Construction Law – Construction Law Musings- Richmond, VA

Where Breach of Contract and Tortious Interference Collide

Originally posted 2022-01-03 09:00:05.

Claims for breach of contract are numerous in the construction law world. Without these claims we construction attorneys would have a hard time keeping the doors open. A 2021 case examined a different sort of claim that could arise (though, “spoiler alert” did not in this case) during the course of a construction project. That type of claim is one for tortious interference with business expectancy.

In Clark Nexsen, Inc. et. al v. Rebkee, the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia gave a great explanation of the law of this type of claim in analyzing the following basic facts:

In 2018, Clark Nexsen, Inc. (“Clark”) and MEB General Contractors, Inc. (“MEB”) responded to Henrico County’s (“Henrico”) Request for Proposals (“RFP”) for the design and construction of a sport and convocation center (the “Project”). Henrico initially shortlisted Clark and MEB as a “design-build” team for the Project, but later restarted the search, issuing a second RFP. Clark and MEB submitted a second “design-build” proposal, but Henrico selected Rebkee Co. (“Rebkee”) for certain development aspects of the Project. MEB also submitted proposals to Rebkee, and Rebkee selected MEB as the design-builder for the Project. MEB, at Rebkee’s request, solicited proposals from three design firms and ultimately selected Clark as its design partner. From December 2019 to May 2020, Clark and MEB served as the design-build team to assist Rebkee in developing the Project. In connection therewith, Clark developed proprietary designs, technical drawings, and, with MEB, several cost estimates. In February 2020, MEB submitted a $294,334.50 Pay Application to Rebkee for engineering, design, and Project development work. Rebkee never paid MEB. Henrico paid MEB $50,000.00 as partial payment for MEB’s and Clark’s work. MEB then learned that Rebkee was using Clark’s drawings to solicit design and construction proposals from other companies. On July 23, 2020, Rebkee told MEB that Henrico directed it to cancel the design-build arrangement with MEB and Clark and pursue a different planning method. MEB and Clark sued and Rebkee for, among other claims, tortious interference with a business expectancy. Rebkee moved to dismiss the tortious interference claim. Continue reading Where Breach of Contract and Tortious Interference Collide

Musings on Guest Post Fridays

Originally posted 2015-03-17 10:06:58.

When I first got the idea of “Guest Post Fridays” back in early 2009 and then launched it with a great post from Scott Wolfe of The Wolfe Law Group (@scottwolfejr), I had no idea that it would take off in the way that it has. Now, almost 2 years and 90 posts later, Construction Law Musings has had the privilege of a wealth of perspectives on, among other topics, mediation (thanks Vickie Pynchon and Ron White), green building (thanks Chris Cheatham, Shari Shapiro, and James Bedell to name three of many), insurance (thanks Martha Sperry and Mark Rabkin), general perspectives on construction topics (thanks Doug Reiser, Melissa Brumback, among many others) and even the occasional interview.

While it is impossible to list all of you who have contributed to Guest Post Fridays here at Musings (please use the link above to review all of these posts and see who else has contributed) and to thank you individually, please know that each and every one of your contributions have made Construction Law Musings a more vibrant and interesting place to visit. The opportunity to work with such varied, intelligent, and insightful people over the last year has been wonderful. With each post I learn something new.

Without these contributions to add a layer of color that I could not provide alone, Musings would just be another blog about construction law by a Virginia lawyer. With them, Musings is a fun place to hang out and learn. To those who have posted here in the past, the door is always open for a repeat posting, just give me a buzz with a topic and when you can do it.

In short, thank you to all of you who have contributed since this experiment began and I look forward to hearing what you all have to say in the future.

Image via stock.xchng

Please join the conversation with a comment below. Also, I encourage you to subscribe to keep up with the latest Construction Law Musings.

OSHA/VOSH Roundup

Originally posted 2015-08-03 09:00:14.

In an unusual flurry of occupational safety related activity, the Virginia courts decided two cases in the last week relating to either the review of occupational safety regulations themselves or their enforcement.

In Nat’l College of Business & Technology Inc. v. Davenport (.pdf), the Virginia Court of Appeals considered what constitutes a “serious” violation of the exposure to asbestos Virginia Occupational Safety & Health (VOSH) regulations. The facts found by the Salem, Virginia Circuit Court were that employees of the petitioner college were exposed to asbestos insulation when they were required to enter a boiler room to retrieve paper files. However, no evidence was presented regarding the length of time or level of exposure at the Circuit Court level. Despite the lack of evidence regarding the level or extent of exposure, the Circuit Court upheld the VOSH citation for exposure and the level of violation at a “serious” level with the attendant penalty.

The Virginia Court of Appeals disagreed with the second finding. The appellate court determined that the lack of evidence regarding the level of exposure (whether length or extent) made the serious level violation an error. The Court stated that merely presenting evidence that asbestos is a carcinogen is not enough given the number of carcinogenic materials in existence and then remanded the case back to Circuit Court to reconsider the penalty level.

In a second case, Steel Erectors Ass’n of America v OSHA (.pdf ), the petitioner, SEAA, challenged a 2010 directive from OSHA regarding the enforcement of 2001 safety standards regarding steel construction, claiming that the enforcement change was an illegal regulation. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, in an exercise of discretion, determined that SEAA or one of its members would need to challenge any attempt at enforcement when OSHA tried to invoke its new policy. What the 4th Circuit said SEAA could not do was to challenge the enforcement policy without any pending enforcement action.

What these two cases show, aside from the fact that, yes, the Courts will occasionally look at these types of cases, is that not all cases are cut and dried. With the assistance of an experienced Virginia construction lawyer, a construction professional may be able to challenge an administrative enforcement action. Also, the help of such an attorney can certainly help head off a failed challenge such as that by SEAA with its attendant expense and headaches.

As always, I welcome and encourage your comments below, please share your thoughts. Also, please subscribe to keep up with the latest Construction Law Musings.

http://static.zemanta.com/readside/loader.js

Bankruptcy and the Virginia Mechanic’s Lien

Originally posted 2015-04-06 09:00:30.

: Image via Wikipedia

Unfortunately, developer bankruptcies are very much in the news these days. This news, while unsurprising in today’s economy and given the housing issues that hit last year, can give heartburn to those contractors that perform the site work, pave the roads, and of course build the houses at these developments. Like Musings has discussed before, bankruptcy of an owner or developer is a real possibility for which contractors and subcontractors must prepare.

However, contractors in Virginia may have a silver lining for the bankruptcy cloud. Virginia mechanic’s liens, being creatures of statute, survive bankruptcy and remain in force even after the owner of the property files for bankruptcy. Even more importantly, the 6 month statute of limitations on filing a case to enforce your mechanic’s lien stops running as of the date that bankruptcy is filed.

Even more importantly, aside from certain specific situations, mechanic’s liens in Virginia gain priority over all other secured liens.

In short, in today’s climate, contractors should not feel that they are completely helpless in the bankruptcy fight. Filing a mechanic’s lien after consultation with an experienced attorney can put a contractor or subcontractor in as good a position as possible should he owner of a project file for bankruptcy.

Please comment below, or subscribe to Musings if you find this of interest.

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 contract, the price terms, payment, delays, change orders, and the like. However, the venue (where any lawsuit or arbitration will have to happen) and the choice of law (what state’s law applies) can be equally important. You need to know where you will have to enforce your rights under the contract and also what law will apply. Will you need to go to another state to enforce your rights? Even if not, will your local attorney have to learn the law of another jurisdiction? These are important questions when reading and negotiating your prime contract (if with the owner) or subcontract (if with the general contractor). Continue reading Construction Contract Basics: Venue and Choice of Law