Tag Archives: lawsuit

How to Smartly Handle Project Documents

Posted on by
mountain of construction paperwork

Paperwork by luxomedia via Flickr

In the Contract Risks Management Group on LinkedIn, L.H. Chin wrote an article about file keeping for contract risk management.  Basically, his premise is that if you cannot keep your Project files orderly, you have exponentially increased your chances of a problem later.   His particular example dealt with originals versus reproduced copies, which is only somewhat germane to North Carolina contracts.  (Here, copies can be used as evidence most of the time—though not always).  His main point, however, about the ability to minimize future risks by having good document control policies in place, is something every project manager should think about.

 Here are a few tips of my own in that regard:

1.   File all communications in one place.  Don’t keep faxes in one file, email in another, and letters in a third.  Don’t keep incoming and outgoing correspondence separated by vendor.  Keep it all in one chronological file.  If you ever find yourself needing legal assistance, this will save many hours and untold stress for everybody.

1.b.  Caveat:  don’t feel like you need to print out every email.  Do, however, maintain a separate email e-folder for the Project, and go ahead and print those really crucial, smoking gun emails.

2.  If you insist on violating Rule 1 (and I know those of you who read this blog would never consider such a thing, right?):  Have all the files, categories, and such you want, but please also make a “master” chronological file of all correspondence.   Just do it.

3.  If you have any communications with your lawyer, an insurance representative (outside of the normal bonding paperwork), or otherwise have documents relating to potential claims, do keep them separate.  Put all such correspondence, in a folder marked “legal,” away from the Project file to prevent inadvertent disclosure to anyone else if there is ever litigation on the matter.

3.b  If in doubt whether something should be in “legal” or “correspondence”, err on the side of “legal.”  Your attorney can always change the classification later, but she can’t put the genie back in the bottle if something that is privileged is mistakenly given to a party suing you.

If you have any questions about these tips, or want to discuss your current procedure for record management, shoot me an email.  My contact information can be found on my Firm bio or at the Footer of the Blog.  Or, you can simply leave me a note in the comments. 
 

___________________________________

Photo: “Paperwork” by luxomedia via Flickr/CC license.

NC State Construction projects– Privity, Multi-Prime Contracts, and the Ability to Be Sued by Parties You Don’t know (Law note)

Posted on by

At the recent seminar on construction law in North Carolina, I was asked whether parties could be sued by other parties on state construction projects when there is no contract between those parties.  The answer is yes. In the following series of blog posts, I will address three major cases which address this question in several different permutations.

For today’s post, I will discuss contractual privity, the multi-prime statute, and how the two apply on North Carolina state construction projects.  In later posts, I will discuss the application of that statute to different parties in the construction context.

Multi-prime contracts

In North Carolina, the state entity who is the owner of the construction project must bid the project pursuant to one of several designated ways.  One common method sometimes required of public bidding is the “mulit-prime” contract, in which the State has at least 4 separate contracts, for:

(1) Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning

(2) Plumbing and gas fittings

(3) Electrical wiring and installations

(4) General construction relating to erection, alteration, or repair on public property

N.C. Gen. Stat. §143-128(a). 

The purpose of the multi-prime statute is two-fold:

  1.  It encourages lower bids by preventing pass-through cost mark-ups to the state
  2. It allows smaller specialty contractors to enter bidding directly with state without having to have a working relationship with a general contractor, thereby opening up state jobs to a wider array of potential contractors
Contractual Privity

 In general, contractual privity is required to sue another entity on a construction project—that is, you have to be in a contractual relationship with the party you are suing.  There are exceptions to this rule.  For example, you can be sued in negligence for property and personal damage by a party that you do not have a contract with.  (See my post discussing the architect’s liability for economic loss  resulting from breach of architect’s common-law duty of due care  ).  In addition, the state legislature has provided the ability for contractors to sue one another, or other entities involved in the construction project, without having to sue the owner or deal with the State Construction Office.

 NC statute on liability:

Each separate contractor shall be directly liable to the State of North Carolina, or to the county, municipality, or other public body and to the other separate contractors for the full performance of all duties and obligations due respectively under the terms of the separate contracts and in accordance with the plans and specifications, which shall specifically set forth the duties and obligations of each separate contractor. For the purpose of this section, “separate contractor” means any person, firm or corporation who shall enter into a contract with the State, or with any county, municipality, or other public entity to erect, construct, alter or repair any building or buildings, or parts of any building or buildings.

N.C. Gen. Stat. §143-128(b).   [Emphasis added].

This statute has been interpreted over the past decade to allow essentially any party to sue any other party directly on state construction projects.  In the next blog post, I will discuss the first of three major cases dealing with this issue.

No more Liens when a General Contractor is in Bankruptcy—the new North Carolina law?

Posted on by

Unfortunately, bankruptcy is an all too common occurrence in today’s economy.  Companies which have been stalwarts of the construction industry are falling like dominos and entering into the protective waters of bankruptcy.  What effect does a bankruptcy filing have on your ability to file or perfect a lien?  A lot.

Until very recently, the general practice in North Carolina was that even if the general contractor was in bankruptcy, a subcontractor could still proceed with a lien on real property to the extent funds remained due and owing from the property owner.  It was common practice for subcontractors to serve a notice of claim of lien on funds and claim of lien on real property to the property owner even if the general contractor had filed bankruptcy, and no bankruptcy court approval was needed.

Recently, however, three cases in the Eastern District of North Carolina Bankruptcy Court (which extends from Raleigh to the Coast) have ended this practice and called into doubt whether any lien right can be preserved after the general contractor files bankruptcy.  The three cases are In re Shearin Family Investments, LLC, Case No. 08-07082080-JRL (Bankr. EDNC April 17, 2009); In re Harrelson Utilities, Inc., Case No. 09-025815-8-ATS (Bankr. EDNC July 30, 2009); and In re Mammoth Grading, Inc., Case No. 09-01286-8-ATS (Bankr. EDNC July 31, 2009).

In these cases, the Courts have held that no lien arises until it is perfected; therefore, if the notice of a lien on funds is not served prior to the bankruptcy filing, it is disallowed and the subcontractor (or supplier) will be treated as an unsecured creditor in the bankruptcy.  The Harrelson and Mammoth cases are on appeal, and the issue currently only concerns the Eastern District, although the Middle and Western Districts would likely treat those opinions with deference.

If these decisions stand, and become the new law of the land, then contractors and material suppliers must remain extra vigilant about account receivables and in pursuing lien rights if any sign of financial insecurity is suspected in the general contractor.

A detailed discussion of the facts of these three cases and each of their legal holdings can be found in article “To Assert or Not to Assert? Can Contractors Afford to Wait to assert Their Lien Rights”  (by Wayne Maiorano, Amos Priester, and Anna Osterhout), which first appeared in the October 2009 issue of the North Carolina Bar Association‘s  Construction Law Section newsletter, The Change Order.

 

Of Mice and Men: Yes, you need a written construction contract!

Posted on by
Field mouse

Photo by delphywnd via Flickr*

 

Does a written contract *really* matter?   Yes; yes it does.

While you can get by for years- decades, even- on handshake deals—when something goes wrong you will wish you had a written contract.  Even the best projects, with familiar clients and trusted contractors, can go awry.  (“The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry”).

Many of my clients come to me after having been in business 20, 30 years or more.  They come to me because they have either already been sued, or the handwriting is on the wall and they are about to be brought into litigation.  They tell me they’ve never needed a written contract before now.  That’s well and good.  However, I’d bet dollars to donuts those same folks have fire insurance, and yet very few if any of them have actually experienced a house fire.  What’s different about business contracts?

The goal, of course, is that you will never need to rely on the written provisions in your contract.  But if you ever find yourself facing a lawsuit, you’ll wish you had a written contract.

A written contract spells out expectations, rights, and responsibilities.  It sets standards that may be understood by the parties, but very different from what the common law would allow.  Without a written contract, you are trusting yourself to laws you may not agree with or giving up protections you may otherwise have.  Why chance it?

Get something in writing—a signed proposal, an email which is confirmed—something that spells out basic agreements that might come into dispute later.  A thorough contract written for each project is ideal, though not always practical on smaller, quick-turn deals.  That’s fine.  But get something on paper.  You’ll be glad you did, if and when you ever find yourself on the courthouse steps.

 ————–

*Photo: Have you seen the Muffin Mouse by delphwynd via Flickr and made available via Creative Commons license.

Green Design | Legal risks to designing a Construction project for LEED certification (take 2)

Posted on by

As I noted in an earlier post about risks related to designing buildings for LEED certification, those involved in construction should proceed cautiously in designing to certain LEED standards.

A recent Insurance Journal article discusses insurance and liability risks for a designer or contractor if he guarantees a certain level of “green” performance in his construction contract.

“If you’re an architect, engineer, or contractor, and you’re guaranteeing to your client that the building will be Gold certified by the U.S. Green Building Council, you’re opening up a pretty big can of worms.”

You should never “guarantee” any performance to keep your risks minimized, your insurance in place, and your attorney happy. This article is another reminder to be especially cautious in green construction, and to not make promises that you may not be able to keep.