Timing can be everything (Tues Tip)

Posted on September 28, 2010 by Melissa Dewey Brumback

It is always easiest, cheapest, and surest to deal with legal issues right away. Problems ignored are problems amplified. A recent North Carolina Court of Appeals cases prove the point:

In the recent NC Court of Appeals case Meier v. City of Charlotte (Aug. 17th, 2010), the Court held that a zoning administrator’s determination could not be appealed because the plaintiff failed to appeal within the 30 days provided by law and, therefore the Board of Adjustment no longer had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The petitioners are left to live next to an (allegedly) 50 foot tall house.

This case demonstrates that timeliness is crucial to your case when dealing with the courts. Don’t delay if you think you have a cause of action, because delay could mean you lose before your case even gets out of the gate.

—————————————–

Photo “Alarm Clock” by Freefoto.com via Creative Commons License.

What is Indemnity, and why should you care?

Posted on September 16, 2010 by Melissa Dewey Brumback

If you have ever asked a lawyer to review your construction contracts (and you should have), you may have noticed that lawyers get very excited over the indemnity provisions that may or may not be in the contracts you are contemplating signing. What are indemnity provisions, and why should you care?

What is it?

Quite simply, an indemnity provision is a statement that one of the parties agrees to pay any sums the other party might otherwise be legally required to pay to a third party. Now that I’ve mentioned picking up someone else’s tab, I hope I have your attention. As you might imagine, an indemnity provision can be a costly item, so you should have a thorough understanding of what such a provision means.

In general, indemnity provisions are contractual, and contract rules concerning them apply. What that means is, if the contract says you will pay for the owner/builder/developer/designer’s legal liabilities to others, you may have to open the checkbook.

Common Indemnity Provision

An example of one type of indemnity provision is AIA A201 3.18.1, which states:

To the fullest extent permitted by law the Contractor shall indemnify and hold harmless the Owner, Architect, Architect’s consultants, and agents and employees of any of them from and against claims, damages, losses and expenses, including but not limited to attorneys’ fees, arising out of or resulting from performance of the Work, provided that such claim, damage, loss or expense is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, disease or death, or to injury to or destruction of tangible property (other than the Work itself), but only to the extent caused by the negligent acts or omissions of the Contractor, a Subcontractor, anyone directly or indirectly employed by them or anyone for whose acts they may be liable, regardless of whether or not such claim, damage, loss or expense is caused in part by a party indemnified hereunder. . . .

When is it not legal?

There are some exceptions to the general applicability of indemnity provisions in North Carolina—most noticeably: you cannot be indemnified against your own negligence. If an indemnity provision purports to indemnify one party against that person’s own negligence, public policy and state law prohibit such an indemnification in North Carolina The applicable statute N.C. Gen. Stat. §22B-1, which reads:

§ 22B-1. Construction indemnity agreements invalid

Any promise or agreement in, or in connection with, a contract or agreement relative to the design, planning, construction, alteration, repair or maintenance of a building, structure, highway, road, appurtenance or appliance, including moving, demolition and excavating connected therewith, purporting to indemnify or hold harmless the promisee, the promisee’s independent contractors, agents, employees, or indemnitees against liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damage to property proximately caused by or resulting from the negligence, in whole or in part, of the promisee, its independent contractors, agents, employees, or indemnitees, is against public policy and is void and unenforceable. Nothing contained in this section shall prevent or prohibit a contract, promise or agreement whereby a promisor shall indemnify or hold harmless any promisee or the promisee’s independent contractors, agents, employees or indemnitees against liability for damages resulting from the sole negligence of the promisor, its agents or employees.
[Emphasis added].

However, construction indemnity clauses indemnifying a party for its own negligence can be valid and enforceable so long as the offending portion of the indemnity clause can be redacted (that is, stricken from the paragraph). Vecellio & Grogan, Inc. v. Piedmont Drilling & Blasting, Inc., 183 N.C.App. 66, 644 S.E.2d 16 (2007). In the example of the AIA A207 provision above, the phrase “To the fullest extent permitted by law” acts to keep the phrase within the permissible parameters of North Carolina law. Therefore, if you signed a contract with such a provision, you may be on the hook.

Be Careful with Indemnity Provisions

Not all indemnity provisions are equal. Some, such as in the above example, make attorney fees part of the expense which is passed along. Others expressly exclude attorney fees. Some provisions include a “duty to defend” on behalf of the other party, while others are silent on that issue. What is most important is that you recognize that such language is extremely important and should be discussed in detail with your knowledgeable construction lawyer.

As with getting your hair cut, you could do it yourself, but should you?

________________________________

Photo “Barber Shop Pole” by MyEyeSees via Flickr/Creative Commons License.

Review your Deed Before you Build (Tue Tip)

Posted on September 14, 2010 by Melissa Dewey Brumback

(Or, Reason # 529 why you need a lawyer)

A recent North Carolina case shows why you really need to consult with a lawyer before you build. In the swanky Myers Park section of Charlotte, setback requirements were contained within property deeds, a hold over from the pre-zoning days of the early 20^th century. A $500,000 addition to a residence was built that violated the setback, and the Court of Appeals held that the neighbors were not enjoined from suing to force compliance even though they waited over two months (during which construction was substantially completed) to bring suit.

The case is Irby v. Freese. Of note, the homeowners built the addition without benefit of an attorney or architect, so the deed restriction was not noticed.

The Court of Appeals was only addressing the issue of undue delay in bringing the lawsuit, because a two month delay occurred during which significant sums were spent by the homeowners to dry in the building. The Court held that, under the specific facts of the case, a two month delay was not fatal to the claim. Stay tuned for further details, as the case is far from over. It has been remanded to the trial court for a full trial.

And, be glad that this isn’t you. This could prove to be a very costly mistake, in which the entire addition may have to be demolished because of the violation of the setback requirement contained in the property deed.

Read your deed. Read your covenants. When in doubt, hire real estate counsel before you pick up the shovel.

————————————–

Photo “February 5, 2010- Paperwork” via Caitlin Childs via Flickr- Creative Commons license.

Tues Tip: Two upcoming NC Building Expos

Posted on August 24, 2010 by Melissa Dewey Brumback

Two Building Expos are coming to North Carolina. If you want to increase your knowledge of building issues, consider checking one or both of the expos out!

First up, is GreenNC’s North Carolina Building Industry 6th Annual Tradeshow, scheduled for September 9, 2010, at the McKimmon Center in Raleigh. The event is free to attend. There will also be a keynote luncheon ($35) by Bill Reed, AIA, LEED, Integrative Design Collaborative.

GreenNC

Second, the 21st Century Building Expo & Conference will be held September 15-17, 2010 at the Charlotte Convention Center. Conference passes start at $75 and increase if you want CE credit. The Expo promises over 50 general session seminars, North Carolina Builder Institute courses and NAHB Education classes.

If you plan to attend either or both of these events, let me know and we can try to meet up in real time. Secondly, I’d love to know your thoughts about these conferences. What were the valuable things you learned?

Tolling the Statutes of Limitation & Repose? (Law note)

Posted on August 19, 2010 by Melissa Dewey Brumback

A blog reader recently raised the question of to how to handle construction defect claims while repair attempts are being made on a defective building. In part, the answer to this question will depend on how close you are to the statute of limitations or the statue of repose from running. The closer you are, the more you need to be concerned about this issue. Just because all parties are working together to solve construction issues does not mean that the statutes are not running. They can. [There are, as usual, exceptions for equitable reasons.] And once statues run, there’s no getting them back.

One prudent approach to dealing with the statutes is to have all parties involved enter into a “Tolling Agreement.” What a properly drafted tolling agreement can do is to stop the running of the statue of limitations and/or repose while the parties attempt to fix the defects or otherwise settle their issues with one another. Note that the tolling agreement does not give a party any greater rights than they would have at the time it is signed– that is, if the statute has *already* run, then it would be of no use. But the tolling agreement can act as a “time out” on the running of the clock.

A good example of a tolling agreements is found in the Court of Appeals opinion in Charlotte Motor Speedway, Inc. v. Tindall Corporation, 195 N.C. App. 296, 672 S.E.2d 691 (2009). The Speedway case involved the infamous collapse of a pedestrian walkway during the NASCAR Winston Cup. The walkway which collapsed had been substantially completed by October 1995, and the collapse occurred in May 2000. Speedway (the project owner) and Tindall (which constructed the walkway) entered into a tolling agreement:

“to toll and suspend any applicable statute of limitations, repose or time, whether created by statute, contract, laches or otherwise, within which any cause, claim action, cause of action, or suit must be made, or commenced by the parties against any one of them concerning the [pedestrian] claims, including any and all claims for indemnification and contribution.” Id. at 298, 672 S.E.2d at 693.

Tindall attempted to argue that the statute of limitations barred Speedway’s claim for indemnification of monies paid prior to three years before it filed its complaint, but the Court found that the Tolling Agreement, which remained effective “through and including January 1, 2006” tolled the action, and Speedway brought suit on July 17, 2007, less than two years after the Tolling Agreement expired. Likewise, the Court held that the statute of repose did not bar the action, because the Tolling Agreement was entered into less than six years after substantial completion, and the lawsuit was brought during the pendency of a second funding [tolling] agreement between the parties.

If you are considering a tolling agreement (or think you don’t need one because you “have time”), it is always smart to get a professional opinion on the matter.

______________________________

Comments? Let me know. I welcome the opportunity to discuss how the statute of limitations and repose may be tolled in your specific situation.