Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Texas Supreme Court Finds Jurisdiction over Foreign Manufacturer
2
Fifth Circuit Upholds Use of Contractual Interim Orders and Progress Payments to Preclude Contractors from Obtaining Further Payment for Extra Work
3
State Statutes, Regulations, and Local Codes
4
State and Local Government Links
5
Architects, Builders and Contractors Organizations
6
Construction Trades
7
Construction Contracting Opportunities
8
News and Commentary
9
Washington Supreme Court Holds the Statute of Limitations Does Not Apply to Safeco Field Construction
10
Court Declines to Find Construction Company “Statutory Employer” of Injured Worker, Denies Construction Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Texas Supreme Court Finds Jurisdiction over Foreign Manufacturer

Spir Star AG v. Kumich, No. 07-0340 (Tex. Mar. 12, 2010)

By: David Coale & Matthew Sikes, K&L Gates, Dallas

The recent Texas Supreme Court case of Spir Star AG v. Kumich affirmed jurisdiction over a foreign company that had deliberately structured its Texas business to be conducted through a separate intermediary.  No. 07-0340 (Tex. March 12, 2010).  This case illustrates an aspect of personal jurisdiction over foreign entities that can be critical to disputes about projects involving overseas consultants or specialty contractors.

Read More

Fifth Circuit Upholds Use of Contractual Interim Orders and Progress Payments to Preclude Contractors from Obtaining Further Payment for Extra Work

Addicks Servs., Inc. v. GGP-Bridgeland, LP, 2010 WL 4250054 (5th Cir. Feb. 8, 2010)

This case shows the effectiveness that explicit waivers and progress payments can have on precluding contractors from obtaining further pay for alleged extra work.  A contractor sought damages for extra work and delay costs incurred in performing excavation and grading work for a developer.  The Fifth Circuit, applying Texas law, granted summary judgment in favor of a developer because the interim waivers and accompanying progress payments unambiguously released any outstanding claims for payment of extra work performed before the date of each interim waiver. 

Read More

State Statutes, Regulations, and Local Codes

A. Statutes

Maryland Employment Laws

Maryland Code
Business Regulation, Title 2, Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation
Labor and Employment, Title 3, Employment Standards and Conditions
Labor and Employment, Title 5, Occupational Safety and Health
Real Property, Title 9, Statutory Liens on Real Property

B. Regulations

Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR)

Title 5, Department of Housing and Community Development

Title 9, Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation

Title 21, State Procurement Regulations

C. Local Codes

Maryland Municipal Codes

Maryland County Codes

D. Building Codes

Maryland Building Codes

Washington Supreme Court Holds the Statute of Limitations Does Not Apply to Safeco Field Construction

Wash. State Baseball Stadium Pub. Facilities Dist. v. Huber Hunt & Nichols-Kiewit Constr. Co., 202 P.3d 924 (Wash. 2009)

The Washington Supreme Court recently issued a decision in Wash. State Baseball Stadium Pub. Facilities Dist. v. Huber Hunt & Nichols-Kiewit Constr. Co. that may have far-reaching impact on other public construction projects.  In that case, the Court unanimously held the statute of limitations does not apply to claims regarding the construction of Safeco Field brought by the owner, the Washington State Baseball Stadium Public Facilities District (“PFD”), because the construction was for the common good of the state.

At issue were construction defect claims filed by the PFD against its general contractor. The PFD alleged the general contractor failed to follow the intumescent fire protection specification for structural steel members, causing a catastrophic failure of the fire protection. The PFD discovered the defect in 2005, and filed the lawsuit in 2006. This was more than seven years after substantial completion of Safeco Field; the applicable statute of limitations for contract claims is six years. RCW 4.16.040.

The Supreme Court overturned a summary judgment dismissal of the PFD’s claims granted by the trial court, and held that the statute of limitations does not apply. The Court relied on statutory language providing that limitation periods do not apply “to actions brought in the name or for the benefit of the state.” RCW 4.16.160. The majority of the Court’s opinion grapples with the question of whether the PFD brought the construction defect action “for the benefit of the state.”

Read More

Court Declines to Find Construction Company “Statutory Employer” of Injured Worker, Denies Construction Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Baugh v. Gale Lim Holdings, Inc., 2009 WL 33149 (D. Idaho Jan 5, 2009)

In this case, Gale Lim Construction contracted with the State of Idaho to repair portions of the Tin Cup Highway.  Lim contacted Silver Star Communications before excavating, as required, and Silver Star then sent its employee, John Baugh, to the jobsite to mark its fiber optic cable.  Baugh was injured and brought a tort action against Lim.

Lim filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that worker’s compensation law made it a "statutory employer" of Baugh and therefore immune from tort claims.  Baugh defended the motion by arguing that immunity was not applicable in this case where there was no contract between Lim and Silver Star.  Holding that a question of fact remained as to the existence of a contract, the court denied the motion.

Read More

Copyright © 2024, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.