Construction and Design

Subscribe to Construction and Design via RSS

Can parties waive both the commencement and length of the statutory limitation periods for construction defect actions?  Yes, answered the Fourth Appellate District, by allowing the parties to contractually preclude the application of the “delayed discovery” rule that normally triggers the commencement of the limitation time period and affirming case law permitting the shortening of the 10-year latent limitation period to four years.  The court did hold, however, that such waiver and shortening is permitted where there are sophisticated parties, in a commercial context, and perhaps that the contract must even be highly negotiated (or at least such negotiation is available).

On June 3, 2013, in Brisbane Lodging, L.P. v. Webcor Builders, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App., June 3, 2013, No. A132555) 2013 WL 2404154, the appellate court reviewed the trial judge’s granting of summary judgment in favor of the general contractor (“Webcor”) on the grounds that a provision in the 1997 version of the AIA 201 (General Conditions to the prime agreement between Owner and Contractor) unambiguously barred all claims, contract and tort, brought more than four years after substantial completion of the project, rather than four years after the Owner discovered the alleged breach or defect and within the 10-year statute of repose.  The key language for both the trial court and the appellate court was found in provision 13.7:

“13.7 Commencement of Statutory Limitation Period

“13.7.1 As between the Owner and Contractor:

“.1 Before Substantial Completion. As to acts or failures to act occurring prior to the relevant date of Substantial Completion, any applicable statute of limitations shall commence to run and any alleged cause of action shall be deemed to have accrued in any and all events not later than such date of Substantial Completion ….” (AIA A201, Article 13.7.1.1 (Article 13.7.1.1), bolding and capitalization omitted.)

In recent years, the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”), the Legislature and the California courts have expanded the application of the prevailing wage law to projects through the broad definition of a “public works,” beyond what most contractors, owners and even counsel would expect.  While most involved in construction anticipate that any work directly for, or direct payment of funds by, a public entity would trigger the prevailing wage laws, several decisions, determinations and recent legislation have significantly expanded the prevailing wage reach over the last several years.

Very recently, the DIR determined that both the shell construction of a Volkswagen auto dealership, and the separate tenant improvements in that shell, were public projects subject to prevailing wage law due to the land transfer by the City to the developer “because the Land is a transfer of an asset of value for less than fair market price”.

Similarly, in May 2012, the DIR determined that a contractor involved in the $95 million privately funded development and construction of a new agricultural facility was subject to prevailing wage law, but for the application of the de minimis doctrine, when the contractor accepted the City’s “in lieu of fees” for the City required infrastructure improvements.  The DIR determined that “[i]t does not matter that Company is performing infrastructure improvements itself or that Company could have elected to simply pay the fee and let the City perform the infrastructure improvement work. Company plans to accept the fee waiver. Therefore, it has received or will receive public funds within the meaning of subdivision (b)(4)”.  For additional applications and coverage determinations, see also the DIR’s most recent determination.  Previously in January 2012, the Legislature eliminated the applicability of the DIR’s 2010 determinations that solar photovoltaic power purchase agreements that include installation of leased equipment on public property were not public works through the passage of Labor Code section 1720.6.  This statute specifically defines a public project in part to be the “construction or maintenance of renewable energy generating capacity or energy efficiency improvements,” if certain elements are triggered.  See the DIR determinations from April 21, 2010, PW Case 2008-038 and 2009-005, for the prior analysis:  http://www.dir.ca.gov/OPRL/PWDecision.asp.  (See also Lab. Code, §§ 1720-1720.6.)

While many in the Pacific Northwest claim to have seen Sasquatch or Bigfoot, few have any evidence to substantiate the existence of this fabled creature. Regardless, hope rings eternal for some that one day this beast will be catalogued as a genuine, albeit elusive, example of the “missing link” between man and ape.

Applying this…

I previously told you about some upcoming Seattle tunneling projects. Here now is a link to artist renderings of the new SR 520 floating bridge project, which will raise the existing bridge up above the pontoons, making space for maintenance works and storm water treatment and fire suppression utilities underneath: www.flickr.com/photos/wsdot/6871707294/in/set-72157629307832804/

 

The photo site has…

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.

 

On January 6, 2011, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) signed a contract with Seattle Tunnel Partners for the biggest piece of the SR 99 Viaduct replacement project, the 1.7 mile long tunnel carrying traffic from the south end of the Seattle waterfront to near the Seattle Center.  This is a design-build contract with…

In November 2009 the Washington State Building Code Council (“WSBCC”) approved amendments to the Washington State Residential Energy Code imposing additional energy efficiency requirements for newly permitted homes.  The controversial changes, found in Chapter 9 of the new Code, are scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2010.

The new regulation at issue requires that…

The design-build (DB) process is no longer a novelty. In the past ten years, contractors and engineers have fine-tuned the DB project delivery approach, utilizing it to build bigger and better structures at reduced costs.

As the demand for public infrastructure continues to increase and the funds to pay for public infrastructure continues to decrease…

Performance bonds—insurance-like arrangements in which a surety (the bonding company) contractually agrees to pay for the performance of a principal (the contractor) to an obligee (the owner) in case the principal fails to perform the obligations of its contract—should be used more often in construction agreements to provide owners with a source of funds to cover defective work in a project.

Currently, owners typically require contractors to obtain insurance policies with the hope that such policies cover defects in the work they perform for the owner. Though owners are willing to spend a lot of money, time, and effort in obtaining these policies, insurers continue to make revisions to their policies to limit, and sometimes prevent, coverage for these defects.

Performance bonds may provide better protection to an owner. Typically, the bond provides funds to pay for repair of defective work that may not be covered by insurance as part of the bond’s guarantee of the faithful performance of the contract by the contractor.

Unlike insurance policies, performance bonds provide coverage only for the owner’s project—if an owner discovers a defect in the contractor’s work, the owner will not have to worry whether another owner’s claim against the contractor for another defective project will reduce the coverage available under the contractor’s bond. The performance bond’s recovery pool belongs to the owner for the specific project it is drafted to cover.