A post by Pepper Hamilton explores whether an enforceable no-damage-for-delay clause in a construction contract is also a bar to recovery of “acceleration” damages, i.e., the costs incurred by the contractor in its attempt to overcome delays to the project’s completion date.

Authors Ted R. Gropman and Christine Z. Fan point out that courts are split as to whether damages for a contractor’s “acceleration” efforts are distinguishable from “delay” damages such that they may be recovered under an enforceable no-damage-for-delay clause.

They discuss  a few ways for a contractor to circumvent an enforceable no-damage-for-delay clause to recover acceleration damages.

Read the article.

A recent New York case sheds some light on the use of contract clauses that cover cardinal changes in construction, according to an alert by Henry L. Goldberg for Moritt Hock & Hamroff.

The case involves a $5,320,000 subcontract for masonry on a project. In a dispute that arose during the project, the subcontractor alleged that the general contractor had interfered with its work and wrongfully deleted an excessive portion of the subcontractor’s work in material breach of the subcontract. In other words, in its defense it asserted the “cardinal change doctrine.”

“The standards for finding a cardinal change are imprecise; courts have wide discretion,” writes Goldberg. “What, in fact, is the ‘essential identify’ and ‘main purpose’ of your contract? Here, the court failed to find the subcontractor in breach for walking off the job.”

Read the article.

The outcome of a suit involving a contract between a general contractor and a subcontractor hinged on an apparently missing apostrophe in the agreement, writes Keith Paul Bishop in the Allen Matkins California Corporate & Securities Law blog.

The provision reads: “Ten percent (10%) of Subcontractor’s contract amount shall be withheld and will be released 35 days after completion of subcontractors work.”

The subcontractor abandoned the job, but later argued that the reference to “subcontractors” (no apostrophe) must mean any subcontractor, not just itself.  Thus, it was entitled to payment of the retention when the replacement subcontractor finished the job, the original sub argued.

Read the article.

To avoid surprises and unanticipated liability on construction projects, the parties should modify contracts consistent with Texas law—or at least be aware of the limitations that are in place due to certain Texas statutes, according to a post on the Porter Hedges Texas Construction Law blog.

Author Amy Wolfshohl discusses the top five  modifications to consider on private commercial construction projects.

Those topics include retainage, indemnity, AI coverage, Texas law, and lien releases.

Read the article.

A Mississippi federal court denied a defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment in connection with a limitation-of-liability clause, according to a post on the Constructlaw blog of Pepper Hamilton.

Anthony Finzio writes that the Court also denied the defendant’s motion for reconsideration, concluding that the defendant had not carried its burden as the movant of demonstrating that the limitation-of-liability clause limited the plaintiff’s rights as a matter of law.

The case is DAK Americas Mississippi, Inc. v. Jedson Engineering, Inc. et al.

Read the article.

By Jeffrey J. Vita
Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.

For those contractors and other parties enrolled in wrap-up insurance programs, one nagging issue frustrating risk transfer has been the Designated Operations Wrap-Up Exclusion found on many contractors’ programs. See, for example, ISO CG 21 54 01 96, which provides in relevant parts as follows:

“This insurance does not apply to ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ arising out of either your ongoing operations or operations included within the ‘products-completed operations hazard’ at the location described in the Schedule of this endorsement,as a consolidated (wrap-up) insurance program has been provided by the prime contractor/project manager or owner of the construction project in which you are involved.”

This exclusionary language creates an obstacle to the parties’ intended risk transfer in situations involving unenrolled trades or offsite exposures. For example, where an unenrolled trade causes a loss and the general contractor, construction manager and/or project owner are sued, the intent of the parties is for the upstream party(ies) to transfer the risk to the unenrolled party via the unenrolled party’s additional insured coverage. The existence of the wrap-up exclusion cited above, or any of the manuscript versions currently in use, however, frustrates this intent as certain courts interpreting the language have held the exclusion applies to the additional insured claim despite the fact that the downstream trade causing the loss is not enrolled in the wrap-up program.

As a result, upstream parties have attempted to remedy this problem by requiring the unenrolled trades to endorse their programs either to modify the wrap-up exclusion such that it does not apply to instances where the named insured (downstream party) is not enrolled in the wrap-up program or to include an exception to the exclusion for a specific project. Alternatively, the downstream party has tried to modify the wrap-up exclusion such that it does not apply to additional insured claims. Finally, upstream parties may be forced to enroll parties in the wrap-up program that they did not initially intend to enroll, in order to avoid any gap in coverage.

ISO has now solved this dilemma by issuing endorsement CG 21 54 12 19 which states that the wrap-up exclusion applies only if you (i.e. downstream party) “are enrolled in a ‘controlled (wrap-up) insurance program’ with respect to the ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ described…above at such location.” This new language closes a major loophole in the risk transfer scheme utilized in wrap-up insurance programs when dealing with unenrolled trades or offsite exposures.

Any owner in an OCIP or contractor in a CCIP should request that all unenrolled trades and enrolled trades providing offsite coverage utilize this new endorsement on their corporate programs to remedy this potential gap in coverage and reflect the parties’ intended risk transfer.

Every real estate and construction contract contains a list of insurance requirements identifying specific types and amounts of coverage for one or both parties, but too often these requirements are included in a form exhibit that is attached to contracts year after year, project after project, without careful review.

In a new website post, Lyndon Bittle of Carrington Coleman discusses  “traps for the unwary” lurking in construction contract insurance requirements, focusing on the ubiquitous commercial general liability policy.

Many of the traps pop up in connection with making one party an additional insured on the other party’s liability policies, Bittle writes. “One deceptively problematic provision is a requirement that the owner be ‘named an additional insured,’ without further details. That request conveys almost nothing.”

Read the article.

Image by Pictures of Money

A Brouse McDowell Insurance Blog post discusses the drafting of insurance requirements in a contract to ensure that, in the event of a loss arising out of the work performed, parties will have assets available for that loss.

“If you are the general contractor, or you are hiring subcontractors or vendors, there are several things you need to know,” writes Stacy RC Berliner.

Topics discussed include: specify the right policies and limits to be procured, get endorsed as an additional insured, make sure the other’s policy is primary and non-contributory, specify maximum deductibles and self-insured retentions, and verification.

Read the article.

Reprinted from Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.

On April 4, 2019, the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court confirmed that the waiver of subrogation provision in a commonly used form construction contract, American Institute of Architects (AIA) form A201 — 2007 General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, precluded an insurer’s claims against a subcontractor.

In Ace American Ins. Co. v. American Medical Plumbing, Inc., the court considered Ace American Insurance Company’s (Ace) subrogation claim against a plumbing subcontractor who was allegedly responsible for a water main leak that caused approximately $1.2 million in damages to Ace’s insured, Equinox Development Corporation (Equinox).

In March 2012, Equinox entered into a contract with Grace Construction Management Company, LLC (Grace) to build the “core and shell” of a new health club. Equinox and Grace used AIA form A201 for their contract. Grace then hired American Medical Plumbing, Inc. (American) as a plumbing subcontractor for the project. In April 2013, the water main failed, flooding the health club.

Ace, Equinox’s first-party property insurer, paid Equinox for the damages and sued American to recover these damages. American sought summary judgment, arguing that the waiver of subrogation provision in the contract between Grace and Equinox precluded Ace’s claim.

The relevant contract provision states that:

“The Owner and Contractor waive all rights against … each other and any of their subcontractors, sub-subcontractors, agents and employees, each of the other … for damages caused by fire or other causes of loss to the extent covered by property insurance obtained pursuant to this Section 11.3 or other property insurance applicable to the Work, except such rights as they have to proceeds of such insurance held by the Owner as fiduciary.”

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of American, finding that the waiver of subrogation in the contract applied to Ace’s claim. Ace appealed.

On appeal, Ace argued that the waiver only applied to claims for damage to the construction work itself and did not apply after the competition of construction. In this case, the damage was to not to the construction work itself – i.e., the “core and shell” of the health club. Instead, the majority of the damage was to the health club’s internal construction and furnishings.Additionally, the water main failed after the completion of construction.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling, finding that “Ace misconstrue[d] the basic structure of the contract’s waiver provision.” The court found that the waiver applied to all damages covered by the property insurance regardless of whether the damage occurred after the completion of construction or included damage to work besides the contractor’s work.

The court also rejected Ace’s argument that this broad application of the waiver was inconsistent with AIA form A201’s requirement that the contractor carry liability insurance. The court found that “the subrogation waiver takes precedence over the contractor’s insurance obligation.” The court found that the contractor’s liability insurance served other important functions such as providing an extra layer of coverage beyond the owner’s property insurance and providing protection against injured third parties.

The New Jersey appellate court’s ruling follows the majority position on the scope of the waiver of subrogation in the standard AIA contract. However, a minority of jurisdictions do not recognize a waiver.

________________________________________________________________
1. No. A-5395-16T4 (N.J. App. Div. April 4, 2019)

Tara Lynch, writing for Gordon & Rees LLP’s Construction Law Blog, offers three clauses to consider when writing construction contracts, with an eye to limiting liability and maximizing profits.

One of the clauses covers waiver of consequential damages. “Prudent design professionals and contractors will strike this exception so as not to render the clause meaningless. A well-drafted waiver clause will be mutual, will define which damages are consequential versus direct, and will not contain exceptions,” she writes.

She also discusses clauses covering limitations of liability, and a percentage clause involving change orders.

Read the article.

A web post by Glen A. Murphy for Spilman Thomas & Battle addresses potential issues and concerns that may arise between general contractors, subcontractors and their insurers when claims by outside parties (also known as third-parties) may arise.

Murphy explains:

When a General engages a Sub to perform work on projects, the parties should always reduce their expectations and agreements to a written document in which both sides agree and acknowledge the terms. These documents may go by many names, but they are contracts that bind the parties to the terms. It is a common component of these agreements for the businesses or organizations to take on the liability of another entity, which they might normally not otherwise have. This form of agreement, where one party takes on or assumes the liability of another party by contract, is commonly called a “hold harmless” or an “indemnity” agreement.

Read the article.

A recent ruling provides an unfortunate example of what can happen when a contractor does not consider commercial general liability when making strategic decisions throughout the process of investigating and repairing construction defects, writes William Bennett in a web post for Saxe Doernberger & Vita.

The post continues:

The Southern District of California recently held that a series of demands for a general contractor to investigate and repair several construction defects at a U.S. Army facility did not constitute a “suit” within the meaning of the general contractor’s commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy.

In Harper Construction Co., Inc. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., the U.S. Government hired Harper Construction Company (“Harper”) to construct a U.S. Army training facility for the Patriot Missile System in Fort Sill, Oklahoma. No. 18-cv-00471-BAS-NLS (S.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2019). During the project, Harper hired Harper Mechanical Contractors (“Harper Mechanical”), an independent company, as a subcontractor “to perform demolition, grading, and other work at the Project.”

After Harper completed the project, the government informed Harper of property damage at the project, “including, but not limited to, gypsum wallboard cracks and binding doors.” Harper attempted to repair the issues, but the problems continued. The issues were apparently the result of Harper Mechanical’s grading work. Subsequently, the government sent two letters requesting an investigation and asking Harper to “propose a plan to correct the issues.” As Harper undertook an investigation spanning multiple years, the government became increasingly frustrated with the delays. The government threatened to initiate “formal administrative recourse” and to demolish the project, forcing Harper to re-build from the ground up. It also sent Harper another letter requesting Harper submit a formal proposal to correct the issues.

Harper’s general liability carrier was National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (“National Union”). Harper Mechanical was listed as an additional insured on Harper’s policy. Four years after the government’s first notification to Harper of the issues with the project, Harper’s broker submitted a claim to National Union. The broker noted that Harper was seeking additional insured coverage for Harper Mechanical under Harper’s own policy for investigation and repair costs resulting from Harper Mechanical’s work.

National Union issued a reservation of rights letter and sought more information from Harper. The parties corresponded for the next year and half, until National Union issued a denial letter indicating that there was not a “suit” against Harper seeking damages because of “property damage,” based on the policy’s definition of “suit.”

The policy contained the standard ISO CGL definition of “suit,” which is defined, in pertinent part, as “a civil proceeding in which damages because of … ‘property damage’ to which this insurance applies are alleged. ‘Suit’ includes: … b. Any other alternative dispute resolution proceeding in which such damages are claimed and to which the insured submits with our consent.”

Harper sued National Union. National Union moved for summary judgment. In opposition, Harper argued that the government’s demand constituted a “suit” because the demand falls within the Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”), which includes administrative and court proceedings and qualifies as “any other alternative dispute resolution proceeding” under the policy definition. The CDA applies to “contracts made by an executive agency for, among other things, the procurement of construction … of real property.”

The court acknowledged that the CDA applied to the contract, given the Army’s status as an executive agency. However, the CDA does not automatically consider all disputes to constitute a “claim.” A dispute does not become a “claim” unless one of the contracting parties issues a “[w]ritten demand or written assertion … seeking … the payment of money in a sum certain,” at which point “each claim by the Federal Government against a contractor relating to a contract shall be the subject of a written decision by the contracting officer.” Without the claim being “submitted for a written decision by the contracting officer, which is the first step in the dispute resolution process under the CDA,” the court determined that there was “no evidence that Harper was faced with a “civil proceeding in which damages … are alleged” or “any other alternative dispute resolution proceeding,” as required by the policy’s definition of “suit.” The court also noted that there was no evidence that National Union had consented to any of the processes involved in the dispute, which is a further requirement of the definition of “suit.”

The court granted summary judgment for National Union based on the conclusion that the CDA demands did not constitute a “suit.” This case is an unfortunate example of what can happen when a contractor does not consider coverage when making strategic decisions throughout the process of investigating and repairing construction defects. The result could potentially have been favorable for Harper had it notified National Union early (and often) of the issues, involved coverage counsel to work with its defense and/or general counsel to strategize about how to cast the proceedings as a “suit” under the CDA, and followed the proper channels under the CDA to solidify its position that the parties were involved in ADR proceedings under existing California law.

Amanda Garza of Porter Hedges, writing in the firm’s Texas Construction Law blog, explains the use of a “call-back warranty.”

“A call-back warranty establishes a period of time after the substantial completion of a project within which an owner can call upon a contractor to correct nonconforming work. The length of the ‘call-back period’ is typically one year but is ultimately determined by the language in the call-back warranty.”

She explains that the rights and obligations expire at the end of the call-back period, which can lead to some confusion about the effect on other warranties in the contract.

Read the article.

Mark A. Cobb of Cobb Law Group writes that whenever he’s negotiating construction contracts on behalf of a client or discussing a construction collection matter with a potential client, the conversation inevitably includes a discussion of the construction contract’s dispute resolution clause.

In an article in the Georgia Construction, Bond & Lien Law Blog, he discusses several of the questions that can arise; e.g., What is a dispute resolution clause and why is it important? What types of construction contracts should include the clause? What are construction arbitration and mediation?

He also offers an example of a mandatory mediation provision.

Read the article.

Parties to a construction project can have a better agreement by addressing six topics described in a post in The Lien Zone blog.

Alex Barthet, author of the post, advises contract drafters to define the scope of the work that will be provided, list all the exclusions, explain the change order process, verify the schedule, refine the dispute resolution procedure, and make sure the winner gets legal fees.

Read the article.

The Ninth Circuit has ruled in a contract arbitration case that incorporated multiple Federal Acquisition Regulation clauses that govern the recovery of expenses in the event a contractor is terminated for convenience, i.e. required documentation and procedures.

Pepper Hamilton’s Constructlaw blog discusses Aspic Eng’g & Constr. Co. v. ECC Centcom Constructors LLC, in which an arbitrator had awarded Aspic more than $1 million. The arbitrator concluded that Aspic was not required to strictly comply with the FAR requirements based on several factors.

“The crux of the decision turns on whether the arbitrator’s decision draws its essence from the contract. The Ninth Circuit also explained that whether the award directly conflicted with the subcontracts was insufficient—on its own—to vacate the award,” the blog post explains.

Read the article.

A client alert from Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg offers some advice on negotiating a demolition contract. Such contracts can arise when a big box retailer or a shopping center needs to be demolished to make room for a building more suited to a new use.

The article’s advice covers 12 topics, including the selection of the demolition contractor, dates of commencement and completion of the work, contract documents, the contract sum, payments, dispute resolution, insurance and bonds, indemnification, termination rights, the contractor’s warranty, safety compliance, and disposal of debris.

Read the article.

A post on the website of Pepper Hamilton describes a North Carolina case that involved non-signatories to a construction contract attempting to avoid the contract’s arbitration claim.

When the building’s current owner asserted various claims against the original owner, architect and general and subcontractors, the general contractor moved to have the suit dismissed on the ground that they were subject to arbitration. Plaintiffs argued that the arbitration clauses were not binding on them because the contracts that contained them were not assigned to plaintiffs when they purchased.

“The court held that the plaintiffs’ argument could not be squared with the language of the Contractor Warranty. On its face, the Contractor Warranty stated that [the general contractor] performed all work ‘in accord with the Contract Documents.’ This express reference to [the contractor’s] construction contract put the plaintiffs on notice of the contract’s existence,” explains the article’s author, Jane Fox Lehman.

Read the article.

Liability in the construction process is usually determined and allocated by contract, explains a post on the website of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.

“It is quite common for construction contracts to contain indemnity provisions requiring one party to defend and reimburse the other against various expenses or losses. When contracts include express indemnity provisions, they will likely receive more attention, and be the subject of more negotiations between counsel, than any other provisions. Yet, if pressed to state what it means to ‘indemnify’ or ‘hold harmless,’ many are at a loss,” according to the firm.

The post discusses strict construction, express negligence, and the liberal or fair construction rule.

Read the article.

There is a growing trend in the construction industry wherein contractors, subcontractors and designers are working together to pursue large construction projects, according to a JD Supra post by Snell & Wilmer.

“The terms of these collaborations are typically referred to as ‘teaming agreements’ which are intended to define the relationships, rights and responsibility of all parties involved during both the pursuit of the work and, if ultimately successful, the performance of the project including the financial remuneration,” the post explains.

It continues: Your goal in drafting these agreements is to define the relationship, the rights and responsibility of all parties involved on the “team” during both the pursuit of the contract and, if the contract is awarded, the performance of the project.”

Read the article.