Thoughts on construction law from Christopher G. Hill, Virginia construction lawyer, LEED AP, mediator, and member of the Virginia Legal Elite in Construction Law

Category Archives: Contracts

Uniwest Rides Again (or, Are Architects Subject to Va. Code Section 11-4.1?)

Originally posted 2018-10-03 11:07:55. In 2010, the Virginia Supreme Court held in Uniwest Const., Inc. v. Amtech Elevator Servs., Inc., that Va. Code Sec. 11-4.1 renders completely void and unenforceable any indemnification provision in a construction contract between a contractor and subcontractor that seeks to indemnify the indemnified party from its own negligent acts.  In

Fraud, the VCPA and Construction Contracts

Originally posted 2014-11-10 09:36:15. I’ve discussed the economic loss rule here at Musings on several occasions.  The economic loss rule basically states that where one party assumes a duty based in contract or agreement, the Virginia courts will not allow a claim for breach of that duty to go forward as anything but a contract

Construction Contract Basics: Venue and Choice of Law

Previously in this on-again-off-again series of posts on construction contract basics, I discussed attorney fees provisions and indemnification.  In this installment, the topic at hand is venue and choice of law. As construction professionals (outside of us construction attorneys), you are likely to be focused on things like the scope of work in a construction

Another Exception to Fraud and Contract Don’t Mix

Originally posted 2013-05-27 09:00:37. Here at Construction Law Musings, we’ve discussed the fact that, in Virginia, the “economic loss rule” generally renders claims of fraud and construction contracts like oil and water. This is true in most states, including Florida. What this means is that as a general rule where any party is supposed to

Aarow Equipment v. Travelers- An Update

Originally posted 2015-01-12 09:00:08. Previously here at Musings, I discussed the application of pay if paid clauses and the Miller Act.  The case that prompted the discussion was the Aarow Equipment & Services, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. case in which the Eastern District of Virginia Federal Court determined that a “pay if