One of the oft-cited advantages of arbitration is that it is simpler, cheaper and faster than litigation. Recent figures from the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) suggest that while a commercial case may take up to two years to run its course through the judicial system, commercial cases can be resolved via arbitration between six months and a year.
Still not fast enough for you? Then perhaps you might be interested in the following fast-track alternative dispute resolution procedure:
Filed under Arbitration, Federal case law, Mediation
1. Now that North Carolina lawmakers have embraced public-private partnerships as a project delivery option for public works, what size projects might we see developed via P3? Well, if the $4.8 billion (yes, that’s billion, with a “b”) expansion of I-35E in Texas is any indication, the sky’s the limit. Here’s AGC SmartBrief editor Jennifer Hicks’ tweet about the big news from the Lone Star State:
Alright, faithful readers, it’s time to launch a new feature here at N.C. Construction Law, Policy & News, a little something I’m christening the “Construction Tweets of the Week.”
The construction industry at all levels — local, state and national — enjoys an increasingly vibrant presence on Twitter. I aim to showcase some of the voices that left an impression on me in the preceding week, as well as to facilitate ongoing discussion, whether in the Comments section of this blog and/or in the Twitterverse beyond.
You’ll note the tweets embedded here are fully interactive, with hotlinks to each Tweep’s profile, linked content and “Follow” button. The reply, retweet and “favorite” functions are also fully operational. Click early, click often, and become a part of the Construction Twitterati.
Without further ado, here are the Construction Tweets of the Week for the week ending Saturday, October 5, 2013:
1. Dave Simpson of CarolinasAGC blasted out this tweet about six not-to-be-missed, CAGC-sponsored seminars concerning the North Carolina Legislature’s recent adoption of the design-build and public-private partnership (“P3”) project delivery systems for public projects in North Carolina:
Filed under Mediation, Project Delivery Systems, Surety Law
The good folks at Bricker & Eckler, an Ohio law firm, recently blogged about a New York appellate decision concering subcontract default insurance (“SDI”), often referred to as “SubGuard” based on a Zurich SDI product of the same name. The case involves a private owner who alleged it was misled by its construction manager (presumably at-risk) into believing that the SDI policy the CM had procured from the project’s largest subcontractor provided coverage to the owner in the event of that sub’s default. Turns out the policy only named the CM, but not the owner, as an insured, and when the owner discovered it had no coverage after the sub’s default, it sued the CM for fraud, among other claims.
As of this writing, our, ahem, “leaders” in Washington appear incapable of avoiding a shutdown of the federal government. Barring a political breakthrough, at least a partial shutdown is likely, beginning tomorrow morning. And depending on the duration of the stalemate, the consequences of a shutdown could be felt deeply and painfully throughout our economy, including the construction industry.
Should the federal government shut down, what should contractors do to mitigate the damage? Continue reading
Filed under Federal law, policy & news, Uncategorized
Ten years ago, you had the roof on your office building replaced. Your roofer had assured you that the new membrane would be waterproof, wouldn’t crack and would be well-suited for your building over the long-haul. He even backed up these representations with a document stating that both the membrane and his workmanship were “fully warranted for 20 years.”
The work was substantially complete on September 15, 2003, and until recently, the new membrane hadn’t given you any problems. After storms passed through your neck-of-the-woods last week, however, your “new” roof leaked. Big Time.
Turns out you’re going to need to replace your roof immediately, ten years earlier than expected. Adding insult to injury, interior spaces were damaged, including common areas and rented space, and the operations of some of your tenants were disrupted. You suspect they might seek rent abatement, maybe more. Good thing you kept that 20-year warranty in a safe place, right?
Kind of. Under a recent North Carolina appellate decision, you might be able to compel the roofer to replace the roof, but you’re not likely to succeed in recovering any monetary damages from him.
In 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. Continue reading
A 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.” Continue reading
Filed under Public Bidding, State law, policy & news
For 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. Continue reading
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.
Partner
Poyner Spruill, LLP
301 Fayetteville Street
Suite 1900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.783.2887 (direct)
Mbouchard@poynerspruill.com
View my bio on my firm's website
Construction Law 2013, 2015-2019
Rising Star 2012; Super Lawyers 2014-2021
N.C. Construction Law, Policy & News 