Archive for the ‘Payment Requirements’ Category

Scott Wolfe Quoted in New Orleans City Business Article About Delays When Paying Subcontractors

On August 11, 2011 Author By Scott Wolfe Jr

Scott Wolfe Jr. Construction LawyerSubcontractor non-payment is something very familiar to me. It’s been written about here on the Construction Law Monitor (especially with regard to how pay when paid clauses affect subcontractor payments), and it’s something my other blog (the Construction Lien Blog) focuses on exclusively in its discussion of mechanic liens.

So it’s no surprise that New Orleans City Business magazine contacted me to discuss how the law can help and hurt subcontractors who are frustrated when waiting for payments to trickle down from the owner.  The article can be found on City Business’ website (subscription required) here:  Subcontractors grow tired of waiting on delayed job payments.

The article’s author, Ben Myers, does a great job of capturing the friction between general contractors and subcontractors on the subject of payment. General contractors complain that getting payment can be complex and time consuming because that’s how money trickles through, and that subcontractors should be taking the risk for their portions of the work.  Subcontractors complain that they are bullied around and “pay when paid” provisions sometimes leave them drowning because of problems the general has completely unrelated to their work.

It’s a real complicated mess – and the article gets both sides on the subject and helps explain the complications.

Posted in:     Around The Web, Payment Requirements  /  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

3 Legal Concepts That Are Counter-Intuitive…and Dangerous

On November 9, 2010 Author By Scott Wolfe Jr

Sometimes the best blog posts and legal articles are the simplest.   Take, for example, a post from early October by Joshua Glazov on his Construction Law Today blog, where he simply cites a 1941 quote from US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson:

The legal profession, like many another, tends to become over-professionalized.  We forget that the law is the rule for simple and untaught people to live by.  We complicate and over-refine it as a weapon in legal combat until we take it off the ground where people live and into the thin atmosphere of sheer fiction.

– The Struggle for Judicial Supremacy (1941)

Nail on the Head!

This made me think about all the crazy requirements and legal interpretations out there that may go against conventional logic, and I compiled this Top 3 list.

Number One:  Prevailing Wage Determinations

You’re on a state or federal construction project that requires payment of the prevailing wage, and so you go to the books to determine how much you need to pay your employees.   You separate the employees into categories:  electrician, plumber, helper/laborer….  Sounds easy enough, right?  Wrong.

How do you distinguish between someone who is a plumber and someone who is a plumber helper, for example?   While you may make a distinction in your everyday business, that distinction may not be the same as the US Department of Labor or the state agency controlling your project.   Frequently, in fact, it’s not.

Unfortunately, the laws aren’t very helpful to the folks who need to follow them.  That’s because the laws are a bit ambiguous, and requires interpretation.  And from first hand experience, I can tell you that agencies like the US Department of Labor are currently interpreting these requirements very pro-laborer.

Take a plumber, for example, as defined by the U.S. Department of Labor.   Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) §47-2152 defines a plumber as one who does the following:  “Assemble, install, alter, and repair pipelines or pipe systems that carry water, steam, air, or other liquids or gases…”

Compare this to the plumber’s helper (SOC §47-3015) who: “Help plumbers…by performing duties of lesser skill.  Duties include using, supplying or holding materials or tools, and cleaning work area and equipment…”

What exactly is a “lesser skill?”   What if a licensed plumber points to a pipe and asks the other employee “cut right there,” does this make that other employee a helper or a plumber?   I’ve seen the US Department of Labor interpret this as rendering the other employee a “plumber,” and requiring the higher wage.

Number Two:  Lien and Notice Requirements

The lien laws are there to protect folks, but it seems that every state in the Union is a bit conflicted about who the laws are designed to help.   In some states, the law is construed in favor of the lien claimant and against all other parties.  In other states, it’s the opposite.

Perhaps more confusing that this interpretation preference, however, is the notice requirements for the various states.   In some places, notice must be provided by the subcontractors to the property owner, the theory being that the owner might not know the subcontractors are there.  In other places, however, the notice system is completely reversed, requiring the prime contractors to deliver the notice.   Clearly, the owner should know who the prime contractor is!

What makes this very difficult for contractors is that unlike state legislatures and lawyers, the construction industry does business across state lines very frequently.  In fact, some suppliers and contractors do business in every state.   It’s impossible for these contractors to know the highly-technical and complex laws that apply in each state.    The result?   The law is rendered worthless, and not protecting the parties it is designed to protect.

For great discussions about lien and notice laws across the country, check out the Construction Lien Blog.

Number Three:  Pay When Paid Clauses

Contractors and subcontractors all around the country have heard of “pay when paid” clauses, and they frequently find them in their contracts.  Why are they in the contracts?   Because the parties in a construction project understand the payment chain, and they are agreeing to put the risk of non-payment on each project participant.

However, the law in many states has created an interpretation for “pay when paid” clauses that seems counter-intuitive.  In these states (and there are many), a “pay when paid” clause does not allow a contractor to refuse payment to its subs or suppliers after a “reasonable time” has passed since the subs or suppliers work was completed.  In these states, if such an outcome is desire, the parties must enter into a contract with a “pay if paid” clause.

We’ve written about this phenomenon here: Payment Provisions in Construction Contracts.

Posted in:     Construction Contracts, Mechanics Lien, Payment Requirements, Prevailing Wages, Regulations  /  Tags: , , , ,   /   2 Comments

How To Take Advantage Of New Retainage Laws in Louisiana

On September 3, 2010 Author By Scott Wolfe Jr

Earlier this week, we wrote about the new Retainage Law in Louisiana.   It’s a remarkable change in the status quo from the perspective of general contractors, taking all retainage out the hands of the property owner and placing it into an interest earning escrow account.

However, whether the law is productive for your construction company will depend on whether you take advantage of the law.

This week, I published a Legal Guide on Avvo.com offering step-by-step instructions to general contractors on how to take advantage of the the new retainage requirements in Louisiana.    Read the step-by-step guide here.    And, for a teaser, here is the introduction:

Effective August 15, 2010, retainage withheld by property owners on qualifying projects must be placed in an interest bearing escrow account. This Legal Guide explain how to take advantage of this new requirement to help secure your payment.

This article was originally posted on Wolfe Law Group’s topic-specific Louisiana Construction Law Blog.

Posted in:     Federal, Payment Requirements  /  Tags: , , , , ,   /   Leave a comment

New Retainage Rules in Louisiana Protect General Contractors

On September 1, 2010 Author By Scott Wolfe Jr

As pointed out last month by our friends at the Louisiana Construction Law Blog (Blogspot), Louisiana just passed new retainage rules that became law on August 15, 2010.    The act (SB 218) amends the Private Works Act to add §9:4815, requiring property owners to place “retainage” in escrow accounts.

It’s a remarkable change of the status quo in Louisiana, and from my perspective, good news for general contractors (and really anyone else furnishing labor and/or materials).

What The New Rule Requires

So, what exactly changes with this new rule?

We’re all familiar with the concept of retainage:   money withheld from a prime contractor by the property owner until the completion of work.   Before this law, property owners were responsible for holding the money and disbursing it when contractually required.   As every contractor knows, this leads to the owner dragging its feet in releasing the retainage and motivates the owner to figure out ways to hold onto the cash.

The new law changes these circumstances significantly, by requiring the property owner to deposit the retainage amounts withheld into an interest bearing escrow account, and into the control of an independent escrowing agent.

Earned interest accrues in favor of the contractor, and the money is released by the escrowing agent pursuant to requirements of the statute.  If there’s a dispute between the owner and general contractor, the money is preserved as security pending the outcome of litigation.

When The New Rule Applies (and Doesn’t Apply)

The retainage requirement applies to all projects over $50,000.00 that are not:  (i) a single or double family residence; or (ii) classified under a list of specific industries (see list of industries in quote of legislation below).

This means the retainage law will apply to nearly all commercial projects, and all multi-unit (3+) residential construction.   The law applies to private projects only, and not State or Federal projects (which are governed by separate laws).

Who is Protected?

Well, the law itself only positively affects the property owner and the prime contractor.   Largely, therefore, the law is designed to protect general contractors by ensuring the retainage money is available when due.   Just as the construction lien will act as security, so too will the escrowed retainage.

But, does this protect the subcontractors and suppliers on a project?    The short answer is “no.”   The long answer is closer to a “yes.”

While the retainage money is not held in escrow for the direct benefit of the subcontractor, the general contractor has a duty to pay subcontractor and supplier accounts once the money is made available (and there are misappropriation laws to this effect).   There’s an additional practical benefit.  Since many sub and general disputes are rooted in a dispute with the property owner, this new law may reduce the owner/GC disputes, and thus reduce the GC/sub disputes.

Interesting Questions

Finally, I’ll leave you with some interesting questions that may arise in the coming years about this new retainage law:

(1)  What is the enforcement mechanism? As written, the law requires escrowing of retainage funds, but there is no penalty if a property owner doesn’t do it.   In all likelihood, this means the general contractor will be required to insist on compliance.  When competing with other general contractors for business, it may be tough to make this a staunch requirement.

(2)  Will Subcontracts Intervene to Claim the Money? Subs/Suppliers do not directly benefit from the new retainage rules.  However, if the subs / suppliers know that money is there, and they have a claim on it, can they intervene in any dispute between the owner and prime contractor to make a claim on the money?   Can they get an attachment or sequestration on the funds pending the dispute between them and the general contractor?

(3)  Interest Accrues to the Subcontractor? And perhaps the most interesting question concerns the interest on retainage.   Previously, the property owner benefited from the retention of funds.  Now, the general contractor benefits from fund retention.   Are subcontractors or suppliers entitled to their proportionate share in the accrued interest?

The Law Text

Here is the new law’s text, in full.   Enjoy.

§4815. Escrow of funds due under contract; procedures

A. When, under the provisions of this Part, a contract in the amount of fifty thousand dollars or more is entered into between an owner and a contractor and if in accordance with the terms of such contract funds earned by the contractor are withheld as retainage by the owner from periodic payments due to the contractor then such funds shall be deposited by the owner into an interest bearing escrow account. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to a contract for a single family residence or double family residence. The provisions of this Section also shall not apply to a contract for the construction or improvement of the following types of industrial facilities that are, or will be, engaged in activities defined or classified under one or more of the following subsectors, industry groups, or industries of the 1997 North American Industry Classifications System (NAICS):

(1) 22111 electric power generation; (2) 321 wood products manufacturing; (3) 322 paper manufacturing;(4) 324 petroleum and coal products manufacturing; (5) 325 chemical manufacturing; (6) 326 plastics and rubber products manufacturing; (7) 331 primary metals manufacturing; (8) 562211/562212 hazardous and solid waste landfills; (9) 422710 bulk stations and materials; (10) 486110 crude oil pipelines; (11) 486910 refined petroleum products pipelines; (12) 486210 natural gas pipelines; (13) 486990 other pipelines; (14) 211112 natural gas processing plants.

B. An escrow account under the provisions of this Section shall be located at a qualified financial institution and shall be under the control of an escrow agent. The escrow account and escrow agent shall be selected by mutual agreement between the owner and the contractor.

C. Upon completion of the work that is the subject of the contract, the funds, including any interest located in the escrow account shall be released from escrow under the following conditions:

(1) If there are no existing claims by the owner, the whole amount shall be paid to the contractor within three business days upon receipt by the escrow agent of a written release signed by the contractor and the owner.

(2) If there is a dispute between the owner and contractor and the contract does not provide for binding arbitration of such dispute:

(a) Undisputed amounts shall be released by the escrow agent within three business days of receipt of a notarized request of the contractor.

(b) Disputed amounts that are the subject of a judicial proceeding shall be released by the escrow agent within three business days of the receipt of a final order by the court. Upon receipt of the order of the court, the escrow agent shall pay the contractor or owner such amounts as are determined by the court.

(3) If there is a dispute between the owner and contractor and the contract provides for binding arbitration of such dispute, the following shall occur:

(a) Undisputed amounts shall be released by the escrow agent within three business days of receipt of a notarized request of the contractor.

(b) Disputed amounts that are the subject of binding arbitration under the contract shall be released by the escrow agent within three business days of the receipt of a final order by the arbitrator who has been selected by mutual agreement between the owner and the contractor. Upon receipt of the order of the arbitrator, the escrow agent shall pay the contractor or owner such amounts as are determined by the arbitrator under the rules as defined in the contract between the owner and the contractor.

D. Receipt by the escrow agent or the qualified financial institution in which the escrow account is maintained of what purports to be a written release signed by the contractor and owner, or an order by a court or arbitrator, shall be a full release and discharge of the escrow agent for transfer of funds to the contractor. Neither the escrow agent nor the qualified financial institution in which the escrow account is maintained shall be held liable to any party based on any claim that the written release is unauthorized, forged, or otherwise fraudulent.

E. Neither the escrow agent nor the qualified financial institution in which the escrow account is maintained pursuant to the provisions of this Section shall have any liability to the owner, contractor, or any other person when complying with the provisions of this Section.

Posted in:     Louisiana, Payment Requirements  /  Tags: , , ,   /   1 Comment
Next Page »