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

Here's a treat.  HB 2094 was introduced back in February of 2007 as a bill pertaining to the confidentiality of records and persons under the Adoption Act.  It sat in the House Rules Committee from April 27 of 2007 until April 8, 2008. 

On April 8, 2008, it was revived, cleverly, and an amendment was proposed striking the entirety of the bill and inserting what appears as a wholly new proposed bill regarding requirements for safety during construction.  The requirements will undoubtedly be interpreted as providing for strict liability against those found to have violated the act, they also confer a private right of action to people injured and a right for any attorney to enforce the act and receive fees if the Attorney General's office does not act promptly.  The act appears to contain provisions that pertain to just about everyone who could possibly be involved in a construction project.  Of note to Illinois Architects, and anyone drafting plans is Section 8 of the amendment:

• "It shall be the duty of all architects or draftsmen engaged in preparing plans, specifications or drawings to be used in the erection, repairing, altering or removing of any building or structure within the terms and provisions of this Act to provide in such plans, specifications  and drawings for all the permanent structural features or requirements specified in this Act; and any failure on the part  of any such architect or draftsman to perform such duty, shall be a petty offense."

Importantly, this is an attempt, by its own admission, to reintroduce the Structural Work Act which was repealed in 1995.  The legislature had attempted to introduce the act in 2001, and our readers will have no trouble comparing the provisions of that bill, with all its clauses, to sections which are similar to this new attempt to bring back the Structural Work Act.

There are multiple articles and analysis comparing the shift in the law and the liability of different parties to construction efforts after the repeal of the original Structural Work Act.  Most notably, the shift created a fairer system allowing for comparative fault to be assessed by a finder of fact, and brought liability back to common law standards under §§ 414 and 343 of the restatement of torts.. forcing individuals to actually prove that those they were suing had some form of notice which provided a duty of care that was breached resulting in a plaintiff's injury.  Under the proposed act, Illinois law would again fall back into the category of states creating duties and responsibilities for construction entities where none may have existed.

Additionally, what does the "failure to act promptly" provision mean?  Could attorneys get into the business of policing construction sites for violations of the act, suing and recouping costs and fees?

If the real purpose of the act is to provide greater safety at construction sites and in planning, why confer a private right of action to those injured where fair and balanced methods of determining fault and damages exist under the common law and through other statutes?

• 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 two interesting cases involving construction negligence on the jobsite, the first district has reversed and upheld directed verdicts for third-party defendants who were subcontractors and the employers of the plaintiffs. 

• In Oldenstedt v. Marshall Erdman and Assoc. Inc., the first district upheld a directed verdict for the third-party employer and also addressed the issue of prejudice in closing statements (finding that failure to object at the time of closing resulted in waiver.)

• In Jones v. DHR Cambridge Homes, Inc., the court found that a directed verdict for the third-party defendant would be overturned, but because the consequence of the directed verdict had been to prevent the third party from presenting both liability and damages evidence, the third-party defendant would be allowed to address both at retrial.

An additional similarity and two interesting discussions involving the use of special interrogatories are contained in both opinions.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In what is sure to be a contested issue, the new House Bill 5572 is a proposition to require written notice from the contractor to the owner of a single-family, owner-occupied dwelling, prior to filing a lien against any property of the owner.

• Given that there is no time provision installed in this legislation, and that it does not include a method for serving the notice, and that the term "any" could be construed in multiple ways, it is likely that we'll see some revisions of this bill before it could be incorporated into the mechanic's lien act.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Two new bills have been introduced to change the Condominium Property Act.

• HB 5037 - Will allow municipalities the ability to appoint receivers for distressed condominium properties and eventually have the properties sold.  Of interest is the definition of  "distressed condominium property":

"Distressed condominium property" means a parcel containing condominium units which are operated in a manner or have conditions which may constitute a danger, blight, or nuisance to the surrounding community or to the general public, including but not limited to one or more of the  following conditions:  

(A) the building is substantially unoccupied, or  has serious violations of any applicable local building code;  

(B) 60% or more of the condominium units are in foreclosure or are units against which a judgment of foreclosure was entered within the last 18 months;

(C) there has been a recording of more condominium units on the parcel than physically exist;

(D) any of the essential utilities to the parcel or condominium units is either terminated or threatened with termination;

(E) there is a delinquency on the property taxes for at least 60% of the condominium units; or

(F) the board of managers has not met within the last 12 months or is otherwise not functioning."

While the act gives the receiver the power to enter into a sales contract for the property with court approval, it appears to be silent regarding any applicable standards for pricing the sale, or achieving any form of FMV.   

• HB 5189 - In a possible response to a fluctuating real estate market, the bill would amend the act to statutorily provide that owners can rent up to 20% of the properties and that no condo board can enact rules to the contrary. 

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

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

©    Maintaining the copyright in a design can give an architect or engineer another tool in ensuring payment and completion of the contract.  The right to come in and take back the designs or to seek an injunction has teeth and copyright is a limited issue in most standard form contracts.  While disputes based on the licenses and the copyright terms of the contract carry meat, the A/E might consider registering their plans with the US Copyright Office prior to turning them over to other parties.

        Having the protection of the registered copyright allows for the statutory provisions of US Copyright law to be used as well as seeking the remedy under the contract and can offer the added benefit of allowing the A/E to seek to recoup statutory damages as well as legal fees.  A short primer is available from the office, and the limited fee, especially on designs that may be used multiple times can offer an added assurance that payment in full will occur.  

• 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

            This is an interesting decision from the Northern District, the plaintiff, a surety company paid out on bonds to subcontractors when the bank that a general had deposited the money into took the funds the general had for payment to the subs to satisfy the general's obligations to the bank.

            The surety had three theories, conversion, a claim for a trust under the mechanic's lien act, and constructive trust.  The court found that because the surety was not suing as subrogee to the general, but rather as subrogee on the funds it paid out to the subs and because it had failed to allege that the bank had knowledge that the funds were for the subcontractors none of the counts could lie.  The Court also held that the bank was not implicated or obligated under the terms of the mechanic's lien act.

            While it initially looks like the failure of the plaintiff to properly plead the facts necessary to maintain the claim resulted in the dismissal, much of the language used implied that in order to maintain the actual claims, the surety should step in as subrogee to the general and not to the sub. 

• 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

    For those interested in timing requirements on their mechaninc's liens and those having had the arduous experience of title searches or property transfers recorded but not appearing of record during the process, the Illinois House Bill 4698 may come as a welcome relief.  HB 4698 proposes a change to the Conveyances Act and the Counties Code, which, if enacted would require, not only that deeds be filed within 7 days of execution, but would also require that any party with an interest in the property be notified of the deed as well.

    Previously, the recorders office only sent notice to the previous owner of record.  Now, with recorders sending notice to any "party with a record of interest in the property," could the recorders' notices be relied on in filing the lien claims and naming parties?  Will a recorder's determination of a "party with recorded interest", or the failure to notify a recorded party of interest be actionable?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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