N.C. Liens/Bonds, They Are A-Changin’ Part IV: The Lien Agent Rises

RevolutionP4In previous installments in this series, I discussed how last year’s lien and bond law revisions protect subs and suppliers via the “Bankruptcy Fix,” while also protecting prime contractors via double payment protection on bonded, public projects.

What about the title insurance industry?  Well, their legislative “holy grail” was protection from so-called “hidden liens,” and their quest succeeded when the North Carolina General Assembly approved a preliminary notice procedure that creates a new party soon to be integral to the mechanics’ lien preservation process: the owner’s “lien agent.”

While I’ve never questioned the need to address the “hidden lien” issue, I am squarely on record as opposing this particular legislation in the particular manner in which it was passed.  Candidly, however, that battle’s been lost, and the industry’s focus needs to be on complying with the new regime.  Indeed, the statutory provisions governing the preliminary lien notices called for by the legislative revisions go into effect for virtually all private construction projects for which the first construction work commences today, April 1, 2013 (happy April Fool’s Day!), or later.

In other words, the horse it out of the barn, and it ain’t goin’ back in.  Time to saddle up and ride.  And so this post provides an introduction to the new preliminary lien notice each potential lien claimant must provide to the owner’s “lien agent” in order to fully preserve future lien rights under North Carolina’s mechanics’ lien statutes.  I’ll start with a quick primer on the problem of hidden liens, and then move through the basics of the new statute from the perspective of each party in the contractual chain, from the top down.  I’ve attached a multitude of links that should prove helpful in transitioning to this brave new world of mechanics’ lien preservation.

I keep hearing about “hidden liens.”  What the heck does that mean?

Fair question.  Let’s say you file a claim of lien on real property and serve it up the contractual chain, as is now required by virtue of last year’s legislative changes.  There’s absolutely nothing “hidden” about your lien at that point.

Now consider all of the time that has transpired since your first performance of work but before you filed and served your claim of lien.  During that time, you enjoyed lien rights against the real property.  Indeed, if you’re a prime contractor (i.e., GC, D/B, CM@R, etc.), your lien rights arose from the moment you commenced work on the project, and if you are forced to file a claim of lien down-the-road as a result of owner non-payment, your date of first furnishing is the priority date for your lien as against all other creditors who may have rights against the property.

Subs and suppliers get essentially the same deal.  By way of example, consider a general contractor who commences work on a traditional design-bid-build office building on July 1, 2012.  Now consider the GC’s curtain wall subcontractor, who orders certain specialty glass materials from a supplier on March 1, 2013.  If the glass supplier isn’t paid timely by the curtain wall sub, it might assert both a Claim of Lien Upon Funds and a Claim of Lien on Real Property.  By statute, the supplier is entitled to the same priority date applicable to the GC — i.e., the date of the GC’s first furnishing.

It’s this “relation back” of lien rights to the date of first furnishing that creates the “hidden lien” problem.  Prior to the filing of a claim of lien on property, lien rights are “inchoate,” a fancy lawyer word for “imperfectly formed.”  The lien is in existence, out there in the ether, but until the piece of paper entitled “Claim of Lien on Real Property” is filed and served, “perfecting” your lien, it’s entirely possible neither the owner nor its title insurer knows you exist — particularly if you’re a remote subcontractor.  The new lien agent statute is intended to address that problem, so there are no mechanics’ lien surprises after the owner conveys or refinances the property.

How does the statute address the hidden lien problem?

In a nutshell, it encourages owners to appoint a lien agent for the purpose of receiving preliminary lien notices from ANYBODY with potential lien rights in the property being approved.  If a lien agent is so designated, ALL potential lien claimants should submit the preliminary lien notice, referred to as the “Notice to Lien Agent” in the new statute.  It’s basically a “Hi, I’m here” notice that lets the lien agent know you’re involved in the project and could, someday, file a lien against the owner’s property.  But more on the meat of the notice later.

What are the consequences of not providing the Notice to Lien Agent?

If the property isn’t conveyed or refinanced prior to your filing of a Claim of Lien on Real Property, there are absolutely no consequences; your lien rights can be pursued as before the statute’s enactment.  If, however, a conveyance or refinancing occurs prior to your filing a Claim of Lien on Real Property and more than 15 days after your date of first furnishing, the consequences are dire: you will not be able to pursue your lien rights in the case of a conveyance, and the priority of your lien rights will be subordinate to the lender’s deed of trust in the case of a refinancing.  As I’ll discuss below, the safest course of action will be to provide your Notice to Lien Agent within 15 days of your first furnishing of labor and/or materials.

What are the owner’s responsibilities under the new regime?

No later than the time when the owner contracts with a prime contractor to improve the owner’s property, the owner must designate a lien agent for the sole purpose of receiving notices under the new regime.  The most convenient method of appointment likely will be the new online system launched by the title insurers at liensnc.com.  The title insurers have also published detailed instructions for appointing a lien agent, which I commend to your reading.

Who can the owner appoint as a lien agent, and how much can the lien agent be paid?

Only a title insurance company or title insurance agency authorized to do business in North Carolina that consents to serve in the capacity of lien agent may be appointed as same.  For improvements to one- or two-family dwelling units, the lien agent may collect a fee no greater than $25 from the owner; for all other improvements, the fee may not exceed $50.

I’m a design professional providing services prior to the execution of a contract for construction.  What if there’s no lien agent in placing during my pre-construction performance?

That depends on whether your contract is with the owner or with another design professional.  If you are in direct contractual privity with the owner and your contract does not include the lien agent information, the owner is responsible for providing your contact information to its lien agent upon the owner’s appointment of same.  If you are a design subcontractor, you should make a written request to the owner for the lien agent’s contact information.  By statute, you will have no obligation to comply with the preliminary notice requirements until you receive the contact information you have requested.

What does the Notice to Lien Agent look like, and how should I file it?

The Construction Law Section of the North Carolina Bar Association has published this form Notice to Lien Agent, which is substantially similar to the form recommended by the statute.  The statute permits filing by a variety of methods, including certified mail, return receipt requested; physical delivery to the lien agent so long as  a delivery receipt is obtained; and fax transmission so long as a facsimile transmission confirmation is obtained.  I suspect the most convenient method for contractors and subcontractors to file the Notice to Lien Agent will be the online application at liensnc.com.  In any event, I recommend reviewing the detailed instructions the title insurers have published for providing the preliminary lien notice.

I’m a prime contractor.  The owner knows who I am.  Certainly I don’t have to comply with preliminary notice requirements, right?

Wrong.  ALL potential lien claimants must provide the preliminary notice.  However, where the contract is for the construction of a single-family residence and the lien agent is identified in that contract, it is the owner’s, not the prime contractor’s, responsibility for providing the lien agent with the prime contractor’s contact information.

I’m a first-tier subcontractor providing on-site labor for the project.  How do I find the lien agent information? 

Start by reviewing the building permit in the permit box; my suspicion is you’ll find the information there, and potentially a QR Code to facilitate use of the online system.  By statute, if the lien agent’s information is not contained in the building permit or attachment thereto, a sign disclosing the lien agent’s information must be conspicuously and continuously posted on the property until the completion of all construction.

I’m a supplier who is not required to provide on-site labor for the project.  How do I receive the lien agent’s information?

By statute, the party above you in the contractual chain must provide you with the lien agent’s information within three days of contracting.  If the information is not provided, the party with whom you contracted may be liable for any actual damages you incurred as a result of the failure to give notice.  To avoid such liability, primes and sums entering into supply contracts should amend their purchase orders or other contract forms to include the lien agent information in a conspicuous location.

Does the statute apply to existing construction projects?

No; it only applies to improvements to real property for which the first furnishing of labor or materials at the site of improvements occurred on or after April 1, 2013.

I just signed my contract and don’t want to be seen as a problem out of the gate.  Should I delay filing my Notice to Lien Agent?

Repeat after me: the Notice to Lien Agent is not a lien.

Again: the Notice to Lien Agent is not a lien.

Louder: THE NOTICE TO LIEN AGENT IS NOT A LIEN!!! 

This new Notice to Lien Agent regime is about letting the owner and its title insurer know that you’re involved on the project; the preliminary notice does not encumber the property or the contract funds.  So you are not damaging the project — or, more importantly, your reputation – by filing the Notice to Lien Agent.  You are merely preserving your lien rights should you ever need to rely upon them in the future.

From this date forward, every party in the contractual chain is going to get in the habit of complying with the new preliminary lien notice requirements.  You should, too.

Boil it down for me: what’s the best way to protect my lien rights on projects commencing on or after April 1, 2013?

As mentioned above, your lien rights are only compromised under the new regime if you’ve failed to provide the preliminary notice and there’s been a sale or refinancing of the property.  You may not, however, have any advance notice of when a sale or refinancing may occur.  Since the statute provides a 15-day “grace period” for filing the notice, with the clock starting on the first day of your performance, your best bet is to establish internal protocols for obtaining the lien agent information and filing your preliminary lien notice within 15 days of first performance on EVERY project.  An experienced construction attorney can help you mind your p’s and q’s and ensure your rights are preserved timely.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Design Contracts, Feature story, Lien Law, State law, policy & news, Subcontractors

Local Bidder Preference Statute Introduced in North Carolina State Senate

BidProposalA bill was introduced in the North Carolina Senate yesterday that would give “local” bidders on public construction projects an advantage over “non-local” bidders.  A copy of Senate Bill 232 can be found here.

SB 232 would give the lowest responsible, responsive “local bidder” the opportunity to match the bid of the lowest responsible, responsive “non-local” bidder, but only if the local low bid is no greater than five percent (5%) or ten thousand dollars ($10,000) of the bid of the “non-local” low bid.  “Local bidder” would be defined as a bidder that has paid unemployment or income taxes in North Carolina and whose principal place of business is located within the boundaries of the county or municipality giving the preference.  A “non-local bidder” would be any entity other than a “local bidder.”

Proponents of local bidder preference statutes like SB 232 typically cite the following two advantages of such legislation:

  • Local bidder preferences provide business development opportunities for local companies, potentially resulting in a broader local tax base; and
  • Bidder preference legislation could provide an incentive for businesses to stay in North Carolina, rather than relocate out-of-state.

Opponents of such preferences typically cite the following three primary disadvantages:

  • Bidder preferences decrease competition on public construction project by discouraging “non-local” businesses from bidding in the first place, thereby driving up project costs ultimately borne by taxpayers;
  • Neighboring states will reciprocate, potentially reducing out-of-state opportunities for in-state contractors; and
  • Giving the low “local bidder” a “second bite at the apple” runs contrary to the primary public policies underpinning the public bid statutes: open competition, equal footing, impartiality and best value.

(Incidentally, the National Institute of Governmental Purchasing is hosting a webinar this Thursday about the pros and cons of local preferences; you can find details about the program at Mike Purdy’s excellent Public Contracting Blog here).

Where do I stand?  At the moment, I lack research suggesting that the potential benefits of SB 232 would outweigh its potential costs.  In the absense of such research, my suspicion is that if “non-local” bidders are discouraged from submitting proposals on any given city, town or county procurement, the result will be higher prices on North Carolina school, criminal justice and other public facilities.  That would be bad news for taxpayers, and bad news for prime contractors, particularly if the overall effect of higher per-project costs is a reduction in the total number of public construction projects bid annually.  Then there’s the issue of underserved rural communities that may have few experienced, high-quality commercial general contracting firms within their borders.  Providing a bidding advantage to inexperienced local firms might not only drive up costs, but also compromise quality.

At a minimum, then, I believe that the potential costs and benefits of SB 232 should be thoroughly studied by NCGA’s legislative research service before any votes are taken, in committee or otherwise.  And so for now, and in the absence of research demonstrating that the benefits of SB 232 would outweigh its costs, I stand with North Carolina’s leading trade association for prime contractors, Carolinas AGC, in opposing the bill (full disclosure: Lewis & Roberts is a member of CAGC).  FYI, the organization has made it easy to express opposition to the legislation here.

I’m keenly interested in hearing other viewpoints on this issue.  As always, your comments are welcome.

6 Comments

Filed under Public Bidding, State law, policy & news

N.C. Liens/Bonds, They Are A-Changin’ Part III: Double Payment Protection for GC’s

RevolutionP3For North Carolina general contractors, the big prize in last year’s lien and bond law legislation was protection from double payment exposure on bonded public contracts.  Carolinas AGC lobbyist Dave Simpson has said on numerous occasions that he spent the better part of two decades pushing the N.C. General Assembly for double payment protection.   In a similar vein, Carolinas AGC member Susie Shaw of Beam Construction added that “this has been an issue I have heard about from my father since I was a young child.  It took a long time, but I am glad it is coming to pass in my lifetime.”

This post explains the “double payment” provisions of the new lien/bond laws in-depth, focusing on how prime contractors are exposed to double payment liability on public projects, how the new statute provides protection from that exposure, and the limits of the new legislation.

How does a general contractor, construction manager at-risk, design-builder or other prime contractor become exposed to double payment liability on bonded public projects?

When the payments they make to first-tier subs don’t reach second- or third-tier subcontractors (who I refer to as “remote subs”).  When that occurs, the unpaid remote sub might assert a payment bond claim (i.e., a so-called “Little Miller Act” claim) against the prime contractor and its bonding company.  Bear in mind that in order to obtain bonding capacity in the first place, the prime contractor likely has provided its surety with an indemnity agreement requiring the prime contractor (and very likely the individuals who control it, plus their spouses) to reimburse the surety for any losses incurred under the bonds it issues.  As a result, a solvent prime contractor in receipt of a valid payment bond claim will typically pay it, rather than reimburse its bonding company for doing so.  In either event, the prime contractor is financially on-the-hook for paying the remote sub after having already paid the first-tier sub monies that should have been floated downstream.

What does the new legislation do to protect GC’s from double payment liability?

It creates a system of notices to ensure that prime contractors know who is supplying labor and materials to their first-tier subs.  A remote sub who fails to comply with the new notice obligations timely will find its payment bond rights significantly limited, as will be discussed below.

Continue reading

1 Comment

Filed under Feature story, Payment Bonds, Payment for Goods and Services, State law, policy & news, Subcontractors

Perspectives from Across the Pond: Contracts, Quality and Payment on UK Construction Projects

David Morrison

David Morrison

It’s a pleasure to welcome the thoughts of David Morrison of the United Kingdom to NC Construction Law, Policy & News.  David has been a contractor, subcontractor, trader and project manager throughout his years in the construction industry.  Beginning life mixing concrete in Hackney, London in the 1980s, David soon began to develop a reputation as the “pen pusher” on-site when he became interested in law and legislation in the industry.  Having experienced both sides of construction disputes, David now enjoys a much more tranquil life on the marketing team at UK Tool Centre.  Admittedly, he does miss the smell of mortar and bacon at dawn, though…

Having a contract properly prepared and signed is the single most important aspect of securing payment for work carried out by tradesmen.  A document that clearly expresses the expectations of both customer and tradesman is invaluable should any dispute arise regarding work carried out and its worth.  Tradesmen in the UK should familiarise themselves with the Supply of Goods & Services Act 1982 and have their contracts and workmanship adhere to its specifications to ensure prompt payment for services rendered and the legal right of entitlement if payment in part or in whole is withheld.

Continue reading

1 Comment

Filed under Construction Defects, Contract Review & Negotiation, Lien Law, Payment for Goods and Services

Is As-Built Drawing Preparation a Lienable Activity?

As-Built DrawingsA couple of weeks ago, I posted my thoughts about the N.C. Court of Appeals’ recent decision in Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. v. Richmond Hills Residential Partners, LLC et al., which held that an engineer’s preparation of a project status update letter constituted what I call a “lienable activity,” i.e., an event sufficient to trigger the 120-day deadline for filing a mechanics’ lien under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 44A-12(b).

In light of the Ramey Kemp decision, general contractors might well ask themselves, “Gee, if an engineer’s project status letter is a lienable activity on a construction project, how about the close-out paperwork I’ve gotta provide under my contract, particularly as-builts?”

Good question.  Continue reading

Leave a Comment

Filed under Lien Law

Will QR Code Technology Provide Contractors Quick Relief in Filing Preliminary Lien Notices?

Potential lien claimants in North Carolina may want to get comfortable with QR scanning technology

Potential lien claimants in North Carolina may want to get comfortable with QR code reader technology.

Ever since its passage last summer, North Carolina’s so-called “lien agent statute” has caused much consternation throughout the commercial construction industry, with many contractors, subs and suppliers worried that it will be inconvenient and expensive for them to comply with the statute’s various requirements (which I’ll be discussing in detail as my “Lien & Bond Law Revolution” series continues in the weeks ahead).  The title insurance industry, however, has tried to assure leery potential lien claimants that an online application will make filing preliminary lien notices convenient and inexpensive.

This week, we’ll get down to where the rubber meets the road on that assurance.

On Thursday, February 21, at 10:00 a.m., attorney David Ferrell of Vandeventer Black, legal counsel for the NC Land Title Association, will show a video demonstration/overview of the proposed online system.  The demonstration will take place in Room 424 of the Legislative Office Building in downtown Raleigh.  Mr. Ferrell will then demonstrate the system for construction lawyers during lunch at Thursday’s day-long CLE program at the North Carolina Bar Center in Cary.

Based on a meeting I attended last Thursday as a member of the Triangle Government Affairs Committee of ABC of the Carolinas, the proposed system will utilize “Quick Response” (“QR”) code technology to facilitate the filing of preliminary lien notices.  Here’s how I understand the technology would work: potential lien claimants would download a suitable QR code reader app onto their iPhones, iPads, Androids or similar devices.  The claimant would then find the project’s QR code in the permit box, using its smartdevice to scan the code.  The app would then populate all of the project information necessary for the potential lien claimant to fill out and deliver to the lien agent a bit of information about itself, its contract and its scope.  The system would then deliver to the potential lien claimant a receipt of the transaction.

Sounds simple enough, at least in theory.  But what about in the real world?

  • Would use of the technology by owners and their title insurers be mandatory or voluntary?
  • How would this technology simplify the preliminary lien notice process of an employer whose employees are not furnished with smartphones or comparable devices?
  • How would material suppliers, who might never step foot on the project site, make use of the app?
  • Would general contractors be able to use the app to determine the identities of second-tier and lower subs on the project?
  • How does the NC Land Title Association intend to educate North Carolina’s construction industry about the app in advance of the lien agent statute’s effective date of April 1, 2013?

These are just a few of the questions I envision being asked at Thursday’s demonstrations.

I encourage all interested parties concerned about implementation of the lien agent statute to attend Thursday’s demonstrations and seek clarification on all of the questions they may have about the technology.  If you plan to attend the 10:00 a.m. demonstration, please send an RSVP to Bill Patterson, staff attorney for the NC General Assembly’s Research Division, at Bill.Patterson@ncleg.net by the close-of-business on Tuesday, February 19.

UPDATED 2/25/2013: LiensNC, LLC, the provider of the online app described in this post, has launched its webpage, which you can find here.  Although the site is still under construction, a narrated PowerPoint overview introducing the features of the online app can be downloaded.  It’s 5 minutes very well spent.

I’ll have additional perspectives on the lien agent statute and this new online app as the April 1, 2013 effective date for the legislation draws nearer.

2 Comments

Filed under Events, Lien Law, State law, policy & news, Subcontractors

$4M+ Reasons to Be Wary of False Claims Risk

FraudNeed a reminder about the risk of making false claims in connection with public contracting?

I’ll give you three.

First, consider the general contractor who submitted allegedly inflated change orders on various projects financed by the U.S. Department of Justice and Army Corps of Engineers.  The government alleged that the change order requests included CGL and workers’ comp insurance rates that had additional “cushions” above and beyond what the GC had actually incurred.  Although the contractor denied liability, it agreed last week to settle the government’s fraud allegations by paying the United States $367,500.

Next, consider the general contractor whose subcontractor failed to pay prevailing wages under the Davis Bacon Act on a U.S. Department of the Army contract.  The GC’s certified payroll records inaccurately represented that prevailing wages were paid to all subcontractor employees.  In October 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a U.S. District Court’s $1.66 million judgment against the GC, but remanded the case for a recalculation of damages that could end up saving the GC at least a little bit of money.

Finally, consider the general contractor who overstated the costs it incurred participating in the U.S. Department of Defense’s Mentor-Protégé Program, designed to provide developmental assistance to disadvantaged small businesses.  The government alleged that the contractor submitted more than 20 requests for payment in connection with the program that significantly overstated the amount of developmental assistance actually provided.  In December 2012, the contractor agreed to pay a $2 million penalty to avoid prosecution by the government.

Three cases.  Millions of dollars.  One conclusion: submitting false claims in connection with federal contracting can be extremely expensive.

Continue reading

Leave a Comment

Filed under False Claims Act

N.C. Court of Appeals Fleshes Out the Scope of Design Professionals’ Mechanics’ Lien Rights

Image under license from istockphoto.com

Image under license from istockphoto.com

The North Carolina Court of Appeals (“COA”) this morning issued a 33-page opinion clarifying the types of professional engineering services entitled to a claim of lien under North Carolina’s mechanics’ lien statutes.  One of the three COA judges, however, issued a dissenting opinion, which means further review by the North Carolina Supreme Court could be in the offing.  This post explores the facts of Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. v. Richmond Hills Residential Partners, LLC et al., discusses the majority and dissenting opinions, and comments on the important points to take away from the decision.

Continue reading

4 Comments

Filed under Design Contracts, Feature story, Lien Law

Celebrate Great Blogs, Come On!

ConstructionMarketingIdeasBlogIt was an honor and a surprise to receive an email from Bob Kruhm, publisher of NC Construction News, earlier this week informing me that he had nominated this blog for the “2013 Best Construction Blog Competition” sponsored by the Construction Marketing Ideas blog.  Voting begins today and continues through April 1.

Continue reading

5 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Why I Support Limiting North Carolina’s Lien Agent Statute to Residential Construction Projects

Photo Credit: Marietta Daily  Journal

Photo Credit: Marietta Daily Journal

This afternoon I attended the first lien law “Stakeholders’ Meeting” of the North Carolina General Assembly’s 2013 Regular Session.  The purpose of today’s meeting was to give folks in support of and opposition to proposed legislation that would limit the state’s new lien agent notice requirements to one- and two-family dwelling units 30 minutes per side to argue their respective cases.

I spent just under ten minutes of the “pro” side’s time making an argument that I’ve memorialized in the letter attached, below.  To read a larger version of the letter, click the expand button in the lower right-hand corner of the Scribd application.

This issue is still very much ripe for discussion, and so I invite and value your comments.

2 Comments

Filed under Lien Law, State law, policy & news

Seeing the Forest AND the Trees: Handling Contract Surety Claims with an Eye on the Big Picture

A Grim Tale

ForestandTreesOnce upon a time, Best General Contracting, Inc. hired Able Electric Services Co. to perform the $900,000 electrical scope of work on a library project for a local college.  Having not worked with Able before, and in light of the value of the electrical scope, Best required Able to obtain subcontractor performance & payment bonds for Best’s benefit, agreeing, of course, to reimburse Able for the $13,500 bond premium.  As fate would have it, the library project proved one too many for the not-so-able Able, who ran into cash flow problems, sought bankruptcy protection and abandoned the project.  Best immediately fired off a notice of default letter to Superior Surety and hoped that the claims handling process would match previous, positive experiences with subcontractor sureties and culminate in a quick, fairy-tale resolution to this project setback.

To Best’s surprise, it would not.   Continue reading

2 Comments

Filed under Claims Handling, Performance Bonds, Surety Law

10 Big Changes to Bidding, Performing & Making Verified Claims On NCDOT Projects

Be sure to review NCDOT's  2012 Standard Specifications before bidding your next highway or bridge contract

Be sure to review NCDOT’s 2012 Standard Specifications before bidding your next highway or bridge contract

I represent a number of highway/heavy contractors, all of whom know that doing business with the North Carolina Department of Transportation (“NCDOT” or the “Department”) requires careful attention to the agency’s “Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures.”  NCDOT’s Standard Specs contain both front-end “General Requirements” (what would be called “General Conditions” on virtually any other public or private construction contract) and back-end standards for all aspects of highway work — from earthwork, pipe culverts, subgrade and asphalt pavements to signing, materials, pavement markings and electronic signalization.

As my highway/heavy clients also know, the NCDOT’s Standard Specs are regularly revised every 4-6 years.  Last year, NCDOT issued the 2012 version of its highway construction bible, updating the 2006 version.  This post focuses on what I consider to be the ten most significant changes to NCDOT’s front-end “General Requirements.”  As you will see below, these ten revisions affect how contractors obtain, perform and make claims on NCDOT work.

Continue reading

Leave a Comment

Filed under Contract Review & Negotiation, Delay Claims, Feature story, Highway Contracts, State law, policy & news

Foul Weather, Contract Time and Excusable Delay

Would snow tonight = excusable delay for contractors tomorrow?  Image courtesy of The Weather Channel.

Would snow tonight give rise to excusable delay tomorrow? Image courtesy of The Weather Channel.

Is it just me, or has it been exceedingly gray and wet in Raleigh-Durham, NC so far in 2013?  Heck, forecasters are even calling for 3-6 inches of snow overnight in the Triangle (note to self: pick up milk, bread and other essentials during the lunch break, before the grocery stores shelves are predictably and thoroughly picked over).

The unusually dreary skies around here of late have me thinking about the intersection between the weather and construction delay claims.  Specifically, I’ve been ruminating on this question: when is a contractor’s project delay excused by nasty weather?

Continue reading

Leave a Comment

Filed under Delay Claims

N.C. Liens/Bonds, They Are A-Changin’ Part II: The (Bankruptcy) Fix Is In

RevolutionP2Back in 2010, when a group of construction, real property and bankruptcy lawyers first started meeting to consider potential revisions to North Carolina’s lien and bond statutes, one of the driving forces behind those discussions — particularly for those who typically represent subcontractors and suppliers — was protection for downstream project participants after an upstream player filed for bankruptcy.  Such protection, known commonly as the “Bankruptcy Fix,” was included in the package of revisions signed into law last summer.  This post explores the origins of the Bankruptcy Fix and discusses how the 2012 lien law legislation protects the right of subs and suppliers to serve a Notice of Claim of Lien Upon Funds even after a party above them in the contractual chain files for bankruptcy.

Continue reading

2 Comments

Filed under Feature story, Federal law, policy & news, Lien Law, State law, policy & news

Forecasting Governor-Elect McCrory’s Infrastructure Funding Priorities

Gov. McCrory will have no shortage of highway planning knots to untangle

Gov. McCrory will have no shortage of highway planning knots to untangle when he arrives at the Executive Mansion.

I recently came across this blog post from The Council of State Governments’ “Knowledge Center” blog.  The post forecasts the 2013 transportation funding challenges and priorities in 20 different states, North Carolina included.  Here’s what the post had to say about what might be expected once former Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory (R) becomes our governor in January:

The Associated Press recently looked at where incoming Gov. Pat McCrory (the longtime Charlotte Mayor) stands on transportation issues: “Don’t punish cities that must spend lots of money improving interstates, he says.  Develop decades-long construction plans.  Keep politics out of funding road projects and work with the private sector.  And don’t be afraid to try something risky, like the Republican did in 1998 by lobbying for a referendum by voters that raised the local sales tax to help build Charlotte’s first light rail line.”  Transportation advocates in the state are reportedly encouraged that the governor-elect, who championed transportation’s ability to improve the economy as Mayor of Charlotte, could endorse more sustainable transportation revenue sources and win support from legislators.  But, as a Business Journal article pointed out earlier this fall, North Carolina’s gas tax is already among the highest in the nation and while the state has turned to tolling to help finance some projects, they have faced challenges with a couple of toll road projects.

Continue reading

Leave a Comment

Filed under State law, policy & news

N.C. Liens/Bonds, They Are A-Changin’ Part I: “Perfecting” Liens Under the New Regime

RevolutionP1As 2012 draws to a close — faster than many of us can believe – the dawn of a new era under North Carolina’s mechanic’s lien and bond statutes quickly approaches.  And that means it’s high time for me to end my brief blogging hiatus with a series dedicated to helping construction industry participants throughout the state understand the changes that are rapidly coming down the pike.

By way of brief recap, legislation protecting general contractors from double payment liability on public projects and legislation protecting title insurers from “hidden liens” on private projects made splashy headlines this past summer.  I’ll be delving into the nuts and bolts of those significant changes as this series continues.  This post, however, is dedicated to addressing a less-publicized, but no less substantial, alteration to the lien law that every potential lien claimant will need to bear in mind in 2013, and beyond: the process by which lien rights are “perfected.”

Continue reading

1 Comment

Filed under Feature story, Lien Law, State law, policy & news

The Surety’s Salvage Efforts: Equitable Subrogation v. Contractual Assignment Rights

It was an honor and pleasure to speak at last week’s surety and fidelity claims conference in Philadelphia hosted by the American Conference Institute.  Mark Oertel, a surety attorney from Los Angeles, and I closed out the conference on Thursday, October 18 with a presentation entitled “The Interplay Between Equitable Subrogation and the General Agreement of Indemnity’s Assignment Clause.”

Our remarks focused on two of the tools sureties use to minimize loss after satisfying claims made under payment and performance bonds.  One of those tools, equitable subrogation, allows the surety to step into the shoes and assert the rights of those entities to whom or on whose behalf the surety has performed or made payment.  That means after it performs its bond obligations, a surety becomes “subrogated” to the owner’s right to apply contract funds to completion costs, to the bond principal’s right to recover against poor-performing and/or late-performing subcontractors, and to the subs’ and suppliers’ rights to payment.  Since the courts have held that the surety’s equitable rights trump the rights of bankruptcy trustees, lenders and taxing authorities, equitable subrogation is undoubtedly the most powerful weapon in the surety’s salvage arsenal.

That’s MOST powerful.  Not ALL powerful.

Continue reading

Leave a Comment

Filed under Equitable Subrogation, Indemnity Rights, Payment Bonds, Performance Bonds, Surety Law

Court of Appeals: Contractors’ Lien Claim Properly Dismissed Where “Owner” Owned Nothing on Date of 1st Furnishing

In a controversial 2-1 decision released October 2, 2012, the North Carolina Court of Appeals (“COA”) affirmed a trial court’s dismissal of a mechanic’s lien claim asserted by contractors who did not have a contract with the “Owner” of the improved real property as of the date of first furnishing — even though the “Owner” ultimately acquired title to the land during the course of the contractors’ performance.

Who is an "owner" under the mechanic's lien laws in North Carolina

Photo credit: tvland.com

The John Conner Construction, Inc. v. Grandfather Holding Co., Inc. decision is significant to the construction industry because it limits the reach of the term “Owner” as that term is used in North Carolina’s mechanic’s lien statutes.  Since there was one dissenting vote from the three-judge panel, however, the case is likely to be reviewed by the N.C. Supreme Court, which could elect to expand who qualifies as an “Owner” for the purposes of the lien law.

A full exploration of the facts, holding, dissent and practical implications of the John Conner Construction decision follows:

Continue reading

4 Comments

Filed under Feature story, Lien Law, NC case law, State law, policy & news