On November 6, 2020, the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s decision dismissing a contractor’s differing site conditions claim on a sewer replacement project. In TSI Construction, Inc. v. Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District, the appellate court concluded that the contractor’s failure to comply with contractual provisions necessary to preserve its
Kentucky Fried Claim: Contractor Preserves Immunity from Suit by Complying with Government Contract Specifications
Recently, in Cross v. L-M Asphalt Partners, Ltd., the Kentucky Court of Appeals upheld a contractor’s immunity from suit for negligence, where the contractor complied with the contract and construction specifications provided by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Divisions of Construction Procurement (KYTC). The case arose from a collision between a motorcycle and a car
Federal Prompt Pay Act Does Not Afford Subcontractors Right to Sue General Contractor
On October 15, 2020, in EMTA Insaat Taahhut ve Ticaret A.S. v. Cosmopolitan Incorporated, a federal district court held that the federal Prompt Pay Act (PPA) (31 U.S.C. §§ 3901, et al.) does not create a private right of action for a subcontractor against a general contractor. The dispute arose from a project for
Suing a Design Professional in Texas? Make Sure to Include a Certificate of Merit in Your Pleading
On August 4, 2020, the Court of Appeals of Texas (First District) reversed a trial court’s denial of an engineering firm’s motion to dismiss finding that the plaintiff’s failure to attach the required certificate of merit affidavit to its petition against the engineering firm required dismissal of the petition under the plain language of Tex.
Minnesota Automatic-Approval Rule Secures CUP and Saves Solar Project
One of the challenges of renewable energy development is managing the permitting process. Understanding how to navigate state and local laws can be integral to a developer’s permitting success, especially where a community may be hostile to the prospective power project. The Court of Appeals of Minnesota underlined this point in its recent decision in
Contract, Project, and Arbitration in Florida? State Has Personal Jurisdiction Over Action to Enforce Arbitration Award
On June 24, 2020, in Sayers Constr., LLC v. Timberline Constr., Inc., et al., a Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court’s denial of a contractor’s motion to dismiss. The contractor moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in a dispute with a subcontractor over confirmation of an arbitration award. The
Fraudulently Filing Lien Backfires on Contractor
Liens represent one of the primary mechanisms by which contractors, subcontractors, and other downstream parties secure payment rights under a construction contract. When utilized properly, filing a lien may induce an owner to release funds that are undisputedly owed to the lienor. However, when a party’s lien filing is delinquent or defective, and the party
Timing Is Everything: Miller Act Notice Defect Saves Surety
The Miller Act protects subcontractors from nonpayment on federal projects by requiring prime contractors to issue payment bonds. To obtain relief under the Miller Act, a subcontractor must (1) give the prime contractor written notice of its claim within 90 days of the date it last performed work on a federal project and (2) file
New York is Pro-Choice on Forum Selection Clauses
In Somerset Fine Home Building, Inc. v. Simplex Industries, Inc., the Appellate Division of the Second Department in New York upheld a dismissal based on the plaintiff’s breach of the parties’ forum selection clause. Somerset Fine Home Building entered into a sales contract with a modular home supplier for the purchase of a
Don’t Be Unreasonable: Equitable Adjustment Conditioned on Government Contractor’s Proof of Reasonable Interpretation of Contract
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. John C. Grimberg Co., Inc., recently reversed an Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) decision that a federal contractor was entitled to an equitable adjustment on a differing site conditions claim. The Federal Circuit held that the