If You Like My Blog Posts, and You Think They’re Helpful, Come On, Readers, Let Them Know

It’s an honor to be nominated for two prestigious construction industry blog awards this winter, and I humbly ask for your vote in each competition.

ConstructionMarketingIdeasBlogFor the third year in a row, N.C. Construction Law, Policy & News has been nominated for Construction Marketing Ideas’ annual Best Construction Blog competition.  You can find the ballot here.  Once you open the ballot, you can vote for my blog in four easy steps: (1) scroll down and check the square radio button to the left of N.C. Construction Law, Policy & News; (2) click “Next Page: Comments/ verification;” (3) enter your first name, last name and email address; and (4) click Submit.  See?  Easy as 1-2-3 (and 4).  Voting closes on March 31, 2015.

JDRNomineeBadge_Construction2015And for the first time, the blog has been nominated for the 6th Annual JDR Industry Blogger Awards in the Construction Business category.  You can find the ballot here.  Once you open the ballot, scroll down to the “Construction Business” nominations; you’ll see my blog at the bottom of the list.  Click the round radio button to the left of N.C. Construction Law, Policy & News and then hit “Submit.”  Total breeze.  Voting closes on April 10, 2015.

The blogs nominated in both competitions are tremendous resources for AEC professionals in North Carolina, the United States and globally.  As pleased as I would be to earn your vote, it would thrill me even more to know that my readers are spending time in the blogosphere soaking up all of the rich construction risk management content my fellow bloggers have to offer.

Wednesday WisdomSo when you’re done voting, peruse the two lists of nominees and visit those blogs of interest to you.  You’re sure to be entertained and learn something helpful to your bottom line.

As always, thanks for your support of N.C. Construction Law, Policy & News.

Oh yeah, about the title of this post: my apologies to Rod Stewart.  And also to you, dear readers, for implanting that earworm into your noggins.  Might listening to the entire track, courtesy of YouTube’s Rhino channel, help?

It would be an honor to have your vote, Mr. Stewart.

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Everything’s Bigger in Texas, Including the Construction Litigation (Part 3 of 3)

Image by skeeze via pixabay.com

Image by skeeze via pixabay.com

This is the third of a three-part series exploring the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in Zachry Construction Corp. v. Port of Houston Authority of Harris County.  A summary of the case can be found at Part 1 of the series.  Part 2 addressed the “no-damages-for-delay” aspects of the case and commented upon the current state of North Carolina jurisprudence on the enforcement of such contract clauses.  This post explores the decision’s holding with respect to lien waivers and highlights some key issues contractors should bear in mind before executing these often-overlooked instruments.  

What Zachry Says About Lien Waivers

By way of reminder, here’s the pertinent lien waiver language that gave rise to the dispute over whether Zachry waived its right to claim $2.36 million in liquidated damages (“LDs”) that had been withheld by the Port Authority:

[Zachry] hereby acknowledges and certifies that [the Port Authority] has made partial payment to [Zachry] on all sums owing on Payment Estimate Number [–––] and that it has no further claims against [the Port Authority] for the portion of the Work completed and listed on the Schedule of Costs in Payment Estimate Number [–––].

The Port Authority argued this language constituted a waiver of all claims for payment; Zachry argued it only applied to lien claims.  The trial court saw it Zachry’s way, and the Texas Court of Appeals reversed.

The Texas Supreme Court thought the jury got it right.

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Case law from other states, Lien Law

Construction Arbitration Is Too Lengthy & Costly. The AAA Hopes to Fix That.

As I noted last November, there’s a growing concern among construction industry stakeholders and others that arbitration too often fails to serve its intended purpose as a speedy, less costly and more streamlined alternative to civil litigation.  This rising chorus has complained that pre-hearing discovery is too extensive and drawn out, the hearings themselves take too long, and at the end of the day, no meaningful cost savings are actually achieved.

The American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) is taking those concerns seriously.

Continue reading

3 Comments

Filed under Arbitration

Everything’s Bigger in Texas, Including the Construction Litigation (Part 2 of 3)

This is the second of a three-part series exploring the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in Zachry Construction Corp. v. Port of Houston Authority of Harris County.  A summary of the case can be found at Part 1 of the series.  Part 3 will address the lien waiver issues raised by the decision.  This post considers the “no-damages-for-delay” aspects of the case, specifically exceptions to enforcement of such contract clauses.

What Zachry Says About No-Damages-for-Delay Clauses

The Texas Supreme Court began its analysis by noting that as a general rule, a contractor can assume the risk of, and not seek damages for, construction delays by agreeing to a no-damages-for-delay clause (“NDFD clause”) in a construction contract.  The court, however, then went on to note five “generally recognized exceptions” to the enforcement of such clauses:

Continue reading

1 Comment

Filed under Case law from other states, Delay Claims, NC case law, No Damages for Delay Clauses

Inspiration to Help You Keep Your 2015 Construction Risk Management Resolutions

Well, the first full business week of 2015 is nearly in-the-books.  How are you doing with those risk management resolutions of yours?  Holding steady?  Or do you need a pep talk?  If it’s the latter, my Twitter feed is here to help.

Friday ForumThat’s because a number of my fellow AEC twerps had risk management, including successful project management, on the brain this week, and I’d like to use the Friday Forum to share some of their unique insights.

So without further ado, let’s get things started…

Continue reading

1 Comment

Filed under Construction Management, Construction Risk Management

It’s Not Enough to Read Before Signing; Always Strive to Understand Before Signing

An unpublished decision from the North Carolina Court of Appeals yesterday demonstrates how important it is to not only read, but also to fully understand, legally binding documents before signing them.

Continue reading

2 Comments

Filed under Indemnity Claims, Lien Law, NC case law, No Damages for Delay Clauses

Everything’s Bigger in Texas, Including the Construction Litigation (Part 1 of 3)

Because my practice is focused almost exclusively on construction projects in North Carolina, I focus far more attention on local case law developments than on appellate decisions from other states.  But every now and again, a decision from some far-flung jurisdiction gets published that is just too big, too fascinating and too important to overlook.

Zachry Construction Corp. v. Port of Houston Authority of Harris County, handed down by the Supreme Court of Texas (the “Texas Supreme Court”) on August 29, 2014, is just such a decision.

Continue reading

2 Comments

Filed under Case law from other states, Delay Claims, No Damages for Delay Clauses

New Year, New OSHA Injury and Illness Reporting Requirements

Happy new year, everybody, and for many of you, welcome to your first day of work in 2015.  Now that the champagne toasts have been made, sundry objects have been dropped from cranes and some old acquaintances have been forgot, it’s time to get down to business.  Serious business.

Specifically, the business of OSHA compliance.

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under OSHA

N.C. Supreme Court Reverses the Court of Appeals, Holds a 20-Year Warranty Means What It Says

In September 2013, I blogged about the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals (“COA”) in Christie v. Hartley Construction, Inc., which held that owners of an improvement to real property could not recover money damages under a supplier’s express 20-year warranty because the lawsuit was filed outside of North Carolina’s applicable six-year “statute of repose.”  That statute, codified at N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-50(a)(5), bars damages actions arising from improvements to real property asserted more than six years after substantial completion.  The COA’s Christie decision effectively meant that the statute of repose trumped an express warranty of a longer duration.

As I mentioned in my prior blog post, however, one of three COA judges on the Christie panel dissented from the majority’s opinion, giving plaintiffs the right to appeal to the state’s Supreme Court.  They did.  And that Court reached the opposite conclusion of the COA majority, ruling that the protection provided by the six-year statute of repose could be waived without violating North Carolina public policy.

Let’s break down the North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision in Christie:

Continue reading

1 Comment

Filed under NC case law, policy & news, State law, Warranty Claims

Construction Bonds Come With Strings Attached. Make Sure You Know What They Are.

When serious trouble befalls a bonded contractor, its surety might be called upon to shoulder significant risk both downstream (i.e., payment obligations to subs & suppliers) and upstream (i.e., performance obligations to the owner, if the bonded contractor is prime, or to the prime, if the bonded contractor is a sub).

Yet even when adversity strikes, sureties don’t expect to suffer a loss, as counter-intuitive as that might sound.  That’s a feature of suretyship distinguishing it from insurance (for a handy, 1-page chart summarizing other distinctions, see page 6 of this 18-page surety primer by CNA Surety).

How do bonding companies seek to avoid losses on troubled construction projects?  One of the most significant weapons in the surety’s loss-avoidance arsenal is the “general indemnity agreement” or GIA, an instrument that virtually every surety requires each bonded contractor, the contractor’s owners and the owners’ spouses to sign as a condition of surety credit extension.  The GIA vests in the surety numerous rights and remedies against the corporate and individual indemnitors, which are typically triggered once trouble starts brewing.

Here are some of the key rights enjoyed by sureties under a typical GIA:

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Indemnity Rights, Surety Law