, is usually the date of substantial completion or failure to honor extended warranties). For claims discovered and/or brought after six years, you must be able to assert a negligence theory for the claim to be viable, because the negligence period runs two years from the date of discovery of the claim (as opposed to the date of breach), capped by the 10 year statute of repose (which states that all claims must be brought regardless of discovery within 10 years from substantial completion). Thus, if you cannot assert a negligence claim, you may have no other claim to assert.
The vast amount of time and fees generated in litigating statute of limitations issues in Oregon construction cases is fueled by (1) disparate limitations periods for breach and negligence claims, (2) disparate limitations periods for claims against designers versus contractors, and (3) the every changing – and arguably inconsistent – decisions from Oregon courts on what the rules of the game really are. Oregon needs a “Construction Defect Reform Act” with one limitations period for all claims against all parties on a construction project, governed by a discovery rule and capped by a statute of respose, with a clear statutory answer to the economic loss rule. Until then, uncertainty and high legal fees will continue to be the norm.
Oregon Court of Appeals Provides Clarification to Contractor Negligence Claims
The Oregon Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion in Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, Inc., et al., a residential construction defect case, that helps clarify the circumstances under which a contractor may be sued for negligence. The issue of whether a contractor may be sued for negligence, as opposed to breach of contract is, in many cases, relevant to a determination of whether the owner’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations. Owners often need to rely upon a negligence claim to get past the six-year statute of limitations that applies to claims for breach of contract.
In Jones v. Emerald Pacific Homes, Inc., which was decided in 2003, the Oregon Court of Appeals held that an owner who had a contract with a contractor could sue the contractor in negligence if the contractor had breached a standard of care that was independent of any contractual duty or standard of care. Some courts generally referred to the non-contractual duty or standard of care as a “special relationship.” The Jones opinion then only begged the question of what constituted a special relationship.
In Abraham, the court held that, among other possibilities, a contractor’s duty to comply with the applicable building code constituted a duty independent of the contract and thereby created the type of special relationship necessary for asserting a negligence claim.
Abraham will be an important tool for owners seeking to pursue construction defect claims in situations in which the owner’s contract claim has expired due to the six-year statute of limitations, but only in certain types of cases. The Oregon Legislature recently passed legislation shortening the statute of ultimate repose (which is different from the statute of limitations) to six years, for medium to large commercial projects. As a result, the issue of whether a contractor may be sued for negligence, as opposed to breach of contract, will be relevant only to residential and small commercial projects and the Abraham case will be relevant only to those situations.
Be Alert to New AIA Construction Contract Forms
Contractors and owners used to the pre-2007 AIA document forms should know that the AIA has revised its most popular forms and that the AIA software no longer supports the older versions. You may still see the older forms in Word or similar formats, but you won’t be seeing the official AIA document that automatically highlights changes from the official forms. That means you need to be more cautious about form contracts you receive that appear to be based on the older AIA forms. Changes from the official AIA versions won’t necessarily be highlighted. Construction lawyers have mixed feelings about the new AIA forms. They correct some provisions that didn’t work well in the past, but create some new concerns. As always, you need to consider the specific circumstances of your project before using any standard form contract.
Oregon OSHA Clarifies That Employers Are Liable On Per-Employee Basis
Are Oregon contractors liable on a per-employee basis for failing to comply with OSHA personal protective equipment (PPE) and training requirements? Under a new administrative order issued by Oregon OSHA, the answer is yes.
Under this order, Oregon OSHA adopted a federal OSHA rule clarifying that employers are liable for violations on a per-employee basis. Until now, there was some uncertainty whether OSHA could impose penalties on an employer for each employee who failed to comply with OSHA’s PPE and training standards. Not now. This raises the stakes for any Oregon contractor that fails to make sure its employees follow these standards. Contractors should alert their safety managers that each PPE or training violation (for example, an employee not showing up with the right footwear) may result in a penalty.
Because the Oregon OSHA order is based on a federal rule, contractors working outside Oregon should find out whether the new federal OSHA rule applies in their states too.
The Risk of Builders Risk
Contractors and owners obtain builders risk policies to protect themselves from risks associated with construction. But a lack of care in understanding and negotiating the provision of the construction agreement governing the builders-risk policy and the policy itself may lead the parties to expose themselves to needless and significant liability.
What owners and general contractors should do to protect themselves
If a construction contract requires the owner or the general contractor to obtain a builders risk policy—and it should—then that party should in fact obtain the policy. This may seem painfully obvious, but sometimes parties do not obtain required policies.
Courts have held, unsurprisingly, that a construction contract calling for a builders-risk policy means what it says. If the party whom the contract required to obtain a builders-risk policy does not obtain a policy, that party assumes the risk of loss that ought to have been covered by the policy. So, if a construction agreement requires, say, the owner to obtain a builders-risk policy, the owner should obtain the policy, and the other parties relying upon the policy should confirm the existence of the policy and its terms.
The Builders-Risk Policy Should Allow for the Construction Contract’s Mutual Waiver of Subrogation
Construction contracts frequently include a clause in which the owner and the contractor, both covered by the builders-risk policy, waive their right of subrogation against each other regarding any damages covered by that policy. The owner should not be able to sue the contractor for a loss if the owner has already obtained builders-risk insurance that would make him whole (or vice versa)—the mutual waiver of subrogation prevents the owner or the contractor from recovering twice.
However, if the builders-risk policy itself contains a provision preventing the parties from waiving subrogation, the execution of the construction contract may violate the policy conditions and might prevent recovery under the builders-risk policy.
As the owner and contractor negotiate the construction contract and the builders-risk insuring agreement, they need to pay attention to the provisions in each agreement governing subrogation. Broadly, they need to pay attention to the effect that each agreement has on the other, and should ensure that the builders-risk policy does not prevent the parties from waiving their subrogation rights. Moreover, they need to pay attention to the interaction between a builders-risk policy and any property insurance policy the owner may have (see below). The waiver of subrogation should apply to claims brought under the property policy for a few years after termination of the builders-risk policy.
The Construction Contract Should Specify When and under What Conditions the Owner Can Terminate the Builders-Risk Policy
Builders-risk policies are, as their name suggests, designed to cover risk arising from building. Once the structure is built, though, the builders-risk policy usually terminates. Builders-risk policies also typically terminate on the occurrence of a number of other conditions.
For example, the builders-risk policy may end when the equipment in a plant is first energized, on the theory that once you fire up the plant, it is no longer under construction but is operating as a business and therefore presents different insurable risks.
Once builder-risk insurance terminates, usually the owner’s property insurance kicks in. Property insurance, however, does not usually protect the contractor because the contractor is not a named insured under that policy, and it will not protect against all the events that a builders-risk policy would. If an insurable event occurs that would have been covered by the builders-risk policy after the policy has been terminated, there may be no coverage, possibly causing the parties to argue about whether the policy was properly terminated. If the owner terminates the builders-risk policy without telling the general contractor—and yes, this does happen—the parties will then argue whether the termination actually occurred.
Simply, unexpected termination of a builders-risk policy can ruin your day. The term of a builders-risk policy, then, is a critical point to negotiate and to stick to. Owners should not terminate a builders-risk policy early, and contractors should ask for a provision in the policy requiring the owner to give them notice before termination of the policy so that the contractor can arrange for adequate coverage elsewhere.
Is your project's design work insured? Here's an insurance policy to keep in mind
With all the stuff to worry about during a construction project, one of the areas that’s commonly overlooked is insurance coverage. Owners and contractors often assume that the parties they’re contracting with have adequate insurance, or that the information on an insurance certificate (which, by the way, isn’t binding on the insurance company) is an accurate picture of a company’s insurance profile.
These assumptions are especially dangerous if there is a lack of professional liability insurance for design-build work. In design-build projects, the general contractor (GC) or one of its subs, rather than the owner, hires the architect and engineer to design the project. But even if your project isn’t 100% design-build, there’s a good chance that some of the design work – for example, fire sprinkler design – won’t be performed by the project architect hired by the owner. Either way, you can bet that the liability policies of the GC or its subs don’t cover the errors of architects or engineers hired by the GC or sub to design the work. So, without coverage through a designer’s insurance, and without coverage through the GC’s or subs’ liability insurance, there’s a hole in insurance coverage. And even if a design professional hired by the GC or a sub carries insurance, it may be inadequate to cover the potential loss.
One option is to acquire Contractor’s Protective Professional Indemnity and Liability Insurance, or CPPI. CPPI is insurance that a contractor can buy that indemnifies the contractor for negligent errors and omissions of a design professional hired by the contractor. If written properly, CPPI gives the contractor coverage for design errors if the design professional’s own insurance comes up short.
Like all insurance, CPPI isn’t perfect. CPPI will likely have exclusions that will limit coverage (for example, for mold), and, to shake out a policy’s weaknesses, the fine print should be carefully reviewed. And because CPPI doesn’t kick in until it’s determined whether the design professional’s own insurance applies, it may be months or even years until the CPPI policy responds to a claim. But if design work isn’t otherwise adequately insured, CPPI could help a contractor protect itself and the project owner.
