Travelers Indem. Co. v. Crown Corr, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21101 (9th Cir. 2014)

This action arose out of the construction of the University of Phoenix Stadium (the “Stadium”), home of the Arizona Cardinals.  Tourism and Sports Authority (the “Owner”) entered into a Design/Build Agreement with the Arizona Cardinals and Hunt Construction Group (the “Contractor”) for the design and construction of the Stadium (the “Prime Contract”).  The Contractor then entered into a subcontract with Crown Corr, Inc. (the “Subcontractor”) for the design of the Stadium’s exterior enclosure system (the “Subcontract”).

The Pennsylvania Mechanics Lien Law of 1963, after remaining essentially unchanged for 40 years, has been amended four times since 2006.  For a Pennsylvania Bar Institute Program held on November 6, 10, and 17, Kenneth I. Levin spoke concerning the impact of the amendments on the rights and remedies of…

When responding to document requests or a subpoena duces tecum, litigants in New York traditionally have been faced with the onerous privilege log requirements set forth in Section 3122 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules.  Section 3122 requires a litigant who withholds any responsive documents to provide to the requesting party a privilege log containing a separate entry for each withheld document.  Each entry must disclose the legal grounds on which the document is withheld, in addition to certain identifying information including the type of document, the general subject matter of the document, and the date of the document.  N.Y. CPLR § 3122(b).  In complex construction disputes, there is often a large volume of privileged documents, and thus preparing a privilege log that meets the requirements of Section 3122 can be time consuming and expensive.

Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. Construction Supervision Services Inc. (In re Construction Supervision Services Inc.), 753 F.3d 124 (4th Cir. 2014)

Our sister publication, Bankruptcy-Real Estate-Insights.com, recently discussed the unique issues relating to the perfection of mechanics liens after the filing of a bankruptcy petition as resolved…

Pending House Bill 473 seeks to amend the current lien law by creating a centralized construction notices registry in Pennsylvania known as the State Construction Notices Directory (“Directory”), which would provide owners and general contractors with access to a database listing all potential lien claimants on a registered project.

An owner would have the option of registering a project by filing a notice of commencement on the Directory and posting a copy at the site of the project prior to the start of physical construction.

Wyman v. Ayer Properties, LLC, 469 Mass. 64,  2014 Mass. LEXIS 524 (July 10, 2014)

The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the economic loss rule, which bars recovery of tort damages from the negligent supplier of a defective product when there is no claim of personal injury or damage to other property, does not apply to claims asserted by a condominium association or similar condominium organization seeking compensation for damage to common areas of a condominium building caused by defective construction.

This case arises out of a dispute between the Market Gallery Condominium Trust, the trustees responsible for management of a condo building, and Ayer Properties, the developer and builder of the condo building, after the trustees observed that Ayer had negligently constructed the window frames, the exterior brick masonry, and the roof of the building. The trustees commenced an action alleging that the negligent construction caused damage to both the common areas and the residential units in the building.

C&H Electric, Inc. v. Town of Bethel, 312 Conn. 843, 2014 Conn. LEXIS 263 (Aug. 5, 2014)

This dispute arose out of a project to renovate and build an addition at a high school in the Town of Bethel, Connecticut.  The plaintiff, C&H Electric, entered into a contract with the defendant, the Town of Bethel, to perform the electrical work on the project.  The parties’ contract included a “no damages for delay” clause, limiting the defendant’s liability for delays it caused on the project.  The no damages for delay clause specified that an extension of time would be plaintiff’s “sole remedy” for “(1) delays in the commencement, prosecution or completion of the work, (2) hindrance or obstruction in the performance of the work, (3) loss of productivity, or (4) other similar claims whether or not such delays are foreseeable, contemplated, or uncontemplated . . .”  The contract included a single exception to the no damages for delay clause, which allowed the plaintiff to recover for delays caused by acts of the defendant “constituting active interference with [the plaintiff’s] performance of the work.”  While the contract did not define “active interference,” it did specify that the defendant’s exercise of its contractual rights, including its right to suspend, reschedule or change the work, would not constitute “active interference.”

American Towers LLC v. BPI, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106724 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 4, 2014)

American Towers LLC (“American Towers”), which operates wireless and broadcast communications towers, undertook a project to construct a cell tower in Prestonburg, KY, along with a tower compound and access road.  American Towers selected BPI, Inc. (“BPI”) as general contractor for the project, and the parties executed a contract.

The contract contained a number of provisions that allocated the parties’ responsibilities with respect to design and construction.  In particular, the contract provided that American Towers was to provide BPI with drawings, specifications, and instructions.  BPI, for its part, was responsible for “all construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, and procedures[.]”  Moreover, BPI was to complete its work in a “workmanlike manner and with the highest degree of skill and care exercised by reputable contractors performing the same or similar services[.]” In performing its work, if BPI recognized any problems with American Towers’ design, the contract provided that BPI was to stop work and inform American Towers of the problem.  American Towers would then “issue written instructions” to BPI about how BPI should proceed.

Shafer Elec. & Constr. v. Mantia, 2014 Pa. LEXIS 1766 (Pa. July 21, 2014)

Homeowners Raymond and Donna Mantia contracted Shafer Electric & Construction (“Shafer”) to build a two-car garage addition onto their house. Shafer’s proposal was extremely detailed as to the work to be completed. Despite the detail in Shafer’s specifications, however, Shafer’s proposals did not comply with several requirements of the Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act, 73 P.S. §§ 517.1-517.18 (the “Act”). Specifically, pursuant to the Act, any home improvement contract must be legible, in writing, and satisfy thirteen other requirements. § 517.7(a). The contract satisfied only three of those requirements.
Notwithstanding the deficiencies, work began on the addition. During the subsequent months, a dispute arose concerning changes the Mantias made to the design of the addition. Other alterations became necessary as a result of excavation problems that arose during the work. The parties could not agree on a new contract, which Shafer believed was required due to the design changes. The parties agreed that Shafer would stop work and invoice the Mantias for the work it completed. When Shafer issued the final invoice, the Mantias refused to pay.

Bedwell Co. v. Camden County Improvement Auth., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95510 (D.N.J. July 14, 2014)

The University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey contracted HDR Architects and Engineers, P.C. (“HDR”) to design a medical school building. After the project went to bid, the Bedwell Company (“Bedwell”) contracted with the owner’s development and contracting agent for the performance of foundation, structural steel, and other construction work.

Bedwell and HDR did not have a contract with each other. According to the allegations in Bedwell’s complaint, however, HDR was aware that the design documents that it prepared under its contract with the owner would be used by contractors like Bedwell in their estimation of costs and time for completion of the work. In its complaint, Bedwell alleged that defects in HDR’s design documents—which led to 212 Requests for Information and 469 Change Order Requests—caused unexpected costs and numerous delays.