Monthly Archives: May 2012

BREAKING: U.S. Supreme Court OK’s Revival of Time-Barred Defect Claims By Legislative Fiat

As set forth in the attached order, The Supreme Court of the United States will NOT review the decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court upholding legislation by the Minnesota state legislature that revives long-extinguished design defect liability arising from the 2007 collapse of a portion of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis.Prior to the collapse, Minnesota’s “statute of repose” (a statute that limits the time during which an action can arise) for design defects was 15 years.  Despite the fact that the design work for the bridge in question was performed in the mid-1960’s, and despite the fact that the designer of record — Sverdup & Parcel and Associates, Inc. — had been bought out by Jacobs Engineering in 1999, the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari means that Minnesota is now free to pursue $37 million in indemnity claims against Jacobs Engineering that had expired under the 15-year statute no later than the early 1980’s.

This is a scary outcome for participants in the construction industry, with potential insurance, contract drafting and document retention repercussions.  I’ll be back in the days ahead with additional analysis.  In the interim, you can read AGC’s brief in favor of review here, which sets forth quite eloquently the reasons why the Supreme Court should have reviewed and reversed the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision.

UPDATE (5/29/12 1:38 p.m.): Coverage from Engineering News & Record can be found here.

5 Comments

Filed under Case law from other states, Defect Claims, Federal case law, Federal law, policy & news, State law, policy & news

Legislative Tinkering with Mechanic’s Lien Law — North Carolina Is Not Alone

The California legislature is also in the process of tweaking its statutory scheme — see this blog post from the “Government Contracts Advisor” blog.

According to the post, California’s goal for these revisions is to “modernize, simplify, and clarify the law, making it more user friendly, efficient, and effective for all stakeholders.”  Among other changes, it appears that California is standardizing industry lien waiver forms — much like the proposal the General Assembly is now considering.  But it also appears that California is going a step further than North Carolina by requiring GC’s to file preliminary notices to lenders, ostensibly to address the “hidden lien” problem discussed in my blog post yesterday.

Interesting stuff.  Again, I will continue to keep you posted on developments with North Carolina’s ongoing legislative efforts.

Leave a comment

Filed under Lien Law

7 Things You Need To Know About The Proposed Lien Law Revisions Filed in the General Assembly Yesterday

Legislation revising North Carolina’s mechanic’s lien law was filed in both the House and Senate sides of the N.C. General Assembly yesterday.  Text of the legislation can be found here.While not the ambitious rewrite that members of the construction bar and real property bar had envisioned when the process of revising the statutory scheme began a few years ago, the pending legislation would make several important changes to existing mechanic’s lien law, while leaving a couple other significant issues for future legislative effort.

Click “Continue reading” below for my thoughts on the five most significant proposed changes embodied by the current revisions — as well as my thoughts on the top two “non-changes” to existing law.

Continue reading

2 Comments

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

Celebrity Delay Claim of the Century?

Image from Wikipedia Commons

My weekly round-up of what’s making news in the construction industry turned up a story out of Las Vegas, Nevada about a developer suing an owner for compensable delay.  It seems that the $50 million project, involving the conversion of a private residence into a museum, has never really gotten off the ground.

And Mr. Las Vegas is smack-dab in the middle of it.

The conversion of Wayne Newton’s Sin City estate, “Casa de Shenandoah,” into ”Graceland West” involves construction of an exhibition space, a theater, a zoo and a visitors’ center, among other attractions.  But the developer is alleging that it can’t make meaningful progress so long as Mr. Newton and his family refuse to relocate to a new $2 million home the developer is building on the 40-acre property.  “It is quite clear that it was always their intention to remain in the Mansion regardless of the terms of the agreement,” the lawsuit alleges.

Some of the developer’s other allegations strike this construction lawyer as somewhat — ahem — “unusual”:

The company claims Newton’s home was in a “sad state of disrepair” when it purchased the land for $19.5 million in June 2010, with his horses uncared for and 6-feet-tall animal manure piles covering the grounds.

“The penguin ponds were disgustedly dirty, full of algae and were endangering the penguins, all of whom were sick and many had died,” the lawsuit reads.

– From the AP’s coverage, which you can read in full here.

Probably goes without saying that Mr. Newton won’t be singing “Danke Schoen” to his developer anytime soon.

For his part,  Mr. Newton contends the developer failed to acquire permits, failed to communicate with Mr. Newton, failed to turnover required financial statements and bullied its employees.  In other words, it looks like this dispute might have legs, and could stay interesting.

So I’ll be keeping my eyes on the story going forward.  Who knows?  Maybe the outcome will contain a valuable lesson or two for the construction bar.  But that’s of secondary concern.  For the love of Pete, save the penguins!

Leave a comment

Filed under Delay Claims

A Tip For Performance Bond Obligees: For Maximum Protection, Obtain Increase Riders With Change Orders

You’re the authorized agent of a North Carolina county that has entered into an $8 million contract with a general contractor for the construction of a new administrative building.  The performance bond issued on behalf of the GC is in the statutory form, and therefore applies not only to base scope, but also to “any and all duly authorized modifications of said contract…notice of which modifications to the Surety being hereby waived[.]”  N.C. Gen. Stat. § 44A-33(a).  The penal sum of the bond corresponds to the contract’s original value — i.e., $8 million.

As the GC begins mobilization, you’re informed that the county has obtained the funding necessary to build an additional wing to the building.  That work had been an alternate in the bidding process, but was rejected by the county when the bids came in higher than the architect’s estimate, leading the county to award a contract to the GC for base bid work only.  Now that the additional funding has been appropriated to the project, the $500,000 additional wing can be added to the GC’s scope of work by change order.

You discuss the scope change with the GC, who’s excited about the additional work.  A change order is executed, and requires the GC to provide notice of the change to the surety.  You’re told such notice has been given.  The County now has $8.5 million in protection under the performance bond, right?

Not so fast, Sparky.

Continue reading

1 Comment

Filed under Performance Bonds, Surety Law

OSHA Announces Heat Safety Tool App for iPhone and Android

Hot summer working conditions are right around the corner.  As part of its “Campaign to Prevent Heat Illness in Outdoor Workers,” the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) has announced the availability of its “Heat Safety Tool” for iPhone and Android.

According to OSHA’s website, the App:

allows workers and supervisors to calculate the heat index for their worksite, and, based on the heat index, displays a risk level to outdoor workers.  Then, with a simple “click,” you can get reminders about the protective measures that should be taken at that risk level to protect workers from heat-related illness — reminders about drinking enough fluids, scheduling rest breaks, planning for and knowing what to do in an emergency, adjusting work operations, gradually building up the workload for new workers, training on heat illness signs and symptoms, and monitoring each other for signs and symptoms of heat-related illness.

Check out the App, and stay cool, everyone.

4 Comments

Filed under OSHA, Products & Services

4th Circuit, Flawed NEPA Review Process Cast Doubt On the Future of the Monroe Connector Bypass

Image courtesy FreeFoto.com

Remember the headline to my March 12, 2012 blog post about the Monroe Connector Bypass (or just the Monroe Bypass, for short)?

It suggested that the legal saga surrounding the proposed $725 million highway construction project was nearing “the end of the road.”

On second thought, not so much.

The road has taken an unexpectedly sharp turn, and there’s no telling how long the project may now be delayed.  Why? Because according to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (“4th Circuit”) in its May 3, 2012 decision in N.C. Wildlife Federation v. N.C. Department of Transportation, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (“NCDOT”) and the Federal Highway Administration (“FHA”) (collectively, the “Agencies”) failed to conduct a clear, transparent environmental review process that permitted meaningful public comment under applicable principles of federal environmental law.

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Feature story, Federal case law, Federal law, policy & news, Local law, policy & news, Projects of Interest, State law, policy & news

BREAKING: 4th Circuit Blocks Monroe Bypass Project

I just heard this news, which I have yet to digest and absorb.  I’ll have a fuller update and analysis by early next week.  For now, please see the Charlotte Observer’s coverage here.

1 Comment

Filed under Federal case law, Local law, policy & news