Category Archives: Law Notes

Lien Law Changes Ahead? Add your voice!

Posted on by

How a Bill Becomes a LawAre you familiar with North Carolina lien law provisions?  Ever think they should be changed and updated?  You are not alone.   The NC Bar Association (through the Lien Law Revision Committee of the Construction Section) is in the process of preparing substantive changes to a proposed new Lien Law statute.  The committee is aiming to have a prepared piece of legislation drafted for consideration in the upcoming legislative session of the General Assembly.

According to the Lien Law Committee, revisions to the statute are needed for several reasons, including:

  • handling the uncertainty created by recent Bankruptcy court decisions relating to liens
  • reexaming the “relation back” and “double payment” issues in current lien law
  • reexaming the long form lien waivers and current problems with those waivers

Last week, at the Design Professionals Lliason Committee (another Construction Section committee), I was given a copy of the lien law draft proposal for a revision to the lien law.  The Lien Law Committee wants their proposals to be discussed by the construction industry, so that all sides can be fully vested in the new lien process.

Review the proposal and let me know what you think.  The proposal contains some rather large changes to the lien statute.  Are these good, bad, or irrelevant to your business?  Email me or comment below with any thoughts, questions, suggestions, or concerns.  I will pass all comments along to the Lien Law committee.

———————–

Photo “How a Bill Becomes a Law” by Peter Merholtz via Flickr/Creative Commons license.

Active vs. Passive Negligence (Law note)

Posted on by

whole hog sign“As long as I was in, and in for good, I might as well go the whole hog.”

–Huck Finn, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain

————————-

If you work on a North Carolina construction project, you, too, are in “the whole hog” if you are negligent.  That is, if you are negligent at all, you are on the hook for the full lot.  As we’ve discussed, joint tort-feasors (that is, two negligent parties who are jointly & severally liable) are generally not entitled to indemnity from one another.

However, there are exceptions, and today we’re talking about one such exception– the passively negligent party.  

What is passive negligence?

Active negligence is an action which causes damage.  In contrast, passive negligence is negligence due to inaction, omission, or the failure to do something that you are legally obligated to do.   The actively negligent party is primary responsible for paying any damages, and the passively negligent party is only secondarily liable.

For example, if a subcontractor is actively negligent in constructing the framing for a building, and the general contractor failed to notice the defect, the subcontractor is actively negligent and the general contractor is passively negligent. 

Indemnity of the passively negligent party

Where the active negligence of one tort-feasor and the passive negligence of another combine to proximately cause injury to a third party, the passively negligent tort-feasor who is compelled to pay damages to the injured party is entitled to indemnity from the actively negligent tort-feasor.  This is called common-law indemnity, as opposed to contractual indemnity, which we discussed in an earlier blog post. 

In our example above, the subcontractor, as the actively negligent party, is the party ultimately responsible for the poor framing and the resulting damages.  If the general contractor is sued by the owner, he can in turn sue the subcontractor for the damages which were caused by the sub.

Questions about active versus passive negligence?  Drop me a line in the comments below.

—————————-

Photo “Whole Hog Heaven BBQ” by Bill.Roehl via Flickr/Creative Commons license.

Contributory Negligence on the construction project (law note)

Posted on by

scale of justiceI’m sometimes asked if the percentage of “fault” is something that a client can rely on to reduce the amount of money they may owe on construction project gone bad.  The short answer:  no.   As I mentioned in my post on joint & several liability, if you are even 1% liable for the damages on a project, you can be hit with 100% of the damages. 

 This is not true in many other jurisdictions, where proportional fault (called comparative negligence) is often allowed.  In those states, if you are found 20% liable, you only have to pay 20% of the damages. Not so in North Carolina.  Here, unless you are entirely passively negligent (a concept we’ll discuss next week), you may be on the hook for the full amount.

That’s not fair!

Perhaps.  But, that’s life on a North Carolina construction project.  One concept that helps to reduce the unfairness factor is the concept of contributory negligence.  In North Carolina (but few other states), if a party is negligent at all (even 1%), they cannot recover from another negligent party.  

For example:  the owner of a project sues its general contractor on a project for a late project delivery which costs the owner money.  While almost all of the delay was the contractor’s fault, the owner also caused delay by failing to deliver owner-furnished equipment in time to meet the critical path of the project.  The owner’s own failure means that the owner itself is contributorily negligent and, under North Carolina law, the owner cannot recover the rest of its damages from the contractor.

But wait! There’s more.

Before you get too excited about contributory negligence, you need to understand the concept of  jury nullification.  When contributory negligence is explained to a jury, the jury may sometimes decide not to find fault where they might otherwise apportion fault, to avoid what they perceive as an unjust result. 

In the above example, the jury might decide the owner’s failure was not really contributing to the delay after all, and therefore award the owner damages.  This is called jury nullification, and it can take the sting out of contributory negligence.

Change to NC’s Contributory Negligence law?

The concept of contributory negligence (and its complete bar to any recovery) is one which many would like to change.  There has been legislation in the NC General Assembly in recent years to abolish contributory negligence in favor of a comparative-fault  negligence, as is common in most states.  So far, this has not happened.  As they say, however, the jury is still out on whether such a change will occur.  

Do you have an opinion on contributory negligence vs. comparative negligence? Think NC’s law should change to one based on percentage of fault?  Share in the comments below.

———————

Photo “Scale—Image”  by Matthias Kulka/Corbis via Picasa/Creative Commons License. 



Arbitrators are not King Solomon?

Posted on by

whoa signAfter my recent post on the pros and cons of court vs. arbitration, I was contacted by the American Arbitration Association (AAA).    They told me that, contrary to what is a widely held belief about panels “splitting the baby,” their internal studies actually show that is not, in fact, the case.   The summary of their findings is worth reading.

Now, I don’t know the particulars of their study protocol, and AAA is certainly not a disinterested party, but the numbers are impressive.  Perhaps AAA arbitration panels, at least, are not King Solomon.

Do you have a AAA arbitration experience?  Share it in the comments below.

————–

Photo “whoa” by stgermh via Flickr/Creative Commons license.

Should I stay or should I go now? (Court vs. Arbitration)- Updated

Posted on by

gavelShould I stay or should I go now?
If I go there will be trouble
And if I stay it will be double
So come on and let me know!

Are you wondering whether Court or Arbitration should be made a standard part of your construction contracts?  With apologies in advance to The Clash, there is “trouble” to be found in either venue.

Some companies, and their lawyers, insist that American Aribtration Association (AAA) Arbitration is the only way to go.  Others prefer to take their chances in a local state court.  Who is right?  Neither, and both.  As with anything, there is a cost-benefit analysis that you should go through prior to making either a standard part of your construction contract.

Pluses and Minuses of Going to Court

If a dispute is brought in court, there is a standard, fully vetted set of statutes, case law, court rules, and procedures already in place.  A judge, unlike the typical arbitration panel, is generally more willing to consider defenses based on statue, such as the statute of limitations or the statute of repose.  Summary Judgment, in which a judge will (on occasion) grant a judgment for or against  a party without the necessity of the full blown jury trial, is possible.  Such dispositive, procedural rulings are extremely unlikely to be granted by an arbitration panel.

On the other hand, a court trial means a jury verdict.  Unless the parties agree to waive their right to a jury trial, your case will be decided by true laymen who may have never set foot on a construction site before, and who will not understand the RFI, change order, and pay app process.  Terms like “substantial completion,” “critical path,” and “standard of care” will be foreign to them.

I’ve seen some juries get it right, and I’ve seen some get it wrong.  Most jurors take their responsibilities extremely seriously and will try to apply the law as the judge instructs them.  But at the end of the day, you have people unfamiliar with industry standards determining your case.

Pluses and Minuses of Arbitration

Many standard construction contracts contain arbitration provisions, generally AAA Arbitration.  The typical arbitration includes a three member panel of experts (construction professionals, designers, construction attorneys) who hear the evidence and make a ruling.  That ruling has the full force of law.The reasoning behind such arbitration clauses is that industry professionals better understand the construction process, standards of care, and interrelationships on a complex construction project.  Theoretically, therefore, they are better able to determine the true root cause of damages or delay.

Arbitration is sometimes considered to be less expensive and less time consuming than a court trial.  The arbitration panel generally sets fairly loose procedural and evidentiary boundaries, and tends to allow into evidence things that might not meet the strict Rules of Evidence that a court would apply.  Some of these generalities, however, have not proven to be true in practice.  AAA Arbitration can be costly– the filing of a claim alone is costlier than typical court fees.  Case managers add a layer of bureaucracy to the process.   Arbitration panels also generally are more prone to “split the baby” in a close case.

Which is Better?

The answer to that question is a clear and concise, “it depends.”  It depends on the facts of your particular case, the jurisdiction you are in, the type of panel you may get, and numerous other things completely out of your control.  Consult with a lawyer in your jurisdiction to discuss the pros and cons of each, and which may be right for your particular situation.

Do you have experience with court or arbitration?  Personal preference?  I’d love to hear your thoughts on the subject in the comment section below.

UPDATE 10/13/2010:  The AAA responded to this article citing their internal studies showing arbitration panels do not often “split the baby”.  See more here. 

_______________

Photo “Courtroom One Gavel” by Joe Gratz via Flickr/Creative Commons license.