Illinois Construction Law Blog : Illinois Construction Lawyer & Attorney : Foran Glennon Palandech & Ponzi Law Firm : Chicago IL

 

You may recall our discussion of the Second District’s decision in Artisan Design Build, Inc., v. Bilstrom, in which the Second District was faced with the same decision as the other districts have been faced with… what, if anything, does a contractor’s failure to comply with the Act mean for its claims against the homeowner?

The Second District interpreted the Act to mean that the contractor’s failure to provide the consumer with the brochure does NOT remove the contractor’s right to recover in either equity (quantum meruit) or law (breach of contract, mechanic’s lien).

“To hold that a failure to provide a consumer with the brochure allows the consumer to defeat all legal and equitable claims by the contractor would lead to mischief and a result the legislature could not have intended.”

In reaching this conclusion, the Court said it was looking to legislative intent, which is a phrase and methodology addressed in many of the cases involving this Act. However, the Court attempted to discover the legislative intent through reading the “plain language” of the statute but does not examine what the legislature had to say about the bill in debate or committee.

In Roberts d/b/a Roberts Cleaning, Maintenance and More v. Adkins, the Third District has now added its voice to the discussion and disagreed with the Second District. In, Roberts a contractor sued to enforce a mechanic’s lien and the homeowner asserted, as an affirmative defense, that the contractor violated the Home Repair Act by failing to provide a consumer rights brochure or a written agreement. The Court determined that the failure to obtain a written contract was a violation of the Home Repair Act and further determined that, “[W]hen a contract does not comply with the Act, it is invalid and cannot form the basis of a breach of contract action or an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien.”

Stay tuned for further discussions regarding SB 2540, introduced by Senator Wilhelmi to address at least part of the confusion regarding the remedy associated with the Home Repair Act. The proposed amendment will entirely replace Section 30 of the Act to clarify and more accurately identify the remedies available to private parties under the Act.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 Maybe…maybe not. Typically, a party will invoke an indemnity provision to seek protection from claims made by some third party. 

However, consider a situation where an owner files suit against its architect alleging certain errors and omissions. In the Complaint, the owner cites the indemnity provision contained in the Owner-Architect Agreement and alleges that it is entitled to damages associated with the retention of experts to investigate the claimed defects and attorneys’ fees and expenses to prosecute the lawsuit against the architect. 

 

Is the owner’s indemnity claim viable? Not surprisingly, the answer depends on the particular language of the indemnity provision. In Illinois, courts interpret indemnification agreements like any other contract clause – a court must give effect to the intention of the parties as determined from the language of the agreement as a whole. See Zadak v. Cannon, 59 Ill.2d 118, 319 N.E.2d 469 (1974) and McRaith v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 391 Ill. App. 3d 565, 577-78, 909 N.E.2d 310 (1^st Dist. 2009).

 

Recently, we successfully defeated an indemnity claim similar to the hypothetical above. Essentially, the owner was seeking indemnification from its own claim against the architect. In the case against our client, the Owner-Architect Agreement contained the following indemnification provision:

 

Notwithstanding any other terms and conditions stated herein, including any obligations regarding insurance coverage, Architect agrees to defend, indemnify, keep, save and hold harmless fully the Owner, its agents, officials and employees, against all claims, suits or judgments, costs or expenses, including attorneys’ reasonable fees, that may be based on or the result of any error, omission, negligence, or any willful or intentionally tortious conduct of Architect or of any person employed or engaged by Architect to perform Services under this Agreement. 

 

The Architect shall promptly provide to the Owner copies of such notices as it may receive of any claims, actions or suits as may be given or filed in connection with Architect’s performance or the performance of any person or entity employed or engaged by Architect to perform Services under this Agreement.

 

In response to the Owner’s Complaint, we filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the Owner’s indemnity claim does not exist in the absence of a claim or judgment against the Owner. To support this argument, we cited Open Kitchens, Inc. v. Gullo International Development Corp., 126 Ill. App. 3d 62, 466 N.E.2d 1313 (1^st Dist. 1984). In Open Kitchens, the indemnity clause in the contract between the plaintiff and Gullo provided:

 

To the extent permitted by law, [Gullo] shall indemnify and hold harmless the [plaintiff] and their [sic] agents and employees from and against all claims, damages, losses, expenses, liabilities, and demands, including attorneys' fees, of whatsoever kind or nature, arising out of, resulting from or connected with the performance of the Work by the Contractor or any Subcontractor for and in behalf of the [plaintiff] or Architects. The Contractor shall defend at its own expense, any actions based thereon and shall pay all attorneys' fees, costs and other expenses arising therefrom.

 

Open Kitchens, Inc. v. Gullo International Development Corp., 126 Ill. App. 3d 62, 63-64, 466 N.E.2d 1313 (1^st Dist. 1984). 

 

The First District Court held that Gullo’s obligations under the indemnity provision did not arise until a third party asserted an action against Open Kitchens. Open Kitchens, Inc. v. Gullo International Development Corp., 126 Ill. App. 3d 62, 65, 466 N.E.2d 1313 (1^st Dist. 1984). The Court explained that in reading the indemnity provision as a whole, including the last portion of the subject provision requiring Gullo to defend actions arising out of its performance of the contract, the agreement indicated that the indemnity was only intended to apply to matters involving losses incurred by third parties. Id. 

 

As in Open Kitchens, where the indemnity provision contained language referencing actions by third parties, the indemnity provision contained in our client’s Owner-Architect Agreement refers to claims filed by others (i.e. “The Architect shall promptly provide to the Owner copies of such notices as it may receive of any claims, actions or suits as may be given or filed in connection with Architect’s performance”). Accordingly, we argued that the First District’s analysis in Open Kitchens applied and the language of our client’s indemnification clause indicates that the indemnity was only intended to apply in the context of losses incurred by third parties. 

 

The court agreed with our analysis and dismissed the Owner’s indemnity claim with prejudice. In her order, the judge relied on the language contained in the second paragraph of the indemnity provision stating that “this language immediately follows the indemnity language, making it clear the intent of the parties was to limit the indemnification to instances where third party claims are raised.” 

The lesson here is that not all indemnification provisions are created equal. The specific language must be reviewed so that risks are allocated as intended.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The district split that we identified in our posting about K. Miller Construction Company, Inc. v. McGinnis (1^st Dist. Doc. No. 1-08-2514) has another fracture. Last week, the Illinois Second District Appellate Court handed down its decision in Artisan Design Build, Inc. v. Bilstrom (2^nd Dist. Doc. No 2-08-0855).

In case you don’t feel like re-reading, the split is over the Illinois Home Repair and remodeling Act (815 ILCS 513/1 et seq.) and whether the failure of a contractor to comply with the act will strip the contractor of the right to recover monies that it is owed or whether the failure to comply with the act bars certain claims but not others. For instance, a contractor may be owed $10,000 for a job, but failed to provide a copy of the pamphlet required under the act – in the fourth district, this would be a bar to all claims for payment including mechanics liens, breach of contract claims, unjust enrichment claims and the like. In the first district, the failure to provide the pamphlet would not currently bar an unjust enrichment claim but would bar the mechanic’s lien claim and the breach of contract claim given that the act calls contracts made in contravention of its requirements “unlawful” and unlawful contracts are void. (see K. Miller above.)

Now comes a new wrinkle. 

In Artisan, the plaintiff was a contractor who claimed it was owed in excess of $208,695.69 for construction work on a house in Hinsdale, Illinois. The plaintiff wasn’t paid and sued the owner alleging it had a mechanic’s lien for the sum, that the owner had breached the contract, and also pled a claim for unjust enrichment (even if there wasn’t a contract, the owner benefited from the work and should have to pay for that work).

The owner asked the district court to dismiss the case because the plaintiff had failed to provide the owners with the brochure, had failed to commence or complete work within the contracted time period, and didn’t maintain insurance. The district court dismissed the case on the basis that the plaintiff admittedly did not furnish the owners with the consumer rights brochure. The plaintiffs appealed and asked that the appellate court overturn the decision.

The Second District was faced with the same decision as the other districts have been faced with… what, if anything, does a contractor’s failure to comply with the act mean for its claims against the home-owner?

The Second District interpreted the act to mean that the contractor’s failure to provide the consumer with the brochure does NOT remove the contractor’s right to recover in either equity (quantum meruit) or law (breach of contract, mechanic’s lien).

“To hold that a failure to provide a consumer with the brochure allows the consumer to defeat all legal and equitable claims by the contractor would lead to mischief and a result the legislature could not have intended.”

In reaching this conclusion, the Court said it was looking to legislative intent, which is a phrase and methodology addressed in many of the cases involving this act. Oddly, apart from attempting to interpret legislative intent through reading the “plain language” of the statute, none of the cases attempt to examine what the legislature had to say about the bill in debate or committee.

Many of the transcripts of the Illinois Legilsature’s general session debates dating back to 1971 are available online. These transcripts include debate on House Bill 1177 from the 91^st General Assembly’s session in 1999 that became the Home Repair and Remodeling Act. Of note from the debates are the main debate from the House after the final reading of the bill, and the similar debate from the Senate.

From the Senate and House transcripts on the matter, we see that there was not only opposition to this bill on the part of people who felt the bill just added an extra hoop for honest contractors to have to jump through without punishing the ne’er-do-wells who were the reason for the bill, but that the main justification for its passage was the protection of seniors and unwary consumers. Another point was the information this bill would force on people having their homes repaired – like the rights involved in contracting, an up-front contract price, and – after a 1994 amendment – a knowing acceptance or relinquishment of arbitration and the right to trial by jury. The debates focus on the Attorney General’s ability to prosecute and say nothing about voiding contracts or allowing a private right of action (an issue heavily debated by the justices of the Courts).

During the original House debate, representative Winters had these closing remarks,

“The Attorney General of the State of Illinois has listed home repair fraud as the #1 consumer complaint in their offices. Over the last five years, they average almost 500 complaints from consumers a year of being ripped off by artists who simply go up and down the street looking for the elderly, looking for the unprotected, looking for the uninformed. This Bill seeks to inform the consumer, it is not onerous to the contractors, a simple brochure and contract language is all that it requires….

“The only way that the criminal provision in this would be put forward is in fact that the State’s Attorney or the Attorney General can find a consistent pattern of fraud. And it is only a civil penalty in this Bill, it is not criminal. We have other criminal statutes under deceptive business practices. This Bill is simply civil penalties for failing to have the brochure disseminated and signed off by the consumer. It is a great consumer protection Bill, very little burden to the, to the contractors of this state. And I would urge adoption of this Bill.” [emphasis added]  IL H.R. Tran. 2000 Reg. Sess. No. 55

The failure to have the brochure passed out and signed off on was to be the ground for a penalty… and not just the loss of the right to arbitrate or to have a trial by jury, that provision wasn’t even part of the act until 1994, so the statement that there would be a penalty for failure to have the brochure passed out contemplated some other form of a civil penalty.

The notion that there should be some form of a penalty for failure to comply with the act by passing out a brochure along with the “shall” language of the act's requirements seems to make more sense when interpreted with the loss of the legal rights given the nullification or voidance of any contract between parties subject to the act where the act hasn’t been complied with. But again, that reading means that Section 35 of the act giving the AG and SAGs the power to enforce the act is not the sole mechanism for enforcement… If the act was to help seniors, did that really mean that the legislature wanted the “500” annual complaints referenced by representative Winters to be handled solely by the AG’s office? Wouldn’t it make more sense to allow Seniors to void any contracts and eliminate mechanics liens where the act hasn’t been complied with… if, as discussed in the General Assembly’s debates, compliance was as simple as handing over a brochure?

Another issue comes out of the transcripts of the assembly’s deliberations – that of the knowing contractor vs. the unwary contractor.

Back in March of this year, we discussed a case called Kunkel v. P.K. Dependable where the 5^th District decided that a contractor guilty of a violation under the act wouldn’t have to pay the attorneys fees of a home owner forced to go to court and pay an attorney to prosecute this kind of action if the contractor didn’t “knowingly” not comply with the act.

Interestingly, the Assembly transcripts show that the “knowing” issue was also important to the legislature and they expected the contractors to know about the act and also thought other State agencies as well as trade associations would hand out brochures and increase awareness… but in the end, that “knowing” would not be an issue.

The best way to make sure there are no problems is to comply with the act.  The brochure is linked above and getting the homeowner to sign off on it, having insurance, and delineating the terms of the project in a written contract or statement are what the act requires.  No home-owner should be allowed to reap a windfall for the failure to turn over the pamphlet, but if allowing a few wind-falls finally forces everyone to comply with the act, which is what the legislature intended, it is not unlikely that a few more courts may award a few wind-falls to accomplish that.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 

An interesting issue we’ve been coming across in contract negotiations over the past few months are the different retainage mandates of the states for private and public contracts. Most states have statutes affecting the amount of retainage permissible in public contracting, and some states have laws governing the amount of retainage allowed in contractual arrangement for private agreements.

What’s fascinating about the different laws regarding retainage is that they evince the true spirit of a republic with the different states acting much like the laboratories Justice Brandeis contemplated in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann.  Some states fashion their laws to protect owners, some to protect contractors, some even attempt to protect subcontractors and owners.

In Illinois there is no construction law for private contracts regarding retainage, but there is the recently proposed amendment to the Contractor Prompt Payment Act, that we’ve posted about before. For public contracts, the Illinois Statutes don’t specify a percentage, but based on certain amounts for the public construction of highways, the state may place funds with an Illinois financial entity if the retainage is over $20,000 and the parties agree. Funds can be withheld at the request of a contractor/sub. For Highway projects, the Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction dictates terms for retainage.

Wisconsin statutes list a maximum percentage of 5% on public contracts and, like many of the retainage statutes for public contracts, states that no funds can be retained after 50% of the work is complete along with terms for additional retainage for nonsatisfactory progress. There is no Wisconsin statute for retainage on private projects.

In Michigan, the statutes for retainage on public contracts cap the amount at 10% and there is no law regarding private retainage.

Ohio has retainage set at a maximum rate of 8% under the Ohio Revised Code  and mandates the escrow of the funds with interest falling to the contractor.

Minnesota has a public project limitation of 5%. Minnesota also has a private project construction law statute that allows an owner to keep up to 5% but does not allow for retainage for residential improvements nor is the owner allow to retain funds from an architect, or for other professional services.

Iowa has a public limitation of 5% of the labor and materials.

The retainage statutes outside the Midwest with provisions for private contracts generally deal with either limiting retainage percentages or with specifying to whose benefit interest on retained funds will run.

As with any transaction, where the different incentives rest is important.  The question of which party is receiving the benefit of an agreement to retain funds until some future contractually agreed term is met is also varied. Statues like Alabama’s (§8-29-3), provide that retained funds produce interest for the subcontractor while the benefit of retaining monies to ensure proper performance accrues to the contractor/owner. 

Texas’ Property Code regulates retainage on private contracts through its mechanic’s lien statute. This method is novel and makes sense by allowing the retainage on the owner’s end while also protecting the owner and any possibly affected subcontractors by ensuring that some funds are at least set aside in case a contractor fails to pay monies through to its subs.

Some states like California and Vermont provide for explicit release dates if retainage has been held back, but make no determinations regarding percentages. Interestingly, none of the 50 states has any egregious conditions for retainage or a law that clearly favors one party to the transaction over the other.

Given the plethora of statutes concerning the matter, it’s best to check for the particular state legislation before deciding to include or exclude a retainage provision and such a provisions specific terms.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

When I decided to create this website the main goal was education. Through an understanding of trends, developments and principles in the legal aspects affecting the industry we’d all be a little bit better off.   It's also a great way to get informational updates to clients who might otherwise not want to receive a monthly newsletter or "litigation updates" every time something new happens in the law, but prefer to review the information on their own schedule.

In addition to the influx of calls from businesses contracting or looking to contract in the midwest and out-of-state attorneys looking for information, I never realized what a repository of information it would become or how that repository would end up being utilized by readers. 

The topics and posts are currently accessed close to 160 times a day by people looking for information on any number of issues.  That number has only grown since 2007 when we started and continues to grow monthly. I realize that number of hits pales in comparison to a site like Above the Law, or the Wall Street Journal, but we’re not a big site and there’s very little gossip for us to traffic in – “Did you hear what the AIA said about the AGC on Letterman last night?”   But just like those sites, we’re privileged with emails from readers containing questions, comments and even some outright disagreements from time to time.

Another unique aspect of this blog has been the interest and open communication it has fostered. Anyone looking for information or wanting to suggest a posting only has to pick up the phone to make contact. Quite frankly, whether the person on the other end was in Alaska, Berlin or Naperville, every phone call has been interesting and informative… at least from my end.

But apart from the calls and the emails, possibly the most fun outcome has been the request for presentations and speaking. We’ve been asked to give talks, present on topics and even moderate discussions of different issues for clients, strangers, associations, companies, small shops, large shops and even webinars for unidentified listeners. It is a great chance to learn and to have a Q&A and no one has yet balked at the price of “free”. Thanks to readers input and requests, the list of available presentations and posts keeps growing.

In gearing up for our 2010 presentation schedule and in looking toward future postings I’d like to hear your thoughts on presentations and issues you would like to see or hear about. In addition to the topics below for which we already have presentations and information, what’s out there that you might want us to come and present at your business on?   What new and interesting issues are you coming across? Are there any particular problems you’ve faced in the past year or that you see on the horizon that you might want to hear more about?

The categories below are just a sampling, but are a good place to start. If you have anything new you’d like to hear about, or if you’d like to have us present on any issues we’ve already presented on in the past, please just let us know.

• Claim Prosecution & Defense
• Construction Litigation
• Contract Documents – Drafting, Negotiation
• Contract Administration, Performance & Enforcement
• Damages & Time Extensions
• Design
• Dispute Avoidance & Resolution
• Financial Consideration
• Environmental and Green Issues
• Federal Construction and Contracting
• Insurance & Surety
• International Construction
• Liens
• State & Local Government
• Procurement
• Project Delivery & BIM
• Public Policy & Legislation
• Workforce Management

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

After yesterday’s outline and brief discussion of the opinion in International Production Specialists, Inc. v. Schwing America, Inc., several of our readers have written in with a common question:

“Why was a case involving a project in Illinois litigated under Wisconsin law where the Illinois Construction Contracts Act (815 ILCS 665/1 et seq.) bars such a practice?”

For those not familiar with the Illinois Construction Contracts Act, construction contracts - “contract for the design, construction, alteration, improvement, repair, or maintenance of real property, highways, roads, or bridges” - that are performed in Illinois are prohibited by the statute from containing a forum selection clause that subjects the contract to the law of another state or that “requires any litigation, arbitration, or dispute resolution to take place in another state.”

In IPS v. Schwing, the project and a majority of the work took place in Illinois. A review of the docket and filed documents on Pacer didn’t turn up the purchase order referenced in the opinion or the change order. However, we do know that the original purchase order was sometime in 2001 and the subsequent negotiations were in 2004.

Unless the 2004 change order augmented a forum selection provision in the 2001 contract, the Construction Contracts Act would not apply because it did not go into effect until 2002 and it does not apply retroactively, or so says the Illinois Second District’s opinion in Foster Wheeler v. LSP Equipment (Doc. No. 2-03-0963).

The other possibility, if the contract didn’t pre-date the act, would be that neither party brought up the argument because they wanted to avail themselves of Wisconsin law, and the court did not seek to enforce the act sua sponte. In any event, the application of Wisconsin or Illinois contractual law would not have altered the considerations of betterment or the principals of contractual damages.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

We thought this Friday would be a good time to highlight some great pieces from around the web that you may find interesting:

• There is an article up at Blair Kamin’s Cityscapes (formerly The Skyline) about Jeanne Gang’s Dwell Magazine featured project.
• Ken Adam’s has an extremely informative discussion going over at Adam’s Drafting regarding re-writing the American Arbitration Association’s Standard Arbitration Clause in light of the Manual of Style for Contract Drafting’s proposals on clearer contract language.  The read is important for people honestly interested in their contract language and some possible implications of using the AAA’s recommended language.
• The Fair Housing Defense Blog has an article about occupancy standards and why they matter.  For those dealing with FHA issues on a regular basis, this piece will pique your curiosity.
• Anyone who’s a fan of the Car Talk Puzzler will get a kick out of the Friday fun going on over at the venerable Drug and Device Law.  You may also be curious about this piece they did over a week ago regarding some non-empirical evidence of the life of legal blogs.  (For the record, ILCLB’s at One Year and 10 months.)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 

In using most standard-form agreements on a particular project the primary parties tend to negotiate the specific terms and reach an accord that will either include or exclude arbitration as their chosen form of primary dispute resolution. Opinions on the effectiveness and usefulness of arbitration are as varied as the fish in the sea.

The decision to utilize arbitration as the default on short standard form contracts is an individual one in the hands of the entity providing the contract for signature. In the construction industry there are many organizations offering arbitration services for one to choose from. But making sure the party who signs your contract will be bound by them is a trickier issue. Anyone wishing to add an enforceable arbitration provision to a short, standard form agreement would do well to familiarize themselves with the recent Illinois case of Timmerman v. The Grain Exchange, et al. (5^th Dist. Doc. No. 5-08-0404).

In Timmerman, farmers caught up in The Grain Exchange fiasco brought an action against the grain dealer they had contracts with for the supply of grain. The dealer had its license revoked and assigned the contracts it had with the farmers to another grain dealer after the revocation; also a defendant sued by the farmers.

The farmers sought a determination that they were not bound by the contracts because the grain dealer’s license had been revoked.  In arguing against such a finding, the grain dealers asked the court to determine that the arbitration provisions contained in the one-page-single-sided contracts that the farmers entered into with the grain dealer. The contracts were created by the dealer and contained a term stating that “the Rules of the National Grain and Feed Association” would apply to the contract. Nowhere did the contract mention arbitration, which is contained in the Rules referenced in the contract. And, the rules were not made available to the farmers prior to signing, nor were the farmers told that the Rules referenced in the contract contained an arbitration provision.

The district court found that the attempt to apply the Rules’ arbitration provision to the farmers would be procedurally unconscionable – “a situation where a term is so difficult to find, read, or understand that the plaintiff cannot fairly be said to have been aware he was agreeing to it.”

The appellate court agreed. In agreeing with the district court, the appellate court cited a long string of cases and examples of contractual provisions found to be unconscionable due to their placement in the contract, the lack of their conspicuous nature, the failure to point them out to signatories and the failure to allow signatories time to understand or peruse the contract before signing.

While many of the cases cited by the court are examples of what not to do, for those seeking to have an enforceable arbitration provision in a short contract there were several decisions referenced.

Of note was the appellate court’s recitation of the decision in Bunge Corp v. Williams (45 Ill. App. 3d 359) from 1977 which upheld an arbitration provision printed on the back of a contract where the words:

“THE TERMS PRINTED ON THE BACK HEREOF ARE A PART OF THIS CONTRACT.”

Appeared in bold letters just above the signature line on the front page.

The decision in Turner Construction v. Midwest Curtainwalls (187 Ill. App. 3d 417) from 1989 where a construction subcontract was valid where it incorporated an arbitration provision in the general contract by reference and stated that the general contract was “available for examination by the Subcontractor at all reasonable times at the office of the general contractor” and that the subcontractor “represents and agrees that it has carefully examined and understands the general contract.”

While any party to your agreement may attempt to challenge its arbitration provision, carefully crafting one that will be upheld with an eye to decisions regarding upheld provisions can help you overcome any such challenge.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

R. David Donoghue of Holland & Knight had an informative post the other day on his Chicago IP Litigation Blog that linked to the Bryan Cave Art Law Blog.

The piece is about debunking common copyright myths. Written by Jonathan Pink, it is humorous and informative. Written in a multiple-choice formatted style, you can read the full text here.

Of note to our readers is Myth #9:

“Myth 9:
Sure, you can copyright a book, a movie, or a song, but there is no way you can copyright a house.
a. This must be true. Just drive through Orange County.
b. Not so fast. I'm from Orange County, and the houses are not all alike; those shades of beige are distinctly different.
c. This is false; you can copyright a building, but only if it was built less than a dozen years ago.
The answer is c. Architectural works are entitled to copyright protection if they were created after December 1, 1990, or embodied in unpublished plans or drawings created before that time, even though they were not actually constructed. See 17 USC §102.
This is good to know if you represent architects or developers. If you represent the developer, advise your client to acquire the copyright in any architectural plans he or she commissions. If you represent the architect, advise negotiating hard when it comes to determining the price of that copyright. Remember, working together, we can rid this state of unsightly farmland, pristine hillsides, and bucolic open spaces.”

We’ve written about the issue before. Obtaining the registered copyright puts you in line to make claims for your attorney’s fees and to have the statutory damages from the Act. In contracting for or against any given fee arrangement, realizing that these rights have value is an important step in understanding the full range of incentives inherent even in standard form agreements like the ConsensusDocs or the AIA standard form agreements.  

As a design professional, imagine not giving up the copyright until project completion… it is entirely possible that the filed copyright could add another cause of action brought in addition to those for past-due payments if an owner tries to complete the building using your plans with a different design professional.

As an owner, imagine owning copyright to plans and being able to finish the design without worrying about whether your disputes with a previous designer need to be resolved. Or better yet, imagine having full right and authority to use the plans on a second or third project.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 

In a recent Seventh Circuit opinion, Haber v. Biomet, Inc. et al., (Doc. No 08-1670), the federal circuit court found that a state court determination could preclude it from considering an issue regarding the arbitrability of a contract dispute.

In Haber, the plaintiff brought an action in the Southern District of Indiana after it had been sued in Indiana state court by the defendant over a contract dispute. The plaintiff acted as a distributor of defendants prosthetic parts and the two actions were based on allegations that plaintiff performed some work on behalf of the defendants competitor.

The parties also had a disagreement over the proper dispute resolution portion of their contracts controlled their actions. The defendant believed that a litigation clause in a 1995 contract stating that any disputes would be settled through litigation in Indiana held sway and the plaintiff believed that an arbitration clause in a 1999 contract stating that arbitration would take place in Chicago, Illinois.

The federal district court held that it the Southern District of Indiana was an improper venue for an motion to compel arbitration based off an arbitration provision which stated that Chicago, Illinois would be the location of the arbitration. The State court denied a motion to compel arbitration in part, stating that the arbitration provision should apply to disputes arising out of the 1999 contract and that the litigation provision should apply to disputes arising out of the 1995 contract.

The plaintiff chose only to appeal the federal district court’s decision and the 7^th Circuit held that pursuant to Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act…

“The court shall hear the parties, and upon being satisfied that the making of the agreement for arbitration or the failure to comply therewith is not in issue, the court shall make an order directing the parties to proceed to arbitration in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The hearing and proceedings, under such agreement, shall be within the district in which the petition for an order directing such arbitration is filed.” 9 U.S.C. §4

…it was plain that any determination about the arbitration in federal court needed to be filed in the Northern District of Illinois. The 7^th Circuit even noted how odd it was that there was no motion to transfer venue to the Northern District:

“We do find it strange that [Plaintiff] did not at some point file a motion for transfer to the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago”

The appellate court held that it was improper to bring the claim in the Southern District of Indiana.

With regard to the state court claim, the court found that it lacked the authority to review the decision because res judicata barred it from doing so given that the doctrine of issue preclusion applied once the state court made a determination regarding arbitrability. The state court decision should have been appealed.

The lessons regarding familiarizing yourself with the FAA are clear for practitioners. For those contracting for certain dispute resolution rights and entering into multiple agreements, it is painfully apparent how important consistency in those provisions can be.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 

Yesterday we examined the astute discussion of the duty to mitigate found in Judge Cole’s recent opinion in R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co. v. Vanguard Transportation Systems, Inc.

Today we discuss that portion of the opinion directed at R.R. Donnelley’s request for attorneys’ fees based on the indemnity provision of the contract.

The contract’s indemnity provision read:

[Vanguard] shall indemnify and hold [Donnelley] harmless from any from any liability, loss, cost, damage or expense, including attorneys' fees, which may accrue against [Donnelley] by reason of any liability claims, cargo claims and workers compensation claims by an entity that arise out of or are due to acts or failures to act of [Vanguard].

R.R. Donnelley sought to use this provision to recoup the attorneys’ fees it expended in prosecuting the action against Vanguard. In essence, although the court would only award nominal damages to R.R. Donnelley, it hoped to have Vanguard pay the cost of achieving that award.

The court rejected the argument that the provision could be read to imply that attorneys’ fees would be awarded to R.R. Donnelley in a dispute with Vanguard over the enforcement of the indemnity provision. Instead the court found that the “by an entity” phrase could not be read to include Vanguard. The court found that the provision applied to disputes between R.R. Donnelley and others, but not between R.R. Donnelley and Vanguard for the enforcement of the indemnity agreement.

This interpretation is important because it serves to remind everyone contracting for indemnification to include the phrase “including the enforcement of this agreement” in their indemnity clauses.

The court pointed out that the varying interpretations of indemnity provisions could be read to mean that a self-referencing portion in a clause was necessary to include disputes over the indemnity agreements themselves, even though the court referenced the Illinois Supreme Court’s own admission that little guidance can come from attempting to analyze or reconcile the numerous cases interpreting indemnity clauses.

The interpretations cited by the court were:

Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Leighton, 403 F.3d 879, 881 (7th Cir.2005)(indemnification required “from and against any liability, loss, cost, attorneys' fees, and expenses whatsoever, including the enforcement of this agreement”);

Central Die Casting and Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Tokheim Corp., 1998 WL 160900, *8 (N.D.Ill.1998)(fees incurred in enforcing indemnity provision not caused by “the specific claim indemnified against. Instead, they are costs incurred to sue for breach of contract, or the failure to indemnify.”);

Fidelity Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Harris Trust & Savings Bank, 1997 WL 308846, *2 (N.D.Ill.1997)(fees incurred in pursuing indemnification allowed where language “expressly permits ... recover[y][of] attorneys' fees and expenses ‘incurred in connection with the enforcement of th[e] Agreement’ ”);

Board of Trustees of University of Illinois v. U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co., 1991 WL 274462, *3 (N.D.Ill.1991)(contract specifically included “all attorney's fees and costs incurred in bringing an action to enforce the provisions of this indemnity....”);

Eckley v. Lone Star Forge Co., 1991 WL 222076, *2 (N.D.Ill.1991)(noting “the distinction between attorney's fees in defending a third party suit and attorney's fees in enforcing a right to indemnity and thus offer no guidance to the court.”).

Jackson v. In-tertech Resources, Inc., 1990 WL 16969, *1 (N.D.Ill.1990). (The seller agreed to “indemnify and hold harmless Buyer from and against any and all actions, suits, proceedings, demands, judgments, losses, costs, damages, and expenses (including with-out limitation, attorney fees and disbursements) resulting from or arising out of: ... (d) any breach of any of the representations or warranties, covenants or agreements of Seller set forth in this Agreement.” The plain language of the clause contemplated a suit by one party to the contract against the other in the event of any breach of the agreement and provided for reimbursement of attorney's fees should that occur.)

The indemnity agreement in this case did not.

Again, while we are consistently warned that interpretations may be inconsistent, the self-reference in an agreement appears necessary for recouping the costs of enforcing the agreement itself.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As Judge Posner has put it:

“If you invite someone to dinner, and hours after he was due he still hasn't arrived, you had better infer that he isn't coming, and start eating. You can't let yourself and your other guests starve merely because there is a slight chance that he will show up days later.”

The recent case of R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co. v. Vanguard Transportation Systems, Inc. (N.D.IL Doc. No 06 C 5837) has ended in an interesting decision based entirely on the failure of one party to affirmatively act to “mitigate” its damages even though the other party breached their agreement and could also just as easily have mitigated the damages.

The opinion has an excellent description of the duty to mitigate:

“The so-called duty to mitigate damages, which is often referred to as a general contractual duty is a principle of ancient vintage.  Referring to mitigation of damages-or as it is called in tort law “avoidable consequences “in terms of a “duty” is somewhat misleading, because a plaintiff incurs no liability for failing to act.  Rather, the amount of loss that could reasonably have been avoided by stopping performance or making substitute arrangements is simply subtracted from the amount that would otherwise have been recoverable as damages.  Phrased differently, the duty to mitigate damages “forbids the victim of a breach of contract, which might well be involuntary, to allow his damages to balloon (when he could easily prevent that from happening), as he might be tempted to do in order to force a lucrative settlement.”

“The victim of the breach must “ ‘exercise reasonable diligence and ordinary care in attempting to minimize the damages after injury has been inflicted.’ “ And while he must act with “reasonable dispatch,” the injured party is not required to take steps that involve “undue risk or burden.”  But there are instances where the victim of the breach might be lulled by the breaching party into inaction because of assurances that all will be well. “[T]o put this differently, the [breaching party] may not insist on mitigation when by its words or deeds it has led the [non-breaching party] to believe that it has assumed what would otherwise be the buyer's burden of mitigation.” While that is going on, the duty to mitigate is suspended.” [Internal citations omitted]

The case involved the shipment of time-sensitive brochures by Vanguard to an R.R. Donnelley facility in Atlanta. The brochures were for a Macy’s after-Christmas sale and needed to be delivered by December 21 in order to be mailed out and received timely by consumers for the December 27^th Sale. 

R.R. Donnelley contracted with Vanguard to deliver the brochures to its facility by no later than 2:00 p.m. on December 16^th. This time was important because the contract between the parties contained a “time is of the essence” clause. Vanguard got to the facility after 2:00 p.m. on the 16^th and delivery was not made. Rather than wait to be able to unload the delivery on the 16^th, the driver for the Vanguard truck took the trailer with the materials to a facility and left them there. The parties contacted each other regarding scheduling a new delivery over the next few days each time a delivery was expected or possible, something occurred to kept that delivery from happening, and ultimately, no delivery was ever made. The brochures did not get mailed in time for the Macy’s sale.

R.R. Donnelley paid the company that printed the brochures $81,650 for damages it suffered because the brochures did not get mailed for Macy’s and then sued Vanguard for the $81,650 in damages for breach of the agreement to deliver the brochures by the 16^th.

The parties completed discovery and had a trial. Of the many findings made by the Court after it heard the evidence one regarded R.R. Donnelley’s failure to take action and mitigate its damages.

In many cases, the steps for mitigation are varied and may not amount to a full recovery of the damages suffered by a party because of the breach, but for R.R. Donnelley in this case the Court decided:

“all that would have been entailed was the minimal cost of renting a truck from a local cartage company and driving the half hour to the Vanguard lot to pick up the load and delivering it to the Atlanta facility.   Mr. Menne, of Vanguard, estimated that the cost would have been about $250. Even if that estimate is low, the cost would have been less than the $750 it cost to haul the load the several hundred miles from Kentucky to Georgia.”

The court found that of the roughly $81,000 in damages claimed by R.R. Donnelly, $80,000 could not be assessed against Vanguard because of R.R. Donnelly’s failure to mitigate. The court held that because the money at issue was only nominal, and R.R. Donnelley didn’t request nominal damages, judgment should be made in favor of Vanguard due to the failure of the plaintiff to mitigate.

This same duty to mitigate applies to construction. It is best to understand that you cannot sit around and wait for something to happen thinking you have a remedy at law when some action on your part could completely alleviate your damages.

Tomorrow we will discuss Part 2 – The reason R.R. Donnelley wasn’t entitled to enforcement of its indemnity provision for attorney’s fees.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Take a look at this chart:

The different colored sections represent the jurisdictions of the different appellate court districts in the state. The answer to the question is “yes” if you’re in the green, “no” if you’re in the tan, and “undecided” if you’re red, blue or orange. It’s a split between the districts that just occurred.

In the case of K. Miller Construction Company, Inc. v. McGinnis (1^st Dist. Doc. No. 1-08-2514) the first district appellate court (the green one) has recently decided that a claim for quantum meruit (unjust enrichment) can be made against a home owner by a contractor even if the contractor failed to comply with the Illinois Home Repair and Remodeling Act (815 ILCS 513) which requires that contracts for more than $1000 on home improvements be put in writing or they are deemed “unlawful” by the statute.

As a side note, the 4^th District (the tan one above) has ruled that such a claim cannot stand if the requirements of the act are not met in Smith v. Bogard (2007)

In McGinnis, Miller was a contractor that worked on the renovation of McGinnis’ house. After some work was performed, but before it was all completed, the McGinnis refused to continue paying Miller’s invoices which by then were more than $123,000 and demanded that he finish the job before any more payments occurred. Miller took out a $150,000 line of credit to complete the project and when he was done, the McGinnises approved of his work. The opinion notes that the project’s construction price increased to more than $500,000 by the time of completion.

The McGinnises, however, refused to pay more than $177,580.33, and Miller filed suit to recover payment. The opinion notes that Mr. McGinnis is no ordinary consumer, but that as a lawyer, he is a “sophisticated consumer”. The district court dismissed claims made by miller for a mechanics lien and breach of a time and materials oral contract because the terms of the Act provide that such contracts are unlawful if not in writing for home repair. The appellate court agreed. What the appellate court did not agree with was the district court’s interpretation that a claim for unjust enrichment was not available to a contractor who had actually performed the work where that work was accepted.

Noting that the 4^th District reached a different conclusion, the 1^st District found that where the work was accepted, the availability of an unjust enrichment claim was not quashed by the use of the term “unlawful” in the Home Repair and Remodeling Act.

Where no party disputed that a trial on the unjust enrichment claim would render “justice” to both parties, the appellate court found that because the Act did not expressly repeal the quantum meruit claim the “unlawful” nature of contracts that are not in writing did not preclude the cause of action and such a claim would likely not “reward deceptive practices” or violate public policy.

The court also noted that a real estate attorney like Mr. McGinnis might well utilize his expertise in the field to exploit the 4^th District’s interpretation by keeping any contract for home renovation oral in order to deprive a contractor of the reasonable value of his services.

Interestingly, a concurrence by Justice Gordon notes, as several others have contended, that the Home Repair and Remodeling Act was not intended to provide either a cause of action or an affirmative defense to any private party, but rather, the sole remedy under the act is through action by the Attorney General’s Office.

The lesson for all home contractors is to get the agreement in writing. There likely wouldn’t be an appeal if the contract was in writing because the lien claim and the breach of contract claim would have remained as well as the alternative theory of unjust enrichment. However, even if a contractor fails to comply with the law, there is still a possibility that he could receive justice if his intentions and actions are honest.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 

In Burke v. 401 N. Wabash Venture, LLC (N.D. Ill, Doc No. 08 C 5330) a prospective purchaser of a condominium at the new Trump Tower brought an action against the LLC selling the units when they kept his earnest money deposit after he failed to close on the unit.

Reading the opinion, its apparent that the alleged reason for failing to close on the unit, with a purchase price of over $2 Million, was that an additional floor of parking was added after the initial earnest money deposit was tendered. The plaintiff’s argument was that the addition of parking made the price he had paid for his parking spot unfair given that the additional parking reduced the value of the spots. He also alleged that the additional floor of parking increased the maintenance fees for the association.

The plaintiff brought a class action lawsuit against the LLC alleging that a liquidated damages provision in the sale agreement violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (815 ILCS 505) because it gave the LLC the choice between liquidated damages or actual damages.

The provision at issue read:

“In the event of a default or breach of this Purchase Agreement by Purchaser, Seller shall notify Purchaser of such breach or default and of the opportunity, which shall be given the Purchaser, to remedy such breach or default within twenty (20) days after the date such notice was received. If Purchaser fails to remedy such breach or default within twenty (20) days after receipt of Seller's notice, then, subject to the limitations set forth below, Seller may terminate this Purchase Agreement and, as its sole and exclusive remedy upon termination, retain as liquidated damages from Purchaser an amount equal to the sum of (i) the amount set forth in Paragraph 1(b) hereof required to be paid as an Earnest Money deposit and (ii) all amounts paid or to be paid by Purchaser to Seller for any other services or work performed or to be performed by Seller. In collecting such liquidated damages, subject to the limitations set forth below, Seller shall be entitled to retain all monies paid by Purchaser to Seller hereunder; to keep, retain, or take any security or other instrument either evidencing Purchaser's obligation to pay any sums hereunder Or given by Purchaser to Seller to secure payment of such sums; and· to pursue any other appropriate lawful process. In accordance with Section 1703(d) of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, if Seller is otherwise entitled to the liquidated damages described above, Seller shall return to Purchaser amounts paid to Seller (excluding interest paid under the Purchase Agreement) in excess of: (x) 15% of the Purchase Price (excluding any interest owed under the Purchase Agreement) or (y) the amount of Seller's actual damages, whichever is greater.”

The court’s opinion is instructive to anyone faced with contractual situations including multiple remedies that include liquidated and actual damages. Here, because the provision at issue included language that the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act authorizes and even encourages developers to include in the contracts, the express exceptions of the Consumer Fraud Act allowed the provision. Because the provision was allowed, the Court dismissed that count in the complaint with prejudice.

In recent years a large portion of suits brought on behalf of plaintiffs against developers and even others involved in the construction process have begun to include counts for Consumer Fraud. It is best to make sure your contracts comport with the act in order to eliminate the possibility that a class action could be brought by individuals for a simple error in contracting.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

It’s a long time to wait to get paid, but a new Northern District decision has held that the 10-year Statute of Limitations contained at 735 ILCS 5/13-206 governs an engineer’s claim for non-payment of invoices issued pursuant to work performed under a contract.

It’s a debate you may see quite often for construction work given that there is a separate statute in this state that applies a four-year statute of limitations for claims based on many acts or omissions in construction work:

“(a) Actions based upon tort, contract or otherwise against any person for an act or omission of such person in the design, planning, supervision, observation or management of construction, or construction of an improvement to real property shall be commenced within 4 years from the time the person bringing an action, or his or her privity, knew or should reasonably have known of such act or omission. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, contract actions against a surety on a payment or performance bond shall be commenced, if at all, within the same time limitation applicable to the bond principal.” 735 ILCS 5/13-214(a).

But that statute does not apply to claims made by a design professional for the owner’s breach of contract by failing to pay invoices.

In Burbach Aquatics, Inc. v. City of Elgin (N.D. Il. Doc. No. 98 CV 4061) an engineer brought a breach of contract action against the City of Elgin for the City’s failure to pay invoices it issued for work it performed under the contract. The complaint can be found here and a copy of a modified 1985 AIA B141 entered into in 1995 between the City and the engineer is attached.

Pursuant to the contract, Burbach alleges that it rendered services for the renovation/replacement of municipal swimming pools and bathhouses owned by the City.

The work was performed and on June 13, 2001; August 9, 2001; and July 2, 2002, the engineer issued invoices for the work. Section 11.5.2 of the contract stated that the invoices were due and payable 20 days from the date on the invoices.

The complaint alleges that Elgin never paid the invoices and on July 17, 2008, Burbach brought suit to collect the $135,559.72 owed under the contract along with the interest owed at 18% per section 11.5.2. (That’s $24,400.75 per year in interest and over the six years is $146,404.50 in interest – more than the amount owed on the contract.) No claim was also brought for the additional interest that also might be owed this engineer under the Local Government Prompt Payment Act (50 ILCS 505/1).

The City filed a motion to dismiss the case saying that the four-year statute of limitations applied and that even if the 10-year statute applied it ran in 2005 because the contract was signed in 1995.

The court disagreed and issued this opinion. In the opinion, the court found that the activity complained of by Burbach giving rise to the breach of contract action was the City’s failure to pay the invoices, and not an activity enumerated in the 13-214 statute. The court cited to two familiar cases, Prate v. Thomas, and Paschen v. Kankakee, both cases involved a breach of contract claim for the failure to pay a contractor for work performed under a contract, where the 13-214 statute was found inapplicable, and held that the 13-206, 10-year statute of limitations applied.

The Court also held that the claims did not arise until 20 days after the date on the invoice since that was how long the City had to pay the invoice and it breached its contract when it failed to do so. The statute of limitations would not expire until 10-years from the 20-day date.

This is yet another reminder that paying attention to these dates in the contracting process, as well as having a decent percentage fee for failure to pay can amount to, as here, a hefty sum if the failure goes on long enough and decreasing the amount of interest may be in the best interest of others.


• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 

The recent case of Peregrine Financial Group, Inc. v. TradeMaven, LLC, has at least offered some guidance.

In Peregrine, both the plaintiff and the defendant had been sued in another action over a patent dispute. The initial action had been resolved by a federal court through a settlement between the parties and the plaintiff in the patent action and  a consent judgment had been entered.

The indemnity provision in the TradeMaven contract stated that it agreed to hold Peregrine harmless from any claims for “expenses and costs (including any reasonable legal fees and expenses related to [Peregrine’s] defense) arising from any claim of infringement of any trademark, service mark, trade name, copyright, or other proprietary right.” In the patent suit, the parties placed a provision in the consent judgment that each party would bear its own costs and attorneys fees. 

After the federal suit, Peregrine sent a letter to TradeMaven’s counsel requesting the $416,081.22 in attorney's fees. TradeMaven didn’t indemnify Peregrine for the fees so Peregrine filed the indemnification claim in state court for recovery of those fees. The state district court ruled that the claim was precluded by res judicata.

One of Peregrine’s arguments on appeal was that even if Peregrine could have brought its claim for indemnity in the federal suit, it didn’t need to because a previous Illinois Supreme Court Case, Guzman, held that the claim for indemnification did not accrue until after the patent dispute concluded and TradeMaven rejected Peregrine’s written demand for indemnification. 

Guzman ruled that the 13-204 statute of limitations was applicable in construction defect contract dispute for indemnification between a defendant and a third-party in a situation where the third-party suit had been brought with three counts – implied indemnity, express indemnity, and breach of contract – and the opinion was rendered without an express statement of which theory the Court was considering.

The Appellate Court in Peregrine rejected Peregrine's argument and said that Guzman involved an “implied contract of indemnity” and a third-party complaint and that the instant case involved no third-party action where both parties had been named as defendants in the federal action and that the parties had an express contract of indemnity.

Peregrine then argued that the more recent Illinois Supreme Court decision in Travelers extended Guzman to express indemnity agreements. The Appellate Court said that because the indemnity provision in Travelers contained the words “on demand” – “Payments of amounts due Surety hereunder together with legal interest shall be payable on demand” – the express terms of the indemnity agreement in Travelers implied that the indemnity action did not accrue until demand was made and therefore, the instant action was different because the indemnity provision at issue in Peregrine contained no language providing that payment was triggered by demand for payment. 

In Travelers the Supreme Court apparently determined that the fact that the Guzman did not especially state whether it was addressing the nature of the indemnity claim on a breach of contract, implied indemnity or express indemnity basis meant that Guzman did not provide enough guidance to aid in the assessment of a suit based on express contractual indemnity.

Travelers also held that implied contractual indemnity is only available in tort. Which makes it odd that the court in Peregrine could say that the claim in Guzman was about implied contractual indemnity because it was a construction defect case and not one about a tort. 

Travelers also didn’t offer guidance on whether carefully constructed indemnity provisions in regular construction contracts could serve as the basis for a claim for breach of contract premised upon the breach of an indemnity provision thereby making them claims regulated by the ten-year statute of limitations addressed in Travelers,  or whether a claim for "express contractual indemnity" was different than a breach of contract claim and in construction defect case which could be brought as a third-party action (the commercial equivalent of contribution).  In the second type of claim, the defendant is basically saying “if I’m liable to the plaintiff, it is because this third party made a mistake.”  In the latter instance, Travelers would seem to imply that the four-year 13-214 statute of limitation would apply because the claim was based on the construction defect, in the former, because the claim is actually for failure to indemnify after a demand, it would appear that this is a 13-206 matter as discussed in Travelers.

By distinguishing the Travelers case based on the demand language the Appellate Court in Peregrine has created an interesting distinction and not resolved the issue created in Travelers regarding how and under what theory a defendant should sue a third-party in a construction dispute not based on negligence such as one where the party is looking to pass-through any potential economic damages.   Another question raised by these line of cases:

• Is the claim properly one for "express contractual indemnity" because there is an indemnity provision of the contract and the third-party contract was breached, or is it a claim for breach of contract for breach of the indemnity provision or both?

We know that professionals and contractors should arguably include indemnification for “economic damages” in their indemnification provisions if they want to attempt to recover those forms of damages at a later date. Friedman, Alschuler & Sincere v. Arlington Structural Steel Co., Inc., 140 Ill.App.3d 556, 489 N.E.2d 308 (1 Dist., 1985). Friedman and a line of cases following it support the contention that the indemnity provision needs to be specific as to the type of damages the parties will be able to seek, but nothing has settled the question raised by Travelers about where and when, if the provision is drafted properly, a party, if at all, must seek this contractual indemnity and what the cause of action actually is in third-party claims for construction defect where someone is looking to pass-through the claims of another.

For now the best practice seems to be to ensure that the contractual indemnity provisions include the “on demand” language in an effort to preserve a claim and to assert both a claim for express contractual indemnity and a claim for breach of that provision as a breach of contract.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Over the past two years we’ve seen quite a few Acts from the Illinois legislature regarding the industry and its operations. We’re still waiting on good case law interpreting the contractor prompt payment act. We saw the downfall of the attempt to reintroduce the structural work act. And now we have our first case regarding the act that many parties tried to defeat – the Illinois Employee Classification Act (820 ILCS 185/1 et seq.) (the ECA).

The ECA is a must-know for any contractor in the state that wants to classify the people working for it as an “independent contractor.” Prior to the act, we all know that it was common practice, for whatever reason, to call many employees independent contractors. Pay scales, union dues, liability issues, insurance rates and coverage, even labor laws played a part in the decision to classify someone working for you as someone working for you or someone you’ve contracted with to perform work for you.   The purpose of the act was to allow a statutory remedy for the widespread practice of employing laborers as independent contractors in a manner that circumvented many other obligations someone who was an employer would otherwise have.

The ECA invokes penalties and offers both public and private rights of action for those effected by their misclassification as “independent contractors.” This Synopsis of the ECA is available from the legislature’s website:

“Creates the Employee Classification Act. Provides that an individual performing services for a contractor is deemed to be an employee of the employer. Provides that an individual performing services for a contractor is deemed to be an employee of the contractor unless it is shown that: (1) the individual has been and will continue to be free from control or direction over the performance of the service for the contractor, both under the individual's contract of service and in fact; (2) the service performed by the individual is outside the usual course of services performed by the contractor; and (3) the individual is engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business; or (4) the individual is deemed a legitimate sole proprietor or partnership. Provides that subcontractors or lower tiered contractors are subject to all provisions of the Act. Provides that he Department of Labor shall post a summary of the requirements of this Act in English, Spanish, and Polish on its official web site and on bulletin boards in each of its offices. Provides that it is a violation of the Act for an employer or entity not to designate an individual as an employee under the Act unless the employer or entity satisfies the provisions of the Act. Provides for civil remedies and civil penalties.”

The ECA was introduced in February of 2007, passed both houses that May and was signed into law by the Governor in August of that year. The ECA took effect on January 1, 2008. 

Up through now, a majority of the claims made under the ECA have fallen by the wayside or been resolved in other venues and usually on other grounds. That looks like it may be changing given that on June 3, 2009, in the case of Chicago Regional Council of Carpenters et al v. Joseph J. Sciamanna, Inc. et al (N.D. IL – Doc No. 08 C 4636), a Northern District of Illinois court denied several parties motions to dismiss the amended complaint (a copy of the amended complaint can be found here) in favor of allowing the action to continue.

The action in Sciamanna was brought by the Chicago Regional Council of Carpenters and several other parties against a contractor and others seeking monetary, equitable and declaratory relief for the alleged misclassification of employees as independent contractors at construction sites building the Hilton Garden Inn hotels in Warrenville and Schaumburg.

Originally filed in state court, the action was removed to federal court by the defendants. In the amended complaint, plaintiffs allege that two of the workers on the site were misclassified under the act by Sciamanna and suffered because of that misclassification by not having been paid wages, employment benefits, proper payroll tax withholdings, FICA payments, Workers Compensation Insurance and payments under the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act. The amended complaint seeks redress for the failure to properly post notices regarding the ECA at the site and for retaliation against the workers after they filed the suit seeking to exercise their rights under the ECA. Relevant to many employers, the union is also seeking classification as an interested party under the act and that it be granted monetary damages and attorneys fees. This is important given that individual employees may not always have the money or resources to obtain counsel to enforce their alleged rights, but suits brought by their unions for such practices could profoundly change the playing field for contractors practicing in violation of the ECA under the assumption that a single employee – contractor – may not have the ability to enforce their rights.

The opinion rendered by the District Court can be found here.

Parties should be paying attention to this and any other similar cases given that the actual allowance of a per-day fine for violation of the act to the union, or for damages and attorneys fee awards may start to make it incredibly costly for contractors to classify workers as independent contractors without first making sure that the classification comports with Section 10 of the act:

§ 10. Applicability; status of individuals performing service.

(a) For the purposes of this Act, an individual performing services for a contractor is deemed to be an employee of the employer except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this Section.

(b) An individual performing services for a contractor is deemed to be an employee of the contractor unless it is shown that:

(1) the individual has been and will continue to be free from control or direction over the performance of the service for the contractor, both under the individual's contract of service and in fact;

(2) the service performed by the individual is outside the usual course of services performed by the contractor; and

(3) the individual is engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business; or

(4) the individual is deemed a legitimate sole proprietor or partnership under subsection (c) of this Section.

(c) The sole proprietor or partnership performing services for a contractor as a subcontractor is deemed legitimate if it is shown that:

(1) the sole proprietor or partnership is performing the service free from the direction or control over the means and manner of providing the service, subject only to the right of the contractor for whom the service is provided to specify the desired result;

(2) the sole proprietor or partnership is not subject to cancellation or destruction upon severance of the relationship with the contractor;

(3) the sole proprietor or partnership has a substantial investment of capital in the sole proprietorship or partnership beyond ordinary tools and equipment and a personal vehicle;

(4) the sole proprietor or partnership owns the capital goods and gains the profits and bears the losses of the sole proprietorship or partnership;

(5) the sole proprietor or partnership makes its services available to the general public or the business community on a continuing basis;

(6) the sole proprietor or partnership includes services rendered on a Federal Income Tax Schedule as an independent business or profession;

(7) the sole proprietor or partnership performs services for the contractor under the sole proprietorship's or partnership's name;

(8) when the services being provided require a license or permit, the sole proprietor or partnership obtains and pays for the license or permit in the sole proprietorship's or partnership's name;

(9) the sole proprietor or partnership furnishes the tools and equipment necessary to provide the service;

(10) if necessary, the sole proprietor or partnership hires its own employees without contractor approval, pays the employees without reimbursement from the contractor and reports the employees' income to the Internal Revenue Service;

(11) the contractor does not represent the sole proprietorship or partnership as an employee of the contractor to its customers; and

(12) the sole proprietor or partnership has the right to perform similar services for others on whatever basis and whenever it chooses.

(d) Where a sole proprietor or partnership performing services for a contractor as a subcontractor is deemed not legitimate under subsection (c) of this Section, the sole proprietorship or partnership shall be deemed an individual for purposes of this Act.

(e) Subcontractors or lower tiered contractors are subject to all provisions of this Act.

(f) A contractor shall not be liable under this Act for any subcontractor's failure to properly classify persons performing services as employees, nor shall a subcontractor be liable for any lower tiered subcontractor's failure to properly classify persons performing services as employees.

Another interesting point is that the private right of action accrues at the final date of the provision of services and lasts for 3 years. The ECA defines both “construction” and “performing services”:

“Construction” means any constructing, altering, reconstructing, repairing, rehabilitating, refinishing, refurbishing, remodeling, remediating, renovating, custom fabricating, maintenance, landscaping, improving, wrecking, painting, decorating, demolishing, and adding to or subtracting from any building, structure, highway, roadway, street, bridge, alley, sewer, ditch, sewage disposal plant, water works, parking facility, railroad, excavation or other structure, project, development, real property or improvement, or to do any part thereof, whether or not the performance of the work herein described involves the addition to, or fabrication into, any structure, project, development, real property or improvement herein described of any material or article of merchandise. Construction shall also include moving construction related materials on the job site to or from the job site.

“Performing services” means the performance of any constructing, altering, reconstructing, repairing, rehabilitating, refinishing, refurbishing, remodeling, remediating, renovating, custom fabricating, maintenance, landscaping, improving, wrecking, painting, decorating, demolishing, and adding to or subtracting from any building, structure, highway, roadway, street, bridge, alley, sewer, ditch, sewage disposal plant, water works, parking facility, railroad, excavation or other structure, project, development, real property or improvement, or to do any part thereof, whether or not the performance of the work herein described involves the addition to, or fabrication into, any structure, project, development, real property or improvement herein described of any material or article of merchandise. Construction shall also include moving construction related materials on the job site to or from the job site.

With the ECA’s broad classification of both “construction” and “performing services” everyone thinking about calling someone an independent contractor should revisit the issue in light of the ECA and the potential for a cause of action brought by multiple worker or the union.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Joshua Glazov over at the Construction Law Attorney Blog has an April 23, 2009, posting about Illinois House Bill 344 which, as introduced, would amend the Illinois Contractor Prompt Payment Act to limit, on a percentage basis, the amount of retainage legally allowed under construction contracts to contractors and subs.

The bill passed the house with the percentage provisions intact and the Illinois Senate now has amended the bill to include a definition of retainage:

(d) "Retainage" means funds that are earned by the contractor but not paid until some agreed upon date, such as the completion of the job.

The senate amendment also eliminates the percentage restrictions on outright retainage and instead has proposed making this bill a restriction on retainage for materials:

(b) Under a construction contract, it is unlawful to withhold retainage on materials required for completion of the construction contract that are delivered to a job site and are billed in accordance with the periodic payments in the construction contract.

This  provision is interesting given that the bill could alter the general nature of invoices by allowing those parties that do not distinguish between materials and labor in their payment applications to parse out the two and demand payment for the materials listed in the  payment applications leaving the owner without recourse to its contract's retainage provision for those payments.

CLAB’s posting lists and links to some advocacy groups that can be contacted to comment on the bill.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 

We've warned before about the recent dangers of relying on a certificate of insurance as proof of your coverage as an additional insured. In the United Underwriters article, we wrote about the exclusionary language contained in a certificate insurance and its interpretation. In the recent case of Nautilus Insurance Co. v. Mona Fabrication et al., we again find the issue of a policy's interpretation regarding additional insured coverage.

In Nautilus, the court was confronted with the issue of whether or not a party not named as an additional insured in an endorsement could nonetheless be included as an additional insured where the endorsement also stated that additional insureds are those “as required by written contract and per certificate of insurance as approved and on file with the company” and a contract existed requiring the company be named as an additional insured but no certificate of insurance was on file with the insurance company.

Mona, along with the Muslim Community Center and others were sued in a personal injury action that occurred during construction on the Muslim Community Center. The Muslim Community Center along with others tendered to Mona's insurance company and the insurance company filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that it did not owe Muslim Community Center and others coverage or defense.

In assessing the policy language cited above, the court found that where there was no evidence that both an insurance certificate was on file with the insurance company and Mona was required to name the Muslim Community Center as an additional insured by contract, therefore the policy precluded coverage for the Muslim Community Center.

As we said before it's likely that the best policy is to make sure you're named in the endorsement. However, if the endorsement requires something as simple as contractual language stating that you should be named as an additional insured along with making sure a certificate is on file with the company, you should also ensure that a certificate is on file with the company and make sure your contractual language is sufficient.

It is becoming increasingly rare that an insurance certificate is found to be proof that one is actually covered as an additional insured under a policy.  With a small amount of due diligence, this problem can be alleviated.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Answer: When your contract obligates you to do so.

We’ve all seen the terms in our contracts, this one is particular to leases:

INSURANCE. (a) Tenant shall, at its sole cost and expense, maintain at all times with responsible insurance carriers acceptable to Landlord licensed to do business in the State of Illinois, insurance covering the premises for the mutual benefit of Landlord and Tenant as follows:

*** (v) Comprehensive General Liability Insurance, with such limits as may be reasonably requested by Landlord from time to time, but not less than a $5,000,000.00excess liability for bodily injury and property damage;

*** (c) All insurance policies shall name Landlord *** [and others] as additional insureds, as their respective interests may appear. Landlord may, by written notice to Tenant, designate other parties as additional insureds. All such insurance shall provide that:

(i) The coverage provided includes the premises;

***(iii) All losses shall be payable notwithstanding any act or negligence of Tenant or Landlord or the occupation or use of the premises for purposes more hazardous than permitted by terms of such policy.

That last part is important. In Illinois, most agreements to indemnify someone for their own negligence are void as a matter of public policy, however, agreeing to obtain insurance to cover someone’s negligence is not void. In fact, it creates an enforceable contract and if you fail to obtain it, even by way of your insurance company providing a policy that excludes it, you’ve breached the lease (or any contract with such a provision for that matter) and can be held liable for the damages that result from failing to obtain the insurance.

In Clarendon America Insurance Co. v. Prime Group Realty, Inc. (1^st Dist., Doc. No. 1-08-0791 & 1985 cons.) that’s exactly what happened. The facts are that Prime Group was the lessor to an entity named Ala Carte Entertainment that ran a restaurant on the property. The lease between the two included the provision above as well as multiple provisions stating that Ala Carte was not indemnifying Prime Group for Prime’s own negligence (something caused by Prime).

A worker was injured fixing HVAC units on the roof of the building. Fixing the HVAC saw Ala Carte’s responsibility, maintaining the rest of the roof was Prime’s. After the worker sued Prime, Prime sued Ala Carte and tendered the defense of the claim to Clarendon, with whom Ala Carte had the policy that was required under the INSURANCE clause. Clarendon filed a declaratory action to have a court find that it had no duty to indemnify Prime and later agreed to defend Prime under a reservation. Prime then sued Ala Carte for breaching its contract because there was a clause in the Clarendon policy to Ala Carte that read:

Policy Change No. 8 Endorsement

If liability for injury or damage is imposed or sought to be imposed on the additional insured because of: (a) Its own acts or omissions, this insurance does not apply.

The circuit court found in favor of Ala Carte and Prime appealed. On appeal, the appellate court found that the anti-indemnity provisions of the contract (those stating that Ala Carte was not to indemnify Prime for Prime’s negligence) did not contradict the insurance provisions because Illinois law has found that you can contract to get insurance for your negligence acts even if you could not be indemnified by a party for them.

Importantly, the court also held that the Endorsement’s negation of coverage for Prime was a breach of the contract provision between Prime and Ala Carte and remanded the case for a hearing on the damages resulting from that breach.

Make sure you read the contract language and either insert or remove this language depending upon your needs… and always read the policy once you get it to make sure it is in compliance with such a provision. A little double-checking in the beginning could have saved everyone this headache later on.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 

The first district has upheld an arbitrator’s decision regarding the implication of an indemnity provision and given us a useful reminder that some rote contract language is actually important.

Undoubtedly in your contracts you’ve seen language binding or implicating those subsidiaries, affiliates, successors and assigns – some have argued that the language be removed from agreements or given their own clauses. In Rexnord Industries, LLC v. RHI Holdings, and The Fairchild Corporation (1^st Dist, Doc. No. 1-08-0562) it turned out to make quite a bit of difference.

In Rexnord, two parties agreed to an arbitration of the percentage of a $1.8 million settlement each was responsible for. The settlement was for an environmental claim against Rexnord. Rexnord had previously been owned by RHI, was sold to another company (A), which was acquired by yet another company (B) and was sold before the arbitration to yet another company (C).

The original sale agreement between RHI and company A obliged RHI to indemnify:

“[company A] its affiliates, subsidiaries, successors and assigns from "any and all losses, liabilities, claims, damages, *** costs, etc." relating to RHI's ownership and operation of the property before the spinoff date, "so long as these ‘Losses' arise out of or are in any way related or connected to any Environmental Law; result from any claim by any governmental or private party arising out of or in any way related or connected to any Environmental Law; or result from the generation, use, handling, storage, transport, disposal, release or threatened release of any Materials of Environmental Concern." The indemnity obligation created by the agreement applied "only to the excess of (x) Losses over (y) the sum of amounts collected by Purchaser or Rexnord from third parties." (Slip Op. at 2. emphasis added.)

An arbitrator determined that RHI was responsible for 90% and ordered that it pay Rexnord for that 90% and some other damages. It also determined that company B was an indemnitee under the agreement between RHI and company A. RHI asked a circuit court to vacate the award and the circuit court declined to do so. RHI then appealed.

On appeal, RHI argued that because company B had paid the $1.8 million it was not obliged to pay because company B was a “third party” by virtue of being a subsequent purchaser of company A and by having sold to company C prior to the arbitration. RHI also argued that the arbitrator should not have considered the position of company B as an indemnitee because company B was not a party to the arbitration.

The appellate court disagreed and upheld the award. In doing so, it found that:

• The arbitrator was correct in considering company B as an affiliate or successor.
• The clause for indemnification did not exclude amounts reimbursed by owners or affiliates.
• The arbitrator had the power to consider company B’s status because the issue was raised by Rexnord and RHI in the arbitration.
• Company B was a “successor” under the agreement even though it had subsequently sold Rexnord to company C.

This is a lesson for contracting parties. Even though some language may appear rote or inapplicable, understanding the effect of that language in the context of the deal and knowing the obligations it imposes may help in your transactions and knowing what a court will do can add certainty to the language you are choosing. The inclusion or exclusion of any contractual clause is a determination best made by the parties after considering the eventualities, risks and obligations they wish to plan for.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

It's called piercing the corporate veil and the case of Fontana v. TLD Builders, Inc. (2^nd Dist. Doc. No. 2-05-0045) is a simple lesson in what to watch out for when you’re running a small business. It is also an excellent read for anyone wanting to know about the factors a court will look to in determining whether or not your choice of operating as a corporate entity will limit your liability.

In Fontana, the Fontanas sued TLD Builders after TLD defaulted on a contract to build the Fontanas' a home in Clarendon Hills, Illinois. The Fontanas had signed a contract for TLD to build the home and TLD started and apparently didn’t finish the project. As a result the Fontana’s had to demolish the partially constructed home because the damage caused by the work stoppage made the cost of completion well in excess of the $2.2 million the home would be worth if it was completed.

The Fontanas also sued the architect who settled with them prior to trial.

The Fontanas sought not only to be reimbursed from TLD, but recognizing that TLD was an underfunded corporation that would likely not have the ability to satisfy the $2 million judgment they were seeking, they also filed an action against TLD’s president seeking to hold him personally liable for any damages – even though his wife was the sole owner of the company and he only ran it.

The Fontanas won their case and the court determined that the president was liable and that the corporation, even though it was properly incorporated, was used as nothing more than a shell where the president ran the operation.

The appellate court upheld the decision… The factors the court looked to in determining whether or not liability would be limited to the corporation or passed on to the president are important factors to watch for in your operations to make sure that the corporate designation you’ve paid for is actually going to protect you:

• The fact that the president didn’t own the company but that all the shares were in his wife’s name was not a factor that would protect him – he ran the business and acted as though its assets were his own.
• There was no record of the initial $1000 check purported to be paid by the wife for the 1000 shares ($1 per share) when the corporation was created.
• The corporation had little to no money in its accounts and even made loans after it was sued – an alleged attempt to divert the assets to try and avoid having any money to pay in satisfying a possible judgment.
• The corporate minutes did not reflect resolutions or votes authorizing some of the loans made to various people and entities.
• The corporate minutes did not attach legal descriptions to resolutions to sell properties.
• The director (owner) had no real decision making power and/or did not exercise it.
• Even though by-laws, resolutions, shareholder actions, and tax returns were filed with the state and a separate bank account and financial records were kept, there were many corporate records that were not kept, like the resolutions regarding loans, notes or claims of indebtedness, nor records of repayments.
• The company never actually paid a salary to anyone, and the tax returns did not show payment to corporate officers – funds were transferred from the corporate account into personal checking accounts.
• Monies were transferred after the suit was filed and the corporation was left with little money at the time of judgment - salaries were paid and monies were loaned when a suit was in place (this was read as an apparent attempt to transfer assets before a judgment was rendered).

For both people going after a corporation that has been less than honest, and for those looking to use their corporate status in order to keep from being held personally liable, paying attention to these formalities is important.

The corporation, or LLC exists as a method of helping us all come together to create more wealth and to take chances on creating capital that we might otherwise not take. Not keeping up the requirements imposed by states for operating those entities will result in losing the protections they offer.

On a different note, this opinion also contains a section on awarding attorneys fees pursuant to a contractual provision that read:

"To the extent Builder or Purchaser fails to comply with provisions of this Contract, the other party may retain an attorney to assist it in the enforcement of the provisions of this Contract, and the party at fault (i.e., not in compliance with the provisions of this Contract), shall pay any and all reasonable expense relating to the enforcement of the provisions of this Contract."

While the court did find that reasonable attorney's fees were recoverable under the contract, the opinion does note that it may be better practice to include the term “attorney’s fees” when drafting a provision for a party to bear the costs of another’s attorney.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Without extrinsic factors altering the situation, generally only the people in possession and control of a property are liable for its negligent maintenance. Most often, the lessee who is in possession is liable for injuries sustained by third-parties and caused by a failure to keep the property in good repair.

This is usual in most cases, since a lease is traditionally a conveyance of property which ends a lessor’s control over the premises (for an interesting article on the evolution from leases as property interests to more contractual arrangements, see Orth, John, “Leases: Like Any Other Contract”, Green Bag, Autumn 2008).

However, in the recent opinion of Fan v. Auster Company, Inc. et al (1^st Dist. Doc. No. 1-07-2604) ambiguity in the language of a lease has created confusion that could be detrimental to an otherwise protected landlord.

You don’t need to consult the Manual of Style for Contract Drafting to know that ambiguity can cause uncertainty in a contract and that sometimes more particularity is required in your agreements – although Ken Adams has written plenty of informative posts about the topic.

The Fan case raises some interesting issues and is worth the read.  Pertinent to our discussion about lease language, the facts of the case are that a worker was killed after he fell into an open elevator shaft. His widow sued and the case was dismissed by the trial court which found that the lessor of the building had no duty to repair the defects in the elevator that caused the fall because it had no obligation under the lease to do so. The widow appealed.

The lease agreement between the lessor and the lessee said that the lessor was “solely responsible” for maintaining the “structural elements” of the premises and that the lessee was responsible for keeping nonstructural elements “in good repair.”

“Paragraph 14 of the primary lease was entitled “Repairs and Maintenance,” and it described the lessee and the lessor’s respective obligations for both “non-structural” elements and “structural elements.” It stated, in full, as follows:

“A. Lesee shall keep all non-structural portions of the Leased Premises and appurtenances thereto in a clean, sightly and healthy condition, and shall maintain all portions of the Leased Premises (except to the extent the Lessor is obligated to maintain the same, as provided in Section 14.B) in good repair, all according to the statutes and ordinances in such cases made and provided, and the directions of public officers thereunto duly authorized, all at its own expense, and shall yield the same back to Lessor upon the termination of this Lease, whether such termination shall occur by expiration of the term, or in any other manner whatsoever, in the same condition of cleanliness, repair and sightliness as at the date of the execution hereof, loss by insured casualty and reasonable wear and tear excepted. Lessee shall make all necessary non-structural repairs and renewals upon Leased Premises and shall replace broken globes, glass and fixtures with material of the same size and quality as that broken.

“B. Lessor shall be solely responsible, at Lessor’s sole cost and expense, to maintain the roof, foundation and structural elements of the building in which the Leased Premises is located. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Lessee covenants, throughout the term of this Lease, to take good care of all portions of the Leased Premises’ interior and exterior, structural and non-structural, including without limitation, all gas, electric and plumbing fixtures, systems or equipment, other equipment and/or fixtures located upon the Leased Premises, motors, machinery, roof, ceiling and parking lot, and shall promptly repair at Lessee’s sole cost and expense, any damages to the Leased Premises or the building in which the Leased Premises is located, which is caused by Lessee or Lessee’s agents, representatives or contractors. The term ’repairs’ shall include replacements or renewals when necessary, and all such repairs made be Lessee shall be equal in quality and class to the original work and/or item being repaired. At the termination of this Lease, Lessee shall surrender the Leased Premises in the same condition as when received, reasonable wear and tear excepted.”

While the parties to the case had not addressed the issue in their briefs, the Court held that there was an actual issue as to whether or not the cause of the accident was or was not “structural,” e.g. that the failure to have a sliding – interlocking – mechanism in front of the shaft was a “structural” defect. The appellate court remanded the case for a determination regarding whether the cause of the accident fit the definition.

You can see in the language that the lessor’s obligation in Paragraph 14(B) starts to enumerate things like the roof, the foundation and then includes “structural elements,” rather than continuing to define the elements, or than having a “definitions” section at the beginning of the agreement that would elaborate on such a term. If the term were defined, the lessor may have avoided liability (or it could have kept the original summary judgment from happening.) In any event, the lesson is to keep an eye on your contract terminology and make sure the terms you’re using have the meaning and specificity you intend, without ambiguity.

Of note to practitioners is a portion of the opinion in which the court upheld the contractual obligations of the handwritten language “The Lessee assumes all payment and performance terms of the lease attached hereto. In the event, there is an inconsistency between this and the attached, the attached shall control”  which had been added as an afterthought to a sublease – and which made all the difference in this matter by enforcing the terms of the original lease against the sublessor.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Last week we brought you the complaint against Castle Construction. This week, we feature another move by Attorney General Lisa Madigan on behalf of home-owners across the state.

With the spring remodeling season underway and construction beginning for many, Madigan addressed the issue – from her press release:

“Home repair, remodeling and construction complaints consistently rank among the top that my office’s Consumer Fraud Bureau receives each year, especially during the warmer months,” Madigan said. “Consumers need to make sure to ask questions before choosing a contractor so that they can avoid the types of companies we have sued today.”

To that end, the Attorney General’s office brought several suits against:

• Boss Construction, Inc., a New Lenox, Ill., based company that sells and installs gutters, downspouts, roofing, siding, doors and windows, and its President Steven R. Smith,
• Alpine Glass & Window Co., a Wilmette, Ill.-based window and door installation company, and its President Carol L. Bernahl,
• John M. Burow, doing business as John’s Home Repair, a Willow Springs, Ill.-based home repair service,
• Shane Rasmussen and Paul Haley of 123 General Construction, Inc., a Frankfort-based remodeling company,
• American Dream General Construction Company, based in Berwyn, Ill., and its President Carlos Villalvazo.

We have the complaint against American Dream and Villalvazo here.

The acts alleged in the complaint are important for home-owners and can act as a guideline or at least offer some insight about things to look for when contracting for repair and remodeling work:

 

 

• Make sure your contractor is licensed as a roofing contractor if they’re doing roofing work for you;
• Don’t let payments in advance of work get too costly, you should see some performance before they start taking your money, and then payments should be made incrementally, but not without a waiver (see below);
• Ask for your consumer rights pamphlet on home repair “Home Repair: Know Your Consumer Rights” made public by the Attorney General’s office;
• Check the construction permits to make sure they’re accurate and valid;
• Get a full accounting and demand a written sworn statement and waiver of lien before you make any payments… do not give over any form of large down-payment;
• Know about your three-day right to cancel;
• Do your research – How was this company recommended? Are they a company? Are there online comments about the company or its work? – Is a license required for their specialty?
• If you’re having trouble getting in touch with your contractor, or your phone calls aren’t being returned, you may think about contacting someone who can help;

Protecting yourself and your rights is the first step in making sure you don’t get taken for a ride.

                The Southtown Star has also published an article on this matter.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 

The situation is common… You’ve decided to build, there’s a building on the site and you need to tear it down and excavate in order to construct your project. You get a policy for the work, but you’re not performing it – you’ve hired a contractor who’s hired a sub to do the tear-down and excavation. Something goes wrong during the excavation and the building next to your site is damaged, or collapses… sometimes beyond repair.

You are sued, and beyond looking to your contractor and the subs for indemnification and possible coverage under their policies, you figure, “no sweat, I’ve got my own policy,” so you tender the complaint to your own carrier expecting coverage under a policy that you’ve paid for… but your insurance company says “sorry, you’re not covered here… take a look at the exclusions.”

They point you to a standard comprehensive general liability policy (CGL) exclusion that continually has varying application:

EXCLUSION - CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS

The following exclusion is added to Paragraph 2. Exclusions of SECTION I - COVERAGE A - BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE LIABILITY, COVERAGE B - PERSONAL AND ADVERTISING INJURY LIABILITY and COVERAGE C - MEDICAL PAYMENTS:

This insurance does not apply to "bodily injury", "property damage", "personal and advertising injury" or medical payments arising out of operations performed for you by contractors or subcontractors you hire or your acts or omissions in connection with your general supervision of such operations.

Your carrier feels so right about the determination that they file suit seeking a declaration that there is no coverage under your policy, a court agrees… and just like that, you’re back to hoping that your contract with your GC has an indemnity provision and requires that someone name you as an additional insured.

The recent, Seventh Circuit case of Nautilus Ins. Co. v. 1452-4 N. Milwaukee Ave. LLC, has done a good job in both analyzing this matter and making it understandable for owners who find themselves in this predicament. 

The situation in Nautilus is that described above. The owner/developer was sued under multiple theories including negligence and liability under the Adjacent Landowner Excavation Protection Act (740 ILCS 140/0.01 et seq.) after the work of its GC/subs caused damage to building next door that required the demolition of the neighboring building.  A copy of the original complaint filed by the insurance company with the policies attached is here.

Here’s what was at the spot:

Here’s what it looked like after it was demolished:

View Larger Map

 

The insurance company moved for a determination that there was no coverage under the policy based on the Contractors and Subcontractors exclusion (along with another exclusion – which was not terribly relevant to the appeal). The district court found that there was coverage and the company appealed - on appeal the court held that the exclusion applied and there was no coverage given that the policy’s exclusion was clear and that all the theories for recovery advanced against the owner were directly caused by the work of the GC/subs… to which the exclusion applied.

The theories of liability directly attributed to the damage cause by the GC/subs made for an easy determination under the policy language, but the owner raised an interesting argument with respect to the statutory claim:  it was the failure of the owner to give the required notice to neighboring owners under the act that gave rise to liability under the statute… so the statutory claim should be covered because liability under it was directly caused by the owner.

The court said that the statutory claim against the owner was also not covered because it sought “recovery for the same loss as all the other claims – the property damage arising out of the faulty excavation performed by [the owner’s] contractors and subcontractor – and coverage for that property damage is excluded by the contractor-subcontractor exclusion.”

In normal situations there would be other opportunities for coverage or indemnification by contract. An owner would likely have included the indemnity provision in its contract with its GC as well as a provision requiring indemnity or that it be named as an additional insured on the GC/subs policies.  

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

It’s our goal to make sure you have the greatest resources at your fingertips for operating competitively and effectively in the business. We’d be remiss if you didn’t get to see the Current Government Contracting Developments Blog. It really doesn’t get clearer or more concise.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 

The Illinois Attorney General’s office announced yesterday that a Cook County grand jury returned an indictment for Castle Construction Co., in Markham, Il. The announcement from the AG’s office is here.

The indictment centers on an alleged scheme to defraud the City of Chicago and the CTA in two publics works contracts by concealing or misrepresenting the actual amounts of the public funds that went to minority owned businesses.

From the AG’s release:

“In January 2006, Castle Construction allegedly obtained a $9.8 million construction contract from the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) to upgrade bus and train washing facilities at three CTA locations. As a condition of the contract, Castle Construction agreed to employ a minority business as a subcontractor. To fulfill this condition, Castle Construction represented to the CTA that it had entered into a $2.96 million subcontract with a minority business, Mid-City. According to the indictment, the Mid-City contract was actually $550,000. Also according to the indictment, from May 2006 to May 2007, Castle Construction and Blum presented the CTA with sworn statements in which they misrepresented the amount of work that Mid-City had performed on the project. On reliance on those sworn statements and other documentation, the CTA issued checks to Castle Construction, which included payment for work supposedly done by Mid-City.”

“In March 2007, Castle Construction signed a $9 million contract with the City of Chicago Public Building Commission to construct a fire station on North Clark Street and allegedly represented that minority-owned businesses would perform 26 percent of the work on the project. According to the indictment, Castle Construction falsely stated that it had signed a $1.5 million subcontract with GAG Masonry, Inc., a minority-owned firm. In fact, Castle Construction had entered into a contract with a different, non-minority-owned business to do masonry work on the North Clark Street project. According to the indictment, during the fall of 2007, Castle Construction and Blum presented the Public Building Commission with sworn statements in which they misrepresented the amount of work that GAG Masonry had performed on the project. In reliance on those sworn statements and other documentation, the Public Building Commission issued checks to Castle Construction, which included payment for work supposedly done by GAG Masonry.”

Several other news outlets have picked up this story and are reporting on it.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 

It’s a lesson we should all have picked up in kindergarten, but in your business it's even more important now that the Illinois Supreme Court has rendered its decision in Newton Tractor Sales, Inc. v. Kubota Tractor Corporation (Docket No. 106798).

In Newton, the Kubota tractor corporation was sued by the Newton dealership. The dispute centered on Newton’s decision to purchase a Vandalia tractor dealership. Kubota had a deal with the Vandalia dealership where it was the exclusive Kubota dealer in the area and Newton wanted to be sure that if it bought the Vandalia store, it wouldn’t lose the Kubota line.

Newton allegedly met with representatives of Kubota to make sure that after the purchase of the Vandalia store, they would still be the Kubota dealer. In order for the new store to get the Kubota deal, the old store owner had to sign a termination agreement with Kubota to end the sale of the Kubota line and the new store – now owned by Newton – would have to apply for permission to sell. A Kubota representative allegedly told the parties that “They [Newton] would be the dealer” which induced the old owner of the Vandalia store to sign an agreement terminating the Vandalia store’s then existing right to sell Kubota.

You’re reading this, so you can guess that Newton’s application to sell the line at the recently purchased Vandalia store was denied.

Newton went to court to enforce its rights and sued under a theory of promissory estoppel… which is why the opinion is important. When there is no contract or someone relies on your promise to their detriment, this cause of action may be available. In order “to establish a claim, the plaintiff must prove that (1) defendant made an unambiguous promise to plaintiff, (2) plaintiff relied on such promise, (3) plaintiff’s reliance was expected and foreseeable by defendants, and (4) plaintiff relied on the promise to its detriment.”

The trial court ruled that Newton couldn’t maintain this cause of action because it wasn’t recognized as such in Illinois. The appellate court affirmed…. and the Illinois Supreme Court corrected their mistaken impressions. The cause of action does exist in Illinois and people can use it to sue when they’ve relied to their detriment on someone else’s promise. (see the factors we listed above).

The Supreme Court also addressed and rejected an argument made by Kubota that allowing people to sue under this doctrine would wreak havoc on our industry:

“With respect to the first issue, Kubota points in particular to relationships in the field of development and construction. In construction, before a general contractor is awarded a bid, it must approach one or more subcontractors for their respective bids on specific parts of the overall project. Kubota expresses concern that promissory estoppel, as an affirmative action, would “erode the incentives for parties to carefully consider and detail the contractual terms and obligations in their relationships, and it would unfairly and unnecessarily expose one of the parties to unilateral obligations.” Citing a North Carolina case, Kubota argues that promissory estoppel would “force[ ] the subcontractor to be bound if the general contractor uses his bid, even though the general contractor is not obligated to award the job to that subcontractor.”

“We note that the scenario envisioned by Kubota is not the scenario presented in this case. Newton and Kubota did not have a general contractor-subcontractor relationship. However, we also note that our own appellate court has addressed the particular issue of subcontractor bids and has applied the promissory estoppel doctrine. See Pickus Construction & Equipment, 326 Ill. App. 3d at 523-27; Illinois Valley Asphalt, 90 Ill. App. 3d at 770-71; S.M. Wilson & Co. v. Prepakt Concrete Co., 23 Ill. App. 3d 137, 139 (1974) (“The doctrine of promissory estoppel is recognized in Illinois”). Given the appellate court’s experience and familiarity in addressing this scenario, we remain convinced that allowing promissory estoppel as a cause of action will not affect the existing relationship between general contractors and their subcontractors and suppliers. Therefore, we reject Kubota’s first public policy argument.”

The lesson here is no joke. Be careful what you’re promising and when you’re promising it in a transaction.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In Dorris v. Baxter & Woodman, the plaintiff, Leon Dorris, filed a lawsuit seeking damages for personal injuries sustained when he fell from a metal-grated walkway (air  bridge) that collapsed while he was working on the renovation of a wastewater treatment  plant owned by the City of Woodstock. In his lawsuit, Plaintiff named Baxter & Woodman, Inc. (“Baxter & Woodman”), Joseph J. Henderson & Son, Inc. (“Henderson”)  and Enviroquip, Inc. (“Enviroquip”) as defendants claiming the negligence of each entity proximately caused his injuries. Baxter & Woodman, an engineering firm, was retained by the City of Woodstock to provide engineering services and serve as the City’s representative on the construction project. Henderson was the general contractor for the project and Enviroquip was the manufacturer of the air bridge[1]. Plaintiff worked for Fischer Mechanical Group (“Fischer”),  the plumbing subcontractor on the project. 

As part of the construction project, Henderson erected/constructed a metal-grated platform as part of an air bridge that was to provide access to the center of a digester (large concrete tank used to treat wastewater). Two weeks after Henderson had installed the metal- grated platform, Plaintiff was walking on the platform when a portion of the metal grating collapsed causing him to fall into the digester. At the time of the accident, the metal grating was not secured with banding at the edges or with attachment clips at the ends as specified in the manufacturer’s installation instructions. The specification for the metal grating, included in the construction documents, required that the edges of the grating be secured with banding bars and that the metal grating be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s installation instructions and approved shop drawings. The manufacturer’s instructions, which stated that the  grating should be banded at the edges and secured with at least four attachment clips at each end, were contained in a shop drawing approved by Baxter & Woodman and included as a  specification in the construction documents. 

The duties and responsibilities of Baxter & Woodman were defined in the contract documents. Specifically, Baxter & Woodman contractually agreed to act as the City’s on-site  project representative during the construction. Baxter & Woodman agreed to enforce the plans, drawings, and specifications and to “provide full and complete construction supervision  services.” The construction supervision services included “daily inspection” to ensure that all work was performed “in conformity with the Contract Documents.” Baxter & Woodman was further required to review and approve shop drawings, manufacturer’s literature and other submittals for compliance with the drawings and specifications. Significantly, this review and approval included the means and methods of construction that were “specifically and expressly called for by the Contract Documents.” Further, Baxter & Woodman had the authority to reject work that did not conform to the contract documents. 

Baxter & Woodman’s contract obligated it to provide a resident project representative to  observe the work in progress and assist the engineer in determining if the work is “proceeding in  accordance with the Contract Documents.” The resident project representative was required to report any work that “does not conform to the Contract Documents.” Per it contract, Baxter & Woodman had the authority to direct or assume control over “any aspect of the means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures of construction [where] such advice or directions are specifically required by the Contract Documents.” 

Prior to trial, Baxter & Woodman was granted summary judgment as the court determined that it did not owe a duty to Plaintiff.  This decision was based on the court’s belief  that any duty Baxter & Woodman had to inspect the air bridge for compliance with the plans and specifications had not arisen as of the time of Plaintiff’s accident since the construction of the air bridge was not complete when Plaintiff fell. However, the trial court later reversed itself based on the fact that Baxter & Woodman’s contract did not require it to inspect the construction for compliance with the plans and specifications only after the work was complete. There was also deposition testimony indicating that Baxter & Woodman’s resident project representative had the authority to inspect the work whenever he chose. Further, it was Baxter & Woodman’s job to make sure that the work was performed in accordance with the plans and specifications and the construction documents expressly provided that the metal grating for the air bridge be banded and clipped before the platform was assembled over the digester. As such, the trial court reinstated the case against Baxter & Woodman. 

At trial, Baxter & Woodman’s resident project representative, Kevin Hinderliter, testified that he inspected ongoing work for defective materials and to enforce the contract specifications throughout the course of the project. Mr. Hinderliter acknowledged that he had at times discovered work that did not meet the specifications, and in those instances, he directly advised the contractor of the variance so the defect could be corrected. Mr. Hinderliter testified that, at time, he specifically insisted that certain work be redone in a manner that complied with the specifications. Additionally, Mr. Hinderliter discussed safety issues at Baxter & Woodman’s progress meetings and dealt with safety concerns. Furthermore, Mr. Hinderliter testified that on the day of Plaintiff’s accident, he knew that the grating did not have the banding along the edges or the attachment clips at the ends as required by the specifications.

At the close of the evidence, the jury found that Baxter & Woodman was 70% liable for Plaintiff’s injuries and returned a verdict of $11 million in favor of Plaintiff. Judgment of $3,675,000 was entered against Baxter & Woodman after the set off from the Henderson/Enviroquip settlement.

Baxter & Woodman appealed claiming, in part, that it owed no duty to Plaintiff.

The First District Appellate Court held that Baxter & Woodman had a duty to exercise its supervisory authority to ensure that the air bridge’s metal grating was secured by banding bars and attachment clips. Dorris v. Baxter & Woodman, No. 1-07-3126, p. 13 (December 2, 2008). In its reasoning, the Court cited various portions of Baxter & Woodman’s contract which obligated it to enforce the specifications, including the means and methods of the work that were expressly provided for by the contract documents, and provided authority to reject work that did not conform to the plans. Id. As such, the Court stated that Baxter & Woodman clearly and specifically agreed to this duty by the terms of its contract. Id. Further, the Court concluded that the contract documents required Baxter & Woodman to inspect the work for compliance with the specifications on an ongoing basis and to reject work that did not comply with the construction document. Id. at 14. Accordingly, the Court cited Putman v. Village of Bensenville, 337 Ill. App. 3d 197, 208, 786 N.E.2d 203 (2^nd Dist. 2003) in stating that a claim of negligence may be based upon the failure to perform an act required by contract. In such circumstances where the duty of care arises out of a contract, the scope of such duty is defined by the terms of the contract. Putman, 377 Ill. App. 3d at 208-09; see also Ferentchak v. Village of Frankfort, 105 Ill.2d 474, 482, 475 N.E.2d 822 (1985). 

In Illinois, a design professional has a duty to protect a subcontractor’s employee from injury on a construction site where the design professional undertakes significant supervisory responsibilities or agrees to ensure that the work is performed in accordance with the contract documents. Dorris v. Baxter & Woodman, No. 1-07-3126, pp. 12-13 (December 2, 2008); see also Miller v. DeWitt, 37 Ill.2d 273, 284-85, 226 N.E.2d 630 (1967). 

This duty will not be charge of a design professional where the contract provides that the design professional (1) has no supervisory responsibility, (2) has no control of or responsibility for the means, methods, techniques, procedures or sequences of construction, (3) has no responsibility for the failure of any contractor to perform the work in accordance with the contract documents, and (4) has no responsibility to devise, implement or enforce any safety precautions or programs for the project. Dorris v. Baxter & Woodman, No. 1-07-3126, pp. 12-13 (December 2, 2008); see also Putman, 337 Ill. App. 3d at 208-09; Ferentchak, 105 Ill.2d at 480-81, 475 N.E.2d 822 (1985).

Some pointers:

• In order to avoid claims and the liabilities as incurred by Baxter & Woodman, it is very important for design professionals to take certain precautions in drafting their contract. A design professional’s contract should explicitly detail the scope of services it is providing. The contract should unambiguously state that the design professional (1) has no supervisory responsibility, (2) has no control of or responsibility for the means, methods, techniques, procedures or sequences of construction, (3) has no responsibility for the failure of any contractor to perform the work in accordance with the contract documents, and (4) has no responsibility to devise, implement or enforce any safety precautions or programs for the project. As part of a design professional’s construction administration services, the designer often reviews the general progress of the work and may certify that work was performed in accordance with the contract documents. However, if this service is to be included in the design professional’s scope of services, the contract should explicitly state that the designer is not required to make an exhaustive or continuous inspections of the work and that the designer is not required to ensure proper construction methods or safety precautions or to see that construction documents are followed. Rather, the design professional may provide opinions or recommendations to the owner, which the owner need not necessarily follow. 
• Additionally, it is equally important for design professionals to strictly adhere to their contract and not assume any additional duties by their conduct. The design professional should also avoid maintaining a continuous on-site presence so as to avoid any inference that it is supervising the construction or in control of the premises. Further, the design professional should avoid holding or attending jobsite safety meetings or inspections so as to avoid any inference of control or supervision over safety. If the design professional becomes aware of a variance from the construction documents or any potential safety hazard, the designer should report the issue to the owner and qualify its report as an opinion or suggestion for consideration by the owner. The designer should not directly stop any contractor’s work or issue any directive based on the construction work. Again, reporting opinions for consideration to the owner with a qualifier (i.e. this report is only the opinion of the designer and does not constitute a directive of action or in any way modify the designer’s responsibilities or duties under its contract) is the most prudent course of action. 

Following these recommendations does not guarantee that the design professional will not be sued or even found liable; however, these tips are provided to help reduce the risk of exposure associated with design professionals’ services.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

 

A good document retention policy is a must and tailoring it to anyone involved in Illinois’ construction industry is an important part of its creation. With the advent of electronic discovery we all need to be aware of just how much we’re deleting when we erase files. In a fun article over at Law.com, Craig Ball has challenged the Gutmann method (that you need to overwrite your hard drive 35 times to completely erase data). The reality will be fascinating to those of you interested in making sure erased files stay erased.

In a suit filed in Cook County, the developer of the Palmolive Building (seen below) has sued its architecture firm for money that it may be forced to pay in arbitration with Pepper Construction in an arbitration action brought by Pepper against the developer. A copy of the complaint is here.

For those of you wondering why those forum selection clauses are so important, given that Illinois law mandates that construction contracts for project in Illinois be litigated in Illinois under Illinois law… Here’s a complaint filed by FC Stone against former clients who brought a suit in California despite a forum selection clause in their contracts. The suit is for the monies FC Stone had to expend to enforce the forum selection clause in the California court. Paying attention to both the Illinois law and the forum selection clause in contracts can help avoid such a challenge.

The Hartford is suing Grace Electrical Construction for close to $1.8 million that it had to pay out on bonds because Grace allegedly failed to perform. Under the Illinois Public Construction Bond Act (30 ILCS 550) Grace was required to obtain the bonds, but Hartford alleges that it has received more than $2.5 million in claims on the bonds that Grace was responsible for and has paid out the $1.8 million to settle those claims. The complaint can be found here.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 

It’s a good feeling when we’re able to show you just how important following through on protecting your rights can be… not to mention the smug satisfaction of being able to say we told you so. 

Warren Freedenfeld Associates, Inc. v. McTigue D.V.M., which the South Carolina Construction Law Blog has posted on, is a case that should have design professionals thinking twice about doing anything with the ownership of their creations other than granting a limited license to an owner.

The architect was retained by a client and drafted plans for a veterinary clinic. The parties executed and AIA standard form agreement, likely the B151-1997 because the opinion references an Article 6 that deems the architect the author of the plans and drawings and this all took place in 1998.

The relationship went south over disputes about payment and budgeting. The architect sent the vet a letter warning that all the plans they had produced were proprietary and that no one could use them to complete the project and demanded return of the plans. The vet responded that the plans were useless and that they had been “rolled up and discarded.”

Shortly thereafter, the architect took the step securing a copyright over the plans by filing an application with the United States Copyright Office.

In September of 1999 the parties formally terminated their disputes over payment with a written Termination Agreement and the agreement stipulated that Article 6 remained in full force and effect. The agreement also said that neither the vet nor his proposed hospital would use any of the work solely produced by the architect.

The vet hired a different architect to complete the hospital and in June of 2000, the veterinary hospital opened for business.

In 2004, the architect came across an article in Veterinary Economics featuring a drawing of the floor plan of the veterinary hospital at issue… and that the design had won a merit award. The architect went to city hall and got a copy of the building plans and concluded that his copyright had been violated.

In September of 2005, the architect filed suit in federal court against the hospital, the vet and several other parties alleging copyright infringement and other violations.

The defendants moved to dismiss based on the three-year statute of limitations contained in the copyright act. The district court granted the motion to dismiss ruling that any reasonably diligent person would have learned of the copyright infringement when the hospital opened, so the copyright claim’s three-year statute of limitations ran from that date in June of 2000. The architect appealed.

The appellate court analyzed the lower court’s determination about when a reasonable person would have been aware of the infringement and found that the availability of the plans on file and the fact that the hospital was open for a time did not amount to notice that would start the limitations clock:

“Architects have no general, free-standing duty to comb through public records or to visit project sites in order to police their copyrights.”

The court held that the record in front of them did not compel a finding that the architect had not been vigilant or that the architect had been on notice since 2000 and reversed the dismissal of the copyright claim.

The architect now has the ability to prosecute his copyright claim and if he prevails, he may ask for his attorney's fees as well. For the small cost of filing the copyright he gained this added protection… not to mention, since he retained the rights to the plans, he had the ability to request them when something went south on the project… in Illinois, if one adds these remedies to the contractor prompt payment act and the mechanics lien act - a design professional’s ability to obtain payment is drastically strengthened.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

 

Ken Adams over at Adams Drafting has continued his discussion regarding “time is of the essence” clauses in contracts. Today’s entry is an excellent discussion of the application of these clauses in the construction contracting where it is understood that delays are going to occur and are, quite possibly, just the natural course of any project.

His point is well suited to Illinois as well. While we see these provisions can have enforcement in real estate and other transactions:

“Third, we find that the trial court properly held that defendants' enforcement of the “timeis of the essence” provision in condition 7 of the contract was proper. Parties to a contract may make “timeis of the essence” a provision of the contract. A court will give effect to this provision when no peculiar circumstances have intervened to prevent or excuse strict compliance. The extent to which a court will enforce a timeis of the essence provision depends upon the intent of the parties as determined by language used in the contract and the circumstances surrounding the agreement.” Maywood Proviso State Bank v. York State Bank and Trust Co., 252 Ill.App.3d 164, 625 N.E.2d 83 (1 Dist.,1993).

Illinois courts tend to recognize and accept the arguments that construction contracts are different beasts in this realm and that some delay in projects is inherently reasonable:

“The Claimant, TWC, has argued that it should receive $91,795 for damages on the site utilities contract, $399,988 on the heating contract, and $218,146 on the ventilation contract. Most, if not all, construction projects will have some delays. Projects with multiple contractors requiring coordinated efforts are more likely to have delays. In this case, the majority of the delays are attributable to the architect-engineer and CDB. Much less delay is attributable to the contractors. For a delay to be tolerated, it must be reasonable under the circumstances. Much of the delay on this project was beyond reasonable.  As this Court [has previously found]we do not believe that the damages are computable to the penny as Claimants have tried to show. With the fact that some delay is reasonable and inevitable and the inherent speculative nature of computing losses in construction cases, we must try to find a fair figure for damages after weighing the evidence as is the Court's responsibility.”McCarthy Bros. Co. v. State, 47 Ill.Ct.Cl. 15, (1995).

Given the inherent nature of delay it is no wonder that many contracts now advance certain steps or actions as the marking points for different phases of completion and allow for an Architect or other actor to certify substantial completion. The current method is by far preferable to all parties involved and means we don’t have to bother courts with re-hashing the understanding that the construction process is different from other arenas.

However, Ken’s point about the lack of utility in these provisions is well taken, especially when many manuscript contracts contain the sentence.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

We know that client satisfaction has to be a priority on anyone’s list. Just imagine the number of projects you’ve been included on or gotten thanks to one happy customer recommending you to another.

But we need to be careful in how far we’re willing to go to satisfy a client because those measures could create liability we didn’t have before and could erase protections we contracted for.

Take the case of Senior Housing, Inc. v. Nakawatase. Nakawatase was the architect on a project to build a multiunit residential building for the elderly. The contract for this project included the AIA standard form language stating:

“8.2 As between the parties to this Agreement: as to all acts or failures to act by either party to this Agreement, any applicable statute of limitation shall commence to run and any alleged cause of action shall be deemed to have accrued in any and all events not later than the relevant Date of Substantial Completion of the Work, and as to any acts or failures to act occurring after the relevant Date of Substantial Completion, not later than the date of issuance of the final Certificate for Payment.”

The project was substantially completed on September 1, 1983. In 1984, the building owners found moisture problems leading to water and air leaks every time it rained or the wind blew.

Rather than telling the owner that this was not a design issue and that the owner should contact the contractor directly, Nakawatase conducted an on-site inspection and sent a letter to the owner advising that the contractor had been instructed to re-caulk the windows and that the building would be watched to determine if the re-caulking fixed the problem. In 1985 the owner told Nakawatase that the problem had not been fixed. Nakawatase was asked, and did, prepare bids for the application of a water repellant sealer to the entire building.

We don’t know if that work was ever done, but in 1986, with the problems persisting, the owner hired an independent engineer to inspect the building and find out what was wrong. The engineer concluded that the drawings had a flashing design that didn’t properly allow water drainage. The owner had the problems corrected and sent a demand for payment to Nakawatase in September of 1986. Nakawatase never responded to the demand and in March of 1987, the owner sued Nakawatase.

An important thing to remember at this point is that back then, the applicable statute of limitations was two years.

Nakawatase convinced the trial court that Section 8.2 (which the parties contracted for) was applicable and that since the suit was filed over two years from September 1, 1983, the court should dismiss the matter. Senior Homes appealed.

The appellate court held that Nakawatase could not use the statute of limitations as a defense because it did not deny responsibility for the moisture problems, because it instructed the contractor on the course of action to take in correcting the damages, and acted in apparent acknowledgment of its responsibility by making representations that remedial measures would be taken, observed, and further corrected if necessary.

We know there’s a desire to keep the customer satisfied. We need to balance that desire with its ramifications for post-project remedial work and communications when problems arise. We can end up creating new problems and accepting new liabilities depending on the actions we take when we attempt to investigate or correct a potential defect. You wouldn’t attempt a marathon without warming up, so why would you try to handle a potential conflict without first understanding what your rights and liabilities might be.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 

When the parties to a real estate contract know that the buyer intends to raze the only structure located thereon and redevelop the property, is the Illinois Residential Real Property Disclosure Act applicable to the transaction?

Yes, according to Skarin Custom Homes, Inc. v. Ross (Doc. No. 02-08-0061, 2^nd Dist.).

In Skarin, the parties entered into a residential real estate contract and the sellers checked the box on the disclosure form showing they were aware of flooding or recurring leakage problems in the basement of the property. They explained the leakage as “some seepage in the basement during heavy rains.”

The parties closed on the contract. Sure enough, the buyers soon found out that there was a history of severe flooding in the basement. Arguably, it could have been worse:

 

The buyers sued for breach of contract and breach of the Disclosure Act. The trial court dismissed the claims based on the buyers admission during the case that their original intent in purchasing the property was to tear down the house, build a new house, and sell the property for profit. This is likely what they had in mind.

The trial court found that the intent of the buyers to raze the property removed the transaction from the Disclosure Act. The buyers appeal and the appellate court disagreed.

The appellate court found that the act applied because the house was being used as a residence at the time of the sale, was fully functional, and none of the nine exceptions listed in the act were met.

These nine exceptions are:

Sec. 15. The provisions of this Act do not apply to the following:
    (1) Transfers pursuant to court order, including, but not limited to, transfers ordered by a probate court in administration of an estate, transfers between spouses resulting from a judgment of dissolution of marriage or legal separation, transfers pursuant to an order of possession, transfers by a trustee in bankruptcy, transfers by eminent domain, and transfers resulting from a decree for specific performance.
    (2) Transfers from a mortgagor to a mortgagee by deed in lieu of foreclosure or consent judgment, transfer by judicial deed issued pursuant to a foreclosure sale to the successful bidder or the assignee of a certificate of sale, transfer by a collateral assignment of a beneficial interest of a land trust, or a transfer by a mortgagee or a successor in interest to the mortgagee's secured position or a beneficiary under a deed in trust who has acquired the real property by deed in lieu of foreclosure, consent judgment or judicial deed issued pursuant to a foreclosure sale.
    (3) Transfers by a fiduciary in the course of the administration of a decedent's estate, guardianship, conservatorship, or trust.
    (4) Transfers from one co‑owner to one or more other co‑owners.
    (5) Transfers pursuant to testate or intestate succession.
    (6) Transfers made to a spouse, or to a person or persons in the lineal line of consanguinity of one or more of the sellers.
    (7) Transfers from an entity that has taken title to residential real property from a seller for the purpose of assisting in the relocation of the seller, so long as the entity makes available to all prospective buyers a copy of the disclosure form furnished to the entity by the seller.
    (8) Transfers to or from any governmental entity.
    (9) Transfers of newly constructed residential real property that has not been occupied. (765 ILCS 77/15)

The court made specific note of the fact that “a buyer’s intent to tear down a residential structure and rebuild on the property is not listed as an exception.”

We wonder why they would bother filling out the form in the first place if they didn’t think the act applied. The better question is why they would down-play the amount of the flooding if they figured the house would be torn down. We realize this is a punt… but the lesson here is “don’t lie” and don’t assume that someone’s representations are true… get it in the contract.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 

There’s a fun idea that I’ve always attributed to Bob Balaban that I first encountered it in an interview he gave on Fresh Air back in 2002.   Unlike some of his other interviews discussing his family’s history in the movie business, he was a little more descriptive about his silver screen pioneering ancestors.

In talking about his grandmother’s decision to want to get into the movie business he said that she left the theatre one day after seeing a movie for the first time and decided it was the business for the family because it was the only time she remembered anyone paying full price for something before they knew what they were going to get.

Don’t worry, this isn’t an article about putting an attorney on retainer. 

It’s about a recent case from the fourth district that has enforced a standard for properly allowing commercial tenants to set off rental payments in an amount equal to what they’ve paid in repairs for something the Landlord was liable to replace under the lease.

The case involved a damaged roof at a movie theatre in Quincy, Illinois. The theatre rents space from the mall.

In 2003 the theatre had the roof inspected because it had been leaking. Shortly after the inspection, the theatre sent the mall a letter requesting that the mall replace the roof. The mall did not respond and the theatre had its attorney send another letter that said:

"As it is the [Mall's] responsibility to replace the roof, [Theatre], by this letter, is making demand upon the [Mall] for reimbursement of the replacement cost. [Theatre] is willing to advance the cost of the replacement to be set off against future rents. If [the Mall] prefer[s], [it] may reimburse [Theatre] directly. The replacement will occur as soon as weather permits. Upon completion of and payment for the replacement,[Theatre] will initiate the setoff unless you wish to reimburse [Theatre]in a lump sum or pay the contractor directly."

The mall responded saying that the lease included the following provision which the mall interpreted to mean that the theatre was responsible for replacing the roof:

"Tenant agrees during the term hereof to keep and maintain in good condition and repair, the demised premises and every part thereof, including without limitation the foundations, exterior walls, roof, exterior and interior portions of all doors, windows, plate glass, etc."

The theatre replied that since the correspondence from the mall did not mention the need to replace the roof, nor the estimated cost to fix the roof, the theatre would go ahead with the replacement and that the theatre was not waiving any of its rights to reimbursement or damages relative to the mall’s duty to repair the roof.

The mall didn’t respond to the letter and the theatre had the roof fixed and sent the mall notice that the repairs were contracted for and that they would be setting off the entire cost of the roof repair from the rent obligation. The cost to repair the roof was $79,298 and the work was finished in March. 

Between June and December, the theatre set off $79,298 from the rent it owed the mall. In December, the mall sued the theatre to recover the rent. The theatre denied that it owed the mall rent and requested that the court make a determination that the theatre had satisfied its contractual obligations when it replaced the mall’s roof.

The trial court agreed with the theatre and entered a judgment stating that they had satisfied their rent obligations through payment for the roof and were entitled to set off the rent.

The appellate court agreed. It distinguished the clause for “repair” of the roof in the theatre’s contract with the mall from one in which “replacement” would be required. The court also held that the set off was proper.

In holding that set off was proper the court looked to the history of the law governing lease agreements and reasoned, in a similar fashion to the article from John Orth in the latest issue of the Green Bag, that the historic trend in real estate law that has transformed the lessor’s interest in land from a property right to a right under contract. This transformation, the court opined, has not changed the former covenants between the landlord and lessor, which allow for the lessor to set off rent in the amount equal to repairs the lessor made that the landlord should have made.

The court concluded:

“Thus, when a commercial landlord fails to replace a critical component of the leased premises, which is vital to the operation of its commercial tenant's business—in violation of the landlord's duty to do so, as previously discussed—the commercial tenant may set off such replacement cost, provided that (1) the tenant has informed the landlord of the need to replace the necessary component; (2) the landlord failed to replace the necessary component in a timely manner; and (3) the tenant informed the landlord of its intent to set off the reasonable costs of the necessary replacement.”

It’s a valuable lesson in drafting the lease agreement with particularity if there’s something that should be included in the agreement, and for a procedure to make sure set off is proper.

The opinion can be found here.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

It’s another great day for the AIA. In this case, Federal Insurance brought a claim against Konstant after Federal paid out over $300,000 to its insureds - a couple who had mold damage in their house.

Konstant had a contract with the home owners to design a home in Winnetka, Illinois. The contract (likely the B141-1987 since the work was completed in 1997, and since the B151-1997’s addition of “In no event shall such statutes of limitations commence to run any later than the date when the Architect's services are substantially completed” is not included in the provision contained in the Court’s opinion – but reference to §9.3 of a standard form AIA agreement is) had the following provision:

“Causes of action between the parties to this Agreement pertaining to acts or failures to act shall be deemed to have accrued and the applicable statutes of limitations shall commence to run not later than either the date of Substantial Completion, or the date of issuance of the final Certificate for Payment for acts or failures to act occurring after Substantial Completion.” 

The home owners found water and mold damage in their home in November of 2002, well after the 1997 date of substantial completion. Federal paid under the home owners policy and was subrogated to their rights and in turn, brought an action against Konstant for breach of contract in September of 2005.

Konstant’s attorneys moved to dismiss the action claiming it was time-barred under the Illinois four-year statutory limitations period governing the construction of improvements to real property (735 ILCS 5/13-214(a)) which states:

“(a) Actions based upon tort, contract or otherwise against any person for an act or omission of such person in the design, planning, supervision, observation or management of construction, or construction of an improvement to real property shall be commenced within 4 years from the time the person bringing an action, or his or her privity, knew or should reasonably have known of such act or omission. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, contract actions against a surety on a payment or performance bond shall be commenced, if at all, within the same time limitation applicable to the bond principal.”

In the circuit court, the designer’s lawyers argued that the contract provision at issue meant that the four-year statute of limitations period began to run in 1997 thanks to the AIA contract provision. The trial court agreed and dismissed the action. The owners appealed and argued that a different section of the statute of limitations provisions (735 ILCS 5/13-206) – a 10 year limitations period – applied to the instant case. The appellate court agreed with the trial court and made two important findings, one obvious and one not:

1.       The construction statute (13-214(a)) applies when a defendant is being sued for its act or omission of one of the statute’s enumerated construction-related activities. i.e. - the design, planning, supervision, observation or management of construction, or construction of an improvement to real property. (obvious)

2.       the extended 10-year statute of limitations which runs from the “discovery” of an act or omission under 13-214(b) is superseded by a parties contractual provision – like that of §9.3 – and will be viewed as an agreement between the parties to shorten the statute of limitations period so long as the agreed time-period is not in violation of public policy. (not obvious)

The lesson here is to make sure that as an engineer, architect, contractor or anyone in a contract with the owner, that you get that provision in your contract. There’s no reason to be carrying a ten-year risk when you can shorten it to, at least, 4 years… as an owner, you will want to make this provision a negotiating point that can impact the cost of your project given that you are now giving up something substantial when you agree to such a provision.

The full opinion can be found here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 

With all the talk recently of Ethics in State Government and the recently enacted mandates about State Contracting, we thought we would take the time to inform our readers about the topic.

Illinois law, (Public Act 95-971; 10 ILCS 5/9-35; 30 ILCS 500/20-160 and 30 ILCS 500/50-37) requires that vendors register with the State Board of Elections; requires that a copy of the registration with the Board of Elections be submitted with bids/proposals for State contracts; and requires contract certifications of State Vendors; and restricts political contributions to State Officers and Congressional Representatives by State Vendors and their affiliated entities.

a.            The Brief Timeline of the Act

In an effort to establish new restrictions on campaign contributions and solicitations for contract awards by state contractors and bidders, Governor Rod Blagojevich issued Executive Order Number 3 on August 26, 2008. The intention of the Executive Order was the enhancement of transparency in the State procurement process and to ensure that the award of State contracts is based solely upon price, quality, service and other merit-based factors. “What all State vendors need to know about new ethics requirements” Fact Sheet, Illinois Department of Central Management Services, accessed February 24, 2009.

Following the Governor’s lead, the Illinois Legislature passed its own version of the Executive Order into law on September 25, 2008, as Public Act 095-0917. The Executive Order contains restrictions that appear to be broader than the Act. The effect of passing the Act into law was to take an Order that could otherwise have been rescinded by a successive Governor and turn it into a law that arguably, is less stringent than the order.

The Act and Executive Order took effect January 1, 2009.

b.            The Entities Impacted By the Act

The Act and Order basically apply to any for profit entity or an affiliated entity of a for profit entity in the State of Illinois that has bids or proposals on State Contracts exceeding $50,000; is awarded State Contracts exceeding $50,000; or a combination thereof exceeding $50,000.  

Under the Act, State Contracts are contracts with any State Agency including all boards, commissions, agencies, institutions, authorities, and bodies politic and corporate of the State, created by or in accordance with the Illinois Constitution or State Statute, of the executive branch of State government and includes, colleges, universities, public employee retirement systems, and institutions under the jurisdiction of the governing boards of the University of Illinois, Southern Illinois University, Illinois State University, Eastern Illinois University, Northern Illinois University, Western Illinois University, Chicago State University, Governors State University, Northeastern Illinois University, and the Illinois Board of Higher Education. 30 ILCS 500/50-37.

Pursuant to Executive Order No. 3 the following and their boards of directors/governors are also included:

Capital Development Board

Department on Aging

Department of Agriculture

Department of Central Management Services

Department of Children and Family Services

Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity

Department of Corrections

Department of Employment Security

Department of Financial and Professional Regulation

Department of Healthcare and Family Services

Department of Human Rights 

Department of Human Services

Department of Juvenile Justice

Department of Labor

Department of Military Affairs

Department of Natural Resources 

Department of Public Health

Department of Revenue

Department of State Police

Department of Transportation

Department of Veterans’ Affairs

Governor’s Office of Management and Budget

Guardianship and Advocacy Commission

Historic Preservation Agency

Illinois Arts Council

Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority

Illinois Emergency Management Agency

Illinois Finance Authority

Illinois Housing Development Authority

Illinois Investment and Development Authority

Illinois Power Agency

State Fire Marshal

“A State contract is any type of agreement between a State agency and a business entity that is governed by the Illinois Procurement Code, including contracts for the procurement, use or disposal of supplies, services, professional or artistic services. A State contract also includes construction contracts, leases of real property, or capital improvements contracts, including master contracts, contracts for financing through use of installment or lease-purchase arrangements, renegotiated contracts and change orders. State contracts governed by the new ethics requirements do not include cost reimbursement contracts; purchase of care contracts as defined by Section 1-15.68 of the Illinois Procurement Code; grants, including but not limited to grants for job training or transportation; and grants, loans or tax credit agreements for economic development purposes.” Illinois Department of Central Management Services Fact Sheet.

The Act also applies to any affiliated entities of those entities covered by the Act. The Act defines affiliated entities as:

“i) any subsidiary of the bidding or contracting business entity, (ii) any member of the same unitary business group, (iii) any organization recognized by the United States Internal Revenue Service as a tax‑exempt organization described in Section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (or any successor provision of federal tax law) established by the bidding or contracting business entity, any affiliated entity of that business entity, or any affiliated person of that business entity, or (iv) any political committee for which the bidding or contracting business entity, or any 501(c) organization described in item (iii) related to that business entity, is the sponsoring entity.” 30 ILCS 500/50-37.

If an entity questions the Act’s applicability the following examples from the State of Illinois Fact Sheet in assessing the matter are helpful:

c.             The Requirements and Restrictions Placed on Those Affected by The Act

Executive Order Number 3 (2008) and Public Act 095-0971 place requirements and restrictions on their affiliated entities and all affiliated persons. 

An Affiliated Person is described under the act as:

“(i) any person with an ownership interest or distributive share of the entiy or an Affiliated Entity in excess of 7.5%, (ii) an executive employee of the entity or an Affiliated Entity, or (iii) the spouse or minor child of anyone covered by (i) or (ii).” 30 ILCS 500/50-37

Any qualifying business entity is required to register with the State Board of Elections pursuant to the Illinois Election Code 10 ILCS 5/9-35. Any qualifying entity must submit certification to the State procurement officer in charge of its qualifying contracts stating that it has registered and it must provide proof of registration when bidding on future contracts pursuant to the Illinois Procurement Code 30 ILCS 500/20-160. Any business entity, affiliated person or affiliated entity is prohibited from making political contributions as described in the Illinois Procurement Code 30 ILCS 500/50-37.    

1.            REGISTRATION

 

Pursuant to the Act and Executive Order Number 3, all qualifying entities were required to register with the State Board of Elections by January 31, 2009. If an entity has not registered with the State Board of Elections, the directions for registration may be found at:

http://www.elections.il.gov/BusinessRegistration/RegistrationProcess.aspx

And the proper form for registration may be found:

http://www.elections.il.gov/Downloads/BusinessRegistration/PDF/BEREPForm.pdf

The form must be completed and submitted to the State Board of Elections as described in the directions. The form must include the information regarding all “affiliated entities” and all “affiliated persons” for the entity.

After registration, the Board of Elections is required to provide a “certificate of registration” to the entity. The statute mandates that this certificate will be electronic and accessible through the State of Illinois Board of Elections website. However, the Board currently lacks the resources to fulfill this provision, thus, it is currently time-stamping copies of the first page of the registration forms and returning them to the registering entity to serve as the certificates of registration. State Board of Elections, BEREP Procedures website (last accessed February 24, 2009).  Here's a little more on this topic from the Illinois Issues Blog.

2.            CERTIFICATION

The Act imposes some affirmative duties on qualifying entities and their affiliates regarding the certification of its registration including:

               

I.             Within 10 days of registration, the entity must provide a copy of the certificate to each affiliated entity and affiliated person disclosed in the registration form.

II.                  The entity must notify all political committees to which it contributes, at the time of contribution, that it is registered with the State Board of Elections. Each of the entity’s affiliated entities or affiliated persons must also notify the political committees to which they contribute, at the time of contribution, that they are affiliated with the entity, which is registered.

III.                Every bid or proposal submitted by the entity for a State Contract after January 1, 2009, must be accompanied by a copy of the certificate of registration received after registration has been sent to the Board of Elections.

IV.                Every State Contract the entity receives after January 1, 2009, should contain a statement that the entity has registered as a business entity with the State Board of Elections and acknowledging the entity’s continuing duty to update its registration. The contracts will also include a statement that the contract is voidable for the entity’s failure to update its registration.

V.                  By March 31, 2009, the entity must submit a copy of the certificate of registration all of the applicable chief procurement officer(s) for the entity’s contract(s):

There are 5 Chief Procurement Officers for the State. 

·         For contracts for vertical construction or vertical construction-related services, the Chief Procurement Officer is the Executive Director of the Capital Development Board.

·         For contracts for highway construction or highway construction-related services, the Chief Procurement Officer is the Secretary of the Illinois Department of Transportation.

·         For contracts for procurements made by a public institution of higher education, the Chief Procurement Officer is designated by each public institution of higher education.

·         For contracts for procurements made by the Illinois Power Agency, the Chief Procurement Officer is the Director of the Illinois Power Agency.

·         For all other procurements, the Chief Procurement Officer is the Director of the Department of Central Management Services.

VI.                The entity has a continuing duty to ensure that the registration is accurate, and must report any change in information to the State Board of Elections within the time periods set forth in Public Act 95-0971. Notify the BOE within 10 days of any change if a contract is in place, within 2 days of any change if a bid or proposal is pending.

VII.              The entity has a duty to keep the registration information up to date for 2 years following the completion of any State Contract.

3.            ENTITY’S and AFFILIATE’S POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION RESTRICTIONS

                The Act and Executive Order Number 3 impose some restrictions on the entity, its affiliated entities and affiliated persons contributions to political campaigns. The following restrictions appear to apply to all three groups:

I.                    Contributions cannot be made to any political committees established to promote the candidacy of the officeholder responsible for awarding any of the contracts the entity currently has or bids on. From the time of the term of office of the officeholder to 2 years following the expiration of the contract, whichever period is longer.

II.                  Contributions cannot be made to any candidate for the office responsible for awarding contracts that entity currently has or bids on. For 2 years following the completion of the contracts.

For the purposes of these rules, the Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State, Comptroller and Treasurer are the responsible officeholders for the contracts awarded by their agencies. For all other contracts awarded by executive branch state agencies, the Governor is considered the responsible officeholder. 

Additionally, if the contract or bid is with one of the above listed executive branch agencies, Executive Order No. 3 prohibits:

III.                The entity and its affiliates cannot solicit a political contribution on behalf of or make a political contribution to any State office or declared candidate for state office or any political party. Note: this apparently includes any member of the general assembly and any other state office. These restrictions are in place for two years after the contract ends or until the bid is awarded.

IV.                The entity will be required to certify that no such contributions have been made.

d.            The Penalties Provided Under the Act and Executive Order

 

                In addition to the monetary penalties already delineated for the failure to register. Any Contract awarded to an entity that fails to comply with the Act may be rescinded by the awarding agency or the State, without recourse to the contract recipient.

                The Act imposes further monetary penalties of $1001.00 dollars for the failure to notify the entity’s affiliated entities and affiliated persons of registration.

                If an entity violates the requirements of the Act 3 or more times within a 36-month period, then all contracts between the State and that entity shall be voided and the entity shall not bid for any State contract for 3 years from the date of the last violation.

                Any political committee that receives or has received a contribution in violation of the Act shall pay an amount equal to the value of the contribution to the Sate within 30 days of receiving notice of the violation.

                If a political contribution is inadvertently made in violation of the Executive Order, then the entity may request full reimbursement from the receiving entity. Any contributions made within 60 days of a gubernatorial primary or general election are not considered inadvertent.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Here’s an opinion from the Northern District, Blythe Holdings, Inc. v. Flawless Financial Corp., et al. (Doc. No. 06-C-5262, 2009), that should serve as a reminder to keep your registration as a professional design firm current.

The plaintiff’s sued numerous individuals and corporations over a complex real estate transaction in connection with redeveloping multiple vacant lots in the City of Chicago’s 16^th Ward. As part of the transaction, plaintiffs entered into an agreement with a defendant architecture firm. The agreement, which contained an arbitration provision, was signed by a principal of the firm who was a licensed architect. A $25,000 retainer was paid to the principal.

Soon enough, the deal went south and the plaintiff was involved in litigation when it believed that many of the lots involved in the transaction were completely unsuitable for development and that no work had been performed to secure the lots they had been promised.

In addition to suing the developers and the attorneys representing them, the plaintiffs sued the architect on the project to get their money back. The architect defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, or to stay the proceedings pending the arbitration they were entitled to under their contract. The plaintiffs responded that the contract was void and could not be enforced, because at the time they entered into the agreement, the architecture firm was no a registered professional design firm with the state of Illinois. (We’ve written about this before.) Alternatively, the plaintiffs argued that because the contract didn’t use the full name of the architecture firm, the contract should be declared void.

Neither of these arguments is very good. The second is laughable. While it is true that the Illinois Supreme court has yet to specifically address this issue, many courts have already reasoned that because the work is performed by a licensed architect, it is the licensure – which is proof that standards are met through the design professional’s credentialing process -  that keeps the public safe, which is the point of the process. The fact that an entity may register as a professional design firm has nothing to do with public safety; public safety is the policy behind the act that requires registration.  The court upheld the contracts and their arbitration provisions and allowed the action against the design professionals to proceed in arbitration against the desires of the plaintiffs.

Note, however, that there are criminal penalties for the failure to register your design firm. While the arguments may not be persuasive to a court in determining whether or not to uphold a contract… people doing business with you may report you to the Illinois Department of Professional Regulation for the failure to register your firm.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Deciding how you’re going to structure your business and with whom you want to work is an important aspect of any transaction in this industry. Partnering up with someone in a joint-venture is a common arrangement - whether it be to gain better footing in a bidding scenario, or to accomplish a task that you couldn’t take on alone. But apart from increasing profits and minimizing loss, did you know it could eradicate a liability? Well, this case will be of interest:

Two companies came together in the summer of 1999 to form a joint venture in connection with an IDOT project to repair the McCluggage Bridge over the Illinois River in Peoria. The terms of their joint venture were set forth in a written agreement that stated the two were joint venturers for bidding, performing under the contracts and completing the project. If the bids were awarded, they were to be entered into in the names of the parties as joint venturers. They were to share losses and profits. Party A would provide all the labor and payroll and taxes and worker’s compensation and was entitled to reimbursement for those expenses from the JV before it and Party B split profits. IDOT awarded the JV the contract and in 2000 an accident occurred at the project where employees of Party A, employees of Party A and whose worker’s compensation premiums were paid by Party A were injured. The injured workers filed for and received their workers’ compensation benefits through Party A’s workers’ compensation insurer. This was their sole remedy against Party A under the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act (820 ILCS 305/5(a)). With the help of attorneys they then sued Party B, the JV and a whole host of other entities.

The attorneys for Party B and the JV moved for and won their motion which argued that they had the same immunity afforded to Party A under the Workers’ Compensation Act because they were joint venturers. The injured workers appealed and the appellate court reversed the decision so the JV and Party B appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court. The SC found that because joint ventures are governed by the principals of partnerships and because in partnerships, the partners are agents of the partners and of each other, and because the immunity afforded by the Workers’ Compensation Act applies to the agents of the employer there was immunity for Party B and for similar reasons for the JV. So they couldn’t be sued for the injuries to the workers.

So, what the injured workers wanted, which was more money from Party B and the JV even though half of the JV – Party A, was immune, was not available because the parties had a written joint venture agreement where the JV reimbursed the expenses for the workers’ compensation insurance and the principals of partnership applied.

This decision opens the door to some interesting questions regarding the collaborative processes proposed by certain standard form agreements. Could this be a lesson that the drafters of the Integrated Project Delivery contracts should learn from? Would an IPD between entities that created a separate LLC (the AIA-C195 for example) for the project be able to offer the same immunity from suit by an injured worker to its members as a joint-venture could under this structure?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

An important lesson in asserting a claim for a lien is elaborated in Inter-Rail Systems, v. Ravi Corp. Determining whether your work is maintenance or lienable work that has improved the property as part of an overall plan for improvement, and whether you can and have provided proof of the overall value added to the land because of your work is important where the statute doesn’t explicitly describe your work as an improvement. (See the Mechanic’s Lien Act – 770 ILCS 60/1(b))

In Inter-Rail, the plaintiff was contracted by the land owners to clean up a portion of a site containing drums and waste in a warehouse and an adjacent parking lot deemed hazardous by the U.S. EPA.

Specifically, the plaintiff was contracted for the removal and disposal of drums from both the parking lot and the warehouse. The cleanup also required the plaintiff to scrape, sweep and decontaminate or remove any areas of the site or trailers in the parking lot where spills of the hazardous materials had occurred. The plaintiff completed its cleanup work and the defendant failed to pay the balance due – the plaintiff filed a lien and sued to enforce the lien and for other causes of action.

The defendants moved for summary judgment (a finding that they should win without a trial based on the evidence) and the trial court granted their motion finding that part of the work was non-lienable and that the plaintiff’s failure to apportion the lien amount in order to allow the court to distinguish between the amounts owed for lienable and non-lienable meant that the lien failed. The trial court did allow the plaintiff 30 days to re-plead its causes of action on the lien to include apportionment, but when the plaintiff failed to do so, the court entered judgment for the defendants.

The plaintiff appealed and the appellate court upheld the judgment. In its finding, the court noted that the purpose of the Mechanics Lien Act is to “require a person with an interest in real property to pay for the improvements or benefits which have been induced or encouraged by his or her own conduct.” “The focus of the inquiry to determine whether a mechanic’s lien should be granted is whether the work performed has enhanced the value of the land to be charged with the lien.” This notion of “enhanced value” appears to necessitate that the work be part of an overall plan to improve the property. The court cited cases it distinguished from this one by noting that in all the other cases involving debris clean-up where removal of debris/contamination was concerned, the removal was also part of other work in a plan to improve the property, whether it be the removal of debris from a demolition site, or removal of debris after storage tanks are taken out of the ground, such removal is part of an overall plan to improve the property and thus, not similar to the present case where the plaintiff cleaned up the site. 

The court even went so far as to say that the plaintiff had not filled the contaminated drums with the hazardous waste, did not change the structure of the site… “It merely removed and disposed of the drums, already filled with the waste, and performed incidental cleaning activities. None of these activities were shown to be part of an overall plan to improve rather than simply maintain the property.”

Surprisingly, the court went on to distinguish this case from a case of asbestos removal where the removal of asbestos was found by a federal court to have improved the premises where the plaintiff in that case had provided expert testimony that the value of the asbestos contaminated property was significantly less with the asbestos inside of it than without the asbestos – and a trial was held where that information was provided… Here, as the court points out, the plaintiff failed to offer evidence that its work improved the property, “such as evidence of the value of the site prior to and after the work it performed.”

The golden ruling:

“We conclude that the activity of removing and disposing of drums containing hazardous waste, in and of itself, does not constitute an improvement to real property so as to be a lienable activity under the Act. As there was no evidence that plaintiff’s work was part of an overall plan to improve the property, its work was not a lienable activity under the Act.”

The court went on to note that even if some of the work were lienable the failure of the plaintiff to apportion its lien and subsequently amend its complaint meant that the plaintiff had waived the argument.

A lesson in defending against the liens for owners should be obvious… look for a way to argue maintenance. For those looking enforce a lien, apportionment and characterization of the work and proof of an enhanced value should be paramount.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As we’ve said before, making sure your covered under some policy of insurance requires a bit of attention to the details in your contract and the details in the policy language. Our last installment regarding this issue involved the ability of a certificate of insurance to stand alone as evidence of coverage.

In this installment, the opinion in United States Fidelity and Guaranty v. Shorenstein provides an additional bit of policy language to be aware of.

The plaintiff, an insurance company, sought a declaration that it had no duty to defend and indemnify the defendants to a lawsuit under a policy issued to a non-party for an accident at a construction site involving a scaffolding collapse in 2002. The entities seeking indemnification and defense owned the building and had entered into a construction contract with a non-party to the underlying suits in 2000 and the insurance coverage required by that agreement lasted into the time of the accident.

The construction contract required the construction company to name the defendants as additional insureds on its policy. The policy also included language stating that if someone was to be added to a policy as an additional insured by another written contract (i.e. the construction contract) then if a certificate of insurance had been issued naming that person, the person would be an additional insured.

The plaintiff argued that because a certificate of insurance had not issued until after the time of the accident, coverage did not exist where the existence of the certificate was expressly required by the language of the policy. The court found otherwise.

The court held that where the construction company and the defendants had specifically contracted for additional insured coverage, and the certificates had all the limiting language we saw in our previous entry on this topic, the interpretation that there was no coverage until the certificate issued would limit the term of the coverage to something other than the entire year it provided for. Reasoning that the certificate could not change the terms of the coverage given the clauses printed on the certificate specifically disclaiming that it modified any contract, the court in essence found that the date of the certificates issuance was a nullity, despite the language requiring that a certificate be issued in the actual policy.

Again, don’t just rely on the certificates. No matter what your position under the certificate, it’s becoming unlikely that they will afford you relief or protection apart from the policy and your contract.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The laws applying to personal guarantees have been shifted a bit by the recent case of JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA v. Earth Foods, Inc. (2^nd Dist. Doc No. 2-07-0045). In JP Morgan, a defendant who had signed a personal guarantee to a bank for loans advanced to a business wanted to avail himself of a statute that specifically referenced sureties and not guarantees. The business he guaranteed had defaulted in its principle contract with the bank and the bank sought to get the money through the guarantee since no money could be had from the now defunct business. Prior to the business getting a notice of default, the guarantor sent a letter to the bank that warned the business was depleting its inventory which was collateral for the loan and demanded that the bank take action. If the statue applied, then he would potentially have a defense to the bank’s suit against him on the note where he had arguably complied with the statute. If the statute didn’t apply, he would have no defense to the bank’s demand that he honor the guarantee. 

The dispute centered around the interpretation of the Sureties Act (740 ILCS 155):

Sec. 1. When any person is bound, in writing, as surety for another for the payment of money, or the performance of any other contract, apprehends that his principal is likely to become insolvent or to remove himself from the state, without discharging the contract, if a right of action has accrued on the contract, he may, in writing, require the creditor to sue forthwith upon the same; and unless such creditor, within a reasonable time and with due diligence, commences an action thereon, and prosecutes the same to final judgment and proceeds with the enforcement thereof, the surety shall be discharged; but such discharge shall not in any case affect the rights of the creditor against the principal debtor.

The guarantor argued that the sureties act applied to his personal guaranty and that he had an arguable defense to the bank’s attempt to collect on the guaranty because he had complied with the statute and sent the note. The trial court disagreed and denied him this defense in granting summary judgment for the bank on the grounds that the defendant was a guarantor and not a surety. The guarantor appealed and the appellate court issued its determination and after a long recitation of the possible differences between the both guarantors and sureties (an history and discussion worth reading), held that a guarantor was the same as a surety for the purposes of the act and that the defendant could assert the defense. 

While the question didn’t seem to hinge on too many specifics in the actual contracts between the two parties, the court did take time to note that any legal distinction between the two was nullified by the terms of the contract at issue which allowed that the creditor could pursue the guarantor without first pursuing the principal. (This is important given that the classical difference between a surety and a guarantor involved the surety’s obligation as joint and several and the guarantor’s obligation as derivative and actionable only when the principal cannot pay). 

The lesson is to know your rights and make sure you’re on top of them in sending the right messages to your creditors if you are a guarantor and in protecting yourself by trying to contract around this statute if you are a creditor. 

Additionally, the application of the Act to guarantees raises a few more questions than answers, for instance, does the case apply only to personal guarantees, or can we extend the act to multiple types of sureties from people and from corporations? What about in the construction context? Does this change the nature of surety bonds in the state? Can we apply this case to those who contract to ensure the work of another? Has the distinction between these two words been done away with? 

With all this in mind, we thought it might be worthwhile to see where some other statutes have made or obviated the distinction and if it becomes a functioning rule, where the Illinois legislature might need to clean house a little: 

Section 49 of the Illinois Credit Union Act (205 ILCS 305) lists the terms as separate and distinct when defining a “security” under the Act but does not explain that distinction:

Security. In addition to generally accepted types of security, the endorsement of a note by a surety, comaker or guarantor, or assignment of shares or wages, in a manner consistent with the laws of this State, shall be deemed security within the meaning of this Act. A credit union shall give each surety, guarantor or comaker a copy of the instrument evidencing the indebtedness. The adequacy of any security shall be determined by the Credit Committee, credit manager or loan officer, subject to this Act and the bylaws of the credit union. The surety, guarantor or comaker may, but need not, be a member of the credit union making the loan.

In defining the operations of certain insurers and companies, the Illinois Insurance Code (215 ILCS 5) notes the distinction at Section 4 Class 2 (g) and at Section 121-3(b):

(g) Fidelity and surety. Become surety or guarantor for any person, copartnership or corporation in any position or place of trust or as custodian of money or property, public or private; or, becoming a surety or guarantor for the performance of any person, copartnership or corporation of any lawful obligation, undertaking, agreement or contract of any kind, except contracts or policies of insurance; and underwriting blanket bonds. Such obligations shall be known and treated as suretyship obligations and such business shall be known as surety business.

(b) The making of or proposing to make, as guarantor or surety, any contract of guaranty or suretyship as a vocation and not merely incidental to any other legitimate business or activity of the guarantor or surety.

Article XV part 12 of the Mortgage Foreclosure Act (735 ILCS 5/15‑1204) defines a “Guarantor” in terms that include a surety agreement:

Sec. 15‑1204. Guarantor. "Guarantor" means any person who has undertaken to pay any indebtedness or perform any obligation of a mortgagor under a mortgage or of any other person who owes payment or the performance of other obligations secured by the mortgage, which undertaking is made by a guaranty or surety agreement of any kind.

The General Definitions and Principles of Interpretation Section of the Uniform Commercial Code (810 ILCS 5/1-201(39)) settles the matter within the code by defining the two congruously:

(39) "Surety" includes a guarantor or other secondary obligor.

However, it is likely that you can still waive the provisions of this act through language in your surety/guarantee. City National Bank of Murphysboro, Il. v. Reiman, 236 Ill.App.3d 1080 (5^th Dist., 1992). You’d just want to make sure you’re doing that explicitly. And if you find yourself as a surety or guarantor, you may want to take a stab at complying with the provisions of the Act when you become aware that the entity you’ve vouched for will be running into financial troubles in the immediate future. Who knows, maybe some clever attorneys with willing clients might see if the act could be extended to other types of financial backing. 

As always, having a surety or personal guaranty gets you one step closer to an actual payment, especially in a market where shell LLCs are created and dissolved for the simplest of transactions… and being aware of this new information should help you negotiate a better deal.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Any discussion of your project is going to involve insurance.  Whether you’re naming someone as an additional insured or being named as one is a part of every construction project.  Making sure that you get what you want is not as easy as you might think.  And the recent case of United Stationers Supply Co. v. Zurich American Ins. Co. et al, (Illinois, Doc. No. 1-07-2779) is proof that you need to pay attention to what you’ve contracted for and what you’ve received as proof that those obligations have been fulfilled.

In this case, the plaintiff sought a declaration from the court that the insurance company for its general contractor was required to defend and indemnify it after an employee of the company was injured while working on a construction project to replace a roof at the plaintiff’s plant.  The injured worker alleged he was supervised and managed by the general contractor and injured while using the general contractor’s equipment.  The employee had sued the general contractor and the general in turn had sued the plant owner (the plaintiff in this action) for contribution.  The plaintiff requested that the insurance company that supplied a commercial general liability policy to the general contractor defend and indemnify the plaintiff in the underlying injury action and the insurance company denied that it had any obligation to do so.  The parties filed an action seeking a declaration that their version of the obligations of the insurance company was the correct one and the lower court found that the insurance company had no duty to defend or indemnify the plaintiff.

The reasons for that lack of duty are important to anyone entering a contract related to a construction project.  The general contractor and the plaintiff had entered into a contract which had terms that required the general contractor to obtain specific types of insurance, i.e. Workmen’s Compensation, Contractual Liability Insurance, Automobile Liability Insurance, and Hazardous Materials Insurance.  Nowhere in the contract was the general contractor required to obtain Commercial General Liability insurance.  In fact, the contract only required that the general obtain Contractual Liability Insurance with the requirement that it be endorsed to cover the indemnity agreement (a standard indemnity agreement) between the parties which required the general to indemnify the plaintiff.  The contract also required that the general contractor furnish a certificate of insurance that named the plaintiff as an additional insured and did not require or specify which type of insurance the plaintiff was to be named as an additional insured.

The manner in which the First District made its findings is attributable to the vague nature of the contract.  As is usually the case, that ambiguity provides a learning point.

 

With regard to the fact that the plaintiff was named on the certificate of insurance for the CGL policy, but not on the actual endorsement to the policy or required by contract to be named as an additional insured for the policy, the court pointed out something you will likely see on all your certificates.  Take a look at this sample certificate, particularly the language in the upper right hand corner:

This certificate is issued as a matter of information only and confers no rights upon the certificate holder.  This certificate does not amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded by the policies below.

The court looked to that language and applied it to the coverage in this matter finding that the certificate did not alter the coverage and that the specific language put the plaintiff on notice that coverage is governed by the terms of the insurance policy and not the certificate.  Remember, the certificate isn’t the policy and the endorsement needs to be clear.

Second, the court found that none of the contractual language implied that the plaintiff would be added as an additional insured to the CGL policy. 

With this reasoning in mind the court found:

Based on the foregoing, we find as a matter of law that United Stationers is not an additional insured under the CGL policy because: (1) United Stationers is not specifically listed as an additional insured in the policy; (2) the construction contract requiring D.C. Taylor to purchase insurance on behalf of United Stationers did not specifically require the purchase of a commercial general liability policy; (3) there is no evidence of intent by the parties that United Stationers was to be added as an additional insured; and (4) the disclaimer language in the certificate of insurance put United Stationers on notice that the CGL policy language governed coverage of additional insureds.

 

Because the contract was not clear, and the certificate disclaimed any change to liability, the plaintiff was not covered under the policy.

As a side note, this is a small difference between the new ConsensusDocs and the AIA 201 – 2007 general conditions.  The ConsensusDocs 200 uses specific names for the types of policies required by the contract, i.e. CGL, Employer’s Liability, Business Automobile Liability, and does not require that the parties name anyone as an additional insured, but offers the option of selecting additional insured coverage in Section 10.5.  The AIA 201 identifies the types of claims against which the contractor should have coverage (Section 11.1.1) and requires that the owner be named in the commercial liability coverage as a default (Section 11.1.4).  Both contracts require that certificates be furnished to the owner, but under the present case, a certificate may not be enough.

The lessons are simple for a company looking to ensure legally binding coverage on their construction project in Illinois, there are two lessons from this case:

1)       Contracts should mandate that every type of insurance required is named in the contract, including terms like “commercial general liability” or others describing the coverage needed with specificity.

2)      Request that you be named on the endorsement and get a copy of the endorsement or make sure it has language sufficiently broad enough to include you as someone who has required the insured to name them as an additional insured – not just requesting a certificate of insurance.

 

 

 

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Michael Downs v. Rosenthal Collins Group, LLC, (Ill. App. 1^st, Doc. No. 1-08-0636) will be of interest to anyone reviewing their own contracts.  The case involves a contract's indemnity provision and whether or not it included an indemnification for attorney’s fees.

In a prior action, the plaintiff, a CEO and Member of a limited liability company, had been sued for breach of his fiduciary duties and breach of contract.  He successfully defended those claims and then filed a separate action against the corporation for breaching their agreement to indemnify him by not paying him for the attorney’s fees he expended in the prior case.

The agreement’s indemnification provision read:

“21.2  The Company shall indemnify each Member for any act performed by such Member with respect to Company matters permitted by this Agreement and/or Majority Approval, but in no event for fraud, willful misconduct, negligence or an intentional breach of this Agreement.”

The plaintiff argued that because only the word indemnify was used, it should be interpreted to have a broad meaning that included attorney’s fees.  The court analogized this case to a case where the word “defend” had been used in the indemnification agreement… “to protect, defend, indemnify and hold harmless” and noted that the agreement in this matter failed to use such language.  Combining the contract’s lack of specificity regarding attorney’s fees and noting that the American system of jurisprudence favored parties bearing their own costs and attorney’s fees unless otherwise agreed, the court found that attorney’s fees were not included in the agreement.  The court went on to state that a well-settled bright-line rule on the issue provided certainty in the law and would put parties on notice to include precise language on attorney fees when negotiating their contracts.

The lesson is to ensure that you’ve included or at least considered whether you want an attorney fee provision in your indemnification clause.  Although the court in this case seems to agree that the word “defend” added to the word indemnify may have made things come out differently, it would be best to specifically request the fees and/or costs that you want.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 

ConsensusDocs released their BIM addendum a while back and the AIA has now announced the release of six new IPD and BIM documents which include a BIM Exhibit that should help facilitate direct communication of each party's duties and an on-site project representation document that should be interesting.  A full press release from the AIA can be read here.

It's impossible to keep the excitement that surrounds BIM projects from spilling over into construction's legal sphere.  The challenges of contracting for a collaborative exercise and answering the new questions that are raised in an atmosphere that could become an entirely open and instant exchange of information will likely end up creating the need for many future revisions and additions to all the collaborative agreements.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In Stewart v. Gino's East, et al. (N.D. IL, Doc. No. 07 C 6340), the defendants, restaurants that accept credit cards for payment, were sued under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) in a class action alleging they violated the FACTA by not removing the expiration dates of credit cards from their customer's receipts.  One of the defendants brought a third-party action against a company that installed the software and hardware used for the credit card transaction for breach of contract.  The third-party complaint attaches the contract.  It is a short agreement entitled "Construction Contract" and appears to be a standard contract used by the defendants for the contractor installing the equipment and allows the architect final approval on the remediation of unsatisfactory work.

The third-party complaint alleges that the description of the services provided in the contract meant that the contractor would assure that the software and hardware were in compliance with all applicable laws, including FACTA.  The contractor brought a motion to dismiss and argued that nothing in the contract obligated it to make sure the system was in compliance with FACTA and pointed to provisions of the contract arguing that they were not ambiguous and precluded a complaint against the contractor. 

The court found that the provisions pointed to by the contractor were silent about the system or hardware complying with FACTA (after all, it reads like a contract for the installation of the machines):

• "You do hereby warrant, that all material and equipment supplied for this job shall be new and free from faults and defects, and standard written equipment warranties shall be included and delivered to owner and also included is an one year warranty (from completion of the contract work) on all workmanship and materials."

The court went on to hold that other provisions could be interpreted to mean that compliance with FACTA was included in the contract:

• [the contractor] is "authorized to furnish all labor and equipment to do the POS set up for the building"

• "[t]he work is intended to be complete and fully useable as a finished product or system."
  
• "that all material and equipment supplied for this job shall be new and free from faults and defects."

Finding that these contractual provisions might be interpreted to require the system, as installed, would be compliant with FACTA.  The court denied the motion to dismiss, pointing out that these ambiguities created a question requiring future litigation.

Now, obviously, the court, and we, don't have all the facts about the nature of the agreement, but if it was just an agreement for the work on the installation of the equipment, then the ambiguities have created an issue and possible liability in a situation where absolutely none was intended.  Again, it might seem like a pain to have lawyers reviewing your agreements and helping negotiate even something as small as this contract must have seemed, but there is a reason such a big deal is made over contractual language.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In this case, the plaintiff, M&K Chemical Engineering Consultants, Inc., an engineering firm from Illinois bid a project to perform design work to replace a cooling system for a chemical reactor in St. Louis, Missouri.  Before submitting the bid, the plaintiff asked the defendants, Malinckrodt, Inc., and TYCO Healthcare Retail Group, a series of questions about the project.  After getting the answers back, the plaintiff submitted a bid, based, in part, on the answers that the defendants had given, of $99,500.

The defendants accepted the bid and sent plaintiff an email containing a six-pages of the first sides of a double-sided purchase order, a second email containing the second sides of the pages, and mailed a copy of the purchase order to the plaintiff as well.  The purchase orders second side contained a forum selection clause stating that the laws of the State of Missouri would apply to any disputes and the Missouri Courts would have exclusive jurisdiction over any action arising out of the contract.  The purchase order, and subsequent purchase orders for changes the plaintiff wished to make on the project all contained the forum selection clause and a clause indicating that the initiation of performance under the purchase orders constituted acceptance of the terms of the orders.  The plaintiff's president asserted that he never read the second side of the purchase orders in either the email or the mailed copy.

The requirements of the project did not turn out as the plaintiff expected and the plaintiff sued the defendant in federal court in the Southern District of Illinois alleging that the answers the defendants had provided to the plaintiff's original questions (prior to the bid) were false and misleading, and requested a rescission of the contract, and restitution from the defendants for the $162,004 that it went over budget on the project.

The defendants requested that the complaint be dismissed pursuant to the forum selection clause contained in the purchase orders, and the plaintiff argued that the clause could not be part of the contract between the parties because the plaintiff was unaware of the clause when it commenced and performed work under the purchase orders and requested a jury trial on the issue of whether the terms of the contract between the parties included the forum selection clause.

The court held that the clause was part of the contract.  Citing several of the cases we have blogged about before, the court held that performance under the purchase order constituted acceptance of its terms regardless of a parties reading or negotiation of those terms.  We have seen this issue come out both ways for plaintiffs and defendants in the past and it is hard to divine from the courts a standard rule for when terms of an non-negotiated and unread contract will be held to apply and when they will not.  Suffice it to say that apart from the uneven bargaining positions of a consumer and a corporation, it is likely that ignorance of the terms of a contract will not preclude enforcing its terms.

The court also found that the plaintiffs claims of fraudulent inducement to the contract (for defendants answers to the pre-bid questions) would not operate to invalidate the forum selection clause.

The court took special care to note that the likely reason there was such a fight over the issue of venue and applicable was the plaintiff's status as a licensed engineer in Missouri where the project was located.  With only Illinois licensure, Missouri law, the court pointed out, can be more unforgiving toward an engineer than Illinois law.

The Court's original order can be found here.  The first judgment dismissed this matter with prejudice and the court subsequently modified that decision and dismissed the matter without prejudice.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In this case, subcontractor brought a suit against the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), and the general contractor on a project.  The bid on the project was to perform services for the general to excavate a trench, install a sewer pipe, and supply backfill.  The contract required that the parties abide by the IDOT Standard Specifications and the plans specified in the general contract.  The suit alleged a claim for foreclosure under the mechanics lien act, in which IDOT was named a party, a claim for breach of contract, and a claim that the GC had violated the State Prompt Payment Act (30 ILCS 540/0.01 et seq.)  The trial court dismissed IDOT from the case, and found that the IDOT specs precluded the breach of contract and lien actions.  The trial court then determined that retaining payment was improper and awarded interest under the State Prompt Payment Act.  The parties appealed.

Here, the appellate court concluded that the trial court was right in dismissing IDOT given that the mechanics lien act authorizes the funds to be set aside before resolution of the issue, but does not authorize making a state agency party to a foreclosure action. The opinion discusses a topic that should be of interest to those contracting with the state when it considers payment under the mechanics lien act.  §23 of the act authorizes subcontractor remedies through liens against public funds for state projects, but the act has never applied to contractors.  Additionally, suing pursuant to this section means that a subcontractor will be bringing an action for an accounting within 90 days of providing the required notice, and the only way to bring in an officer of the state under the act is in an action claiming they failed to comply with §23 of the statute.

The breach of contract claim filed against the GC was premised on an interpretation of IDOT Standard Specifications.  (This may bore some of our readers, but it is actually pertinent to anyone looking for courts to favorably interpret government specs.)  §208.03(b) governs methods of measurement quantities for trench backfill, and contains a clause stating that any backfill required in excess of the maximum quantity as calculated but he specs "shall be furnished by the Contractor at his/her own expense."  The plaintiff argued that there was no established width to the trench and tried to say that use of the word "shall" in §550.04 (the IDOT spec which states exactly how wide a trench should be on such a project) didn't really mean shall, but meant something like "shall not be less than," which, you don't have to be Bryan A. Garner to understand, is bad form in just about every school of legal interpretation... especially when the court can read other sections of the IDOT specs and see that when IDOT meant to set a minimum limit on something, it used some variant of "shall not be less than" and not just "shall."

Utilizing this reading of §208.03 the court upheld the trial courts determination that the plaintiff was not owed monies for the excess it was required to provide and the dismissal of the breach of contract claim was proper.

With regard to the final argument, the court held that it was IDOT that failed to make prompt payments to the GC who, pursuant to provisions of the contract and federal regulations was then to turn around and hand the money over to the plaintiff.  Contrary to the trial court's opinion, the GC was not in error when it did not turn over monies that had not been forwarded by IDOT.  The GC would only be in error if IDOT had turned over the funds and then the GC failed to pay them to the subcontractor.  The appellate court also said that the trial court had properly interpreted the State Prompt Payment Act, but because the GC did not owe money to the plaintiff, there was no violation of the act.

[NOTE: In addition to the State Prompt Payment Act, there are other prompt payment acts that can be alternative sources for causes of action regarding getting paid such as the Contractor Prompt Payment Act, the Local Government Prompt Payment Act, any of which, along with a host of other methods, can be utilized under the law in securing payments owed.]

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In McGrath, et al. v. American Family Mutual Ins. Co. (N.D. IL, 07 C 1519) the court has delivered some poignant remarks concerning both the standard under Daubert for expert engineer testimony as well as provided some issues to think about regarding the "latent defect" and "construction design defect" exclusions issued under all-risk insurance policies.

The plaintiffs submitted a claim to their insurance company for water damage inside their home.  The insurance company denied coverage based on two exclusions in the policy, one for construction or design defects and one for latent or inherent defects.  The plaintiffs sued, and the insurance company hired an engineer to provide an opinion regarding the cause of the water damage.  Motions for summary judgment and for judgment under Federal Rule 56(d) limiting the issue of liability were cross-filed.

The engineer had found that external water or moisture from humidity, ice, snow and rain had penetrated the exterior brick walls of the plaintiffs' home due to construction or design defects. 

The plaintiffs moved to have portions of the testimony of the defense expert stricken by questioning his methodology.  Plaintiffs asserted that the expert needed to perform in depth testing of the humidity levels to provide precise calculations regarding his opinions.  The court ruled that the pictures examined by the expert provided enough information for someone with his experience to reach an acceptable opinion regarding the intrusion points of the moisture and that in-depth analysis was not necessary.

The court then went on to interpret the policy exclusions for construction and design defects and latent defects against American Family and in favor of the plaintiffs.  In assessing the nature of the water damage, the court found that because the exclusion failed to include language addressing exclusions for losses resulting from ancillary damages caused by a design or construction defect, that the exclusion only applied to the actual defect and not to the water damage to other portions of the home caused by the defect.  In assessing the latent defect exclusion, the court found that the latent defect exclusion applied to "a hidden defect other than a construction or design defect."  The court analogized latent defects to hidden defects that are unrelated to construction or design such as finding lead paint under layers of previous coats.

Given its conclusions that no exception applied, the found that liability under the policy was established and that the only issues for trial were the amount of damages.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

We previously reported on the short facts surrounding this dispute in an entry regarding the propriety of expert testimony regarding the cost of repair.  Not to belabor the point, this dispute arose after two tornadoes damaged a shopping center.  TSA was renting space in the center at the time and part of their store was destroyed.  The lease had a provision that allowed for the TSA to terminate the lease if within 60 days of the destruction, they estimated that the cost of repair and reconstruction exceeded 35% of the total reconstruction cost. 

The parties agreed that the total reconstruction cost of the store was $1,960,067.00 (Slip Op. at 6).  35% of that amount is $686,023.00.  The court heard arguments at a bench trial regarding whether TSA properly estimated the amount would exceed the 35% limit within 60 days of the tornado such that their breach of the lease was proper.

After hearing the evidence from all parties, the court found that actions taken by TSA (the full list of facts is recited the opinion) amounted to a determination to breach the lease and then an ad-hoc approach with the estimates and numbers amounting to working out the figure of 35+% after the fact.  What this means is that there was no "good faith belief that a reasonable estimate of repair and reconstruction costs would be at least 35% of the then-total reconstruction cost."  (Slip Op. at 28-29) 

The opinion, and the different information adduced during the hearing should be a reminder to anyone in-house about the proper procedures for negotiating and dealing with the parties you've contracted with.

The opinion can be found here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Illinois is certainly no stranger to the Condo Craze, a quick Google search for blogs on the topic in Illinois should put to rest any notions to the contrary.   There are plenty of interesting and responsible resources on the topic... and the law regarding the issues involved in condominium matters continues to grow.

A case touching on those matters and construction and development as well as architecture is the feature today.  Kirkpatrick v. Strosberg, Doc. Nos. 2-06-0724 and 02-06-0731 consolidated (April 16, 2008, 2^nd Dist.)

The plaintiffs were individuals who contracted to purchase luxury condominium units in Glen Ellyn.  The developer built the units and the plaintiff's moved in.

Some of the measurements of the completed luxury units did not turn out to comport exactly with the finished condos.  For example, depending upon the method in which one measures the square footage of the units, the units did not meet the advertised square footage, additionally, because alterations were necessary towards the end of the project, the ceilings on the top floor units measured eight feet, six inches and not nine feet as advertised in the original brochures.  One of the unit owners spent extra money having his bathroom reconfigured after the initial plans failed to put the pipes in the right places, and another owner measured his cabinetry installation in accordance with the nine foot specs and not the eight feet, six inch specifications.

The owners sued the developer for violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, common-law fraud, and breach of contract.

There was a bench-trial on the matter and the trial court made findings in favor of the plaintiffs for the breach of contract claims, the common-law fraud and the consumer fraud claims involving the ceiling heights, but not the square footage issues.  The court also found that due to the nature of the contracts and the evidence presented by the plaintiffs there was damage, but the plaintiffs' evidence was insufficient and thus awarded only nominal damages of $100 each.  For the plaintiff with the bathroom plans, the court found fault at 50% with the plaintiff's architect, who was the plaintiff's agent, and at 50% with the developer, and thus reduced the damage award of $31,730 by half.  The court found the cabinet plaintiff's claims were barred by language in a rider to the contract by which the seller eschewed liability for improvements made by the buyer:

• "Seller shall not be required to review Buyer's architectural plans for the Buyer's improvements, and Seller shall not oversee Buyer's work on the premises. Seller makes no warranty whatsoever to Buyer that the premises and its components are complete or compatible with the Buyer's improvements. Buyers understand that all dimensions on the Seller's plans and specifications are approximate and subject to modification for actual field conditions. Field measurement is required to conform dimensions prior to ordering materials."

The trial court also awarded $83,000 to the plaintiffs in attorneys fees and $300,000 in punitive damages.

The appellate court upheld the trial court's determination that the square footage of the units, when measured properly, was not contradicted by any of the plaintiffs' evidence.  The court also upheld the $100 damage award finding that the plaintiffs' expert appraiser had taken cost approximations regarding damages from housing prices as they existed seven years after the actual date of sale for the units.

The court's statement of the black-letter law regarding the proper calculation of damages in a dispute over the breach of contract for the sale of real estate is familiar:

• "Damages, in a breach of contract for the sale of real estate, are calculated by the difference between the fair market value of the real estate on the day of the breach and the sale price contracted for by the purchasers."

The appellate then upheld the nominal damages award, finding again that there was no credible evidence on the matter given the appraiser's failure to estimate from the time of the sale and not the market value at the time of the case.  The court struck the $300,000 in punitive damages, citing a 1^st District opinion holding that nominal damages cannot provide a basis for awarding punitive damages.  The court also upheld the trial court's determination that the plaintiff and the defendants were 50% mutually responsible for the cost of the repair to the bathroom; affirmed the cabinetry decision; and awarded the attorneys fees.

Of additional note to appellate practitioners is the court's enforcement of Rule 341(e)(7) granting the defendants' motion to strike portions of the plaintiffs' reply brief, where the brief raised arguments in the reply that were not raised in their initial brief.

For designers: the court stood by the Architect's method of measuring the square footage of the condominiums as the distance from the outside wall to half of the demising wall rather than the plaintiffs' appraiser's "paint-to-paint" method of measuring from the inside wall to the inside wall.

The actual relief in this case would likely have been substantial had the appraiser computed comparable sales in accordance with the proper measure for damages.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Moorman Doctrine has been applied to those providing professional services since Anderson Electric, Inc., v. Ledbetter Erection Corp. 115 Ill. 2d 146 (1986).

The Doctrine has several exceptions but often forces parties to a contract for services to seek redress for damages they have incurred by suing on the terms of the contract rather than in tort.  The Moorman decision has long been a tool of attorneys representing construction clients for limiting the issues and available remedies of different parties to construction disputes.

In designing a building or performing work under contract on a structure, the doctrine often operates in limiting the manner in which a professional can be sued unless some error has resulted in damage to other property or personal injury or property damage resulting from a sudden and calamitous or dangerous occurrence.

In Loman v. Freeman, (Doc. No. 104289, April 17, 2008), the Illinois Supreme Court had occasion to visit the "sudden or dangerous" exception to the doctrine in the scintillating context of veterinary medicine... and, sadly, decided against addressing the merits of the topic in favor of a procedural rule that bars consideration of arguments not adequately defined or argued in the briefs.  In Loman, the plaintiffs' race-horse required surgery.  Plaintiffs claimed they only authorized the vet to perform two procedures, and that a third procedure performed by the vet, was unauthorized and did irreparable damage to the horse, rendering it unfit for racing.  Plaintiffs sued on two theories, one in negligence claiming that the vet performed unauthorized surgery on the animal, and secondly on a count of conversion, claiming that the unauthorized surgery amounted to an unauthorized assumption of the right to possession or ownership of the horse.  We are concerned only with the first claim in negligence.

The defendants claimed that the Moorman Doctrine applied and that the plaintiffs were barred from bringing suit in negligence.  The district court agreed and dismissed the plaintiffs' case, the appellate court reversed the matter stating that the unauthorized surgery amounted to a sudden and dangerous occurrence under the Moorman Doctrine's exception; the defendants appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court noted that the application of the "sudden and dangerous" exception to the conduct of the professional and not to the failure of a product contracted for was an awkward one, also pointing out that the application of the exception to veterinary surgery under this sort of theory could lead to the absurd result that veterinary surgery would fall under the exception, but veterinary practices resulting in, for example, misdiagnosis, would not.  The Court then went on to state that it would not consider the issue since it was not adequately briefed.

In his dissent, Justice Freeman pointed out something we often see in economic loss cases --confusion -- with half the opinion of the majority referred to the count as one in negligence, and half the opinion referred to a "contractual" relationship between the parties.  In providing assistance Justice Freeman pointed to the possibility that the court could reclassify the action as a contractual issue of bailment and proceeded to discuss the law of bailments and their contractual nature along with the bailment theory's ability to provide negligence-theory based relief in the contractual setting.  The issue is particularly interesting in that Justice Freeman argued that under a bailment scenario, a professional contracting to perform services is held to "exercise the proper degree of care and diligence about the work" (Slip Op. at 22) and notes that "generally, the bailee will be liable for losses that are proximately the result of the bailee's own negligence."

"Under the bailment, the bailee has a duty to exercise the skill or knowledge pertaining to the "nature of the business... Bailees will be liable for losses that result from their negligence or, more precisely, for their failure to exercise the skill or knowledge pertaining to the nature of their business."  (Slip Op. 23-24).

Justice Freeman went on to state that addressing the claim at issue under the bailments theory would arguably resolve every issue in the case.

Unfortunately, the Court decided not to address the "sudden and calamitous" issue.  Additionally, failing to fully flesh out the dicta concerning applying the exception to the acts of a person and not to something happening with the product will doubtlessly need to be addressed at some point.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In MD Electrical Contractors, Inc., v. Fred Abrams (Il. Sup. Ct. 2008; Doc. No. 104000)  the plaintiff had sued under the theory of quantum meruit, stating that it had no contract with the defendant for electrical work performed on the defendant's home.  The defendant claimed that the Home Repair and Remodeling Act prohibited a suit by the plaintiff.  The circuit court had reasoned that quantum meruit was a legal theory that implied a contract where none existed.  Since the Home Repair and Remodeling Act was against the contract, and the subcontactor fell under it, the court could not imply a contract where the act would forbid such a contract.  The Appellate Court had disagreed and remanded the decision.  And now, the Supreme Court's decision has squarely stated that the act does not apply to subcontractors.

• The Home Repair and Remodeling Act applies only to those who contract directly with the Home Owner.

The court refused to address the intriguing issue of whether or not a sub-contractor could have any recourse in quantum meruit, or outside the Mechanic's Lien Statute.

In a strong-toned dissent, Justice Freeman points out that the complaint was insufficient on its face to offer the factual issues that the court relied upon in determining this matter.  The complaint asserts that MD Electrical was a sub-contractor, but there is no evidence of that fact anywhere in the record.  The dissent goes on to argue that the court did not have to reach the issue of the Home Repair and Remodeling Act's application to sub-contractors and should not have done so.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Here's a reminder from the Northern District of Illinois Bankruptcy Court.  In Vancil v. Tres Amigos (docket #06-71254) the owner of a property, Tres Amigos, was looking to extinguish liens filed by two subcontractors of Vancil.  Tres Amigos brought the action to extinguish the liens where the two subs had not properly served Tres Amigos with their 90 day notices under the Illinois Mechanic's Lien Act.

A problem arose when the Court noted the Tres Amigos had never made one of the subs a party to the action and that it failed to assert a claim against the other sub, which was a co-defendant.  The Court pointed out the Tres Amigos would likely have prevailed on its claim, had it not failed to properly plead actions for which relief could be granted against the subcontractors.

• The lesson learned here:  Make sure all your ducks are in a row before time, effort and money are spent asking the Court for relief that cannot be granted.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

    A case from the Northern District (Smith v. The Village of Norridge), involving actions brought by an individual against the police, a landlord shopping center and its tenant, emphasizes the significance of indemnity provisions in a contract.

   At issue are cross-claims filed by the landlord of the facility arguing that the tenant is required to indemnify the landlord under a paragraph of the lease which reads that the tenant must:

"[i]ndemnify and save Landlord ... harmless from and defend against any and all demands,claims, actions, damages, costs and expenses, including [costs and attorneys' fees] arising from the conduct or management of the business conducted by Tenant."

  The lease contained a similar provision requiring the tenant to procure insurance for such acts and that the insurance was required to cover the landlord as well.  The cross-claims are pled as breach of contract actions stating the because the contract contains the indemnity provisions, the tenant's failure to indemnify (and obtain insurance in the second claim) amounts to a breach of the contract.

  The court disagreed with the tenants' argument that the Illinois Landlord-Tenant Act (765 ILCS 705/1(a)), which provides:

"(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b), every covenant, agreement, or understanding in or in connection with or collateral to any lease of real property, exempting the lessor from liability for damages for injuries to person or property caused by or resulting from the negligence of the lessor, his or her agents, servants or employees, in the operation or maintenance of the demised premises or the real property containing the demised premises shall be deemed to be void as against public policy and wholly unenforceable."

would bar this action.  The Court found that the provision would apply if the claim against the tenant had been one for indemnity for the negligent acts of the landlord.  However, the landlord pled an action for breach of contract, and the acts alleged as the root of the claims were intentional, so under two separate rationales, the ILTA did not apply.

 
  Accordingly, the court denied the tenant's motion to dismiss the cross claims.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

SWPlaza III, LLC v. TSA Stores, Inc., is a Central District opinion dealing with the termination of a lease in a shopping center after a tornado damaged the tenant's commercial store.  The lease contained a provision allowing the tenant to terminate the lease if the damage reached a specific percentage of the total reconstruction cost (35%); the tenant's estimate exceeded the percentage limit and it terminated the lease.  The landlord sought to enforce the lease and claimed that the estimates provided by the tenant were made in bad faith.  The Court held that a significant issue of fact existed regarding the propriety of the estimates.

• In what will undoubtedly become a cited case should House Bill 5293 be passed amending the requirements and standards in Illinois for expert testimony, the Court went through an extensive analysis of the qualifications of a construction contractor providing estimates and his ability to offer testimony as an expert under Daubert.

Illinois Construction Blog

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

    Here's a Seventh Circuit decision (Foskett v. Great Wolf Resorts, et al.) full of information regarding claim accrual for negligent design, indemnification, and the theory of risk allocation.  Two parties had entered into an asset purchase agreement with mutual indemnification clauses.  Buyer and Seller had agreed to a sunset provision in Seller's indemnification provision.  A claim accrued after the sunset provision and, on appeal, the court enforced the provision.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In an interesting case which has applied the Illinois Supreme Court's recent Buenz decision, the appellate court found that an ordinance which included an indemnification provision would be read to apply against Nicor in favor of the Village of Wilmette where the ordinance the city passed granting a fifty year easement to Nicor to "place, maintain and operate its gas pipes under the streets of Wilmette, in consideration for which Nicor would provide gas for use by the Village."  While the court properly applied Buenz, it summarily dismissed an issue that likely should have garnered more attention:  The Illinois Construction Contract Indemnification for Negligence Act (740 ILCS 35/1 et seq.)  The court simply states that Nicor's authority for the proposition does not apply, but fails to offer any merit to the idea or state why it doesn't apply. 

By invoking Buenz, using the term "consideration" and even allowing the Village to argue that "its contract with Nicor included a provision indemnifying" the village for its own negligence...  (See page 3 of the opinion) certainly we have a contract.  Whether it's a contract for an easement or whether the contract can be said to touch on issues implicated by the anti-indemnification statute should have been explored by the court.  Or, if the court wanted to say that a contract for an easement, no matter what the activities allowed under the easement are, should not be construed as a contract or agreement for construction... then it should have done so.  Instead, we are left to wonder exactly what the rational for not applying the statute to the agreement between Nicor and Wilmette that includes maintenance of the wires was, when Section 1 of the anti-indemnification act states that it applies to contracts or agreements:



• "With respect to contracts or agreements, either public or private, for the construction, alteration, repair or maintenance of a building, structure, highway bridge, viaducts or other work dealing with construction, or for any moving, demolition or excavation connected therewith, every covenant, promise or agreement to indemnify or hold harmless another person from that person's own negligence is void as against public policy and wholly unenforceable."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

There's certainly a difference between "registration" and "licensure"...

We've come across quite a few architects and engineers who seem to forget that a professional design firm needs to be registered.  It's an extra step, in addition to the professional's individual licensure and registration that's required in Illinois.  But what exactly is the impact of forgetting to register?

Here's an interesting case from the Central District of Illinois, pointing out that a contract will not be voided, and a developer's claim for restitution will not stand even if a professional forgets to register the design firm.  In Brethren v. OSM (C.D. Ill. 06-3161) the court points out that even though a firm may forget to register, the work was still done by a licensed professional and as such, there is no claim. 

Now, if the professional performing the work was unlicensed, certainly the restitution claim would be able to go forward.  The only real teeth the registration law has to compel the registration of the firm comes from the statute authorizing penalties for such a failure to register, 225 ILCS 305/21.  Work by a licensed architect is still work by a licensed architect.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The concept of having to obtain a surety bond shouldn't be of any new relevance to anyone doing public work.  Knowing the full extent of the provisions in the surety instrument and having a chance to properly negotiate might not seem all that important to a contractor who plans on completing its obligations.   Negotiating those terms or being aware of the full force of any personal indemnity provisions could be the difference between large-scale financial ruin and being able to get out of trouble with your reputation and bank account in tact.  On the flip-side, knowing whom you're granting surety to, and whether or not they're worth it is equally important.

The recited facts in United Fire v. Bartlett Bituminous should allow everyone to understand that the plaintiff will likely never see its money. (The defendants didn't even bother to respond to a motion for summary judgment.)  With the amount in controversy close to exceeding six million dollars, the point well taken is actually two-fold; one, sometimes you should cut your losses and know when you're sunk and two, performing research on the assets and background of the company you're dealing with is research worth doing.  A little foresight can go a long way.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a decision sure to be pertinent to landlords and honing their pleadings in disputes with tenants, the First District has decided that attorney's fees should not be awarded in breach of contract actions against tenants.  After reading Willis v. NAICO Real Estate, perhaps landlords will want to consider exactly how and under what statutes/agreements they look to recoup money from tenants.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

    For anyone practicing law in today's information age, the constant fees and assessments put forth by different counties for access to recorded documents, court filings, or any other public record is well known.  In fact, the charges for information can sometimes be exorbitant if someone is getting involved in multi-party litigation.

    This newly proposed Senate Bill #2175 should come as a welcome proposal to the small practioner concerned about handing over the expense of accessing public data to a client.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The new ConsensusDOCS forms were published late last year and will be the subject of the ABA Construction Industry Forum's 2008 Fall Meeting.  With all the buzz we thought it would be pertinent to sit down and read these documents.  This posting is one of many expected to come regarding the new ConsensusDOCS.

            The language implying a fiduciary duty hasn't changed much over the years and is often described by the courts as a "relationship of trust and confidence" between parties.  With that definition entrenched in case law we thought it a bit peculiar that the normal contracting relationship between an architect and an owner would be particularly described as one of "trust and confidence" in ConsensusDOCS 240 section 2.2. 

In the construction setting, plaintiff's with claims have been seeking to impose a fiduciary relationship in one form or another on contractors and architects to gain more damages and a heightened standard of care for some time.  Thankfully, many courts have often struck down the concept of parties contracting for construction services as entering into a fiduciary relationship thus allowing plaintiff's to bring causes of action outside the normal breach of contract claim or based on a heightened standard of care.  (See, 262 F. Supp. 2d 1004; 812 F. Supp. 72)

With the concept of "trust and confidence" and its implication of a fiduciary relationship in mind, it's odd that the ConsensusDOCS Guidebook from October 31, 2007, would explicitly delineate that the contracting parties should not be agreeing to a heightened standard of care:

• "Standard of Care (Section 2.1): A definition of the standard of care applicable to architectural and engineering services performed under this Agreement is not included in this Agreement (previous additions of AGC contracts did include such a definition). The drafters of the new Consensus documents determined that it would be better for the design professionals to be held to a standard imposed on them by their own profession, rather than one defined by this Agreement.

• "Contractors and Owners should not modify this Agreement by adding language that would hold any design professional to a standard of care that is above that which is customary and normal for design professionals in the same time and location, because that might result in the unintended consequence of voiding errors and omissions coverage available to the respective design professionals."

 
But then go on to say that the A/E is accepting a relationship of trust and confidence in Section 2.1 of document 240:

 

• "Relationship of the Parties (Section 2.2): This provision requires the Architect/Engineer (A/E) to accept the relationship of trust and confidence in exercising its skill and judgment in furthering the interests of the Owner and expressly affirms the A/E's representation that it possesses the requisite skill, expertise, and licensing to perform the required services. The new language is preferable, but it should be noted that it was not included in the previous AGC 240 Owner-Designer professional Agreement, no longer published."

       It is also a bit boggling that understanding the implication of the "trust and confidence" language, that no other provision in the document would specifically state that nothing in the contract should be construed as creating a fiduciary relationship between the parties.  Perhaps the authors just thought such a provision unnecessary given the lack of case law supporting a fiduciary relationship in such a setting.  But why then be specific as to the language of "trust and confidence" between the parties?  Why not just state that the parties agree to "good faith and fair dealing" or accept a "contractual relationship for the provision of A/E services"?  And, even if a standard of care is not affected by the language, could "trust and confidence" through its fiduciary implications mean that there are now added duties that the A/E must be aware of?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

   

        In this recent opinion from the First District, the Court has upheld that a general's control through asserting its authority to stop work due to safety violations by its sub; the mandate that the sub hold weekly safety meetings and submit the minutes of those meetings for the general's review; and the subs contractual obligation to submit a site-specific safety plan all amount to enough retained control to present an issue of fact as to the general's liability under §414 of the restatement of torts.

            §414 states in relevant part that:

            "One who entrusts work to an independent contractor, but who retains the control of any part of the work, is subject to liability for physical harm to others for whose safety the employer owes a duty to exercise reasonable care, which is caused by his failure to exercise his control with reasonable care."

            In the case of Wilkerson v. Schwendener (1-06-2653) the plaintiff was the employee of a sub and was placing some joists on a second floor of a retirement home project when his co-worker handed him a joist and struck him in the foot.

            The general had won summary judgment on the issue of §414 liability where it claimed to not have retained control of its subs work.  The Court found that the general had retained control where it required its sub to (1) comply with a 21 part list of safety regulations generated by the general; (2) hold weekly safety meetings and submit the minutes of those meetings; (3) prepare and submit a site-specific safety plan; and (4) attend the general's weekly safety meetings.  Additionally, at some point prior to the plaintiff's accident the general had sent a letter to the sub stating that the sub needed to get its safety program in order or the general "WILL STOP" (yes, it was all caps in the actual letter) the sub from continuing its work.

            The Court noted that generally, just having a supervisory role over safety would not have implicated the general in §414 liability, but here, with all the factors taken into account, and the threat of stopping the work if safety was not performed properly, the general did retain sufficient control and with it, liability.

            This raises some interesting questions regarding safety.  We know that a general wants to eliminate workplace accidents and that if it is not in charge of workplace safety, its subs might not toe the line (as here).  We also know that a general can't be everywhere at once on a job site.  So what should a general do now?  Should they be standing back and not getting involved in safety programs and full-on supervision?  Would that increase the number of accidents, but shield generals from liability under §414?  It seems a bit ridiculous that because a general was concerned with safety (preventing accidents) and interceded in different ways to increase safety (increase the prevention of accidents) that it should be held to be liable under §414 where its sub didn't have adequate safety in place in order to protect its own employees but where it did try to get the sub to conform to the plan and put adequate protections in place.  If the general hadn't had a plan and hadn't butted in, and hadn't threatened to stop the subs work, the accident would have happened, probably sooner, but it would be able to stand back and have a better argument against §414 liability.  The general didn't control all the safety, and unless there's a reason to believe that the sub would have put in place different and better safety measures than it could under the general's program, it's a bit ridiculous to say that the general should be at fault because it took certain steps to get the safety program of its lackadaisical subcontractor.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

       It started with a simple article about developers paying to have their properties re-zoned in a Sunday edition of the Chicago Tribune.  The expose blossomed into a myriad of comments and subsequent features and commentary all the way to a piece soliciting comment from the Mayor.  Chicago Neighborhoods were beginning to look a bit more like the image below with set-offs and accommodations made in different zones for single-zoned lots and properties:

    That media attention and discussion has now resulted in Senate Bills 2014 and 2022.   SB 2014 seeks to allow de novo review of decisions regarding zoning applications, altering the previous system of review upon the approval and adoption of a zoning decision.  SB 2022 alters the notice times for publication regarding hearings for changes, and in unincorporated parts of the state, requires that notice be sent to adjacent parcels within 1.5 miles of the proposed re-zoning.
    These changes come too fast on the heals of those articles and reports to realistically be deemed anything but fallout from scrutiny into the development practices going on in the State.  Thus, developers should be aware that they may soon have a few extra technical hurdles to overcome before getting those zoning requirements they need for their projects.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

    These pesky forum selection clauses keep popping up, but in this interesting twist, the court is now enforcing them when they're not part of the original contract or negotiations with someone, but arrive after work has been started on the back of a purchase order.  In Compass Environmental, Inc. v. Polu Kai Services, LLC, it was Polu Kai's fault for not objecting to or raising an issue about the forum selection clause printed on the back of a purchase order.  But, even if they had, what were they to do when they had already started work on the project?  Would it be an actionable repudiation if Polu Kai had just walked, four days into its job, after it received its purchase order and didn't like the terms printed on the back... terms which weren't negotiated between the parties beforehand and now appear to be deemed accepted unless action is taken?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

            We haven't seen as much discussion as would seem to be merited by the provisions of the Illinois Contractor Prompt Payment Act (815 ILCS 603/1 et seq.).   This act has written itself into every construction contract in the State of Illinois (excepting public works, single family homes and buildings with fewer than 12 family units, of course).  This lack of constructive commenting is likely because the Act didn't become law until August 31, 2007.  However, from the comments and criticisms we have seen, there's an extremely important and sure to be contested issue that needs to be addressed:  Is it possible to "opt" out of the provisions of the Act?

The original version of the House Bill (HB 0743) that introduced what later became the Act included language at the beginning of Section 10 which read:

• "Construction contracts.  All construction contracts shall be deemed to provide the following unless they expressly exclude the provisions of this Act"

            This provision was the sole subject of Senate Committee Amendment No. 1, which was adopted by the Senate and the House and incorporated into the Act and struck the "unless they expressly exclude the provisions of this Act" language from the Act.

            This creates a strong argument for anyone wishing to claim that it was the express intent of the legislature to not allow parties to "opt" out of the act.  Combine this with the ideas that the public policy of the act was to ensure prompt payment to contractors and subs as defined by the Mechanic's Lien act; to allow contractors and subs an additional recourse should payments not be forthcoming; to shorten the time it takes for payment and approval of work, and we end up with a decent case that parties could end up contracting around the act for naught.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

            For those out-of-state contractors, architects, and builders working on projects in some other place for Illinois' residents, there are some interesting lessons in the Fourth District's Isringhausen v. Prime Contractors and Associates, Inc., opinion regarding keeping yourselves from being subjected to Illinois law.

            It should come as no surprise that a Florida company working on building a house in Florida that was contacted and did no business in Illinois was not subject to Illinois jurisdiction.  But, what if the Florida contractor was advertising here in Illinois, or had made a few trips to Illinois to complete the contract?  What if the escrow or some other portion of the contract were to be completed in Illinois so that the contractor, although minimally, were availing itself of Illinois law?  It would be wise to work out the full details for out-of-state construction both for owners in Illinois and contractors elsewhere, lest the parties find themselves in costly litigation hundreds or even thousands of miles away.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

    Yesterday's Seventh Circuit opinion, IFC Credit v. United Business, should be of interest to anyone out there contracting and agreeing to waive a trial by jury.  The Court found that state law will control a determination about the validity of bench-trial agreements (jury-waiver clauses) in federal cases brought under diversity jurisdiction. 

    Apparently, it may create a possible circuit split between the Courts as well. 

    The failure to have an attorney review or negotiate the terms of a contract appear to no longer be a decent defense to jury-waiver clauses.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks