Monthly Archives: January 2013

January 30, 2013 · 4:56 PM

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

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.

View this document on Scribd

2 Comments

Filed under Lien Law, State law, policy & news

Tagged as changes nc lien law, changes north carolina lien, lien law, mechanics lien, nc lien law, nc mechanics lien, north carolina lien law, north carolina liens, north carolina mechanics lien, revised nc lien, revisions nc lien law, revisions nc mechanics lien

January 28, 2013 · 9:40 AM

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

A Grim Tale

Image by Larisa Koshkina / PublicDomainPictures.net

Once 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

Tagged as bond obligee, construction bonding, construction bonding nc, construction bonds NC, construction contract default, construction contract termination, construction default, construction surety, contract bond surety, contract performance risk management, contract surety bond, handling surety claims, irrevocable letter of credit, managing surety claims, nc surety, nc surety law, nc surety lawyer, north carolina surety, North Carolina surety law, North Carolina surety lawyer, subcontractor default insurance, surety, surety claims process, surety obligee, surety principal

January 23, 2013 · 9:30 AM

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

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 →

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 →

1 Comment

Filed under Delay Claims

Tagged as bad weather construction, compensable delay, construction delay, contract duration, contract time, critical path, delay claims, excusable delay, NC construction attorney, NC construction law, NC construction lawyer, nc delay claims, non-excusable delay, project delay, raleigh construction attorney, raleigh construction law, Raleigh construction lawyer, request for time extension, time extension claims, unanticipated conditions construction, unusually severe weather, weather claims, weather delay claims

January 14, 2013 · 11:27 AM

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

Back 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 →