Choice of Law Provisions in Construction Contracts
October 07, 2024 —
Victoria Davies - ConsensusDocsIf you have used a ConsensusDocs® construction agreement or another industry association construction agreement for one of your projects, you are accustomed to seeing the laws of the state where the construction project is located as the governing law. There are good reasons for the laws of the state where the project is located to govern the construction agreement for the project. Even if not headquartered in the state, the parties have a presence there by virtue of their participation in the project in the state. Personnel and records that may be needed to resolve a claim may be located in the state. If there are experts that need to be engaged, they will likely need to visit the site. These reasons of efficiency and convenience, alone, may justify the parties’ decision to select the project state’s laws to govern their construction contract. However, there is also the policy interest of the project state, whose laws may even mandate that the project state’s laws govern construction contracts for in-state projects and that the parties resolve their disputes in state as well.
Several states have laws that require construction disputes for projects in the state to be resolved under its laws and/or litigated or arbitrated in the state. Some states require only that its laws govern and do not also require that the dispute resolution take place in the state, but some require both – that its laws govern and the disputes be resolved there. There may be different triggers as to when the statute applies. For example, in some states, the statute applies to any construction contract for a project in the state. In others, the law may only be triggered if one of the parties is domiciled in the state.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Victoria Davies, Jones Walker LLPMs. Davies may be contacted at
vdavies@joneswalker.com
For Whom Additional Insured Coverage Applies in New York
November 11, 2024 —
Bill Wilson - Construction Law ZoneSimply including a requirement in a contract to add certain parties as additional insureds under a commercial general liability insurance (CGL) policy may not be enough to ensure such coverage is provided in New York. In New York City Hous. Auth. v. Harleysville Worcester Ins. Co., 226 A.D.3d 804 (2024), the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division – Second Department ruled that the language in an insurance endorsement required privity of contract with the insured party subcontractor to obtain additional insured status and denied coverage to others despite a provision in a subcontract requiring such additional insured coverage.
In this case, an owner entered into a contract with a general contractor for construction services. The general contractor entered into a subcontract with a subcontractor. The subcontractor agreed to procure and maintain a CGL policy naming the owner, the general contractor, and another related party as additional insureds thereunder. An employee of the subcontractor was injured on the project and sued the three additional insureds and several other parties. Subcontractor’s insurance company refused to defend and indemnify any party other than the general contractor. All the parties sued by the subcontractor’s employee brought an action against the subcontractor’s insurance company, seeking coverage for defense and indemnification as additional insureds under the subcontractor’s CGL policy.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLPMr. Wilson may be contacted at
wwilson@rc.com
ASCE Statement on House Passage of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024
August 05, 2024 —
Marsia Geldert-Murphey, P.E., President of the American Society of Civil EngineersWASHINGTON — The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) commends the House of Representatives for passing H.R. 8812, the bipartisan Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) for 2024. The House WRDA 2024 bill will help improve America's ports and inland waterways, enhance flood risk management and storm risk reduction programs, and prioritize ecosystem restoration. While we urge the Senate to swiftly vote on its version of WRDA, we are encouraged that our nation's critical water resources infrastructure remains a congressional priority.
The House version of WRDA includes several key provisions to enhance the safety of America's dams and levees, which each received a 'D' on the 2021 Report Card for America's Infrastructure, as well as provisions to modernize the nation's inland waterways system, which received a 'D+' in the 2021 Report Card. This includes one of ASCE's top legislative priorities for this year, the reauthorization of the National Dam Safety Program through 2028. But beyond the reauthorization, this bill reduces restrictions on the amount of funds states can receive in National Dam Safety Program State Assistance Grants; improves access to the High Hazard Potential Dam Rehabilitation Grant Program; and requires the incorporation of low-head dams into the National Inventory of Dams. Each of these provisions are critical to ensuring the long-term safety of our nation's dams and ASCE applauds the House for their inclusion. Furthermore, ASCE was pleased to see that the House legislation extends the National Levee Safety Program through 2033, which will help support the establishment of state levee safety programs, develop and publish national guidelines for levee safety, and enhance flood protection nationwide.
While these measures are not included in the Senate version of WRDA, we encourage lawmakers to ensure they are included in a final conference version of the bill.
We thank the House of Representatives for moving forward WRDA 2024 and strongly encourage the Senate to pass its version so that Congress can keep this vital water resources legislation on a biennial schedule and ensure our nation's dams, levees, ports, and inland waterways can support the American economy and protect public safety.
ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS
Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 160,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel.
Second Circuit Affirms Win for General Contractor on No Damages for Delay Provision
September 02, 2024 —
Bill Wilson - Construction Law ZoneIn NASDI, LLC v. Skanska Koch Inc. Kiewit Infrastructure Co. (JV), 2024 WL 1270188 (2d Cir. Mar. 26, 2024), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing a subcontractor’s delay claim against a general contractor on a public project in New York state. The Court enforced a typical no-damages-for-delay provision to bar the subcontractor’s breach of contract claim. The no-damages-for-delay provision in the subcontract at issue provided:
NO DAMAGE FOR DELAY. Except as otherwise provided …, Subcontractor agrees that it shall have no Claim against Contractor for any loss or damage it may sustain through delay, disruption, suspension, stoppage, interference, interruption, compression, or acceleration of Subcontractor’s Work (‘Delay Damages’) caused or directed by Contractor for any reason, and that all such Claims shall be fully compensated for by Contractor’s granting Subcontractor such time extensions as it is entitled to as a result of any of the foregoing.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLPMr. Wilson may be contacted at
wwilson@rc.com
Nine ACS Lawyers Recognized as Super Lawyers – Two Recognized as Rising Stars
August 26, 2024 —
Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCGoing outside the norm of our blogs, which usually discuss construction related issues, Ahlers, Cressman, & Sleight is pleased to announce that nine members of our firm have been selected to the 2024 Washington Super Lawyers list.
Each year, a rigorous process that involves a nomination by peers and a third-party verification of honors, awards, verdicts, settlements, and other criteria relating to their work as an attorney, aims to select no more than five percent of the lawyers in Washington state from no more than seventy practice areas for this distinction. As mentioned, the first step in the process is to be evaluated on their work as an attorney, next candidates are evaluated by their peers and given ratings based on the information known about their work. Finally, candidates are grouped into four firm-size categories and final selections are made. The grouping process is done so that candidates are compared fairly to their peers by firm size, eliminating the potential unfairness that comes with comparing large and small firm outcomes and attorney practices.
The Rising Star list involves an even narrower criteria than the Super Lawyers list. The initial process is the same, however, candidates for the Rising Stars list must be under the age of forty or have less than ten years of experience. For this category less the two and a half percent of lawyers in Washington are selected, making this quite a feat for those who have accomplished the honor.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
“You Can’t Make Me Pay!”
January 28, 2025 —
Daniel Lund III - LexologySeveral years ago, Louisiana enacted a law prescribing a mandamus proceeding for unpaid contract sums purportedly owed by a public entity to a contractor – Louisiana Revised Statute 38:2191. The statute tackles both progress payments and final payment, distinguishing between the two and allowing withholding of a progress payment when there is “reasonable cause” to do so.
On the other hand, at least one Louisiana appellate decision held on the topic of final payment: once a final payment amount is “due” per the statute – based upon passage expiration of the lien period following “formal final acceptance” – the act of making the final payment is purely ministerial and not subject to defenses. According to that court, a defense to payment based on assessed liquidated damages – because the damages were disputed by the contractor – could not trump the essence of the statute allowing the contractor to pursue mandamus to collect the final payment.
More recently, on a public works levee project in Lafourche Parish, a dispute arose during the work concerning the means to secure material for constructing the levees. The net effect of the dispute entailed a major change in the contract price.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
Thank You for 18 Straight Years in the Virginia Legal Elite in Construction Law
December 31, 2024 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsThank you once again to those in the Virginia legal community who elected me to the Virginia Business Legal Elite in the Construction Law category for the 18th consecutive year. The 18 consecutive years of election to the Legal Elite in the Construction Category span my nearly 15 years as a solo construction attorney. The fact that you all have continued to elect “100%” of the lawyers at The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC for the last 14 years is most gratifying and only confirms that my decision to “go solo” over 14 years ago was a good one. To be included in this list of top construction attorneys is both humbling and gratifying. For the complete list of the Virginia construction lawyers who were elected along with me, see the 2024 Virginia Business Legal Elite in Construction Law.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Dispute Among Joint Venture Partners and Joint Venture Agreement
January 28, 2025 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn a dispute involving joint venture partners and a joint venture agreement, one of the partners sued a third party (which purchased the assets of the other partner). Claims against the third party included tortious interference of the joint venture agreement between the partners, conspiracy to tortiously interfere with the joint venture agreement between the partners, aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty by the other partner, and conspiracy with the other partner to breach a fiduciary duty.
The dispute was tried in a non-jury trial. The other partner and the third party prevailed. A few key points on the above claims asserted against the third party that failed:
- Tortious interference of the contract -- Since the trial court found that the other partner did NOT breach the joint venture agreement, the cause of action for tortious interference failed. “No cause of action for tortious interference with a contract can exist in the absence of a breach.”
- Conspiracy to tortiously interfere with a contract -- “If an underlying tort [e.g., tortious interference] has not been established, a count for conspiracy to commit that tort will not lie.”
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
