“TIME IS MONEY!” IN CONSTRUCTION AND THIS IS WHY THERE IS A LIQUIDATED DAMAGES PROVISION

Posted on January 15, 2022January 16, 2022 by Edward Garber

In construction, the adage “Time is Money!” rings true for all parties involved on a project. This includes an owner of a project that wants a project completed on time, i.e., by a substantial completion date. While substantial completion is often defined as when an owner can use a project for its intended purpose, this intended purpose typically equates to beneficial occupancy (in new construction) and other factors as identified in the contract.

The best mechanism for an owner to reinforce time and the substantial completion date is through a liquidated damages provision (also known as an LD provision) that includes a daily monetary rate for each day of delay to the substantial completion date.

A liquidated damages provision is not designed, and should NEVER be designed, to serve as a penalty because then it would be unenforceable. Instead, it should be designed to reasonably compensate an owner for delay to the substantial completion date that cannot be ascertained with any reasonable degree of certainty at the time the contract is being negotiated and executed. (Liquidated damages are MUCH easier to prove than actual damages an owner may incur down the road.) As an owner, you don’t really want to assess liquidated damages because that means the project is not substantially completed on time. And, in reality, a timely completed and performing project should always be better and more profitable than a late and underperforming project. However, without the liquidated damages provision, there isn’t a great way to hold a contractor’s feet to the fire with respect to the substantial completion date.

There are numerous ways to equitably craft a liquidated damages provision if it is a negotiated provision (like in private projects). It can be based on project phases or milestones. It can be based on one substantial completion date. It can include a grace period. It can include gradual increases in the daily rate based on certain time periods associated with delay. It can be capped at a certain amount to cap the exposure. The bottom line is that it is a risk that gets factored into the contract and substantial completion date to emphasize timely completion.

Many construction contracts will contain a mutual waiver of consequential damages provision. This provision may include specific examples of consequential damages. In other words, regardless of whether such examples truly constitute consequential damages, these damages examples are contractually mutually waived by the parties. Two examples commonly include loss of use damages and increased or additional financing damages. These two examples are categories that do go hand-in-hand with an untimely project. For instance, if a project is late, the owner cannot use the project by the substantial completion date and will have increased and/or additional financing costs. Without a liquidated damages provision, and with a mutual waiver of consequential damages provision, an owner may be sh*t out of luck with recovering delay damages for a delayed project because primary actual delay damages they could prove have been waived. (Thus, there is nothing holding the contractor’s feet to the fire regarding the substantial completion date.) Hence, if you are going to negotiate having no liquidated damages provision, be mindful of the mutual waiver of consequential damages provision and what you may be conceding.

This is important: simply because there is a liquidated damages provision does not mean a contractor should unilaterally be exposed to liquidated damages for a delayed project. There may be legitimate excusable delay that needs to get factored in including excusable compensable delay meaning the contractor is owed its own delay damages. There could be concurrent delay that needs to get factored in. While an owner may not accept a contractor’s request for additional time or claimed excusable or concurrent delay, this does not mean a contractor is just going to cave when it comes to an owner’s assessment and withholding of sums associated with liquidated damages. Most contractors are not going to unless it is irrefutable that the delay to substantial completion was caused by them (more specifically, a trade).

A contractor agreeing to a liquidated damages provision needs to make sure that it flows the risk downstream to trades that may cause the delay. A contractor still needs to prove the trade caused the delay, but the contractor must flow-down that risk. If a trade is unwilling to assume that risk, that needs to be considered by the contractor. In any event, the contractor cannot agree that the trade is not liable for any delay because the risk the contractor has assumed is not transferred to a trade that may cause that risk meaning there is nothing that holds that trade’s feet to the fire.

A liquidated damages provision is neither uncommon nor unreasonable. It is a risk, oftentimes negotiated on private jobs but maybe not the case on public jobs, that is factored in at the onset of any project. It is a risk that cannot be overlooked but is the risk designed to best maximize the emphasis on time is of the essence as to the substantial completion date.

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.

MEASURE OF DAMAGES FOR A CHATTEL INCLUDING LOSS OF USE

Posted on October 10, 2020October 10, 2020 by Edward Garber

In a non-construction case, but an interesting case nonetheless, the Second District Court of Appeals talks about the measure of damages when dealing with chattel (property) including loss of use damages. Chattel, you say? While certainly not a word used in everyday language, a chattel is “an item of tangible movable or immovable property except real estate and things (such as buildings) connected with real property.” Equipment, machinery, personal items, furniture, etc. can be considered chattel.

With respect to the measure of damages for a chattel:

“Where a person is entitled to a judgment for harm to chattels not amounting to a total destruction in value,” the plaintiff may make an election out of two theories of recovery in addition to compensation for the loss of use. Badillo v. Hill, 570 So. 2d 1067, 1068 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (quoting Restatement of Torts § 928 (Am. Law Inst. 1939)). In addition to compensation for the loss of use, the plaintiff may elect either “the difference between the value of the chattel before the harm and the value after the harm” or “the reasonable cost of repairs or restoration where feasible, with due allowance for any difference between the original value and the value after repairs.” Id. (quoting Restatement of Torts § 928).

Sack v. WSW Rental of Sarasota, LLC, 45 Fla.L.Weekly D2306a (Fla. 2d DCA 2020).

Sack is a good example of a case dealing with the measure of damages with a chattel, here, an aircraft, including loss of use damages.

An owner rented its aircraft to a pilot. The pilot had an accident landing the aircraft causing damage to the aircraft and resulting in it resting in mud. The owner of the aircraft and its managing member sued the pilot for damage to the aircraft including loss of use of the aircraft. At trial, there was evidence that the aircraft incurred $219,106.81 in damages of which $40,000 remained unpaid (the balance being paid by insurance). Furthermore, there was evidence that the value of the aircraft before the accident was $550,000 and the value of the aircraft after repairs was $350,000. Thus, the appellate court held the measure of damages was $240,000 ($40,000 in unpaid repair costs + $200,000 associated with the diminution in value of the pre-accident aircraft to the repaired post-accident aircraft) plus loss of use damages. (Loss of use damages was awarded at trial of $165,000 calculated “by multiplying the reasonable hourly rate of renting the [a]ircraft ($1500) by the reasonable length of time [the owner] was without the [a]ircraft (11 months) by the reasonable number of hours per month [the owner] used the [a]ircraft (10).” Sack, supra.)

Of interest, loss of use damages were properly awarded “despite the fact that [the owner] testified that he had never chartered or rented another aircraft while this aircraft was out of use.” Sack, supra. Hence, the fact that the owner did not rent or charter another aircraft during the eleven months its aircraft was out of use did NOT preclude the owner from pursuing and being awarded loss of use damages. The Second District did, however, state that loss of use damages was properly awarded to the owner—the entity that owned the aircraft—but not the managing member that was not the registered owner.

WAIVER OF CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES AND LOSS OF USE DAMAGES (IN CONSTRUCTION / DESIGN DEFECT DISPUTE)

Posted on January 24, 2015January 24, 2015 by Edward Garber

In construction / design defect cases, a plaintiff (party proving defect) may assert a category of damages referred to as loss of use damages. Importantly, if your contract includes a waiver of consequential damages, these types of damages will not be recoverable. This is a significant issue to consider when entering into a construction contract, especially when you are the owner of the project, because if you do not want to waive a party you hire of consequential damages (such as loss of use damages), then you do not want to include a waiver of consequential damages in your contract or, at a minimum, you want to carve out exceptions to the waiver of consequential damages. Stated differently, this is an issue and risk you want to consider on the front end because even though construction / design defects are not anticipated, they do occur.

In a construction / design defect scenario, an owner’s consequential damages would generally be those damages unrelated to repairing the defect. For instance, loss of use of the property or lost rental income to an owner during the implementation of the repairs would be a consequential damage that would be waived by a waiver of consequential damages provision in an owner’s contract.

An example of a waiver of consequential damages provision found in the AIA A201 (general conditions of the construction contract between an owner and contractor) is as follows:

The Contractor and Owner waive Claims against each other for consequential damages arising out of or relating to this Contract. This mutual waiver includes

.1 damages incurred by the Owner for rental expenses, for losses of use, income, profit, financing, business and reputation, and for loss of management or employee productivity or of the services of such persons; and

.2 damages incurred by the Contractor for principal office expenses including the compensation of personnel stationed there, for losses of financing, business and reputation, and for loss of profit except anticipated profit arising directly from the Work.

This mutual waiver is applicable, without limitation, to all consequential damages due to either party’s termination in accordance with Article 14. Nothing contained in this Section 15.1.6 shall be deemed to preclude an award of liquidated damages, when applicable, in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents.

(See AIA A201-2007, s. 15.1.6)

Now, if loss of use damages are not contractually waived, the recent decision in Gonzalez v. Barrenechea, 40 Fla. L. Weekly D258a (Fla. 3d DCA 2015), illustrates how an owner can recover these types of damages when there is a construction / design defect. In this case, an owner sued its architect for design errors with the HVAC system in a newly constructed home. The owner was forced to engage a new design professional to address the deficiencies. It took the owner 20 months to repair the deficiencies during which the owner claimed he could not live (or use) his new house. Although the owner did not live in the house, there was evidence that the owner had some use of the house. For instance, the owner’s son slept in the house on an intermittent basis, the owner docked his boat at the dock behind the house, furniture was stored in the house, and the owner had cars parked in the garage.

Notwithstanding some use of the house, the owner put on testimony of an expert real estate appraiser that testified that the owner incurred lost rental value of approximately $15,500 per month during the 20-month repair period. The architect argued that this rate was flawed because the expert failed to factor in the use the owner had of the house during the 20-month period. The trial court agreed and denied the owner the loss of use damages.

The Third District Court reversed the trial court finding that the owner was entitled to loss of use damages:

Under Florida law, a homeowner that loses the use of a structure because of delay in its completion is entitled to damages for that lost use. Florida courts have held that “[d]amages for delay in construction are measured by the rental value of the building under construction during the period of delay.”

Gonzalez, supra, quoting Fisher Island Holdings, LLC v. Cohen, 983 So.2d 1203, 1204 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

Furthermore, because the architect failed to put on any evidence as to what the rental value of the house should have been during the 20-month period factoring in the owner’s use of the house during this period, there was nothing to refute the owner’s rental rate.

This case touches upon important take-aways:

Consider the risk of a waiver of consequential damages provision on the front end, especially if you are an owner. Likewise, if you are a contractor or design professional, you want to consider the risk of not having such a waiver of consequential damages.
Loss of use damages are recoverable in a construction / design defect case absent a contractual waiver of consequential damages.
An owner can introduce evidence of loss of use damages through an expert real estate appraiser that can testify as to the rental rate of the property during the repair period.
A contractor or design professional defending a loss of use damages claim should engage its own expert to counter an owner’s expert. In this case, if the design professional had an expert real estate appraiser, it would have put on evidence of a rental rate much lower than the $15,500 per month factoring in the owner’s limited use of the house during this time period.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LOST PROFIT AND LOSS OF USE DAMAGES

Posted on May 15, 2013May 15, 2013 by Edward Garber

Lost profits are a type of damages that are sometimes thrown around in a litigation. However, these damages are very difficult to establish and prove and they really require expert testimony. If the theory to recover lost profits is speculative, or the way the lost profits is measured is speculative, they will not be recoverable. (Typically, lost profits require a history of profits to measure against and/or establishing the profitability of another business using a substantially similar business model for comparative purposes). Lost profit damages have a difficult burden of proof in order to avoid the argument that they are speculative in nature.

Loss of use is another type of damages that is often confused with lost profit damages. Loss of use damages is generally the rental value of property / fair market value due to the loss of use of that property. See B&B Tree Service, Inc. v. Tampa Crane & Body, Inc., 38 Fla. L. Weekly, D970a (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) citing MD. Cas. Co. v. Fla. Produce Distribs., Inc., 498 So.2d 1383 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) and Meakin v. Dreier, 209 So.2d 252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968). Hypothetically speaking, this type of damage can come into play if an owner is trying to recoup the rental value of units / fair market value of units that are out of service due to a defect, i.e., water intrusion problem.

There is a better argument for an owner under Florida caselaw to testify as to loss of use damages than lost profits, although with both types of damages, a qualified expert is preferential. “An owner is qualified to testify to the value of his property based on a presumed familiarity with the characteristics of the property, knowledge or acquaintance with its uses and purposes, and experience dealing with it….An owner must be shown to have knowledge regarding the property and its value sufficient to qualify him.” B&B Tree Service quoting Craig v. Craig, 982 So.2d, 724, 729 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (internal quotations omitted). The key is the owner’s familiarity with the property and value to support his opinion testimony regarding loss of use damages.

Understanding the differences between lost profit damages and loss of use damages, as well as the ways to prove such damages, is important if these are damages a party is looking to recover. Not understanding the burdens of proof for these types of damages can be fatal to recovery or can lead a party to an unrealistic method of thinking during the course of a case and prevent the party from entertaining reasonable settlement offers.

SUPPORTING CONSTRUCTION DEFECT DAMAGES WITH AN ESTIMATE

Posted on April 25, 2013April 25, 2013 by Edward Garber

One of the issues in construction defect disputes is whether the owner can prove damages with an estimate, which is often the case. Recently, in Kritikos v. John T. Anderson d/b/a Anderson Builders, et al., 38 Fla. L. Weekly D931a (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), the Fourth District Court of Appeals confirmed that an estimate as to the costs to repair construction defects can support a plaintiff’s (owner) damages. In other words, the plaintiff does not actually have to incur the costs to repair in order to be entitled to recover damages to correct a construction defect.

In this case, the contractor recorded a construction lien. The owner asserted, as a defense, that it is entitled to set-off the amount of the lien due to construction defects and delay-related damages. (The owner in this case ended up terminating the contractor when the project was substantially over budget and behind schedule.) It was the owner’s position that the defective work was subject to a design change so the measure of damages needed to be based on an estimate of what it would cost to complete the work (i.e., repair the defects) according to the original design / contract. The owner’s argument, as supported by the Fourth District, was based on precedent discussing an owner’s measure of damages when there is a construction defect, particularly the Florida Supreme Court decision of Grossman Holding Limited v. Hourihan, 414 So.2d 1037 (Fla. 1982) and the Second District Court of Appeals’ decision of Temple Beth Shalom & Jewish Center, Inc. v. Thyne Construction Corp., 399 So.2d 525 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Both the cases of Grossman and Temple Beth Shalom maintain that the measure of damages when dealing with construction defects / unfinished construction contract is the reasonable cost to complete / repair per the original design / contract provided this does not result in economic waste. Kritikos, supra.

The key is that whether using an estimate or actual costs to support damages from a construction defect, the measure of damages is the reasonable cost to complete per the original design / contract (versus a subsequent and better design to repair the defects) provided that the repair costs do not amount to economic waste.

Interestingly, this case also discussed the owner’s set-off for delay damages. It is uncertain in this case whether the owner utilized any expert to establish delay damages, which is often and properly the case, or how the owner specifically presented the delay damages (as there is no discussion that there was a liquidated damages provision in the contract). The Fourth District simply stated: “Delay damages were properly presented to the jury. By their very nature, delay damages may not be subject to exact calculation, making the owner’s opinion of the value of his loss of use of his property admissible and relevant.” Kritikos, supra. Based on this limited statement, it would seem that these damages are not referring to liquidated damages or delays to the critical path of a construction schedule, but rather an owner (without any expert testimony) testifying as to “loss of use damages,” i.e., an owner testifying that due to the circumstances of the case, he/she was damaged by being not being able to utilize his residence. But, it is uncertain what the owner did to support these damages.

For more information on loss of use damages, please see: https://floridaconstru.wpengine.com/the-difference-between-lost-profit-and-loss-of-use-damages/