Anaheim California Building Consultant Directory

Lawsuit Gives Teeth to Massachusetts Pay Law

September 16, 2024 — Joseph Barra - Robinson+Cole
“The Massachusetts Legislature passed the state’s Prompt Pay Act 14 years ago to improve the downstream flow of money on most large-scale private construction projects. While the act established detailed protocols for administering applications for payment and other important construction phase processes, several questions about its interpretation and impact remained unanswered. Over the years, I watched as a significant portion of the Massachusetts design and construction community either ignored the law’s exacting requirements or were unaware of their applicability. The first indication of how the act would be interpreted came in 2022, when the state appeals court decided Tocci Building Corp. v. IRIV Partners LLC. In that case, the court strictly construed the act. It held that an owner (and its agent) who failed to promptly advise the project’s general contractor of specific factual and legal reasons why it was withholding payment, coupled with a failure to certify that funds were being withheld in good faith, violated the law—making the contractor liable for the unpaid funds. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Joseph Barra, Robinson+Cole
Mr. Barra may be contacted at jbarra@rc.com

With Trump's Tariff Talk, Time to Negotiate for Escalation Clauses in Construction Contracts

December 17, 2024 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
Remember 2019? That’s when contractors faced sudden material price surges from tariffs during then-President Donald Trump’s first term in office. How about 2021? That's when contractors saw new price surges and long delivery delays because of Covid-19. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, ENR
Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com

New York Construction Practice Team Obtains Summary Judgment and Dismissal of Labor Law Claims

October 01, 2024 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
New York, N.Y. (August 23, 2024) – In Trujillo-Cruz v. City of New York, et al., New York Partner Inderjit Dhami, a member of New York Partner Meghan A. Cavalieri’s Construction Practice Team, recently obtained summary judgment and dismissal of the plaintiff's Labor Law §240(1), §241(6) and §200 claims dismissing the entire case against national developer and construction company clients. The plaintiff alleged to have sustained injuries as the result of a construction site accident occurring on July 11, 2018, while in the scope of his employment as a laborer in connection with the construction/renovation of a residential apartment building in Brooklyn, New York. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that he was injured when he was coming down from a ladder and fell on a 2”x 4”, causing him disabling injuries. The plaintiffs’ counsel articulated a $3 million settlement demand. Labor Law §240(1) imposes absolute liability on a defendant where an injured worker engaged in the performance of covered construction work establishes that a safety device proved inadequate to shield him from elevation-related harm, and that the defendant’s failure to provide an adequate safety device proximately caused the injuries alleged. The plaintiff first testified that he stepped on the 2” x 4” after he came down off of the ladder, but his counsel then prompted him to recalibrate his testimony by asking whether the accident arose when he was coming down the ladder or after he had come down off of the ladder. The plaintiff changed his testimony, alleging that the accident arose as he was coming down the ladder and that he remained partially on the ladder when he stepped on the piece of formwork and fell. Inderjit argued that the plaintiff’s reframing of his deposition testimony was immaterial for purposes of the Labor Law § 240 (1) analysis. Irrespective of whether the plaintiff was on solid ground or had one foot on the ladder at the time of the occurrence, his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was unavailing in that the accident did not arise as a result of the type of extraordinary elevation-related peril protected by Labor Law § 240 (1). Justice Maslow agreed and dismissed the plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240 (1) claims. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

Bremer Whyte’s Newport Beach Team Prevails on a Motion for Summary Judgment in a Wrongful Death Case!

September 02, 2024 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Congratulations on another win to Orange County Partners Jonathan Cothran and Rachel Mihai for prevailing on a Motion for Summary Judgment in a wrongful death case! Plaintiffs filed a wrongful death lawsuit alleging negligence and vicarious liability against BWB&O’s client, a licensed electrical contractor. BWB&O’s client installed a solar system at the Plaintiffs’ home in January 2018. In October 2018, an electrical fire broke out at the home in an upstairs bedroom. Tragically, the family’s father perished in the fire when he entered the home after the fire started. Plaintiffs alleged that BWB&O’s client was liable for the fire and Plaintiffs’ resulting injuries due to its electrical work on the solar system at the home. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Behavioral Science Meets Construction: Insights from Whistle Rewards

September 09, 2024 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
In this episode of the AEC Business Podcast, Aarni Heiskanen hosts Drew Carter, CEO of Whistle Rewards, and Dr. Laurel Newman, a behavioral scientist, to discuss instant rewards for driving behavioral change in construction. Laurel shares her psychology background and academic career, studying how the environment influences behavior. Drew introduces himself as a data scientist, focusing on predictive modeling. Tune in to learn how they collaborate to create motivating environments in the construction industry. Whistle Rewards is a platform specializing in rewards, recognition, and incentives in the AEC industry. It is designed to enhance employee engagement, safety compliance, performance, and technology adoption in construction companies. The Guests Drew Carter, CEO and Co-Founder at Whistle Systems, Inc. Drew is improving employee retention using data science and behavioral science. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

Forum Selection Provisions Are Not to Be Overlooked…Even On Federal Projects

September 16, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Forum selection provisions are NOT to be overlooked. Ever. Treat them seriously. Even on federal projects where there is a Miller Act payment bond. Consider forum selection provisions on the front end when negotiating your contract. In a recent opinion, U.S. f/u/b/o Timberline Construction Group, LLC vs. Aptim Federal Services, LLC, 2024 WL 3597164 (M.D.Fla. 2024), a joint venture prime contractor was hired by the federal government to build a temporary housing site. The joint venture prime contractor obtained a Miller Act payment bond. The joint venture then entered into a subcontract with one of its joint venture members and the member-subcontractor then engaged a sub-subcontractor. The sub-subcontractor claimed it was owed $3.5 Million and sued the member-subcontractor, as well as the prime contractor’s Miller Act payment bond, in the Middle District of Florida. The member-subcontractor and the Miller Act payment bond sureties moved to transfer venue to the Middle District of Louisiana pursuant to a forum selection clause in the contract between the sub-subcontractor and the member-subcontractor. The contract provided that the exclusive venue would be a United States District Court located in Louisiana. Forum selection provisions are analyzed in federal court under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a): “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.” U.S. f/u/b/o Timberline, supra at *2. A forum selection provision is presumptively valid and given controlling weight. Id. (quotations and citations omitted). Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Construction Defect Claim Survives Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion Due to Lack of Evidence

December 23, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment on a construction defect claim due to lack of evidence. Statesboro Erectors, Inc. v. Owners Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176555 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 30, 2024). Griffco was the general contractor for a construction project. King Steel was hired as the "steel fabricator." King Steel subcontracted with Statesboro Erectors to complete certain construction work at the site. Statesboro agreed to the complete, proper and safe erection of the structural steel. A steel collapse occurred at the construction site. According to King Steel, the collapse "appeared to have occurred due to lack of temporary cables or bracing for steel columns." Because of the collapse, King Steel was required to supply additional materials to replace the structural damage caused by the collapse. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

More (and Simpler) Options Under New Oregon Retention Law

October 21, 2024 — Michael Yelle - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Similar to the changes made by the Washington Legislature last year, the Oregon Legislature recently changed its retention law. Oregon public works agencies and large commercial project owners are now required to accept surety bonds in lieu of withholding retainage on construction projects. There is also no longer a requirement to deposit retention funds in an interest-bearing escrow account. The owner or public agency must accept the bond in lieu of retainage unless specific grounds exist. For example, public agencies must find there is “good cause” for rejection of the bond based on the “unique project circumstances. Private owners have less discretion to reject a bond and if the bond meets the statutory requirements, per ORS 701.435(1)(a) “the owner and lender shall accept” the bond “in lieu of all or any portion of the retainage…” Courts have not analyzed when “good cause” exists for public agencies to reject bonds or exactly what will allow a private owner to reject a bond. However, an agency or owner cannot have a general policy to reject retention bonds. The statute does not provide next steps if the contractor disagrees with a decision to reject the bond. It may be necessary to proceed under the contract’s dispute resolution procedure or it may be more appropriate to take the issue directly to the courts. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael Yelle, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Yelle may be contacted at michael.yelle@acslawyers.com

ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA BUILDING CONSULTANT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES