Tag Archives: change

Certificate of Merit to sue architects or engineers? (Tue Tip)

Posted on by

[note: this article was originally posted April 5, 2011.  As of September 4, 2025, there is no requirement for a Certificate of Merit in North Carolina, but things can change, so stay tuned]

You know how they say the best laid plans can go awry?  Just as unforeseen issues pop up in construction, they also pop up in the practice of law.  So, while it is still Tuesday, I apologize for the late hour of my post.

I bring you good tidings, despite my lateness.  Right now, in the North Carolina General Assembly, is a proposed bill that would require a Certificate of Merit to be filed in civil litigation against an architect, engineer, or a design firm.  If it passes, this would require that an unbiased, third party (who is also a licensed professional) has reviewed the claim and believes it has merit.

boy holding certificate of merit

This boy has his certificate of merit: will lawsuits against architects and engineers require the same?

Such a pre-lawsuit requirement  has long been a right that doctors enjoy.  Now, there may a chance for architects and engineers to also enjoy protection from otherwise frivolous lawsuits.

The bill has been introduced, had its first reading, and has been referred to the Judiciary Committee.  While the bill is a long way from passage, it is a good sign that the public recognizes too often professionals are the targets in lawsuits simply because of their “deep pockets” (really!) or their insurance coverage.

(h/t to Kathryn Westcott, ACEC-NC Executive Director)

Photo: (c) John Dolan via Flickr/Creative Commons License.

Tues Tip: Check out the new AIA Bond forms

Posted on by

Have you seen the 2010 AIA 312 Payment Bond Form?  If you regularly deal with AIA bonds, be Payment Officer looking at demolitionsure to check out this blog post, entitled “What changes you need to know about in the new AIA A 312 Payment Bond” from the New York Construction Law Update Blog.

  Of particular note:

There is a new section (7.3) that expressly states the surety’s failure to respond within sixty (60) days does not constitute a waiver of any potential defenses.  However, the new AIA A312 also states that if the surety fails to respond and if the claimant has to bring an action to recover under the bond, and is successful, then the surety will be responsible for attorneys’ fees incurred by the claimant. 

The new Section 16.1 provides certain minimum requirements that must be in the notice of claim to constitute a valid claim under the bond.  Previous versions of the AIA A312 did not contain such minimum requirements and a claimant in a rush could potentially submit a simple letter identifying the project and setting forth the amount of its claim to try and squeeze in before the deadline to submit a claim. 

While it is tempting and easy to skip reading standard form contract documents, that is not a good practice.  The new requirements involved in making a bond claim, for example, are something that would be easy to overlook if you have previous experience making bond claims– and it could be a very expensive lesson.  Moral of the story, as always, is to read your contracts, preferably with your attorney and insurance carrier at hand.

Do you use the AIA 312 Payment Bond form?  Thoughts about the new Form versus the old Form? Bonding questions in general?  Drop me a line or comment below.

————–

Photo copyright of U.S. Air Force and made available via Creative Commons license. 

Follow your Change Order Requirements

Posted on by

 check markIt is extremely important that you follow your written contract requirements.  No where is this more evident than in the change order process.

Most contracts have an explicit provision for the payment for additional work– and they generally require a written, signed change order (or change directive) before the work is performed.  Can you get by with verbal agreements for additional work? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.  Will it be much harder to get paid for additional services without a signed change order? You bet.  So why put yourself through that trouble?

Often times parties begin to “waive” formal requirements for written change orders, and construction projects are often on tight deadlines where stopping work to get a fully executed change order would bog down the schedule.  However, you run the risk of throwing yourself on the mercy of the Court when you don’t play by the contract rules.

A new case out of the Eastern District of Virginia demonstrates this fact very clearly.  In Artistic Stone v. Safeco, 2010 WL 2977894 (E.D.Va July 27, 2010), the Court held that the requirement that change orders be in writing was to be strictly construed and the subcontractor in that case could not recover for verbal change orders that violated the written change order requirement.  The Court held that where there is a method to ensure recovery of additional extra work in the written contract, the subcontractor could not recover additional money when it failed to follow that method.

“Written change order requirements maintain order and predictability in the construction business, and are meant ‘to avoid subsequent disagreement, and prevent just such a controversy as has arisen in this case.  For this reason, ‘where there is a method under the contract by which a party can insure the recovery of the cost of extra work, that party is not entitled to recovery where it fails to follow that method.'” Artistic Stone Crafters at 5.   [Internal citations omitted.]

A North Carolina court would likely concur.

To ensure you can fully recover for extra work, make sure it is authorized.  Follow the contract.  If circumstances make it so you cannot always follow the contract terms, document the situation as best as you can.  A follow-up email, confirming a verbal change order, would at least provide written evidence you can present in Court, should it come to that.  Otherwise, arguments can and will be made that the person who gave the change order wasn’t authorized to do so, and you may be stuck with no recovery for the extra work.

_______________________

Photo “white check mark on blue- acrylic on canvas” by kylemac via Flickr via Creative Commons license.

Pay When Paid Clauses in the NC Construction Contract

Posted on by

“Pay when paid” clauses are clauses found in many construction contracts that state that the contractor will pay his subcontractor only if and/or when the contractor receives payment from the owner.   Are these clauses enforceable?  The answer depends on (1) what state you are in and (2) what choice of law provision is contained in your construction contract.

A limited number of states do honor “pay when paid” clauses under the theory that the parties are usually sophisticated parties who negotiated the contract terms and as such they are duty bound to honor those terms.   When such a clause is enforced, it can prove fatal in a case where the owner files bankruptcy or otherwise defaults on its payments to the general contractor.

In North Carolina,  such clauses are unenforceable as against public policy.

Performance by a subcontractor in accordance with the provisions of its contract shall entitle it to payment from the party with whom it contracts. Payment by the owner to a contractor is not a condition precedent for payment to a subcontractor and payment by a contractor to a subcontractor is not a condition precedent for payment to any other subcontractor, and an agreement to the contrary is unenforceable.

N. C. Gen. Stat. Section 22C-2.

Does that mean that, if you are a subcontractor, you don’t need to worry about such “pay when paid” clauses in North Carolina?  Not necessarily.  It depends on what law is the law that will be applied by the court.  If your contract states that the law of another state will apply, you need to know if that state is one in which “pay when paid” clauses are enforceable.  In some states, such as Virginia, the contract is king and whatever the contract says will be enforced.  Such clauses are also generally enforceable in a few other states such as Connecticut and Michigan.

Other states take a more cautious view, and hold that such clauses are only enforceable if unambiguously written, including  Arizona, Ohio, and Massachusetts.

States which concur with North Carolina’s view that such clauses are unenforceable include New York, California, and South Carolina.

Therefore, it is important to know not only what your contract says, but what state’s law will apply to your contract.

Because case law and statutes change the law regularly, consult a licensed attorney in the jurisdiction you are concerned about to learn the latest status of contingent payment clauses in that jurisdiction.

Managing Changes on the Construction Project

Posted on by

As sure as Santa’s arrival each year, the setting of the sun each night, and the arrival of the bowl games each December, there will be changes to a construction project.   How you manage those changes is important.  If you can properly document delays, changes in scope, or other issues, you can recoup your time and expenses.  If you fail to manage changes well, you are literally throwing money away.  And– if you are a design professional and do not have a good system in place for handling change order requests, you are almost guaranteeing a lawsuit at the end of the project.  Read more on how to handle changes in the AIA documents here.