Justia Construction Law Opinion Summaries

Stresscon Corporation, a subcontracting concrete company, filed suit against Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, alleging, among other things, that Travelers acted in bad faith, unreasonably delaying or denying its claim for covered insurance benefits; and Stresscon sought awards of two times the covered benefits along with fees and costs, as prescribed by statute. Stresscon’s claims for relief arose from a 2007 serious construction accident which was caused by a crane operator employed by a company that was itself a subcontractor of Stresscon. Stresscon’s general contractor, Mortenson, sought damages from Stresscon, asserting Stresson’s contractual liability for the resulting construction delays, and Stresscon in turn sought indemnification from Travelers. Travelers petitioned for review of the court of appeals’ judgment affirming the district court’s denial of its motion for directed verdict in a lawsuit brought by its insured, Stresscon. Much as the district court had done, the appellate court rejected Travelers’ contention that the no-voluntary-payments clause of their insurance contract relieved it of any obligation to indemnify Stresscon for payments Stresscon had made without its consent. Instead, the court of appeals found that the Colorado Supreme Court's opinion in "Friedland v. Travelers Indemnity Co.," (105 P.3d 639 (2005)) had effectively overruled the Court's prior “no voluntary payments” jurisprudence to the contrary and given Stresscon a similar opportunity. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that its adoption of a notice-prejudice rule in "Friedland" did not overrule any existing “no voluntary payments” jurisprudence. The Court declined to extend a notice-prejudice reasoning to Stresscon’s voluntary payments, made in the face of the no-voluntary-payments clause of its insurance contract with Travelers. View "Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. v. Stresscon Co." on Justia Law

Baker, an Ohio concrete construction business, subcontracts its work to smaller firms. In 2000, Baker signed a multi-employer collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the Reinforced Concrete Contractors Association and the Union, covering current employees and employees not yet hired. A prehire CBA is allowed only in the construction industry, 29 U.S.C. 158(f). The CBA renewed automatically. On January 25, 2013, Baker sent the Union a letter, asserting: “Baker’s notice of its intent to terminate the Agreement, including any subsequent successor agreements.” The Union responded: "notice of withdrawal should be made not more than 60 days prior to the termination of the Agreement. The Agreement is in effect … until May 31, 2015, therefore your request was untimely." Baker reiterated that none of its employees perform work covered by the Agreement and that none had performed bargaining unit work covered by the Agreement for at least seven years. The Union filed a grievance. Baker stated that it did not recognize the arbitrator’s authority, but would appear to preserve its position. The arbitrator found Baker in violation of the CBA. The district court vacated the award. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, adopting the single-employee-unit rule; an employer may repudiate statutory and contractual obligations when the employer does not employ anyone within the relevant bargaining unit. View "Baker Concrete Constr., Inc. v. Reinforced Concrete Contractors Ass'n" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether truck drivers hauling asphalt cement from a commercial oil refinery to a contractor’s facility are performing “work under a contract” under Minn. Stat. 177.44(1) and, therefore, must be paid prevailing wages. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MDOT) determined that the construction companies that were awarded contracts to work on state highway projects violated the project contracts by failing to ensure that drivers that assisted in the acquisition and transport of asphalt cement for the projects were paid prevailing wages. Appellants argued that the hauling activities of these drivers did not constitute “work under a contract” under Minn. Stat. 177.44(1) and, alternatively, that the hauling activities were exempt from the prevailing wage requirements under the “commercial establishment exception” in the Prevailing Wage Act. The district courts granted summary judgment to MDOT. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that hauling activities must be to, from, or on the site of a public works project to qualify as “work under a contract,” and therefore, the hauling activities in this case did not constitute “work under the contract” subject to the prevailing wage requirements. View "J.D. Donovan, Inc. v. Minn. Dep’t of Transp." on Justia Law

Jerry and Karen Slack hired Jeffrey Fisher and his construction company, Fisher Builders, to build a remodeled home. During the project, the deck collapsed, and the Slacks’ construction permit was revoked. The Slacks filed a negligence action against Fisher and his company. Fisher had a commercial general liability insurance policy with Employers Mutual Casualty Company (EMC). EMC filed a declaratory action alleging that there was no coverage and that it had no duty to defend or indemnify any party in the negligence action. Fisher and Fisher Builders ultimately settled with the Slacks and assigned their rights under the EMC insurance policy to the Slacks. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of EMC, ruling that Fisher’s conduct was clearly intentional and did not fit within the meaning of “occurrence” under the policy, regardless of whether Fisher intended the consequences. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court (1) erred by concluding that, in the context of general liability insurance, the term “occurrence,” defined by the policy as “an accident,” categorically precludes coverage for any intentional conduct on the part of the insured with unintended results; and (2) erred when it granted summary judgment in favor of EMC, as issues of material fact precluded summary judgment. Remanded. View "Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. Slack" on Justia Law

Daniel Stolz worked for a subcontractor on a construction project when he was injured in an accident on the job site. Prior to the accident, Messer had obtained authority from the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation to act as the self-insuring employer on the project, which gave Messer responsibility for providing workers’ compensation coverage for its own employees as well as the employees of enrolled subcontractors on the project. Stolz brought negligence claims against Messer Construction, the general contractor, and several subcontractors. A federal district court granted summary judgment to Messer as the self-insuring employer but denied summary judgment to the subcontractors, concluding that an enrolled subcontractor on a self-insured construction project is immune from claims made by its own employees but not from those made by employees of other enrolled subcontractors. The federal court then certified a question of state law to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court answered that subcontractors enrolled in a self-insured construction project plan are immune from tort claims for workplace injuries from employees of other enrolled subcontractors on the same project. View "Stolz v. J & B Steel Erectors, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2006, Dr. Terry McMillin and his wife Leslie purchased a new home in Tupelo. Unhappy with contractor Jamie Ewing’s failure to respond to their repair requests, plus their discovery of a document (a blue card, noting a failed home inspection) listing the name of a different contractor as the contractor responsible for their home’s construction, the McMillins began the process of unraveling just who was responsible for building their new home. Ultimately, this case stemmed from an error by the City of Tupelo’s Permit Manager Marilyn Vail in handling the withdrawal of one licensed contractor and mistakenly substituting the name of another licensed contractor, when in actuality, a licensed contractor was not working on the home. The circuit court held a bench trial and awarded $9,319.23 in damages to repair the home and $105,894.39 in legal fees related to another case involving the construction but denied the McMillins’ request for attorneys’ fees in this case. The City appealed, and the McMillins cross-appealed. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that the circuit court erred in finding that the City was not immune from liability. The Court therefore reversed the circuit court’s judgment and render judgment in favor of the City. View "City of Tupelo v. McMillin" on Justia Law

Dale Ladd hired Hammerhead Contracting & Development, LLC to build a house. After a dispute arose regarding the amount owed for the construction of Ladd’s home, Brandon Holmes filed a Laborer’s, Mechanic’s, or Materialman’s Lien on behalf of the LLC for the amount of $101,676, the additional amount Hammerhead asserted that Ladd owed. Ladd filed suit against Holmes to remove the lien. Hammerhead then filed an amended complaint against Ladd seeking judgment for the $101,676. The cases were consolidated. The circuit court (1) granted Ladd’s motion to dismiss Hammerhead’s complaint because of its failure to give the notice required by Ark. Code Ann. 18-44-115; (2) granted summary judgment in favor of Ladd on Ladd’s complaint and ordered the lien canceled; and (3) found that Ark. Code Ann. 18-44-115(a)(4), which bars suit by a contractor who fails to provide statutory notice, is constitutional. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in finding that the direct-sales exception in Ark. Code Ann. 18-44-115(a)(8) to the residential preconstruction-notice requirement can never apply to a contractor. View "Hammerhead Contracting & Dev. v. Ladd" on Justia Law

This litigation arose from the construction of a "Johnny Janosik" furniture store in Laurel. The Plaintiff-appellant LTL Acres Limited Partnership (LTL) was the owner of the Janosik Building. Defendant-appellee Butler Manufacturing Company (Butler) provided pre-engineered components which were used to build the roof and exterior walls. Defendant-appellee Dryvit Systems, Inc. (Dryvit) supplied a product used on the exterior finish of the walls, to protect and seal them. Dryvit warranted its product for ten years from the "date of substantial completion of the project." The building was completed in 2006. Unfortunately, the building had issues with water infiltration from the beginning. By February 2012, cladding began to crack and buckle. The water infiltration and delamination persisted through 2013 despite attempts to fix the issues. LTL brought this action in 2013, alleging breach of warranty, breach of contract, and negligence claims against Butler; and breach of warranty and breach of contract claims against Dryvit. The Superior Court granted summary judgment to both Butler and Dryvit on the grounds that the actions against both were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. It held that the action against Butler was barred by 10 Del. C. sec. 8127,which is a six year statute of limitations relating to alleged defective construction of an improvement to real property. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that summary judgment in favor of Butler was proper. The Superior Court ruled that LTL’s action against Dryvit was barred by a four year statute of limitations set forth in 6 Del. C. sec. 2-725. Dryvit gave LTL a ten year express warranty. The Superior Court described the warranty as a “repair and replacement warranty” and reasoned that such a warranty cannot be one that extended to future performance. It therefore concluded that the statute of limitations for an action on the warranty expired not later than four years after the Dryvit product was tendered and applied to the building; that is, not later than four years after 2006. The Supreme Court concluded that grant of summary judgment in favor of Dryvit was inappropriate, and had to be reversed. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "LTL Acres Limited Partnership v. Butler Manufacturing Co." on Justia Law

Pursuant to Public Contract Code section 7107, when a project owner pays a direct contractor the amount it had previously withheld as retentions, the direct contractor must pay its subcontractors their share of the retention within seven days or face penalties. The court concluded that, in this case, the decision by the owner to stop withholding future retentions and pay full progress payments to the contractor was not equivalent to a payment by the owner of past retentions under section 7107. Accordingly, the court concluded that the subcontractor is not entitled to late payment penalties under section 7107. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Blois Construction v. FCI/Fluor/Parsons" on Justia Law

Linh Duc Duong, doing business as Classy Nails, appealed after a bench trial awarded Welch Construction & Excavating, LLC, $30,825, plus interest, for the balance due on a construction contract. Welch Construction sued Duong, alleging the parties contracted for Welch Construction to remodel a vacant retail space in Kirkwood Mall into a Classy Nails salon for $92,225. Welch Construction alleged it completed the work and Duong failed to pay the balance of $30,825 due under the contract. Duong answered and counterclaimed, denying he owed an outstanding balance under the contract and alleging Welch Construction breached the contract by failing to remodel the retail space in a timely and workmanlike manner according to his specifications. Duong claimed he was entitled to a setoff against any balance owed under the contract for his damages caused by Welch Construction's failure to complete the work before Thanksgiving 2013 and failure to construct the salon according to his specifications. Duong sought lost profits and damages for repairing the work according to his specifications. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not clearly err in finding: (1) the parties did not orally contract for a specific completion date for the construction project; (2) Welch Construction did not unreasonably delay completion of the project; and (3) Duong failed to establish his damages for costs to repair and lost profits for Welch Construction's claimed failure to complete the project according to his specifications. View "Welch Construction & Excavating, LLC v. Duong" on Justia Law