Posts Tagged ‘Louisiana Construction Law Blog’

Louisiana 2nd Circuit Reiterates Difficulty in Overturning Arbitration Awards

Check out our Arbitration & ADR category of posts at the Louisiana Construction Law Blog, where we discuss cases and statutes applicable to arbitration proceedings and decisions under Louisiana law.

The treatment of arbitration clauses and arbitration awards in Louisiana under the Louisiana Arbitration Act is very similiar to how such clauses and awards are treated under the FAA (Federal Arbitration Act), in Washington and Oregon, and elsewhere. How? Strictly.

If you sign an arbitration agreement, you’ll likely be compelled to arbitrate. And, as the Louisiana 2nd Circuit, reiterated in a decision this week in Gilbert v. Robert Angel Builder, Inc., when arbitration awards are rendered…the parties are usually stuck with them.

This case originally made headlines in 2008 when the arbitrator destroyed the case record immediately following the arbitration. The plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel the arbitrator in state court, and argued the arbitrator failed to properly safeguard the evidence.

This original controversy, however, was reduced to a mere footnote by the 2nd Circuit in the decision published this week. The guts of the appellate decision turned on the guts of the Louisiana Arbitration Act insofar as challenges to arbitration awards are concerned….and that means the 2nd Circuit considered this from the Act:

The grounds for vacating an arbitration award are: (A) where the award was procured by corruption, fraud or undue means; (B) where any of the arbitrators evidenced partiality or corruption; (C) where the arbitrators refused to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, refused to heard evidence pertinent and material to the controversy, or are guilty of any other misconduct prejudicial to the rights of any party; or (D) where the arbitrators exceeded their powers or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made. Quoting La. R.S. 9:4210.

Construing this statute, the 2nd Circuit refused to consider any evidence or argument that spoke to the merits of the decision. They were only curious as to these four factors – all of which have nothing to do with the underlying dispute.

Finding nothing to show that the decision was improperly made (not even the destruction of the record following the arbitration), the arbitration award was confirmed.

Lesson: Arbitration is an alternative to litigation…but remember, its benefits (speed) can also be its warts (finality and lack of appealability).

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

Posted in:     Arbitration & ADR  /  Tags: , , , ,   /   2 Comments

Can Contract Time Can Increased By Oral Agreement?

Construction contracts very frequently contain provisions that require all changes orders to be approved in writing. In Louisiana, however, oral modifications to written contracts are allowed despite such provisions. Rhodes Steel Buildings, Inc. v. Walker Const. Co., 813 So.2d 1171.

At the trial level in Lantech Construction Co. v. Speed, the court’s ruling reflected this jurisprudence, requiring a property owner to pay for work performed by the contractor in six unwritten change orders. However, the trial court also required the contract or to pay $31k in liquidated damages for failing to finish the project on time.

The contractor’s argument was simple: If the written contract’s sum can be modified orally, so too can the written contract’s time – and that the unsigned change orders requested a change in the contract time & sum.

Going through the line of Louisiana cases regarding oral changes to written construction contracts, the appeals court agreed with the contractor.

…[T]he law is clear that written contracts may be modified by oral contracts and the conduct of the parties, even when the written contract contains a provision that change orders must be in writing. Modification of a written agreement can be presumed by silence, inaction, or implication. The party who asserts that an obligation has been modified must prove by a preponderance of the evidence facts or acts giving rise to the modification. It is a question of fact, therefore, as to whether there were oral agreements that modified the written contract. Oral modifications alleged to be in excess of $500 must be proved by at least one “credible witness” and “other corroborating circumstances.” Only general corroboration is required. Parol evidence is admissible for this purpose.

The court reversed the award of liquidated damages against the contractor, ruling that after application of the contract time extensions the project was not delivered late.

This blog post was originally published on Wolfe Law Group’s topic-specific Louisiana Construction Law Blog.

Posted in:     Change Orders, Construction Contracts, Louisiana  /  Tags: , , ,   /   3 Comments
Posted in:     Collections  /  Tags: , , , , ,   /   2 Comments

Great Resources for Mississippi Construction Law

This afternoon, I was reading a post on Bowie & Jenson’s Construction Law Forum blog about problems that may arise when using the same subcontract in more than one state. The case discussed in the blog post regarding the differences in interpretation of a pay when paid clause in Maryland and Virginia. While we don’t practice in either of those states, we very frequently encounter clients who are working across borders.

When it comes to Louisiana construction companies, they are frequently working in Mississippi.

Out of curiosity, I performed a little research on the treatment of pay when paid clauses in Mississippi to compare it with Louisiana’s treatment of the same. Immediately I went to my two favorite resources for Mississippi Construction Law, and figured our readers could benefit from these two resources and there’s no reason to keep them a secret. So here goes:

Robert Wise
While Robert doesn’t run a construction law blog, he has a bunch of great published articles available for download on his website. Take some of these as examples:

  • Mississippi Construction Lien, Bond, Stop Notice, Open Account & Contractor Prompt Payment Claims (pdf)
  • Mississippi Construction Bid Mistakes (pdf)
  • Mississippi Construction Supplier’s Collection Law Tool Kit (pdf)

Construction Law Toolbox Blog
The Construction Law Toolbox blog is published by Mississippi law firm Robinson, Biggs, Ingram, Solop & Farris, PLLC. The blog provides consistent quality posts about construction law issues that affect those performing construction work in Mississippi. Here are some example posts:

  • Do you have coverage under your commercial general liability policy for defective subcontractor construction? (link)
  • He who hesitates is lost – Protecting Payment Rights in Mississippi (link)
  • Can I Rely on my Subcontractor’s Certificate of Insurance? (link)

Oh, and the result of my pay when paid clause research, thanks to help from Mr. Wise is this:

In Louisiana, “pay when paid” requires payment within a reasonable time, regardless of whether payment was ever received from the property owner. “Pay if paid” clauses, on the other hand, makes payment from the owner an absolute condition precent to payment further down the contracting chain.

In Mississippi, it doesn’t seem to matter how it’s written: pay if paid, pay when paid, etc. The result is the same: payment is due within a reasonable time, regardless of whether payment was ever received from the property owner.

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

Posted in:     Around The Web, Payment Requirements  /  Tags: , , , , ,   /   Leave a comment

Owners Cannot Hold Money From Contractor When Work Not In Dispute

It’s commonplace in the construction industry for a property owner to withhold final payment from the general contractor disputing the quality of completeness of construction work.   This happens between general and subcontractors as well.

All to often, however, the withholding party does this as a tactic, and in fact withholds much more than is actually in dispute.

A small decision out of the Louisiana Fourth Circuit this month addresses this circumstance.    There, the court ruled that the property owner must pay the contractor for the portion of work that is completed and not in dispute – despite the existence of disputes on the other portions of the work.

In Hi Construction & Demolition v. Louise Thomas, the Fourth Circuit held that where the property owner acknowledged the completion of certain work, the property  owner must tender payment to the contractor for that work.

A rather simple proposition, of course, but in a world where possession is 9/10ths of the law, it’s a principal often abused in the construction industry.   This case may be useful for contractors in a dispute where a payment is withheld not proportional to the amount actually in dispute.

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

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