Justia Construction Law Opinion Summaries

In 1999 plaintiff pled guilty to making false statements while working on a project funded by the Federal Highway Administration (18 U.S.C. 2, 1014, and 1020). The agreement prohibited plaintiff from participating in any FHWA-funded project for a year. Plaintiff challenged Puerto Rico agencies' subsequent actions. The parties negotiated settlements; plaintiff entered into an agreement allowing it to bid on FHWA projects. Puerto Rico then enacted Law 458, which prohibits award of government contracts to any party convicted of a crime constituting fraud, embezzlement, or misappropriation of public funds and requires rescission of any contract with a party convicted of a specified offense. The statute states that it does not apply retroactively. One agency cancelled plaintiff's successful bids, another withdrew its consent to the settlement. The district court rejected claims of violation of the federal Contracts Clause and breaches of contract under Puerto Rico law. The First Circuit affirmed with respect to the constitutional claim. Any breach of the settlement agreements did not violate the Contracts Clause, even if committed in an attempt to unlawfully enforce Law 458 retroactively; defendants have not impaired plaintiff's ability to obtain a remedy for a demonstrated breach. Given the stage of the litigation, the district court should have retained the breach of contract claims. View "Redondo Constr. Corp. v. Izquierdo" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued defendant alleging violations of Labor Law 240(1) and Labor Law 241(6), the latter pursuant to 12 NYCRR 23-3.3(b)(3) and (c) after plaintiff was injured while working on a demolition project on premises owned by defendant. At issue was whether the court's decision in Misseritti v. Mark IV Constr. Co. precluded recovery under labor Law 240(1) where a worker sustained an injury caused by a falling object whose base stood at the same level as the worker. The court held that such a circumstance did not categorically bar the worker from recovery under section 240(1). The court held that, however, in this case, an issue of fact existed as to whether plaintiff's injury resulted from the lack of a statutorily prescribed protective device. View "Wilinski v. 334 E. 92nd Hous. Dev. Fund Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an unlicensed subcontractor, filed a complaint against Defendants, licensed contractors, alleging that it was entitled to a judgment in the amount that Defendants agreed to pay for home improvement work that Plaintiff performed as a subcontractor for Defendants. The circuit court dismissed the complaint, finding that contracts made by unlicensed home improvement contractors or subcontractors were illegal. The court of appeals reversed and reinstated the complaint, holding that the Maryland Home Improvement Law, which regulates contracts between contractors and owners, did not bar Respondent from recovering on its subcontract with Petitioner. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Maryland Home Improvement Law did not render unenforceable a contract between a home improvement general contractor and an unlicensed subcontractor. View "Stalker Bros. v. Alcoa Concrete Masonry, Inc. " on Justia Law

This appeal involved a fundamental misunderstanding about the enforcement of an injunction. The district court approved a settlement between defendant and a national class represented by plaintiffs, as part of its judgment, enjoined permanently "anyone claiming... for the benefit of" members of the class for prosecuting released claims. Movants opted out of the settlement of that class action, but continued to prosecute a putative class action against defendant in a California court. Instead of moving the district court to enforce its extant injunction, defendant then moved the district court to enter another injunction to bar movants from prosecuting their putative class action in the California court, under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 2283. The district court granted that motion and entered a second injunction, which movants now challenge on appeal. The court held that because the district court failed to comply with "equity's time-honored procedures" to enforce an injunction, the second injunction against movants was vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Edleson, et al. v. American Home Shield Corp., et al." on Justia Law

Town & Country Property, L.L.C., and Town & Country Ford, L.L.C. (T&C), sued Amerisure Insurance Company and Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company (Amerisure) and its insured, Jones-Williams Construction Company, Inc., alleging that Amerisure was obligated to pay a $650,100 judgment entered in favor of T&C and against Jones-Williams in a separate action pursuant to a commercial general-liability insurance policy Amerisure had issued Jones-Williams. The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of Amerisure, and T&C appealed. Specifically, the trial court held that Amerisure was not required to indemnify Jones-Williams because there had been no occurrence invoking coverage under the policy. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment to the extent the awarded damages represented the costs of repairing or replacing faulty work covered under the liability policy. The Court remanded the case to the trial court so that it could consider arguments from the parties to determine if any of the damages awarded represented compensation for damaged property. View "Town & Country Property, L.L.C.v. Amerisure Ins. Co." on Justia Law

This case was an interlocutory appeal from a circuit court which granted the "Motions to Compel Arbitration" of Pass Marianne, LLC (Pass) and Alfonso Realty, Inc. (Alfonso). On appeal, the Supreme Court considered: (1) whether Pass waived its right to arbitration, and (2) whether a principal’s waiver of its contractual right to arbitrate operates to waive that right for its agent. In 2005, Pass entered into a contract with Carl E. Woodward, LLC (Woodward) for the construction of a new condominium development, Pass Marianne Condominiums, in Pass Christian, Mississippi. In February, Pass and Lemon Drop Properties, LLC (Lemon Drop) entered into a "Preconstruction Sales and Purchase Agreement" for Unit No. 209 within the Pass Marianne Condominiums. Because of Hurricane Katrina, construction of the Pass Marianne Condominiums was not completed until 2007. On October 3, 2007, Pass executed a warranty deed conveying Unit No. 209 to Lemon Drop, and Woodward furnished a "Warranty of Completion of Construction" to Lemon Drop. On October 28, 2008, Lemon Drop filed a Complaint in the circuit court against Pass and Woodward, which sought, inter alia, rescission of the Agreement due to alleged defects in design and construction. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that while Pass waived its right to compel arbitration, that waiver was not imputed to its agent, Alfonso. As there was no evidence of waiver by Alfonso, it should have been entitled to proceed in arbitration. Therefore, as to Alfonso the Court affirmed the circuit court's order granting arbitration was affirmed. But regarding Pass, Court reversed and remanded the circuit court's order for further proceedings. View "Lemon Drop Properties, LLC. v. Pass Marianne, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Walter Fasch was injured in a single-vehicle ATV accident that occurred within a construction area on a U.S. highway. Fasch filed a negligence action against the Montana Department of Transportation, the construction contractor, and the subcontractor (collectively, Defendants). The district court entered findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants, concluding that Defendants owed no duty to Fasch because Fasch was an unforeseeable plaintiff who was not in the zone of risk. The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that reasonable minds could differ as to the resolution of certain factual issues, that the factual issues should be resolved by trial, and that resolution of the factual issues would also affect the determination of the legal issue of duty. View "Fasch v. Weeden" on Justia Law

Reshetar Systems, Inc. appealed a judgment of the bankruptcy court determining that the debt owed to Reshetar by debtor was not excepted from discharge. The court held that the debt was not excepted from discharge as the trustee of a constructive trust was not a fiduciary within the meaning of Code. Sec. 523(a)(4) and Minnesota law did not create the fiduciary relationship required by the section. The court also held that nothing in the statute, the contract, or the subcontract gave Reshetar specific property rights in the payments Construction 70 received from Applebee's. Those payments belonged to Construction 70, and Construction 70's use of its own property did not amount to embezzlement. The court also held that Construction 70's use of its own property did not amount to larceny where the payments from Applebee's to Construction 70 belonged to Construction 70. The court finally held that, giving due regard to the bankruptcy court's opportunity to judge debtor's credibility, the court could not say that the bankruptcy court's finding was clearly erroneous. View "Reshetar Systems, Inc. v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Ronald Bacon was injured while working at a construction site. Bacon sued the general contractor, the general contractor's commercial liability insurer, the subcontractor, and the parent company of the subcontractor. Bacon settled with the insurer, which together with the general contractor's separate liability insurer, made payments to Bacon pursuant to the settlement agreement. After Bacon settled with the subcontractor's parent company, the general contractor's two insurers filed a breach of contract action because Bacon received the proceeds of his second settlement but refused to make payment to the insurers under the terms of the first settlement agreement. The district court granted summary judgment for the insurers, finding Bacon, his lawyer, and the lawyer's law firm liable in the amount of $437,500. The Supreme Court reversed the district court's finding that lawyer and law firm were personally liable on the contract, holding that an attorney and/or law firm is not liable on a contract negotiated on behalf of a client when the contract provides that both the client and the attorney "agree to and will pay" a certain sum of money and the attorney signs the contract under the legend "Agreed to in Form & Substance". The Court otherwise affirmed. View "RSUI Indemnity Co. v. Bacon" on Justia Law

Turquoise Properties Gulf, Inc. (Turquoise) appealed a circuit court judgment that denied its motion to alter, amend or vacate an arbitration award in an action filed by Clark A. Cooper, David L. Faulkner, Jr., and Hugh and Adrienne Overmyer (collectively, Claimants). Claimants signed purchase and escrow agreements to purchase condominiums to be built as part of "phase I" of a complex Turquoise was developing in Orange Beach. In conjunction with the purchase, they each posted a letter of credit for 20% of the purchase price. When construction neared substantial completion, the Claimants declined to "close" on the purchases on their respective units, allegedly because Turquoise had failed to build an outdoor pool and sundeck area or to provide individual storage units and private cabanas which it had agreed to build and to provide. The purchase and escrow agreements contained an arbitration provision. Claimants' initial demands contained claims of breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act. The arbitrator entered a lengthy arbitration award containing findings of fact and conclusions of law, ultimately in favor of the Claimants. Turquoise filed a motion to modify the arbitration award on the ground that the arbitrator had made a computational error in his calculation of damages. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the arbitrator did mistakenly calculate damages owed to the claimants. The Court vacated the arbitrator's award and remanded the case for recalculation of damages. View "Turquoise Properties Gulf, Inc. v. Overmyer" on Justia Law