Case Summaries – Page 2 – Construction Law

Insurance Policy Did Not Prevent Association Recovery from Subcontractors for Defective Work

Apr 10 2017

By Justin L. Weisberg

On 17 February, the First District Appellate Court issued an opinion regarding the Implied Warranty of Habitability in the case of Sienna Court Condominium Association v. Champion Aluminum Court et al. The opinion involved three separate appeals: the first relating to claims by Sienna Court Condominium Association (“Sienna”) against an insolvent developer and an insolvent general contractor; the second involving the dismissal of Sienna’s claims against the architect, the engineers, and suppliers; and the third involving the dismissal of the general contractor’s claims against its subcontractors.

To read the full alert on K&L Gates HUB, click here.

Time Waits for No-One When a Garnishee Order can be Obtained to Enforce an Adjudicator’s Determination

Feb 27 2017

By: Sandra Steele and Andrew Hales, K&L Gates, Sydney

The Supreme Court is often called upon by an aggrieved party to restrain enforcement of an adjudicator’s determination whilst that party seeks to have the determination set aside.

In an ex tempore decision in Atlas Construction Group Pty Limited v Fitz Jersey Pty Limited [2017] NSWSC 72, his Honour Justice McDougall held that Fitz Jersey Pty Limited was not entitled to an interim injunction requiring AUD11 million received by Atlas Construction Group Pty Ltd pursuant to a garnishee order to be paid into court whilst Fitz Jersey pursued its application to set aside an adjudicator’s determination.

To read the full alert on K&L Gates HUB, click here.

California Construction Risk Management Update: In Khosh v. Staples Construction Co., Court Further Defines Rule that Contractor Not Responsible for Sub’s Worksite Injury

Dec 12 2016

By Timothy L. Pierce, Hector H. Espinosa, and Eric M. Khodadian, K&L Gates, Los Angeles

The Court’s decision in Khosh v. Staples Const. Co., Inc., Case No. 56-2014-00447304-CU-PO-VTA (Oct. 26, 2016) helps to further define the boundaries for whether a general contractor may be found responsible for worksite injuries suffered by an independent subcontractor’s employee.

In Khosh, the California Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision that general contractor Staples Construction Company, Inc. (“Staples”) was not responsible for injuries sustained by an electrical subcontractor’s employee, who was severely electrocuted on the jobsite.

Flintco Pacific, Inc. v. TEC Mgmt. Consultants, Inc.: “Reasonable Reliance” on Subcontractor’s Bid

Oct 10 2016

By Timothy L. Pierce, Hector H. Espinosa, and Benjamin Kussman, K&L Gates, Los Angeles

In California, general contractors can “reasonably rely” on subcontractors’ bids when submitting their own bids to the owner. In Flintco Pacific, Inc. v. TEC Mgmt. Consultants, Inc., Case No. B258353 (July 19, 2016), the California Court of Appeal addressed what constitutes “reasonable” reliance, holding that it was unreasonable for a general contractor to rely on a subcontractor bid based on price alone, while ignoring other, material conditions of the offer.

In Flintco, Flintco Pacific, Inc. (“Flintco”), a general contractor, received a bid from TEC Management Consultants (“TEC”) to perform subcontract work on a community college building project. In addition to the bid price of $1,272,960, TEC’s bid included the following conditions: (1) a 35% up-front deposit; (2) the right to withdraw its bid if not accepted within 15 days; and (3) a minimum 3% price escalation, per quarter, after the 15-day acceptance period. Flintco used TEC’s bid price in compiling its own bid and was awarded the contract in July 2011. Read More

Interim Payments – No Automatic Entitlement to Interim Payments Beyond the Last Date in the Agreed Payment Schedule

Aug 22 2016

By Nita Mistry, K&L Gates, London

In Grove Developments Limited v Balfour Beatty Regional Construction Limited [2016] EWHC 168 (TCC), the contract (JCT Design and Build Contract, 2011 edition with bespoke amendments) contained an agreed schedule of 23 interim valuation and payment dates. The last date in the schedule coincided with the date of practical completion. The works completed after the contractual date for completion of the works. The contractor issued an interim application number 24. This interim application was outside of the agreed payment schedule. The contract did not contain a provision regarding payment beyond the 23 scheduled payments. The employer argued that the contractor was not entitled to issue further applications beyond interim application 23, and the judge, Mr Justice Stuart-Smith, agreed. The contractor was not entitled to further interim payments.

Picerne Constr. Corp. v. Castellino Villas

Aug 15 2016

By Hector H. Espinosa and Benjamin Kussman, K&L Gates, Los Angeles

Under California’s mechanic’s lien laws, a general contractor has 90 days from “completion” of its work to record a claim of mechanic’s lien. Ca. Civ. Code §8412. Previously, it remained unsettled as to when this 90-day period began to run because some California courts held that the 90-day clock was triggered upon substantial completion of contractor’s work. In Picerne Constr. Corp., the California Court of Appeal rejected this interpretation of Ca. Civ. Code §3115[1], ruling that completion (for purposes of the 90-day window) only occurs upon “actual completion” of the work of improvement as defined by statute.

New Jersey Supreme Court Gives Supreme Win to Policyholders

Aug 08 2016

By Frederic J. Giordano, Robert F. Pawlowski, Denise N. Yasinow, K&L Gates, Newark

On August 4, 2016, the Supreme Court of New Jersey unanimously affirmed the Appellate Division’s holding that consequential damages caused by a subcontractor’s faulty workmanship constitute “property damage” and an “occurrence” under the 1986 Insurance Services Office, Inc. (“ISO”) form commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance policy. This holding is welcome news to real estate developers, general contractors, and commercial policyholders who may seek coverage for damage caused by the faulty work of their subcontractors.

To read the full alert, click here.

FIDIC Update: The Employer’s Claim to Liquidated Damages and Performance Security under the Yellow Book

Jun 01 2016

By Camilla de Moraes, K&L Gates, London

The English courts have recently considered a number of cases involving the FIDIC suite of contracts (see here, here, and here for our previous blog posts). The most recent case of J Murphy & Sons Ltd v Beckton Energy Ltd [2016] EWHC 607 (TCC)arises out of a contract based on FIDIC Conditions of Contract for Plant and Design Build for Electrical and Mechanical Plant and for Building and Engineering Works designed by the Contractor First Edition 1999 (FIDIC Yellow Book) with amendments.

The court was required to consider the relationship between two clauses in the Contract, namely Sub-Clause 2.5 (Employer’s Claims) and Sub-Clause 8.7 (Delay Damages and Bonus) with reference also to Sub-Clause 3.5 (Determinations) and 4.2 (Performance Security). The issue in dispute was whether determination by the Engineer of the contractor’s liability for liquidated damages was a pre-requisite to recovery of liquidated damages by the Employer. The court held that the clause entitling the Employer to liquidated damages operated outside of the regime in Sub-Clause 2.5 and therefore the Engineer’s determination was not a pre-requisite to the Employer’s entitlement. This case also confirms the traditionally held view that obtaining injunctive relief preventing a beneficiary from calling on a performance bond will rarely be possible.

Pennsylvania Superior Court Holds that Economic Loss Doctrine Does Not Shield Design Professionals from Liability for Faulty Information Implicitly Represented in Design Documents

Feb 29 2016

By Michael P. Cotton, K&L Gates, Pittsburgh

In its July 8, 2015 opinion, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that design professionals are potentially subject to liability for negligent misrepresentation claims when it is alleged that their design documents negligently included false information via implicit representations. Gongloff Contracting, L.L.C. v. L. Robert Kimball & Associates, Architects & Engineers, Inc., 119 A.3d 1070 (Pa. Super. 2015). In so doing, the Superior Court clarified the scope of Section 552 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts and found that the Section does not require a design professional to make an explicit negligent misrepresentation of a specific fact for a third party to recover economic damages.

Washington Court of Appeals Confirms Enforceability of Termination-for-Convenience Clauses and Holds that Implied Covenant of Good Faith Places No Limits on Express Termination-for-Convenience Clauses

Jan 14 2016

By D.C. Wolf, Brad Lewis, and Jesse O. Franklin, K&L Gates, Seattle

The contract law concept of a “termination for convenience” allows one contracting party to terminate a contract that has become inconvenient or unnecessary and settle with the terminated party for partial performance. The doctrine originated during the U.S. Civil War to give the Union government flexibility when quickly changing battlefield conditions rendered a planned project or procurement overly costly or no longer necessary.[1]

In its recent decision in SAK & Associates, Inc. v. Ferguson Construction, Inc., No. 72258-1-1, 2015 WL 4726912 (Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 10, 2015), the Washington Court of Appeals, Division One, given very limited existing authority, clarified that partial performance of a construction project is sufficient consideration to support a termination-for-convenience clause and rejected the argument that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing limits a party’s ability to invoke such a clause.

Catagory:Case Summaries