The South Carolina legislature is considering legislation that will affect residential builders and specialty contractors. The text with proposed changes below SECTION 2. Section 40-59-20(7) of the 1976 Code is amended to read: "(7) 'Residential specialty contractor' means an independent contractor who is not a licensed residential builder, who contracts with a … Continue reading Proposed South Carolina Legislation Might Limit Residential Specialty Contractors
No Damage for Delay
A "remote" claimant can be defined as one contributing labor or materials to a construction project who does not have a direct contract with the general contractor. This is typically a sub of a sub or a material supplier who sells to a subcontractor. The key is the provider must not be in … Continue reading Notice of Furnishing and Remote Claimants
The Miller Act, 40 U.S.C. §§ 3131–3134, provides that, before any contract for the construction, alteration, or repair of any public building or public work of the United States of more than $150,000 (increased fris awarded to any person, that person (usually the general contractor) must furnish: (1) A performance bond in an amount the … Continue reading The Miller Act and Performance Bonds
The Miller Act is codified at 40 U.S.C. §§ 3131-3134. The Act requires a general contractor contracting with the federal government or a federal governmental entity for a construction project with a contract in excess of $150,000 to obtain both a performance bond and a payment bond. The Miller Act's primary function is to foster construction and … Continue reading The Miller Act: An Introduction
The the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has finally sent its comprehensive rule governing worker exposure to silica dust to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for final review. A proposed rule until now, the silica guidelines’ pending approval by OSHA will make them law. Silicosis is the lung disease the … Continue reading OSHA and Silica Regulations Close to Finality
In 2001 I mediated my first case as a young lawyer with just enough knowledge to be dangerous.....to myself most likely. Over the past 14 years I have observed the process and it's uncanny ability to resolve the previously unresolvable. Lately I have noticed the indirect, less tangible benefits. That said, a … Continue reading Still a Beneficial Tool, Mediation Process Is Not Perfect
defective construction an accident
Defective workmanship is not a covered occurrence, according to a 6th circuit decision. The concept of defective work continues to be interpreted differently by states around the country.
A recent post on Insurance Developments (this blog’s sister blog) discussed a recent unpublished opinion by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that a contractor’s allegedly poor workmanship did not constitute an “occurrence” under the contractor’s policy, thereby relieving the insurer of the obligation to indemnify the contractor in a construction defect action. While this topic is not specifically related to green building (there are few reported decisions or active cases that are), the principle is nonetheless applicable to contractors working on green building projects.
Very briefly (click the link above if you want to read a slightly more in-depth discussion), Wal-Mart contracted with MW Builders to construct a new Wal-Mart in Kentucky. MW Builders subcontracted the site preparation and some preliminary foundation work to Kay & Kay. After construction was complete, cracks began to develop in the building’s walls, allegedly resulting from settlement below the foundation. MW…
View original post 221 more words
joint and several treatment is unlikely in most case scenarios due to a party having to be more than 50% of the aggregate fault leading to or causing damages. Specifically, in an action to recover damages resulting from personal injury, wrongful death, or damage to property............. if indivisible damages are determined to be proximately caused by more than one defendant, joint and several liability does not apply to any defendant whose conduct is determined to be less than 50% of the total fault for the indivisible damages as compared with the total of: (i) the fault of all the defendants; and (ii) the fault (comparative negligence), if any, of the plaintiff.