Archive for the ‘Litigation’ Category

Sports and Construction – Lessons Learned

On January 17, 2012 Author By Seth Smiley

Growing up in South Louisiana, originally from Baton Rouge and now residing in New Orleans, I’ve had a really rough week being a sports fan. After LSU laid an egg in the BCS Championship game and the Saints came up seconds short in the NFL playoffs, I began to ponder, what can we learn from this? Being a construction law attorney, I wanted my clients and readers to learn form the mistakes and shortcomings of my favorite teams.

Some general themes we can take away from both losses are that the teams who are most prepared and execute the game plan the best will be the most successful. In both instances, LSU and the Saints did not execute and were not as prepared as their oppoinent. In the construciton world owners, general contractors, subcontractors and suppliers succeed when they are fully prepared for the project at hand and fully execute the company’s specific game plan for success.

IF LSU’s BCS PERFORMANCE WERE A CONTRACTOR IT WOULD NEVER GET PAID

LSU worked very hard all season to get into the big game. This paralles a budding company doing all it can to land that very promising bid for a substantial project. A contractor prepares for months and years to get that big once-in-a-lifetime project. When the big stage rolls around, the contractor needs to make sure, he/she does everything correctly so that they get paid and produce quality.

In LSU’s case this contractor would have not been successful in negotiating a quality contract that is mutually beneficial to each contracting party. They would not have filed all of the preliminary documents such as a notice of contract. This is a company that would have had numerous delays along the way, many of its own doing. During the course of the project this company would have not made any adjustments as the project went along continuing to further bury itself with no chance for success. When then end of the project rolled around, there would be no substantial competion filed, no adequate demand for payment, no lien filed or any other tool used to secure payment. This company would be last in line to get paid, and when its all said and done, the dream project would have been a disater, possibly putting this company in financial ruin. I encounter this type of company all the time and unfortunately, by time it gets to my desk, there is little or no hope of securing full and final payment.

IF THE SAINT’S PLAYOFF GAME WITH THE 49′ERS WERE A SUPPLIER IT WOULD FALL SHORT OF SUCCESS

The Saints on the otherhand had a game that played out just a bit differently. Had it not been for mistakes early on and poor late game defense, they too would have advanced and been in the NFC Championship game. This is analogous to many issues that suppliers have when trying to successfully obtain full payment at the conclusion of a job.

By the time I get a call from a supplier who is not being paid on a job, many of the typical right protection devices are no longer present due to the mistakes that suppliers have made early on. When supplies are delivered to a job, notice to the general contractor, hiring party and property owner need to be given to preserve lien rights. Also, suppliers need to make good practice of obtaining a personal guarantee from the contracting party. Further, suppliers need to set up an “open account” in the supply contract, which will statutorily preserve rights for attorney fees and costs. All of these precursor items can be set up in the begining and save a supplier lots of time, money, and stress at the end of a project.

When I finally get the call from the supplier to aid in collection efforts, we make a strong last minute charge to file a lien, send a demand letter asserting rights under open account, and file suit to protect these causes of action. Depending on the set of facts at that juncutre will determine our chances of success. In the case of the Saints, too many early mistakes and a shoddy prevent defense, led to their downfall. If this were a supplier then they would have gotten pennies on the dollar at best on this project, no matter the last minute heroic efforts.

WRAP UP

We need to look at the success and failures of others and learn from mistakes and good calls. There are lessons to be learned here. My teams will live to fight another day, but many companies do not. In these economic times an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, to steal a medical analogy. Set up your game plan to do it right from the start and you will end up with success, unlike the teams noted above.

Posted in:     Collections, Construction Contracts, Construction News, Delays, Filing Requirements, Litigation, Louisiana  /  Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,   /   3 Comments

Litigation Topics for Prime / Subcontractor Contracts

On November 2, 2011 Author By Seth Smiley

I had a speaking engagement today here in Kenner, Louisiana (a suburb of New Orleans) whereby I had the pleasure of speaking to a group of contractors and architects regarding construction contracts. The bulk of the discussion focused on the most contested provisions within construction contracts.

The information is very helpful to contractors and can be used a resource when a contractor begins the contracting phase of a construction project to help get a better understanding of what is going on within the contract documents.

Prime/Subcontractors Contracts

Contracts between prime/general contractors and their subcontractors make up a vital link in the construction project chain. Here both parties need to negotiate terms to better protect when a dispute arises. A well crafted contract can better protect a prime and/or a sub when default arises. Typically subcontractors are at the mercy of the prime. A good subcontractor will have his attorney review any agreement to make sure that the deal is an even one.

AIA – American Institute of Architects is the most common standard form contracts in the construction industry. AIA contracts are a good starting point and offer contracts for Prime/sub relationships, Architect/owner, Owner/Prime, and any other design professional/contractor relationship that may exist.

• Commonly litigated subcontract provisions

There are a number of provisions which could be contained in a prime/subcontractor contract that need to raise a red flag when present and should be negotiated by either party so as to keep the contract from becoming one-sided.

1. Incorporation by Reference Clauses: (flow-up & flow-down provisions)

  • a Flow-down provision in a prime/sub contract will incorporate by reference terms and provisions of the owner/prime contract;
  • conversely, a Flow-up provision incorporates the duties owed by the owner to the prime into the prime/sub contract;
  • Many times parties enter into these agreements with out ever seeing the referenced document making them susceptible to unknown provisions;
  • Enforcement depends on the reciprocality of the provisions and lack of ambiguity

2. Scope of Work Provisions

  • Prime contractors want a broad scope of work provision with subs so that they can pin other work to them later on if needed;
  • Subs should demand very specific scope of work provisions so as to know exactly what work is expected and what exactly they have bid on;
  • This provision can incorporate other documents such as plans and specifications;
  • Provision needed for extra work or change order if work called for is outside of the scope;

3. Change Order and Extra Work Provisions

  • Very popular area for dispute in construction contracts – changes are always happening
  • There should be a clear provision in the contract outlining the process whereby CO’s are made and approved;
  • Define change order – modification to work already contemplated by the agreement; (ie different materials)
  • Define extra – item of work beyond the original scope of work that is added during construction;
  • MAKE SURE change orders and/or extras are in writing;

4. Notice Provisions

  • Found in various places within a prime/sub contract
  • Very important risk-shifiting devices – can determine a win or loss regarding a claim

5. Indemnity Clauses

  • Typically these trickle down the line Owner -> Prime -> Sub
  • These are generally enforceable, Subs should be careful and not allow indemnity for negligence of another party
  • Insurance can be purchased by prime or sub to cover the indemnity obligation

6. No Damages for Delay Clauses

  • Owners and Primes try to insert “no damage for delay” provisions in contracts for protection against unforeseen delays
  • Parties want to check all referencing documents to see if this provision is in there

7. LD’s – Liquidated Damages Provisions

  • Very helpful provisions because the pre-determine delay damages, usually on a per day basis;
  • Enforceable unless determined to be a penalty or if they are a “one- size fits all” provision;
  • LD’s are a good way to measure delay damage but can enhance the need for Contractor/Sub to accelerate work to avoid further damage, leading to defects and workmanship issues;
  • For LD’s to apply the contractors work must be a substantial factor in the delay;

8. Lien Waivers

  • reduce the chance for encumbrances to be placed on the title of the property;
  • Usually not enforceable if lien waiver required before work performed;
  • A good tool for Prime and Owner to reduce exposure;
  • Can be used in an incremental fashion as payments are distributed

9. “Pay-when-paid” v. “Pay-if-paid”

  • Pay-if-paid is defined as a subcontractor gets paid by the general contractor only if the owner pays the general contractor for that subcontractor’s work.” Requires a condition precedent.
  • Pay-when-paid in contrast to the pay-if-paid; a pay-when-paid clause does not establish a condition precedent, but merely creates a timing mechanism for the general contractor’s payment to the subcontractor.

10. Retainage

  • Typically 5%-10% of each payment will be withheld by the Owner/Prime until a later date, such as substantial completion
  • Its purpose is to keep a pool of money to remedy any defects in workmanship by that sub

11. Termination provisions

  • Termination for Cause
  • Usually nonpayment, excessive delay, insolvency, or convenience are reasons to terminate the contract

12. ADR Clause (Arbitration/Mediation clauses)

  • Arbitration (most popular) – binding way to avoid litigation;
  • Mediation – non-binding way to avoid litigation;
  • Both can be effective, typically arbitration can be more intimidating due to its binding and no (very limited) ability to appeal

13. Attorney fee provisions

  • Very popular as no one likes to pay an attorney!
  • Many provisions will say that the unsuccessful party must pay attorney fees but others to be careful will put the burden on one party
  • Primes and subs should include an attorney fee provision in all contracts
  • Good to be specific on the provision and include for litigation and ADR

14. Forum selection & choice of law

  • If working out of state, make sure you know which venue a dispute will be held in;
  • This can be a very costly provision

(list partially obtained from the ABA’s Fundamentals of Construction Law)

 

Posted in:     Arbitration & ADR, Change Orders, Construction Contracts, Construction News, Damages, Delays, Dispute A Lien, Disputes, Insurance, Litigation, Louisiana, Mechanics Lien  /  Tags: , , , , ,   /   1 Comment

Tropical Storm Lee – Prepare for Insurance Claims

On September 4, 2011 Author By Seth Smiley

Contractors and property owners should be very knowledgable of the claims process after a natural disaster. Over the Labor Day weekend the New Orleans metro area, along with southern Louisiana experienced high winds and double-digit rainfall totals due to Tropical Storm Lee.

Contractors who have equipment, property and unfinished work need to report any flood, wind or wind driven rain damage to your general liability insurer in a timely fashion so that you may collect reimbursement for damages sustained from this storm. Your insurer will assign a claims specialist to assess the damage and this person is who you will work with to obtain reimbursement. Be sure to read the policy to make sure you follow all the specific guidelines, otherwise your insurer may use this against you as an excuse not to timely pay up on the claim.

Homeowners in south Louisiana should be well versed in the drill of making claims against your homeowners insurance. This, too is a situation whereby you must read the policy to make sure you follow the set guidelines and timely file a proof of loss. If the insurance company does not value your damage to a level where you are satisfied, then you may want to hire a public/private adjuster by searching the Louisiana Dept of Insurance – Public Adjusters search or reaching out to an reputable firm such as Louisiana Adjusters. The final step is to hire an attorney to escalate your claim.

Due to Hurricanes Katrina and Gustav, firms like the Wolfe Law Group have valuable experience with handling these matters. The mere hiring of an attorney will escalate your claim to another level within the insurance hierarchy and depending on your claim, it may render more effective results.

Remember that you typically have 60 days to file a satisfactory proof of loss and you have one year to file suit against the insurer, both from the date of the loss.  It is important to take photographs and video if possible before clean up to maintain evidence of your loss. Another important tip is to keep good records of invoices and receipts of all work performed on your repair. The insured (contractor or property owner) has a duty to mitigate its damages, so do what you can to prevent damage from getting worse once the storm has passed.

Remember to consult with an attorney or your insurance agent when reviewing the terms of your policy. The policy is the set of rules by which you and the insurer operate when making claims. Do not fight for your claim alone against your insurance company, hire an an attorney who can help you navigate the claim as well as the reconstruction of your property in an efficient manner. Whether you are a contractor or a property owner, contact Seth Smiley with the Wolfe Law Group to discuss your Tropical Storm Lee claims so that you get the results you deserve.

Posted in:     Collections, Construction News, Damages, Insurance, Litigation  /  Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,   /   Leave a comment

Common Law Analysis – Pay-if-paid, Pay-when-paid & Liquidating Agreements in Construction Contracts

On August 9, 2011 Author By Seth Smiley

In a recent decision, Sloan & Company v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (“Sloan”), the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has an in depth discussion regarding some technical yet very important clauses found within many construction contracts between general contractor, subcontractors, owner and the surety. Although the court interprets Pennsylvania law, these concepts are good to know for any jurisdiction.

Pay-If-Paid & Pay-When-Paid

The pay-if-paid discussion starts on page 9 and is defined as “a subcontractor gets paid by the general contractor only if the owner pays the general contractor for that subcontractor’s work.” The court goes on to next define pay-when-paid in contrast to the pay-if-paid. “[A] pay-when-paid clause does not establish a condition precedent, but merely creates a timing mechanism for the general contractor’s payment to the subcontractor.”

The basic difference here is pay-if-paid may never happen if the the owner does not pay the general contractor for the work performed by the subcontractor, in theory. But the pay-when-paid acts more as a timing mechanism for the general contractor to pay the subcontractor, regardless of what the owner has paid for.

Generally courts will look to the four corners of the contract between the parties to determine which way to interpret the meaning of the clause. The interesting part of this holding and a common practice in construction contracts is a clause which modifies the pay-if-paid clause to become a pay-when-paid and this was done here by eliminating the condition precedent after a stipulated amount of time.There are many reasons why this may be done but typically many subcontractors will not agree to an absolute pay-if-paid clause, as the end result can place too much of the risk of loss on the subcontractor. Click here for Daniel S. Brennan’s The Construction Contracts Book.

Liquidating Agreement

Another technical term that is not often discussed in construction, yet is present in many construction contracts is the mechanism know as a “liquidating agreement” Sloan pg 16. The Sloan court defines a liquidating agreement clause as a “process by which a general contractor may assert the claims of its subcontractors against the owner.” This is similar to subrogation in the insurance context. Do not confuse a liquidating agreement with liquidated damages. A liquidating agreement clause can act like a lien, in that it gives causes of action to the subcontractor against the owner where there is no privy of contract. Sloan pg 17.

“Liquidating agreements that enable pass-through claims, such as the one in the contract before us, can also serve to limit the subcontractor’s damages to the amount the contractor recovers from the owner. See Carl A. Calvert & Carl F. Ingwalson, Jr., Pass Through Claims and Liquidation Agreements, Constr. Lawyer, Oct. 1998, at 32, 33.” Sloan pg 18.

Conclusion

The end result here, is that typically the general contractor bears the risk of loss when the owner does not pay up, but they can use contractual mechanisms to lower that risk and allocate some of it to the subcontractors. Liquidating agreements and pay-if-paid/pay-when-paid clauses, carefully negotiated at the contract phase of construction projects can lead to limiting liability at the end of a project when things do no go as planned. In the Sloan holding, the general contractor did not bear all of the loss but was forced to pay its subs in a proportional manner to the work performed, keeping nothing for itself. Sloan pg 20. Prevent this from happening to your construction company by working through these clauses when forming your next contract.

Further reading: California Pay-if-paid Wm. R. Clarke v. Safeco Insurance (distinguished by other jurisdictions); Pay-when-paid. A google search of these terms will provide a wealth of information. Always consult with an attorney before negotiating contracts in the construction industry no matter how large or small the project.

Posted in:     Construction Contracts, Construction News, Damages, Federal, Insurance, Litigation, Payment Requirements, State & Federal Contracting  /  Tags: , , ,   /   1 Comment

Louisiana Supreme Court Decides Ebinger Case Proving The Law Can Be Unfair

On July 29, 2011 Author By Scott Wolfe Jr

On July 1, 2011, the Supreme Court of Louisiana decided a case, Charles Ebinger, et ux. v. Venus Construction Corporation, et al., that focused on the interpretation of La. R.S. 9:2772. This Louisiana statute has established a specific time limit of five years to bring an action against residential building contractors.  Here, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, making it very clear where the law stands regarding this issue.

Let’s get our feet wet with the facts of the case to better understand the real issues and implications of this case.

The Ebinger family hired Venus Construction to build their home. Venus then hired Post-Tension Slabs, Inc. to supply the foundation. In 1997, the Ebingers moved into their home and obtained a certificate of occupancy. Six years later, the Ebingers decided to sue Venus for certain construction defects, like cracks in the wall, brick, and floors.

Before the case between the Ebingers and Venus was decided with finality by the court, Venus filed a “third-party demand” in 2006 seeking indemnification from Post-Tension. In other words, because Venus believed Post-Tension was partially responsible for these defects it was being sued for, Venus attempted to bring Post-Tension into the suit to share the potential liability if the court did end up ruling against it.

The real question that this case presents is two-fold: when does the time frame to sue under La. 9:2772 begin and does one always have the right to bring a cause of action against a residential building contractor within that time frame?

This court determined that the time frame for Venus’ third-party indemnification action against Post-Tension began when the Ebingers obtained a certificate of occupancy in 1997.

Which brings me to the second fold of this two-fold issue: one does not always have the right to a cause of action under this statute. Your right must be “vested.” Whether a right to take action is vested is contingent on the outcome of the original claim itself. At the time Venus’ attempted the third-party action against Post-Tension, the outcome of the Ebinger suit was not settled. And by the time that suit was settled, the five-year time period had passed. So, tough luck for Venus, as they are basically punished because the Louisiana court system can be so slow…

Two bottom lines here:

The five-year time period for actions involving construction defects by residential building contractors always begins when the building is first occupied, i.e. when the certificate of occupancy is obtained; but

Just because the time period starts to run does not mean that you, as a contractor being sued for defects, have a right to bring a third-party contractor into the same suit for indemnification; your right is established if and when the original case is settled against you.
Remembering these nuances as a residential building contractor can make all the difference when it comes to how much liability you will bear if you are ever sued for construction defects.

Posted in:     Litigation, Louisiana  /  Tags: , , , , ,   /   Leave a comment
Next Page »