Connecticut construction attorney Archives - Page 4 of 6 - Attorney Scott S. Orenstein

A Connecticut Court Grants Defendant’s Motion To Stay An Application To Discharge Mechanic’s Lien Pending Arbitration

As regular readers of this blog know, a mechanic’s lien provides a contractor with a security interest in the real property where its work was performed. Because, however, it is not the intent of the mechanic’s lien laws to restrict the free transfer of title of real property, there are two statutory procedures by which an owner may obtain a release of a mechanic’s lien. Specifically, the property owner may seek to substitute a surety bond for the lien or the property owner may seek an order discharging or reducing the lien. In CDO Properties, LLC v. Bogaert Construction Co., Inc., Docket No. CV 13-6018411 (JD of New London), the Court issued a decision staying the property owner’s application for discharge of a mechanic’s lien. Based upon this decision, an owner’s attempt to promptly discharge a lien may be thwarted or delayed by a court and an owner may be forced to live with a lien until after arbitration.

The decision was based upon the Connecticut General Statutes, which require the court to stay any legal proceeding if the dispute is subject to an agreement to arbitrate. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-409 states:

If any action for legal or equitable relief or other proceeding is brought by any party to a written agreement to arbitrate,

The Appeal of A Decision Discharging a Mechanic’s Lien Can Potentially Be Rendered Moot

As previously discussed in this blog, anyone that has furnished labor, materials, or services for the improvement of real property and has not been paid for its work may file a mechanic’s lien against the subject property. The owner of said property may then make application to the court to obtain a discharge of said mechanic’s lien. If the property owner prevails, the contractor that filed the mechanic’s lien has a statutory right to file an appeal.

As the Connecticut Supreme Court explained in Lichtman v. Beni, “an order entered pursuant to § 49–35b is a final judgment for the purposes of appeal.” Lichtman v. Beni, 280 Conn. 25, 32 (2006). Conn. Gen. Stat. §49–35c “requires that an appeal be taken within seven days of the court’s judgment, but provides an automatic stay during that period.” Id. However, a contractor seeking to appeal an order discharging its mechanic’s lien must also use to seven stay period to obtain an order preventing the owner from recording the court order discharging its mechanic’s lien.

If the contractor does not file an additional motion requesting that the court stay the order discharging the mechanic’s lien,

If Your Mechanic’s Lien is Discharged, You’ve Lost the Battle But Not the War

After a mechanic’s lien is filed, an owner has two options. The owner can wait because, if the lien is not foreclosed within a year, it evaporates by operation of law; or, the owner can file an application with the court seeking an order discharging the lien. If the owner files an application for discharge, the court will hold a hearing during which the contractor “shall first be required to establish that there is probable cause to sustain the validity of his lien,” and, if that occurs, the owner must “prove by clear and convincing evidence that the validity of the lien should not be sustained or the amount of the lien claimed is excessive and should be reduced.” Conn. Gen. Stat. §49-35b. Thus, if a lien is discharged, either there was not “probable cause” to sustain the lien or the owner was able to present “clear and convincing evidence” that the lien should be discharged. In either case, it is evidence that the contractor’s claim for the underlying debt was weak.

The question then is whether a contractor may commence its own action against the owner to the collects the amounts that had been secured by a mechanic’s lien that had been discharged after a hearing.

Construction Claims May Come From A Variety of Sources

Most construction claims arise out of the contractual relationship between the parties. Some arise out of claims of negligence. There are other situations where a contractor may be held liable for damages that stem from nothing more than having engaged in certain activities. Such claims are based upon the idea that “strict liability” applies to “ultra-hazardous activities.” In both situations, i.e. claims based upon negligence and claims based upon strict liability, the first party performs an act or omission that results in damage to the life or property of the second party. With a negligence claim, in order to be held liable, the first party must owe the second party a duty that is breached by the first party’s act or omission. For example, if a contractor is working on scaffolding above a sidewalk, the contractor must use reasonable care to make sure that nothing falls on the people below and, in that situation, the contractor would only be held liable if something fell due to the failure to exercise reasonable care and not solely because something fell. With a strict liability claim, however, all that is required is for the contractor to be held liable is for the contractor to be engaged in the activity that caused the harm.

Understanding Unabsorbed Home Office Overhead

It is readily apparent that – if a project is delayed – the contractor is losing money. The increased direct costs associated with the labor and equipment on site are obvious. The more complex question arises when considering the effect a delayed project has on a contractor’s recovery of its home office overhead, where “home office overhead” is defined as the cost of the contractor’s main office including, but not limited to, rent, utilities, executive and management salaries, staff, office equipment, office supplies, taxes, insurance, etc. Everyone intuitively understands that a delayed project increases such costs in the same manner that that delays increase the project’s direct costs but increases in home office overhead cannot be directly correlated to any one project because a contractor typically has several projects with overlapping schedules underway at any given time. Over the years, courts have attempted to determine the damages necessary “to compensate a contractor for its indirect costs that cannot be allocated to a particular contract for the period during which the government has made contractual performance impossible.” Charles G. Williams Constr., Inc. v. White, 326 F.3d 1376, 1380-1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “As a result, there are at least nine formulas that have been used,

Contractors Have Statutory Rights That They May Assert During Payment Disputes

A recurring problem in the construction industry is the failure of owners to issue timely payments. The problem not only affects contractors but also the subcontractors and/or suppliers who have to wait for the money to pass through the project’s general contractor and/or a higher tier subcontractor. Most contractors are aware of their right to secure payment of the monies owed through a mechanic’s lien (private work) or by filing a payment bond claim (public work or private work if applicable) but there are statutory rights of which contractors should be aware.

Connecticut General States § 42-158i defines a “construction contract” as “any contract for the construction, renovation or rehabilitation in this state on or after October 1, 1999, including any improvements to real property that are associated with such construction, renovation or rehabilitation, or any subcontract for construction, renovation or rehabilitation between an owner and a contractor, or between a contractor and a subcontractor or subcontractors, or between a subcontractor and any other subcontractor” but excludes contracts between a contractor and any local, state, or federal government, and it excludes contracts for building residential structures with less than 4 units. Id.

According to § 42-158i,

After Nine Years, There is Still Ambiguity in The State’s Prequalification Program

On October 1, 2004, acting through its Department of Administrative Services (“DAS”), the State of Connecticut implemented a prequalification program for all contractors bidding on certain public projects. 2003 Ct. ALS 215, 1. Specifically, “[t]he DAS Contractor Prequalification Program (C.G.S §4a-100) [(the “Program”)] requires all contractors to prequalify before they can bid on a contract or perform work pursuant to a contract for the construction, reconstruction, alteration, remodeling, repair or demolition of any public building or any other public work by the state or a municipality, estimated to cost more than $500,000 and which is funded in whole or in part with state funds, except a public highway or bridge project or any other construction project administered by the Department of Transportation.” DAS website, http://www.das.state.ct.us/cr1.aspx?page=10. On October 1, 2007, the Program was expanded to apply to subcontractors whose contract exceeded $500,000. http://www.das.state.ct.us/fp1.aspx?page=111. Still, questions remain as to whether an apparent low bid submitted by a DAS prequalified contractor may be rejected by a public owner and/or its construction manager and the information that a bidder may have to submit to be awarded a project can be unduly burdensome and repetitive.

According to DAS,

Recent OCIP Decision Reminds Contractors About the Importance of Contract Language

In recent years, Owner Controlled Insurance Programs (“OCIP”) have become more prevalent in public and private construction projects. An OCIP “is a class of ‘wrap-up’ insurance that provides coverage for many construction project participants under one program.” Capstone Bldg. Corp. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 308 Conn. 760, 767 (Conn. 2013). Such programs typically include commercial general liability insurance and worker’s compensation insurance. In general, OCIPs reduce a project’s overall cost because the owner does not have to pay the multiple layers of duplicative administration associated with the general contractor and each subcontractor having its own insurance coverage. The general understanding is that the project owner benefits from the savings but a recent Superior Decision reminds us that contractual duties and obligations are derived from the plain language of the contract and not what may reasonably inferred.

In Elevator Serv. Co. v. Reg’l Scaffolding & Hoisting Co., 2013 Conn. Super. LEXIS 687 (Conn. Super. Ct. Mar. 27, 2013), Elevator Service Co., Inc. (“Elevator Service”) and Regional Saffolding & Hosting, Inc. (“Regional Scaffolding”) entered into an agreement pertaining to a project known as the Royal Bank of Scotland (the “Project”). The issue before the court was whether Elevator Service had to pass along to Regional Scaffolding a discount that it received through the subject project’s OCIP.

A Cautionary Tale for All Subcontractors

The Connecticut Appellate Court recently handed down a decision that should have all subcontractors carefully reviewing their subcontracts. In Suntech of Connecticut, Inc. v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 143 Conn. App. 581 (2013), Suntech of Connecticut, Inc. (“Suntech”) agreed to “provide glass doors, glass, glazing, an aluminum framing system, and a metal framing system” as a subcontractor on a state project. Id. As a result of an error in the plans and specifications, Suntech incurred substantial additional costs. Typically, when an error in the plans and specifications results in a contractor incurring additional costs, the contractor is entitled to a change order but that is not what occurred in this case.

The Suntech decision appears to go against two principles of Connecticut construction law. First, in Southern New England Contracting Co. v. State, 165 Conn. 644, the Connecticut Supreme Court issued a decision consistent with the Spearin doctrine which states that, because the contractor agrees to build the project in accordance with the plans and specifications, the contractor will not be held responsible for damages should the plans and specifications end up being defective. Second, while not conclusively determined,

Connecticut Statutes Provide Assistance with Receiving Prompt Payment on Public and Private Construction Projects

Under Connecticut law, an owner should pay its general contractor within 30 days of having received the general contractor’s application for payment; the general contractor, in turn, is required to pay its subcontractors and suppliers within 30 days of having received payment from the owner; and the subcontractors should then pay their sub-contractors and suppliers within 30 days of having received payment from the general contractor and so on down the line. See Gen. Stat. § 49-41a and Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-158j.

The provisions in § 49-41a and § 42-158j are substantially similar except that:

1.) Only private owners are required to make payment to their general contractors within a specified number of days after receiving an application for payment; and

2.) The statute only applies to public projects for which a payment bond is required, which is any public works project whose contract amount exceeds $100,000.

Both statutes also have similar enforcement procedures. Either a subcontractor on a public project to which the statute applies or general contractors and subcontractors on a private project can make demand for payment by way of registered or certified mail and, within 10 days,

Categories

Recent Posts