ConstructLaw® discusses recent cases and current issues in construction law
NEW YORK – For the second consecutive year, Troutman Pepper’s Construction Practice Group has been recognized nationally among Law360’s Practice Groups of the Year. The firm was among only four to receive the 2022 Practice Group of the Year designation in the Construction category.
Continue Reading Troutman Pepper’s National Construction Practice Named Among Law360’s Practice Groups of the Year for Second Consecutive YearHanuman Chalisa, LLC v. BoMar Contr., Inc., 2022-Ohio-1111, 187 N.E.3d 1108 (Ct. App.)
Hanuman Chalisa LLC (owner) contracted BoMar Contracting, Inc. (BoMar) to construct a hotel in Columbus, OH. The contract consisted of the AIA A101-2007 and AIA A201-2007. The owner later terminated BoMar, alleging deficiencies in BoMar’s work. The parties disputed whether the owner terminated the contract “for cause” or “for convenience.”
Continue Reading Ohio Court Reforms Construction Contract to Correct “Manifest Absurdity” in Termination for Convenience TermAccreditation: An extract from Thomas Reuters Practical Law. The full document is available at https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I3e46a7343fed11ed9f24ec7b211d8087/Standard-Arbitration-Clause-for-Construction-Contract.
Troutman Pepper Partners Albert Bates and Zach Torres-Fowler published a Thomas Reuters Practical Law guide for drawing construction arbitration clauses.
Continue Reading Standard Arbitration Clause for Construction ContractNEW YORK – Troutman Pepper, as specialty construction counsel, represented a consortium of investors consisting of Vantage Airport Group, JetBlue, American Triple I, and RXR Realty in a deal to build, finance, and operate a new US$4.2 billion passenger terminal at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK). The financial close of the deal was announced on November 17.
RKI Expl. & Prod., LLC v. Ameriflow Energy Servs., LLC, No. 02-20-00384-CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 4331 (Tex. App. June 23, 2022)
A recent decision by the Court of Appeals of Texas highlights the perils of failing to properly assert a demand for contractual indemnity.
In 2014, a piece of equipment, known as a sand separator, exploded at an oil well in Loving County, TX, killing two individuals and injuring three others. RKI Exploration & Production LLC operated the oil well. RKI contracted with Ameriflow Energy Services LLC and Crescent Services LLC through two master service agreements (MSAs) and a series of work orders.
Continue Reading Not Everything Is Bigger in Texas: Court of Appeals Reverses Trial Court’s Expansive Interpretation of Indemnity ClauseNew York State Thruway Auth. v. CHA Consulting, Inc., 165 N.Y.S.3d 832 (Albany Co., Sup. Ct. 2022).
This case involved a dispute over a wind turbine project. The root cause of the dispute was a bust between the “wind turbulence” at the site, and the wind turbulence that the turbines installed could withstand. Once the project was completed and commissioned, the overworked turbines prematurely failed.
Continue Reading Twists and Turbines — A New York Case Highlights an Owner’s Risk When Not Using Full-Wrap EPC DeliveryUnited States ex rel. Spirtas Worldwide, LLC v. SGLC Consulting LLC, No. 3:21-CV-00182-MAB, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105589; 2022 WL 2116451 (S.D. Ill. June 13, 2022)
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois recently enforced a partially executed agreement to arbitrate where the party that failed to countersign demonstrated assent through its acts and conduct.
Continue Reading Illinois Federal District Court Enforces Partially Executed Agreement to Arbitrate
Triple B Servs., LLP v. City of Conroe, No. 09-21-00096-CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 4824, 2022 WL 2720451 (Tex. App. July 14, 2022)
The Texas Court of Appeals recently affirmed a ruling granting the city of Conroe governmental immunity from a contractor’s lawsuit asserting claims for breach of contract and violation of the Texas Public Prompt Pay Act.
Continue Reading Texas Appellate Court Affirms Grant of Governmental Immunity From Suit Seeking Delay CostsPizzarotti, LLC v. X-Treme Concrete Inc., 205 A.D.3d 487 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)
A New York appellate court recently affirmed the dismissal of a subcontractor’s counterclaims for delay damages and for unpaid amounts because they were barred by the parties’ no-damage-for-delay provision and executed lien waivers, respectively.
Continue Reading No-Damage-For-Delay Provisions and Lien Waivers Remain Enforceable — and Valuable — in New YorkConstructural Dynamics, Inc. v. Thomas P. Carney, Inc., No. 1104 EDA 2021, 2022 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1500 (Pa. Super. July 1, 2022), reargument denied (Sept. 8, 2022).
Like many prompt payment acts, Pennsylvania’s Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act (CASPA) permits owners and contractors to withhold payment for good faith claims — but not forever. Owners and contractors who wait too long could find themselves litigating prompt payment claims and paying the penalties those acts impose on procrastinating payors. A recent decision by the Pennsylvania Superior Court provides some guidance on how long is “too long” to withhold.
Continue Reading Pennsylvania Superior Court Places Time Limit on Good Faith Withholding Under CASPA
