The Americas – Page 13 – Construction Law

K&L Gates’ Arbitration World, May 2011

May 05 2011

From the Editors

Welcome to the 15th edition of Arbitration World, a publication from K&L Gates’ Arbitration Group. This special edition focuses on issues and recent developments in the insurance coverage field. We also include our usual round-up of news items in international commercial arbitration and investment treaty arbitration.

We hope you find this edition of Arbitration World of interest, and we welcome any feedback (email ian.meredith@klgates.com or peter.morton@klgates.com).

In this Issue:

News from around the World
World Investment Treaty Arbitration Update
Business Interruption Claims and Natural Disasters
Drafting Arbitration Clauses for Insurance Policies
Repeat Arbitrator Appointments and Issue Conflicts in Bermuda Form Arbitrations
Continued Conflict over Whether McCarran-Ferguson Act “Reverse Pre-emption” Bars International Insurance Arbitrations
Political Risk Insurance – Making Recoveries and the Use of Arbitration
U.S. Courts Expand the Extent of Insurance Coverage for Construction Defects under Commercial General Liability Policies

View the entire May 2011 edition here.

Heads Up – SBA Makes Major Revisions and Changes to 8(a) Program

Apr 01 2011

By: Lawrence M. Prosen, Andrew R. McFall, K&L Gates, Washington, D.C.

The United States Small Business Administration’s (“SBA”) 8(a) Small Business Development Program plays a significant role in federal procurement. The 8(a) program was developed by the SBA, from enabling legislation known as the Small Business Act, to assist small disadvantaged businesses (“SDBs”) owned by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.

In recent years, the United States Congress and the United States Government Accountability Office (“GAO”), as well as various Offices of Inspector General and “watchdog groups,” have increasingly monitored and investigated the 8(a) program. As a result of these investigations and oversight, the GAO released a report on March 2010, which identified a number of contracts that had been awarded to businesses that were not eligible for the 8(a) program. Concurrent with various investigations, the SBA began the process of updating the regulations that govern the 8(a) program. On February 11, 2011, the SBA published its final revised 8(a) program regulations, which are the first significant changes to the program in a decade or longer. This white paper focuses on a few key provisions in the new 8(a) regulations that affect not only the SDBs themselves, but often large businesses as well.

To view the complete white paper, click here.

K&L Gates’ Arbitration World, February 2011

Feb 17 2011

From the Editors

Welcome to the 14th edition of Arbitration World, a publication from K&L Gates’ Arbitration Group that highlights significant developments and issues in international and domestic arbitration for executives and in-house counsel with responsibility for dispute resolution.

We hope you find this edition of Arbitration World of interest, and we welcome any feedback (email ian.meredith@klgates.com or peter.morton@klgates.com).

In this Issue:

News from around the World
World Investment Treaty Arbitration Update
The New Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance
Rules on Impartiality and Independence of Arbitrators
Recent English Decisions on Non-Parties to Arbitration Agreements
Clearing the Hurdles of International Arbitration in Asia, Part 1
Arbitration Provisions with a Non-U.S. Forum and Non-U.S. Choice-of-Law May Be Struck Down as Against U.S. Public Policy
New International Arbitration Decree Strengthens the Attractiveness of Paris as a Place of Arbitration
English Court Refuses to Expand Scope of Review of Arbitral Awards
Enforcement of Foreign Awards in India – The Latest Instalment

View the entire February 2011 edition here.

Navigating State Design Build Statutes in the Wake of a “Turned Federal Battleship”

Feb 16 2011

By: Josh M. Leavitt, John C. McIlwee, K&L Gates

For Presentation to Practising Law Institute Symposium
Building Better Construction Contracts: Tailoring Incentives, Creating Collaboration and Developing Effective Risk Allocation

Panel Discussion: Creating a Better Design/Build Agreement

April, 2011, New York City

Those attending this symposium no doubt are familiar with the touted benefits of the design build delivery method: (1) single point of responsibility to owner; (2) shortening certain project times; (3) fewer change orders and more cost-certainty; (4) fostering higher quality work-product; (5) reduced finger-pointing in the event of claims; and (6) minimizing certain owner’s risks. While design build is widely used on suitable projects in the private sector, the story has been different in the public sector, particularly at the state level.

To view the entire article, click here.

To learn more about this event and to register, click here.

No License; No Claim; No Recovery: Oregon Contractors Beware!

Feb 07 2011

Stellar J Corp. v. Smith & Loveless, Inc., 2010 WL 3118360 (D. Or. Aug. 5, 2010)

By: Tom Wolfendale, K&L Gates, Seattle

Overview:

A general contractor ("general") brought a claim, originally in state court, against one of its first tier subcontractors ("sub") for breach of contract; in turn, the first tier subcontractor removed the action to federal court and brought claims against the general and its surety for breach and quantum meruit.

On a public works project, the sub was to supply and install equipment for a city wastewater treatment project. At the time of contracting with the general, the sub did not have an Oregon Contractor’s license. During the work, the general terminated the sub for failure to perform. The sub counterclaimed alleging the general breached and also sued the general’s surety for recovery. The general asserted an affirmative defense that the sub did not have an Oregon license and could not prosecute its counterclaims.

The general contractor sought summary judgment against the sub claims based on the sub’s failure to obtain an Oregon license. The federal contract dismissed the sub’s claims.

No Recovery For an Injury Sustained at a Trailer Where Work Was Not Performed

Jan 20 2011

Lynch v. 99 Washington, LLC, 80 A.D.3d 977, 915 N.Y.S.2d 353 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep’t 2011)

In Lynch, the plaintiff injured his knee when stepping out of a trailer on a job site onto a free-standing stairwell that was allegedly misaligned with the trailer. He sued under New York Labor Law and advanced common law negligence theories. The Appellate Division, Third Department, held that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted on all claims, reasoning that because the plaintiff was not performing construction work when the injury occurred, recovery was not available under a statute providing a cause of action for work-related injuries.

Insurance for Major Design and Construction Projects

Jan 14 2011

Please join K&L Gates and Aon on January 26, 2011 for a complimentary seminar where a panel will discuss key issues relating to insurance for large construction projects. The panel includes K&L Gates Construction and Engineering Group partners and representatives from Aon Construction Services Group and Aon Risk Solutions. Owners, developers, contractors and design professionals will benefit from this presentation. This program will be offered as a live event and as a webinar.

Topics Include:

An examination of the traditional risk allocation model – problems and benefits
Wrap-up policies (CCIPs and OCIPs) – benefits v. drawbacks
Builders risk policies – what you need to know
Errors and omission policies – how to properly insure professional liability
Key considerations when filing claims and how to respond when claims are denied

If you missed this event, please enjoy complimentary access to the slide show presentation available here.

Subcontractor Defendant Permitted to Amend its Answer to Plead Lack of Privity

Jan 10 2011

Logan-Baldwin v. L.S.M. Gen. Contractors, Inc., 914 N.Y.S.2d 617 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2011)

In this case, the homeowner plaintiffs sued the contractor, subcontractors, and their principals alleging breach of contract and fraudulent inducement, arising out of a renovation project in their historic Rochester home. A subcontractor moved for summary judgment, alleging lack of privity with the plaintiffs, who defended on the ground that the subcontractor failed to plead lack of privity in its answer, thereby waiving that defense. The Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion, finding that privity is an essential element of a breach of contract claim and allowing the defendant to amend its answer to add the defense of privity. The court emphasized that this was a matter of judicial discretion, and the defense appeared to have merit, the general rule being that an owner has no privity with a subcontractor. Here, the court found no clear language to the contrary.

Question of Insurance Company Estoppel Certified to State Court

Jan 05 2011

10 Ellicott Square Court Corp. v. Mountain Valley Indemnity Co., 2010 WL 5295420 (2d Cir. Dec. 28, 2010)

In this case, the plaintiffs were, respectively, the owner and construction manager of a commercial building project in Buffalo. They contracted with a third firm for interior demolition in the building; the construction agreement required the demolition company to secure insurance to cover legal liability resulting from the demolition project. The company secured a primary policy and an umbrella policy from the defendant, which issued a certificate of insurance naming the plaintiffs as additional insureds. The primary policy specifically required the underlying construction agreement to be “executed” for any injury to be covered by the policy, but before the agreement was signed, a worker was injured and sued. The defendant declined coverage, arguing that the construction agreement had not been executed in time.

Not All Construction Damage Recoveries are Created Equal

Jan 03 2011

Presented by K&L Gates Partners Timothy L. Pierce, Jason L. Richey, and Lawrence M. Prosen at the 25th Annual Construction SuperConference in San Francisco, CA on December 16, 2010, this presentation explores how typical construction claims on the same project may vary depending on venue of the project.

Click here to view the presentation.

Catagory:The Americas