A 2013 decision from New York reminds us that threats can be costly. In Mometal Structures, Inc. v. T.A. Ahern Contractors Corp., from the Eastern District of New York, Mometal was hired by Ahern as structural steel subcontractor. The project was delayed for reasons that were not Mometal’s fault. Mometal tried to get the information and approvals
No Contractor’s License Means You Work for Free
Yet another California court decision has been issued requiring a contractor to return over $750,000 received for work he performed on a casino while he was unlicensed. In rejecting the contractor’s arguments against disgorgement, the court found that (a) California Business and Professions Code § 7031’s penalties applied to work performed for tribal corporations and
May a Contractor Sue the Owner’s Lender?
In my latest Daily Journal of Commerce Construction column, I discuss the issue of whether a contractor may sue a lender. This occasionally arises when a project’s owner runs into trouble and the construction lender stops funding. The argument that is occasionally advanced is that the lender knew the contractor had started work and, if
New for 2013! California Form Interrogatories – Construction Litigation (DISC-005)
Any construction litigation party faced with responding to California’s standard form interrogatories is all too familiar with the confusing use of the undefined term “incident” and the largely inapplicable “personal injury” interrogatories in a construction case. Similarly, any construction litigator dealing with the standard form interrogatories has felt the burden of sifting through the plethora of
Nevada Lenders Beware! Mechanic’s Liens Not Easily Avoided
Following the market crash in 2008-09, the $2.8 billion Fontainebleau development in Las Vegas was halted with 70 percent of the construction completed. Naturally, numerous mechanic’s liens were filed by contractors, subcontractors, professionals and suppliers ("claimants"). In the bankruptcy proceeding, the lenders asserted novel and potentially legally destabilizing theories against the claimants’ rights: a.) the
The Litigation Process: An Upper Division School of Hard Knocks
Litigation can be one of the most time-consuming and expensive ways to resolve disputes in the construction industry. Often, parties to construction-related disputes prefer to resolve them through alternate dispute resolution procedures, such as mediation or arbitration. However, sometimes litigation cannot be avoided. In his latest article in the Daily Journal of Commerce, Guy Randles
You Can’t Make This Stuff Up: The Human Condition Meets Construction Law
In my recent article “You Can’t Make This Stuff Up: The Human Condition Meets Construction Law,” published in the Daily Journal of Commerce, I outline the bizarre, seemingly impossible litigation matters of the Construction and Design business. The article touches on a variety of past cases, including an employee stabbing himself in the eye during
Multi-Party Construction Defect Litigation CLE
In a recent national webinar by the Strafford Publication Group, I spoke about the key challenges facing plaintiffs in construction defect cases, including initial case evaluation, discovery issues, expert issues and allocating damages among multiple defendants. My co-presenters from two firms in Dallas, Texas followed my presentation with the key challenges facing defendants. The slides
Utah Reverses Course on Apportioning Costs of Defense to Policyholders
A recent Utah Supreme Court decision could result in significant benefits to some policyholders in Utah’s construction industry. The case, Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. v. Unigard Insurance Co., 2012 UT 1, concerned a fight between two insurers about how to split the costs of defending a lawsuit brought against their policyholder, Cloud Nine. For
The Increasing Importance of Performance Bonds
There are now 25 states in the U.S. that hold that construction defects are not an “occurrence” and are therefore not covered under commercial general liability policies insuring contractors. Couple this troubling statistic with the ever increasing number of policy exclusions and limitations, and we begin to realize that in many situations the contractor’s insurance policy is inadequate (or non-existent) protection against defects.
The importance of performance bonds as security to pay for construction defects is therefore growing. While some sureties who sell the bonds will tell you that bonds merely guarantee completion, and do not insure against latent defects, the language of the typical bond defies this position.
Bonds plainly state that they guarantee each and every obligation of the contractor under the contract. Those obligations usually include the duty to perform work according to the plans and specifications, the standard of care, and without defect or nonconformity. This author has not seen a bond that attempts to carve out construction defects from its coverage. And bonds do not have the host of exclusions or limited coverage grants that plague the value of insurance policies. By the same token, bonds are not perfect and owners should consider the following to get the most protection from a bond:
First, the bond duration should extend at least as long as the warranty period (typically one year from completion but sometimes longer) and for as many years thereafter as possible, up to the statute of repose period in the state in which the project is located. Because construction defects often appear years after completion, the bond duration is critical. You may pay more for a bond with a longer duration, but if the bond is needed, you should be paying less for the unreliable insurance carried by the contractor.