constructon managner Archives - Attorney Scott S. Orenstein

The Importance of Reading and Understanding Your Construction Contract

Everyone knows that they ought to eat right and exercise; yet, far too few of us do it. Similarly, proper construction contract management requires a contractor to thoroughly understand their contracts but many fail to do so. Of course, the reason that contractors are often largely ignored are understandable. Most construction contracts have the same substantive provisions with which contractors are already familiar; the specific requirements for any given project will be discussed at the preconstruction meeting; and the more specific details of any contract tend to only really matter in the rare occasions that the parties end up in a dispute they cannot resolve on their own. However, the few instances that result in litigation may make having proper practices in place for every project worthwhile.

On a positive note, most contractors that I encounter are now reading their contracts before signing them, as opposed to only reading them after a problem develops. As obvious as this may sound, actually taking the time to thoroughly read a contract before a project begins is the only way to be certain that you will fully comply with all your obligations. In addition, reading a contract before signing can prevent a contractor from experiencing an unfortunate surprise.

Basing a Claim on the Total Cost Approach is Likely Throwing Good Money After Bad

Construction projects never go completely as planned. Construction managers, general contractors, subcontractors and suppliers all realize that changes in the work may be required for any number of reasons. For example, an area of the site may not become available due to the lack of an easement; there may be poor communication and/or coordination between trades; plans and/or specifications may contain certain deficiencies; critical shipments may be delayed; or, as allowed by most construction contracts, the owner simply may make design changes after the commencement of the work. One or more of the foregoing situations arises on almost every project. As a result, it is expected that construction schedules will be periodically updated during a project to address where the actual performance of the work was not completed in accordance with the original schedule.

Schedule revisions are so commonplace that some specifications require construction schedules to be updated on a monthly basis with two or three-week “look aheads” provided in between schedule revisions. The goal is not to complete the work in accordance with some original plan that Nostradamus would not be able to accurately create. The goal is to complete the work by the completion date no matter what problems arise.

A Recent Supreme Court Decision Found an Owner of a Construction Company Personally Liable to the Owners of a Project

As most people are aware, one of the benefits of doing business as a corporation or limited liability company is that, generally speaking, the owners of the company cannot be held personally liable for the company’s debts. The exception to that general rule is that a court may pierce the corporate veil and hold the company owners personally liable if the company owners are found to have improperly used the corporate form, or have used the corporate form to commit wrongful acts. Nonetheless, even a cursory of the caselaw indicates that plaintiffs do not often prevail when they are attempting to pierce the corporate veil.

The statement of the law with regard to piercing the corporate view is quite simple. In All Phase Builders, LLC v. New City Rests., 2011 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1793, *20-21, 2011 WL 3483368 (Conn. Super. Ct. July 12, 2011), the court ruled:

“In order to pierce the corporate veil, a plaintiff must plead and prove that the corporate shield can be pierced under either the instrumentality rule or the identity rule. The instrumentality rule requires… proof of three elements: (1) Control …; (2) that such control must have been used by the defendant to commit fraud or wrong …;

Contractual Time Limits for Providing Notice of Claim Must be Taken Seriously

The Connecticut Appellate Court recently issued a decision that should cause every contractor some concern. In J. WM. Foley Inc. v. United Illuminating Co., 158 Conn. App. 27 (Conn.App. 2015), the Appellate Court upheld a decision that denied a contractor’s $4.7 million delay claim because the contractor did not provide proper notice of the claim within the 10 days required by the contract. The case is disconcerting because the court’s decision appears to be based upon the contractor’s failure to strictly comply with the contract’s notice provision. There is no discussion indicating that the owner was harmed or prejudiced by the delay in receiving notice of the claim. Moreover, the decision acknowledges that the contractor had provided the owner with notice of events giving rise to the claim. In fact, despite denying the delay claim, the trial court awarded the plaintiff over one million dollars for its direct costs, which arose out of the same facts as the delay claim.

The project underlying the dispute in J. WM. Foley Inc. was the construction of a utility pipeline. The parties’ agreement stated that the contractor was expected to encounter subsurface obstructions and that the contractor would be entitled to additional compensation associated with same.

An Explanation of The Home Improvement Act’s Licensed Contractor Exception

Chapter 400 of the Connecticut General Statutes is known as the Home Improvement Act. “The purpose of the Home Improvement Act is to ensure that home improvements are performed by qualified people.” Santa Fuel, Inc. v. Varga, 77 Conn.App. 474, 495 (Conn.App.,2003). A “[h]ome improvement contract” means an agreement between a contractor and an owner for the performance of a home improvement.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-419. As a general rule, a home improvement contract is not enforceable against a homeowner unless the contract complies with the writing requirements of the Home Improvement Act. Laser Contracting, LLC v. Torrance Family Ltd. Partnership, 108 Conn.App. 222, 226, (Conn.App.,2008).

The Home Improvement Act serves a valid purpose but may be heavy handed in its application. In holding that the failure to comply with the statutory requirements for a home improvement contract bars all recovery, including claims sounding in implied contract and unjust enrichment, the Connecticut Supreme Court said the following:

We recognize that our decision may lead to a harsh result where a contractor in good faith but in ignorance of the law performs valuable home improvements without complying with § 20-429.

You Should (Almost) Never Request a Jury for a Construction Case

Construction Contract disputes are complicated legal matters. Both sides usually have valid points to make. The winner is determined by the application of relatively complex facts to the law. Such cases often involve information beyond the knowledge and understanding of the average juror. Although it is true that most judges do not have a construction background either, judges have likely heard a prior construction case; and, as trained jurists, have a good understanding of the legal arguments that are being raised. In addition, judges are being paid to pay attention to your case. Conversely, the average juror has no understanding of construction or the law; typically does not want to be serving as a juror; and is missing out on a day’s pay. In light of the foregoing, I almost never recommend that my clients request a jury.

There is one area, however, where choosing a jury may be the right choice. Until relatively recently, it was understood that a contractor had no claim for damages arising out of a bid protest. See Lawrence Brunoli, Inc. v. Town of Branford, 247 Conn. 407, 412 (1999) (holding that the only remedy to be afforded unsuccessful bidders under the municipal bidding statutes is injunctive relief);

Scott Orenstein
06.01.2013
Bid Protest, Connecticut Construction Law, Connecticut construction lawyer, Construction Attorney, Construction Law, Public Owner

Pending Legislation Concerning Mechanic’s Liens

Right now, the Connecticut Legislature is considering Proposed Bill No. 5682 (the “Proposed Act”), which states as its purpose “[t]o establish a process for the holder of a mechanic’s lien to establish priority for the lien effective upon the filing of a ‘Notice of Commencement of Work’ with the town clerk for recording with deeds of land.” The text of the Proposed Act states, however, that the lienor must be an architect and that the lienor’s priority is established upon the date of filing. Such language raises many questions.

The “priority” of a mechanic’s lien pertains to where the mechanic’s lien stands in line with regard to the other claims against a property such as mortgages and other interest should the property go into foreclosure. Presently, the priority of a mechanic’s lien relates back to the first date that the lienor, i.e. the person filing the mechanic’s lien, worked on the project. There is some logic in creating a separate statute for design professionals because – unlike an excavation contractor – no one can see when a design professional starts work but, if that were the reason for the change, why does the Proposed Act only pertain to architects and not engineers as well.

Public Owners Cannot Arbitrarily Award Contracts

Successfully protesting the award of a public construction contract is a very difficult. Under the public bidding laws, an unsuccessful bidder cannot obtain a monetary award against a public owner and its only recourse is to seek stop the public owner from awarding the contract to another bidder. The courts, however, will not stop a public owner from rejecting an apparent low bid and awarding the contract to another bidder unless the public owner engaged in fraud, favoritism or corruption.

For years, the public bidding laws protected the public owner’s ability to make any decision it deemed to be in its best interest provided it acted in good faith. As indicated in another post, that protection ended when the Connecticut Supreme Court held that it was possible for an unsuccessful bidder to obtain a monetary judgment against a public owner if the claim was based upon a cause of action that did not rely upon the public bidding laws.

More recently, a Connecticut Superior Court determined that a public owner can be held liable for money damages if it completely circumvents the public bidding laws. In CTTFB, Inc. v. City of Bridgeport, the court refused to overturn a jury verdict that awarded the plaintiff damages after determining that the City violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Scott Orenstein
03.03.2012
Construction Law, Construction Manager, Contract Law, Public Owner

Categories

Recent Posts