Archive for the ‘Payment Requirements’ Category

In The Pipeline – Changes in Louisiana Construction Law

Louisiana State Capitol, Baton Rouge

Louisiana State Capitol, Baton Rouge (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

If there is any one constant in the legal profession, it is that the law is an ever-evolving, dynamic thing. While there are some general principles that tend to not change all that drastically over the years, the devil truly is in the details. Having to keep abreast of these changes is why you’ll hear people refer to the “practice” of law – we attorneys must continue to learn and adapt as we continue through our careers. Here at Wolfe Law Group, we make sure to have our ears to the ground in order to provide the most up-to-date information for our clients and their businesses. This legislative session, there are several proposed changes in Louisiana construction law, all of which may critically impact how contractors do business in this state. This post is the first of two parts discussing those changes.

 Proposed Changes to the Private Works Act

There are currently three bills in various stages of the legislative process that would significantly change how different parties secure their rights to payment. The first, Senate Bill 183, is the furthest along of the three, having successfully passed through the Senate and out of the House Committee on Civil Law and Procedure. It is the only bill this session, and the first bill since 1999, that seeks to amend La. R.S. 9:4802. This statute outlines which parties are entitled to assert claims for payment against an owner and a contractor. Should this bill become law (which is likely given the total lack of opposition in the Senate or in the House Committee), lessors of movables would be required to provide formal notice to contractors and owners within 10 days of their materials being used on a project, as opposed to simple delivery of a lease. This change might sound insignificant, but it is because of that very reason why it is important for us to keep our clients informed. Without paying proper attention to how the law evolves, current or potential clients might lose their ability to secure payment because they were unaware of this formalizing shift in the law.

The other two bills, House Bill 190 and House Bill 362, propose changes to La. R.S. 9:4822. This statute is arguably the most important in the Private Works Act because it outlines and defines the time and notice requirements that must be met in order for parties to secure their right to make a claim to secure payment. House Bill 190 has passed through the House and awaits a vote in the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. This bill proposes the least significant of changes, merely stating clearly that statements of claim and privilege need not have attached copies of unpaid invoices unless the statement specifically states they are attached. House Bill 362, however, would extend the time requirements for parties to file their claims by double. When notices of contract have been properly filed and you are one of the parties entitled to a privilege by La. R.S. 9:4802, you would have sixty (60) days to file your claim after the notice of termination, as opposed to the current thirty (30) day window. If you are a contractor that properly filed your notice of contract (if necessary), you would have one hundred twenty (120) days to file your claim following termination or substantial completion, instead of the current sixty (60) day window. These deadlines are extended throughout the statute: all 30 day limits are changed to 60 days, and all 60 days are changed to 120 days. The success of this bill has yet to be seen: unlike the others, it hasn’t even made it out of committee yet, and the session is fast coming to a close.

An Easing of Home Improvement Contracting Registration

Securing and maintaining the proper licensing and registration is incredibly important in the construction world here in Louisiana. The knowledge and expertise required in performing such work or providing these services is why it is always recommended that people seek out professional assistance, especially for work around the home. Surprisingly, and not necessarily wisely, Senate Bill 81 proposes to modify the status quo in relaxing registration requirement for home improvement contracting. Currently, no person shall undertake or perform or agree to perform home improvement contracting services unless they are registered with the Residential Building Contractors Subcommittee of the State Licensing Board for Contractors as a home improvement contractor. The proposed law (which unanimously passed the Senate and is scheduled for floor debate in the House on May 16th), adds the following exception to La. R.S. 37:2175.2:

No individual shall undertake on his own property self-performed home improvement contracting services having a value in excess of seven thousand five hundred dollars unless registered with and approved by the Residential Building Contractors Subcommittee of the State Licensing Board for Contractors as a home improvement contractor.

Basically, the legislature is trying to make it easier for a homeowner to perform certain work on his or her property without having to go through the necessary registration channels. While this might not be an issue for some, it is worrying that something as particularized as home construction may be continuing down a path of non-regulation. The true extent of this relaxation, of course, will remain to be seen.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Posted in:     Construction News, Filing Requirements, Law Changes & Updates, Licensing, Louisiana, Mechanics Lien, Payment Requirements, Regulations  /    /   Leave a comment

Louisiana Contractors – Workers Compensation Insurance

Back in 2009 this blog reported on the very topic of Workers Compensation insurance, stating that 1 and 5 businesses are breaking workers compensation laws. In my everyday practice, I feel like the trend is still prevalent in the construction industry. The main reason being is due to the exorbitant price of this insurance on contractors.

Workers Compensation is codified in Louisiana under Revised Statute 23:1021 et seq. There are a myriad of rules and definitions within this chapter of the code that would make any contractors head spin. There are a few key items to remember when classifying employees. First and foremost is that there is a presumption of employee status, as seen in La. R.S. 23:1044. This can be overcome by a number of factors which would make the worker, an independent contrator rather than a employee. La R.S. 23:1045 is where the law states that independent contractors and subcontractors are exempt from coverage. Although the price to insure all employees under workers comp insurance is high, the price that is paid if an accident happens to an uninsured worker is much higher. Furthermore, when the insuring companies do an audit at the end of the year of the status, there can be a hefty price tag for improper reporting.

I represent a number of clients who are learning the hard way that companies like LWCC and Louisiana Home Builders Association are not fun to litigate against for a contractor trying to make profits. These companies have either in-house attorneys or law firms who handle these cases day in and day out. There is almost no incentive for them to settle claims because there is no fear of pricey litigation. As for the contractor, attorney fee bills keep going higher and at the end of the day the contractor can pay double and triple of what they would have if they had properly reported or settled early.

So let this be a warning to all contractors who are trying to push the line when it comes to workers compensation insurance, its just not worth it. Just like fighting any insurance company, even if the insurer is wrong, they will fight to the bitter end to be proven so. Taking an early haircut, so that you can get back to making money in the industry, can be a win-win for your construction company.

Posted in:     Construction Contracts, Construction News, Disputes, Insurance, Labor Law, Litigation, Louisiana, Payment Requirements  /  Tags: , , , , , , ,   /   Leave a comment

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

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

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

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