THE DRAWBACK OF BEING A THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT IN A CONSTRUCTION DISPUTE

Posted on February 28, 2014February 28, 2014 by Edward Garber

The Florida Supreme Court just entered an opinion that potentially has huge implications in construction defect disputes. In Caduceus Properties, LLC v. William G. Graney, P.E., 39 Fla. L. Weekly S93a (2014), an owner sued its architect for design defects with its HVAC system. The architect third-partied into the dispute its mechanical engineer (sub-consultant). The architect’s third-party claims were dismissed for failure to comply with a court order and the architect ultimately declared bankruptcy. The owner, AFTER the statute of limitations expired to assert defect claims, amended its complaint to assert direct claims against the mechanical engineer (also, after the mechanical engineer had already been dismissed from the dispute). The issue the Florida Supreme Court analyzed was whether the owner could assert these claims after the expiration of the statute of limitations since the mechanical engineer was previously a third-party defendant in the dispute. Stated differently, did the owner’s claims against the mechanical engineer relate back to the original third party complaint the architect timely asserted against the mechanical engineer such that the claims were timely filed within the statute of limitations? The Florida Supreme Court held the owner could do this: “[A]n amended complaint filed after the statute of limitations has expired, naming a party who had previously been made a third-party defendant as a party defendant, relates back…to the filing of the third party complaint.”

Why are the implications huge? In a construction defect case, oftentimes there are third-party defendants. In this case, it was a sub-consultant of the architect. In many cases, it is the general contractor that asserts third-party claims against subcontractors. Sometimes, a subcontractor moves to dismiss the claims and prevails and/or settles directly with the general contractor. Well, now, based on this ruling, even if the subcontractor is dismissed, as long as a third-party complaint was asserted against it, it could potentially be back-doored into the dispute by the owner / plaintiff. The owner would just assert a claim against the subcontractor, even after the expiration of the statute of limitations, and argue that under the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling its claims against the subcontractor relate back to the initial third-party complaint that the general contractor timely filed against the subcontractor. Ouch! Therefore, now, a third-party defendant may not get the solace they think they deserve from getting dismissed from a lawsuit or settling directly with the party that sued it. So, a subcontractor or third-party defendant that wants to settle is best getting the owner to sign off on the settlement to ensure it does not get back-doored into the very lawsuit it was dismissed from. On the other hand, this gives the owner options to sue third-party defendants brought into the dispute after the expiration of the statute of limitations if there are concerns with the solvency of the defendant it sued (e.g., general contractor or architect that are usually in direct privity of contract with the owner).

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

STAYING LITIGATION AGAINST A PAYMENT BOND SURETY PENDING THE OUTCOME OF ARBITRATION INVOLVING THE GC AND SUB

Posted on February 27, 2014February 27, 2014 by Edward Garber

The all-too-common dilemma: If the subcontract includes an arbitration provision, but the payment bond does not, can the subcontractor pursue a simultaneous lawsuit against the payment bond surety while there is an arbitration proceeding involving the general contractor? And, can the general contractor or the payment bond surety stay the litigation pending the outcome of the arbitration involving the subcontractor?

Hofer, Inc. v. Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Maryland, 2014 WL 644598 (N.D. Fla. 2014), is an interesting opinion that involves this very dilemma. In this case, a payment dispute arose where the subcontractor claimed it was owed money for work it performed for an apartment project and the general contractor claimed the subcontractor was not owed money for deficient work. A familiar fact pattern! The subcontract contained an arbitration provision. Before arbitration came into play, the subcontractor filed a lawsuit against the payment bond. (The payment bond was not an unconditional payment, but rather, a conditional payment bond meaning that if the owner did not pay the general contractor, the subcontractor would have lien rights, not payment bond rights.) After the lawsuit was filed, the general contractor demanded arbitration with its subcontractor pursuant to the subcontract. The payment bond did not contain an arbitration provision nor did it incorporate by reference the subcontract’s arbitration provision. Thus, there was no way the surety could be compelled to arbitration. After the arbitration proceeding commenced, the payment bond surety moved to stay the lawsuit pending the outcome of the arbitration proceeding involving the subcontractor and general contractor. Naturally, the subcontractor contested this motion–it was the party that initiated the dispute first.

The Northern District maintained that it is has discretion whether to stay the litigation pending the outcome of the arbitration. It explained that there is a heavy presumption that litigation can proceed at the same time as arbitration when the litigation involves a nonarbitrable claim (a claim not subject to arbitration such as the payment bond claim), but “if the arbitrable issues are crucial for the determination of nonarbitrable claims, a court has discretion to stay the litigation.” Hofer, supra, at *1. In other words, if the arbitration is going to resolve issues that are important to the litigation, a court has the discretion to stay the litigation pending the outcome of arbitration.

A payment bond surety is entitled to most of the contractual defenses of its bond-principal general contractor. Therefore, it would be entitled to the same defenses / arguments that the general contractor was raising against the subcontractor pertaining to deficient work. So, if the general contractor prevails in its arbitration, the subcontractor’s claim against the payment bond surety could become moot. Because the payment bond was a conditional bond, the surety and general contractor could argue that the subcontractor does not have a payment bond claim because the owner never paid the general contractor for the subcontractor’s work and the subcontract contained a pay-if-paid provision. However, it does not appear this argument was asserted so perhaps the owner did pay the general contractor and the general contractor simply withheld the amount of the back-charge. To this point, the Northern District maintained, “Nothing in the record suggests that whether Apex [general contractor] has been paid for Hofer’s [subcontractor] work will be an issue in the arbitration process.” Hofer, supra, at *2. Indeed, the only issue in arbitration was whether the general contractor paid the subcontractor the proper amounts due under the subcontract. This means that the fact that the payment bond was a conditional bond instead of an unconditional payment bond was of no true significance in this dispute. This is important because since most payment bonds are unconditional payment bonds (that are not conditioned on the payment of the owner and where pay-if-paid is not a defense), the rationale in this case would apply to unconditional payment bonds.

The Northern District found that even though the subcontractor was not bound to arbitrate its dispute with the payment bond surety, the litigation should nonetheless be stayed because i) the subcontractor agreed to resolve its disputes with the general contractor through arbitration and ii) the predominant issue in the dispute, that being whether the general contractor owed the subcontractor money, was being decided by the arbitration proceeding.

Although the actual facts of the dispute were not discussed, it seems apparent that once the subcontractor filed the lawsuit against the payment bond, the general contractor affirmatively demanded arbitration pursuant to the subcontract in furtherance of having the dispositive facts of the dispute decided by an arbitrator instead of through litigation. This was a good strategy because the general contractor and subcontractor agreed to have such disputes decided by arbitration. Even though the payment bond surety was not bound by the arbitration provision, the surety is typically defended by the general contractor and is raising most of the same defenses the general contractor would raise such as deficient work. Now, because the court had discretion as to whether to stay the litigation or allow it to proceed simultaneously with the arbitration, this is a risk the general contractor took by virtue of the subcontract. It is a risk because if the Northern District denied the surety’s motion to stay, the general contractor could have likely had the facts of this dispute determined by litigation instead of arbitration (depending on which case was tried first) which could have made portions of the arbitration moot.

So, what could have been done to prevent this scenario? A couple of thoughts to create the argument to avoid a simultaneous litigation and arbitration:

In drafting the arbitration provision in the subcontract, ensure that it includes the general contractor’s surety. The provision could state something to the effect that if the subcontractor initiates a claim against the general contractor’s surety, the surety, at its option, can invoke and demand arbitration pursuant to this arbitration provision as the surety is an intended third party beneficiary of the right to demand arbitration in this provision. The key is that if the subcontractor files suit and the general contractor/surety prefer arbitration, they have a contractual provision that would make it compelling to dismiss the litigation or, more likely, stay it pending the outcome of arbitration.
The other option, although far, far less common, is to include in the bond that the dispute resolution procedure is the same as in the subcontract of the claimant. There may be arguments around such a provision and the surety may not want its fate determined in an arbitration where there are not any appellate rights (and, perhaps, it may have concerns over the indemnification it is receiving from the general contractor).

For more information on arbitration provisions, please see: https://floridaconstru.wpengine.com/deference-given-to-arbitration-agreements/ and https://floridaconstru.wpengine.com/appreciating-the-risks-or-frustrations-of-arbitration/.

PAY-WHEN-PAID AND THE PREVENTION OF PERFORMANCE DOCTRINE

Posted on February 23, 2014February 23, 2014 by Edward Garber

The pay-when-paid doctrine is a standard provision in subcontracts to shift the risk of the owner’s nonpayment to the subcontractor. The owner’s payment to the contractor is a condition precedent to the contractor’s payment to the subcontractor. However, if there is a payment bond in place, a surety in Florida cannot rely on this contractual defense to defeat a subcontractor’s claim. (Notably, in other jurisdictions, a surety can rely on this defense.) The pay-when-paid doctrine has been discussed numerous times in the following articles: https://floridaconstru.wpengine.com/pay-when-paid-provisions-and-payment-bonds/ and https://floridaconstru.wpengine.com/subcontractors-and-unjust-enrichment-claims/ and https://floridaconstru.wpengine.com/careful-drafting-of-pay-when-paid-provisions/.

Sometimes, there is not a payment bond in place and the subcontractor is forced to assert a direct claim against the contractor. Or, perhaps, the subcontractor may not have properly preserved its lien / bond rights and its best recourse is to assert a claim against the contractor. In this situation, the contractor will be able to rely on the pay-when-paid provision in its subcontract assuming it can prove that it was not paid for the subcontractor’s work that is the subject of the dispute. This defense, however, may not be absolute. There is a legal doctrine known as the “prevention of performance” doctrine.

Florida law provides:

“Under the doctrine of prevention of performance, one who prevents the happening of a condition precedent upon which his liability is made to depend, cannot avail himself of his own wrong and thereby be relieved of his responsibility to perform under the contract.” Florida Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Somerset Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 83 So.3d 850, 852, n.1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (internal quotation omitted).

This doctrine really has not been analyzed in the context of a pay-when-paid defense under Florida case law. Yet, now and again, a case outside of Florida addresses interesting points that are worthy of discussion.

In Moore Brothers Co. v. Brown & Root, Inc., 207 F.3d 717 (4th Cir. 2000), the Fourth Circuit (interpreting Virginia law) analyzed the prevention of performance doctrine in the context of a contractor raising the pay-when-paid defense. In this case, the contractor entered into a contract to build a private toll road in Virginia. (The contractor was also an equity partner in the ownership group.) During the drafting of the prime contract, several design issues were referenced that would result in additional payment to the contractor. One of those issues was changing the thickness of the pavement subbase material. There was strong uncertainly over the initial pavement design and it was anticipated that the thickness of the pavement subbase material would change. The construction lenders wanted to contain construction costs and insisted on certainty in determining the costs. The lenders did not want to authorize a prime contract that did not provide this certainty and the draft prime contract with examples of additional costs the lenders may have to fund did not sit well with them. To appease the lenders, the owner and the contractor agreed to remove examples of design changes or issues that would result in increased construction costs. The owner and contractor further assured the lenders that they did not anticipate substantial changes in the work (such as a change in the pavement subbase thickness). Of course, what the contractor and owner assured the lenders was not really what they believed because they anticipated a design change regarding the thickness of the pavement subbase material. Thus, the owner and contractor entered into a side agreement that was not shared with the lenders concerning the design changes / issues that would result in increased costs to the contractor.

The contractor then hired subcontractors to perform scopes of work relative to the road construction. The subcontracts contained pay-when-paid provisions. The contractor did not advise the subcontractors that design changes such as a potential change in the thickness of the pavement subbase material were hidden from the lenders and that such a change would likely not be funded by the lenders. The contractor did not seem as concerned with this because it had pay-when-paid language shifting the risk of nonpayment to the subcontractors (although the contractor did have a payment bond in place). Naturally, there was a design change that changed the thickness of the pavement subbase material and this work was performed by the subcontractors. A payment dispute originated in arbitration involving the owner, contractor, and subcontractors regarding this additional work. The arbitrator ruled that the owner must pay the contractor for this additional work and the contractor, after receiving payment, must pay the subcontractors. The owner did not pay so the contractor never paid the subcontractors contending that the pay-when-paid language does not contractually require it to pay.

Since the arbitration award was never paid, the subcontractors filed suit in federal district court which was appealed to the Fourth Circuit. Among other issues discussed in the case, the Fourth Circuit analyzed whether the contractor was required to pay the subcontractors for the additional work associated with the pavement subbase thickness in light of the pay-when-paid provision. The Fourth Circuit found that the trial court correctly applied the prevention of performance doctrine to hold the contractor responsible for the payment of the additional work. The Fourth Circuit agreed that the contractor could not rely on the pay-when-paid language in the subcontract because it was responsible for the non-payment or non-occurrence of the condition precedent (i.e., owner’s payment). Specifically, the contractor knew that the additional work would most likely need to be performed which is why this design change was called out in the draft prime agreement. However, because of lender issues, it removed this language from the final prime contract and assured the lenders that additional work was not anticipated. It then contemporaneously entered into a side agreement with the owner that was not shared with the lenders regarding the same anticipated additional work (that it assured the lenders it was not anticipating). The Fourth Circuit held:

“The prevention [of performance] doctrine does not require proof that the condition would have occurred ‘but for’ the wrongful conduct of the promisor; instead it only requires that the conduct have ‘contributed materially’ to the non-occurrence of the condition.” Moore Brothers, 207 F.3d at 725.

It is easy to see how the facts in this case as presented by the Fourth Circuit warrant the application of the “prevent of performance” doctrine. It is uncertain from this case what the lenders would have done if construction costs were increased to specifically cover the highly anticipated design change to the pavement subbase thickness or why this change was not funded through any contingency funds / line item in the loan (perhaps there was none because the lenders insisted on certainty with the costs). It is also uncertain what the lenders would have done (or what they did) regarding the submission of these additional work costs since the parties could not dispute that the work was additional contractual work. And, it is uncertain why the contractor did not obtain bids for the additional work from the subcontractors before hiring them and try to negotiate perhaps a more palatable cost knowing this additional work was likely going to occur. Even though the contractor appeared to try to appease the lenders so this project could move forward, it knew funding for the additional work would be a huge concern and it was not up front with its subcontractors regarding this potential lack of funding. Had it been up front with the subcontractors, perhaps this risk could have been specifically accounted for in the subcontract through specific language or better pricing that could have been presented to the lenders.

Notwithstanding, in the event a contractor raises a pay-when-paid defense, a subcontractor may be able to rebut this defense by arguing the “prevention of performance” doctrine, that being that the contractor caused the very non-occurrence of the payment and, therefore, should not be entitled to rely on this defense. Although this argument seems like a tough hurdle for the subcontractor since not all facts will be as egregious as the facts in this case, the contractor should still take steps to eliminate this argument by showing that it took steps to obtain payment from the owner. Subcontractors, on the other hand, that may not have bond / lien rights or want to pursue substantial claims for additional work against the contractor, may want to rely on this argument in furtherance of trying to get around the expected pay-when-paid defense.

MILLER ACT – CONSIDERATIONS INVOLVING SUBCONTRACTOR WHEN GOVERNMENT ASSESSES LIQUIDATED DAMAGES

Posted on February 22, 2014February 22, 2014 by Edward Garber

Prime contractors and subcontractors that work on federal construction projects often find themselves in the garden variety payment dispute dealing with (1) entitlement and liability for additional work and (2) project delays, especially when the government assesses liquidated damages. These issues can put the prime contractor in the undesirable position because it may not have been paid for the additional work items and the government may be assessing liquidated damages against the prime contractor for the delays.

The case of U.S. ex rel. W.W. Gay Mechanical Contractor, Inc. v. Walbridge Aldinger Co., 2013 WL 5859456 (11th Cir. 2013), illustrates this garden variety construction payment dispute scenario between a subcontractor and prime contractor on a delayed federal project. This case involves a subcontractor asserting a Miller Act payment bond claim (pursuant to 40 U.S.C. s. 3133) against the prime contractor’s surety for unpaid retainage and additional work items, as well as a breach of contract claim against the prime contractor for the same amounts. The prime contractor argued that it was entitled to withhold payment from the subcontractor due to delays to the completion date of the project that the subcontractor was responsible for causing. In particular, the prime contractor was being assessed sizable liquidated damages from the government (Navy) and although it was appealing the liquidated damages exposure through the Contract Disputes Act, it wanted to offset monies that were owed to the subcontractor based on its potential liquidated damages exposure. The prime contractor relied on subcontract provisions that contained that “time is of the essence” as to the subcontractor’s performance; that it was entitled to withhold sums from the subcontractor for its breach of contract; and that the subcontractor may be liable for liquidated damages and other damages for causing delays in the progress of the project.

At the trial court level, the district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the subcontractor finding that the subcontractor was entitled to payment for the retainage and additional work. Attorneys‘ fees were also granted to the subcontractor.

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit first discussed the purpose of the Miller Act and what a party needs to do to assert a Miller Act claim:

“The MIller Act protects subcontractors on federal projects by requiring contractors to post a bond to ensure payment to their subcontractors. To establish a Miller claim, W.W. Gay [subcontractor] must show (1) that it supplied labor and materials for work in the particular contract at issue; (2) that it is unpaid; (3) that it had a good faith belief that the materials were for the specified work; and (4) that jurisdictional requisites are met.” Walbridge Aldinger, 2013 WL at *1 (internal citations omitted).

Irrespective of favorable contractual provisions, the Eleventh Circuit held that the prime contractor “has failed to produce more than a ‘scintilla of evidence’ that W.W. Gay’s alleged delays resulted in the liquidated damages assessed against it by the Navy.” Walbridge Aldinger, 2013 WL at *2. Although the prime contractor tried to rely on deposition testimony that correspondence was sent to the subcontractor regarding the delays, this was not proof that the subcontractor actually caused delays to the project. This is especially true because the prime contractor was also arguing that the Navy caused delays to the project, i.e., the likely reason it was appealing the liquidated damages assessment.

The Eleventh Circuit further analyzed the issue of whether the subcontractor was entitled to monies for additional work pertaining to re-routing an underground storm pipe. The Court found that the record reflected that when the subcontractor learned of the issue regarding the planned location of the storm pipe it notified the prime contractor and the prime contractor directed the subcontractor to install the pipe in the planned location. The prime contractor then waited six weeks before sending a request for information to the government and the government responded telling the prime contractor to re-route the pipe. The prime contractor then directed the subcontractor to re-route the pipe (through the constructive change directive provision or CCD provision in the subcontract). The subcontractor then notified the prime contractor that it expects to get paid for this work and the prime contractor indicated it would pay. The government, however, only paid for a fraction of the additional work item. For this reason, the prime contractor argued that even though it directed the extra work it was only responsible for paying the subcontractor the amount allowed by “applicable provisions” of the prime contract (agreement with the government). In support of this, the prime contractor relied on the following language in its subcontract:

“Contractor may, without invalidating the Subcontract or any bond given hereunder, order extra and/or additional work, deletions, or other modifications to the Work, such changes to be effective only upon written order of Contractor. Any adjustment to the Subcontract Price or the time for completion of the Work shall be made in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Agreement between Owner and Contractor and the lump sum or unit prices set forth in Exhibit E or, in the absence of such provisions on an agreed, equitable basis. Notwithstanding any inability to agree upon any adjustment or the basis for an adjustment, Subcontractor shall, if directed by Contractor, nevertheless proceed in accordance with the order, and the Subcontract shall be adjusted as reasonably determined by the Contractor with any dispute to be resolved after the completion of the Work. If requested by the Contractor, the Subcontractor shall perform extra work on a time and material basis, and the Subcontract price shall be adjusted based on time records and materials checked by the Contractor on a daily basis.”

Yet, the prime contractor never advised what “applicable provisions” of the prime contract supported its argument. Thus, the Eleventh Circuit maintained that the subcontractor should be entitled to be paid for its work on a time and materials basis based on time sheets per the very provision the prime contractor relied upon. Notably, the Eleventh Circuit minimized the significance of the contractual language by stating:

“Even assuming that the interpretation of the contract raises issues of material fact, Walbridge is still liable, as the district court found, under the duty of good faith and fair dealing implied in all contracts. Walbridge ordered W.W. Gay to install the storm pipe despite the problem that W.W. Gay had promptly called to Walbridge’s attention; Walbridge then waited six weeks to ask the Navy for advice; and after W.W. Gay had already finished installing the pipe, Walbridge ordered W.W. Gay to reroute the pipe. W.W. Gay understandably insisted that it receive full compensation for its work, and Walbridge accepted, or at least manipulatively encouraged, this expectation. Moreover, the only reason that the Navy did not pay for W.W. Gay’s work is because of Walbridge’s initial error in judgment. Thus, Walbridge cannot now invoke the Navy’s refusal to pay to avoid its obligations to W.W. Gay.” Walbridge Aldinger, 2013 WL at *5.

CONSIDERATIONS:

It’s hard to play both sides of the fence. In this case, the prime contractor wanted to play both sides by arguing on one hand that the Navy (government) caused delays it was assessing liquidated damages for and on the other side arguing that the subcontractor caused delays. It takes more than “conjecture” or argument to establish an actual delay. If a party argues delay, it needs to prove the delay (to the critical path that contributed to the overall delay to the project’s schedule) and not just that it “may” have caused delay or that it “could” have caused the delay based on the outcome of the dispute with the government over the assessment of liquidated damages. If the prime contractor wants to employ this tactic, it should include a provision that would allow it and its surety to withhold sums for any potential delay, although unsupportable, if the government assesses liquidated damages until the government’s assessment of liquidated has been resolved and that all claims between the parties regarding such sums shall be stayed pending the resolution. Naturally, such a clause needs to be ironed out with much more specificity and thoroughly considered because there are pros and cons to the provision including whether such a provision would be enforceable against a Miller Act surety (considering suits against the surety must be filed within a year from the subcontractor’s final furnishing). Otherwise, playing both sides can be challenging unless the prime contractor is taking the position with supportable schedule analysis that the subcontractor actually caused delays to the critical path.

The entitlement to additional work items is a common dispute between subcontractors and prime contractors. Thus, it is important to ensure that there are good notice provisions in the subcontract and that the subcontract clearly specifies what a subcontractor needs to do to be entitled to additional work. In this case, the subcontractor did send notice and was directed to proceed with the work and maintained time sheets verifying its additional work amounts. Too often subcontractors do not keep track of such amounts on a time and materials basis as specified in the subcontract and/or fail to submit timely notice.

The Eleventh Circuit’s discussion of the implied obligation of good faith and fair dealing is an interesting discussion. The reason being is that it creates an argument that a subcontractor could be entitled to additional work items even if it did not truly comply with contractual provisions, especially if the subcontractor was directed to perform the work pursuant to a construction change directive or another provision.

For more information on the a Miller Act payment bond, please see https://floridaconstru.wpengine.com/522/ and https://floridaconstru.wpengine.com/an-argument-to-recover-attorneys-fees-against-a-miller-act-payment-bond/

MAKE SURE INDEMNIFICATION PROVISIONS CLEARLY REFLECT THE REQUIRED SCOPE OF THE INDEMNIFICATION

Posted on February 20, 2014February 20, 2014 by Edward Garber

Indemnification provisions are a vital component of construction contracts. Every construction contract (whether a prime contract, subcontract, professional services contract, etc.) should absolutely require that the party receiving compensation for performing a service to indemnify the party paying for that service (referred to as the indemnitee). No exception! Moreover, it is crucial that indemnification provisions are carefully drafted to not only comply with Florida law, but to eliminate any uncertainty regarding the scope of the indemnification. In other words, make sure the indemnification provision unequivocally reflects the scope of the indemnification that is sought and that the scope complies with Florida law.

In Florida, indemnification provisions for construction contracts are governed by Florida Statute s. 725.06, which is recited below. Also, please see https://floridaconstru.wpengine.com/buttoning-up-contractual-indemnification-language/ and https://floridaconstru.wpengine.com/the-scope-of-a-release-in-a-settlement-and-contractual-indemnification/ for more information on the application of this statute to ensure the indemnification provision, whether for a private or public project, complies with Florida law.

The recent Third District Court of Appeal decision in Royal Palm Hotel Property, LLC v. Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft, Inc., 2014 WL 444150 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014), albeit a non-construction dispute, exemplifies the significance of making sure the indemnification provision accurately reflects the scope of indemnification that the party receiving the indemnification (the indemnitee) truly wants or requires.

In this case, the indemnification provision read: “The Hotel agrees to indemnify and hold Lufthansa harmless from all liabilities, including damage to property or injury or death of persons, including Lufthansa property and Lufthansa personnel that may result from the negligence or wilful (sic) misconduct of the Hotel.”

The indemnification provision was between a hotel and an airline which had its employees stay at the hotel. In this personal injury action, the hotel was sued for negligence when a window fell out of a frame and injured a guest. Also, the airline was sued under the theory that it was vicariously liable for the negligence of its employee staying at the hotel. The issue was whether the hotel was required to indemnify the airline for the negligence of the airline and its employees staying at the hotel. However, a look at the indemnification clause above does not articulate that the hotel will be responsible for indemnifying and holding the airline harmless for the negligence of the airline or the airline’s employees. Rather, it says the hotel will indemnify the airline for its negligence or willful misconduct. This is a huge difference as the indemnification written is much narrower than the indemnification that the airline perhaps wanted.

Again, the airline was never sued for the hotel’s negligence. It was sued for the negligence of its employee staying at the hotel under a vicarious liability (respondeat superior) theory. While the airline prevailed in the underlying personal injury action, it wanted to recoup its defense costs against the hotel. The Third District construing the indemnification provision held that the provision was never kicked into effect because the hotel was not required to indemnify the airline for the negligence of the airline or its employee and the basis of the underlying claims against the airline related to the negligence of the airline’s employee.

The reason this case is worth discussing is because if an indemnitee wants an indemnification provision to cover its own negligence, the provision needs to clearly reflect this intent. Now, for construction contracts, an indemnitee should never negotiate an indemnification that covers it for its negligence without making sure the provision undoubtedly complies with Florida Statute s. 725.06. Otherwise, the indemnitee risks an unenforceable indemnification provision! In a nutshell, s. 725.06 provides that if an indemnification provision is going to indemnify an indemnitee for its negligence, the contract must contain a “monetary limitation on the extent of the indemnification that bears a reasonable commercial relationship to the contract and its part of the project specifications or bid documents, if any.”

Section 725.06

(1) Any portion of any agreement or contract for or in connection with, or any guarantee of or in connection with, any construction, alteration, repair, or demolition of a building, structure, appurtenance, or appliance, including moving and excavating associated therewith, between an owner of real property and an architect, engineer, general contractor, subcontractor, sub-subcontractor, or materialman or any combination thereof wherein any party referred to herein promises to indemnify or hold harmless the other party to the agreement, contract, or guarantee for liability for damages to persons or property caused in whole or in part by any act, omission, or default of the indemnitee arising from the contract or its performance, shall be void and unenforceable unless the contract contains a monetary limitation on the extent of the indemnification that bears a reasonable commercial relationship to the contract and is part of the project specifications or bid documents, if any. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the monetary limitation on the extent of the indemnification provided to the owner of real property by any party in privity of contract with such owner shall not be less than $1 million per occurrence, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. Indemnification provisions in any such agreements, contracts, or guarantees may not require that the indemnitor indemnify the indemnitee for damages to persons or property caused in whole or in part by any act, omission, or default of a party other than:

(a) The indemnitor;

(b) Any of the indemnitor’s contractors, subcontractors, sub-subcontractors, materialmen, or agents of any tier or their respective employees; or

(c) The indemnitee or its officers, directors, agents, or employees. However, such indemnification shall not include claims of, or damages resulting from, gross negligence, or willful, wanton or intentional misconduct of the indemnitee or its officers, directors, agents or employees, or for statutory violation or punitive damages except and to the extent the statutory violation or punitive damages are caused by or result from the acts or omissions of the indemnitor or any of the indemnitor’s contractors, subcontractors, sub-subcontractors, materialmen, or agents of any tier or their respective employees.

(2) A construction contract for a public agency or in connection with a public agency’s project may require a party to that contract to indemnify and hold harmless the other party to the contract, their officers and employees, from liabilities, damages, losses and costs, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees, to the extent caused by the negligence, recklessness, or intentional wrongful misconduct of the indemnifying party and persons employed or utilized by the indemnifying party in the performance of the construction contract.

(3) Except as specifically provided in subsection (2), a construction contract for a public agency or in connection with a public agency’s project may not require one party to indemnify, defend, or hold harmless the other party, its employees, officers, directors, or agents from any liability, damage, loss, claim, action, or proceeding, and any such contract provision is void as against public policy of this state.

(4) This section does not affect any contracts, agreements, or guarantees entered into before the effective date of this section or any renewals thereof.

WHEN A PUBLIC SOLICITATION GOES TERRIBLY WRONG

Posted on February 15, 2014February 15, 2014 by Edward Garber

The recent Northern District of Florida opinion of Community Maritime Park Associates, Inc. v. Maritime Park Partners, LLC, 2014 WL 415955 (N.D.Fla. 2014) is a case with complex facts that illustrates what can happen if a public contract is declared void as against public policy. It illustrates what can happen when a public solicitation goes terribly wrong! In this case, the outcome was disgorgement of all profits/benefits the public body paid to its master developer and design-builder.

A. Facts and the Consultants’ Competitive Negotiations Act

The public body filed suit against its master developer for fraud and rescission of a development contract (and design-build contract). The public body is a publicly funded non-profit corporation with a board appointed by the City of Pensacola tasked to manage city owned property for purposes of a project. It was looking for a master developer for its project to competitively award the development contract pursuant to Florida’s Consultants’ Competitive Negotiations Act (“CCNA”) set forth in Florida Statutes s. 287.055. (Notably, the CCNA governs a public body’s award of professional architectural and engineering services and design-build agreements.)

Without going into all of the specifics of the CCNA, it is a statute that requires two main steps for public bodyies to competitively award professional services: (1) competitive selection and (2) competitive negotiation.

Under the competitive selection step, the public body evaluates qualifications and performance data from bidders (typically, by sending out a Request for Qualifications) and typically requires presentations regarding the qualifications by no fewer than three firms. The public body then selects in order of preference no fewer than three firms that are qualified to perform the professional services it is seeking. As the CCNA states:

“In determining whether a firm is qualified, the agency shall consider such factors as the ability of professional personnel; whether a firm is a certified minority business enterprise; past performance; willingness to meet time and budget requirements; location; recent, current, and projected workloads of the firms; and the volume of work previously awarded to each firm by the agency, with the object of effecting an equitable distribution of contracts among qualified firms, provided such distribution does not violate the principle of selection of the most highly qualified firms. The agency may request, accept, and consider proposals for the compensation to be paid under the contract only during competitive negotiations….” Fla. Stat. s. 287.055(4).

Under the competitive negotiation step, the public body then starts competitive negotiations with its preferred–most qualified–professional. “Should the agency be unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with the firm considered to be the most qualified at a price the agency determines to be fair, competitive, and reasonable, negotiations with that firm must be formally terminated. The agency shall then undertake negotiations with the second most qualified firm.” Fla. Stat. s. 287.055(5).

Here, the public body submitted Request for Qualifications to potential master developers. After receiving qualifications and narrowing the list to four finalists, it submitted a Request for Proposals to the finalists getting their proposal for their concept for the development of the project. Land Capital, the entity it deemed the most qualified, submitted a proposal and put on a public presentation. Land Capital presented that it partnered in a joint venture with other real estate entities known as “Brass/Magi” and that Land Capital and Brass/Magi formed a specific development company, the defendant, to execute the development agreement with the public body. Land Capital was deemed to be the top-ranked developer and was, thus, the first entity the public body could engage in competitive negotiations with. During these competitive negotiations, Land Capital collapsed financially. When the public body became aware of this, it approached Land Capital and Brass/Magi represented that Brass/Magi was financially sound and there was no threat to the project. The public body went forward with the development agreement since its understanding was the defendant was a joint venture between Land Capital and Brass/Magi.

Pursuant to the proposed development agreement, the master developer (defendant) had the option of serving as the design-build contractor for an additional fee but it would need to be qualified as a design-build contractor on the date the development agreement was executed, although the design-build contract would be separately awarded. The master developer entity could not get bonding capacity to serve as the design-build contractor and had to team up with a general contractor to form a new construction company to serve as the general contractor. The public body then awarded the design-build contract to the defendant knowing the design-build contractor would be a joint venture and would not specifically be the defendant.

Then, after the development agreement was entered, the public body learned that Land Capital (the entity it deemed the most qualified) had in fact financially collapsed, that defendant was not a part of a Brass/Magi joint venture, and the defendant was a project-specific entity with no assets–a shell. For these reasons, the public body rescinded the contracts and filed suit, specifically to recoup the monies paid to the defendant.

B. The Court’s Ruling

The Northern District agreed concluded that a participant in a public procurement cannot gain an unfair competitive advantage by injecting material misrepresentations. “Having been chosen to negotiate in this statutory public procurement process based on qualifications, Land Capital and MPDP [master developer entity contracted] through their officers…had a continuing duty to disclose material information or withdraw if material qualifications were no longer met.” Community Maritime Park Associations, supra, at *14. Instead of complying with the continuing duty, Land Capital’s representatives misled the public body in order to enter into the contract. The Court, therefore, disgorged the entire development fee paid to the master developer irrespective of services that were rendered and the profit on the design-build contract. The only monies that were not disgorged were monies paid directly to third party subcontractors or other project professionals. (Notably, the public body wanted these monies repaid back too.)

C. Rumblings and Considerations

Look, there is no doubt that the master-developer (defendant) the public body hired did not meet the required qualifications. There is also no doubt that misrepresentations were made, although it is uncertain whether the misrepresentations were made in bad faith with the intent to deceive the public body. This case exemplifies:

“Where a competitive public contract was awarded in violation of a statute but in ‘apparent good faith, in an honest effort to pursue the requirements of competitive bidding statutes, and it is not shown that the contract as actually entered into is to the public’s disadvantage in any way, nor that it has been entered into with unlawful or fraudulent intent,’ the decision of whether to restrain payment to the contracting party–or, presumably the converse, whether to require complete disgorgement [of] payments received on the void contract–will rest with the court’s discretion in light of the equities involved.” Community Maritime Park Associates, supra, at *13.

And, considering the court found that the master development agreement with a shell-defendant was clearly not in the public’s advantage, disgorgement was the remedy. But, in light of the facts , the public body appeared part of the very problem it complained about and instead of there being potential accountability (perhaps there will be) disgorgement was the remedy.

For instance, the public body thought Land Capital (not a joint venture or the entity it hired) was the most qualified under the CCNA to enter into the development agreement. Even though Land Capital represented that it joint ventured with another entity to form the defendant that the public body contracted, common sense would seem to dictate that the entity was a single-purpose entity created for purposes of the project. Or, the public body should have known that the defendant was really not what it was looking for pursuant to its solicitation requirements. There was nothing that would have prevented the public body from asking to see the joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, or any other agreement demonstrating that the proposed master developer defendant was more than a sole purpose entity. If defendant was a joint venture with separate firms, there should be an agreement memorializing this. The fact remains that the public body found Land Capital its most qualified master developer–not any other entity! Then, during competitive negotiations, the public body learned that Land Capital collapsed financially. Instead of this being a pretty big red flag since, again, Land Capital was its preferred entity, it proceeded with the negotiations because the supposed other joint venture partner to the defendant represented it was financially sound. Well, the other joint venture partner should really have not even been in the equation because Land Capital was the entity it deemed the most qualified. Nevertheless, not only did the public body forge ahead with the negotiations and contract, but then allowed the defendant to serve as the design-builder provided it had the proper license at the time the development agreement was executed. But, it knew that the defendant was not licensed at the time (there was a delay in the execution so the defendant could obtain a license) and did not have the bonding capacity to provide public payment and performance bonds. So, instead of both of these raising potentially more red flags (since lack of bonding capacity would indicate that the defendant did not have the financial wherewithal that complied with the public body’s qualifications and lack of licensure may have indicated that it not have certain design build qualifications), the public body allowed the defendant to joint venture with a contractor that could provide the bonding capacity and then separately awarded the contract to the joint-venture design-builder.

The point is that neither party in this situation appears to be entirely blameless. But, because the public body utilizes public funds to competitively award a contract, what it could have done or should have done (the what ifs, could ifs, or should ifs) to potentially avoid this scenario become moot due to the perception and reality that it was bamboozled into paying public funds to a master developer that was neither qualified nor financially solvent pursuant to the public solicitation. Certainly, the master developer entity (defendant) should not get a windfall or benefit from misrepresentations that undermine the competitive solicitation process and disgorgement of its benefit (its profit and monies paid to it) make sense. Yet, now the public body is most likely left to re-start the public procurement process to locate a new qualified master developer and new design builder.

INSURANCE RISK ASSESSMENT: OCCURRENCE; DUTIES TO DEFEND/INDEMNIFY; COBLENTZ AGREEMENT

Posted on February 2, 2014February 2, 2014 by Edward Garber

Understanding when an “occurrence” under a CGL policy occurs is very, very important for purposes of submitting claims to insurers. It is important relating to its duties to defend and indemnify the insured.

The opinion in Trovillion Const. & Development, Inc. v. Mid-Contintent Cas. Co., 2014 WL 201678 (M.D.Fla. 2014), is a good opinion that discusses liability insurance considerations in a construction defect dispute including the triggering of liability insurance. In this case, a general contractor built a condominium over a multi-year period. Construction commenced in 2003. From 2003 through 2009, the contractor’s CGL carrier was Mid-Continent. Towards the end of 2009, it switched carriers to Endurance.

In 2009, the developer turned over control over the condominium to the unit owners. The association hired a company to perform an inspection of the condominium which revealed certain defects and building code violations (i.e., structural framing failure, organic growth, damage to interior finishes, etc.). The association sued the general contractor and developer in 2010 for violations of the building code, breach of statutory warranties, and deceptive and unfair trade practices.

The general contractor, as it should, notified and tendered the defense of its lawsuit to Mid-Continent and Endurance. Mid-Continent denied coverage and refused to participate in the defense. As a result, the contractor sued its insurer Mid-Continent for breach of contract and for a declaratory action arguing that Mid-Continent has a duty to defend and indemnify it in the association’s lawsuit. While this lawsuit was going on, the association’s lawsuit against the contractor was proceeding to trial. The contractor’s insurer, Endurance, was providing a defense. Right before trial, the association and the contractor (with the agreement of Endurance) entered into a consent judgment (known as a Coblentz agreement) for $1,800,000 which was entered in favor of the association against the contractor. The settlement provided that the association would not execute against the contractor. Following the court’s entry of the judgment, the contractor amended its complaint against Mid-Continent arguing that Mid-Continent is obligated to indemnify the contractor for the $1,800,000 judgment.

A Coblentz agreement is a settlement agreement between a third-party claimant and an insured to resolve a lawsuit where the insured’s liability insurer has denied coverage and its duty to defend. “Under Florida law, a party seeking recovery from an insurer under a Coblentz agreement must provide: (1) a wrongful refusal to defend; (2) a duty to indemnify; and (3) that the settlement was objectively reasonable and made in good faith.” Trovillion Const., supra, at *3. “In a traditional Coblentz agreement, the insured: (1) enters into a consent judgment establishing its liability and fixing damages; and (2) assigns any cause of action it has against its insurer to the claimant [in consideration of the claimant not executing on the judgment against the insured].” Id. at n.2.

In order to determine whether Mid-Continent had a duty to defend, the Court needed to determine what legal theory triggered the occurrence under the CGL policies. Numerous Florida courts have applied the manifestation theory meaning that the occurrence is triggered when the damage is discovered. There are courts that have applied the injury-in-fact theory meaning that the occurrence is triggered the moment there is actual damage irrespective of whether that damage is actually discovered. This is a significant difference and important for parties in liability-related disputes dealing with property damage to understand.

The underlying complaint the association asserted against the contractor alleged that the defects were causing ongoing damage and was silent as to the specific date the defects began to damage the condominium. But, the association’s inspection report after the developer turned the association over indicated that damages started to occur between the time construction commenced in 2003 and the 2009 inspection performed for the association. The report further alleged that the defects were not discovered until expert consultants were retained, i.e., in 2009. Mid-Continent argued that it had no duty to defend under the manifestation theory because the complaint alleged that the manifestation (when the defects were discovered) was 2009 at a point when it was no longer insuring the contractor. However, the court applied the injury-in-fact theory in this case. This meant that Mid-Continent’s policies were triggered because the triggering point was when actual damage started to occur, and not when it was actually discovered. Again, this is a crucial distinction–for this reason the Court found that Mid-Continent had a duty to defend.

Finding that a duty to defend existed, the Court’s next analysis was whether Mid-Continent had a duty to indemnify based on the actual coverage in the policies. An insurer’s duty to defend is much broader than an insurer’s duty to indemnify. Under a CGL policy with a “subcontractor” exception to the “your work” exclusion, a contractor’s insurer is not liable for the defective work caused by a subcontractor, but it is liable for the repairing the damage caused by the subcontractor’s defective work. (See the “subcontractor” exception to the “your work” exclusion in the CGL policy.)

Interestingly, in this case, of the six annual policies Mid-Continent issued between 2003-2009, only one policy contained the “subcontractor” exception to the “your work” exclusion. The other policies, through endorsement, eliminated the “subcontractor” exception. Without the “subcontractor” exception to the “your work” exclusion in CGL policies, the insurer is able to exclude coverage for damage arising from a subcontractor’s defective work. But, with the “subcontractor” exception, the insurer is liable for damage caused by a subcontractor’s defective work. Stated differently, without the “subcontractor” exception, the contractor is probably not getting the CGL coverage it thinks it is getting or needs when constructing a project with the potential for claims down the road (such as condo projects).

Because only one policy contained the “subcontractor” exception, the contractor needed to establish when the property damage occurred. Obviously, it is in its best interest to have expert testimony establishing that the date the damage occurred / was occurring was with the policy period where there was a “subcontractor” exception to the “your work” exclusion. Otherwise, Mid-Continent had no duty to indemnify!

Furthermore, Mid-Continent argued that even if the contractor proved that damage occurred within the policy period with the “subcontractor” exception, the consent judgment did not allocate covered damage to uncovered damage. In other words, the consent judgment did not allocate the portion of the damage attributable to repairing damage caused by subcontractors’ defective work. “Florida law requires Trovillion [contractor], the party seeking recovery, to allocate the settlement amount between covered and uncovered claim [and] [i]nability to allocate precludes recovery.” Trovillion Const., supra, at *8.

The contractor, unfortunately, presented no evidence that it could apportion damages. Based on this issue, the Court ruled:

“Trovillion is not relieved of its duty to apportion damages, and its failure to make any effort to do so or to produce evidence suggesting it is capable of doing so is fatal to its indemnification claim. For that reason, and because Trovillion has failed to produce more than a scintilla of evidence suggesting that non-excluded property damage occurred at the condominium community during the MCC [Mid-Continent] policy periods, MCC’s motion for summary judgment is due to be granted….”

There are quite a few important take-aways from this case. First, know what argument needs to be made to trigger an occurrence under a liability policy. Whether it is the manifestation theory or injury-in-fact theory, consider both theories when presenting an argument and claim to a carrier. Second, know that an insurer’s duty to indemnify is much narrower than its duty to defend which is based on the allegations of the complaint. Third, if entering into a Coblentz agreement and corresponding consent judgment, include something that apportions damage between uncovered damage (a subcontractor’s defective work) and covered damage (damage caused by a subcontractor’s defective work). And, fourth, know whether your liability policy has a “subcontractor” exception to the “your work” exclusion or whether the carrier issued an endorsement that eliminated that exception. This “subcontractor” exception is important to contractors in Florida so if the endorsement that eliminated this exception was issued, make sure that you know your risks. Insurance is a critical part of risk assessment. Know your rights and appreciate your risks!

For more on construction defect insurance considerations, please see https://floridaconstru.wpengine.com/construct-defect-insurance-considerations/