Carl A. Rizzo | Cole Schotz PC | October 31, 2017 Parties objecting to development projects have traditionally been immunized from liability for common law torts, such as malicious prosecution, abuse of process and tortious interference. This immunity, grounded in the well-recognized Noerr-Pennington doctrine, affords immunity to those who petition the government for redress. (See Eastern… Continue reading Objectors Beware – Exposure to Claims Brought by Adversely Impacted Developers is Alive and Well
Month: November 2017
Contingent Payment Clauses in Utah – “Deal or No Deal?”
Kent B. Scott | Babcock Scott & Babcock, PC | November 2, 2017 Introduction. Contingent payment clauses provide parties involved in a construction project with a contractual method for determining who will absorb losses that may occur if the owner fails to pay for work performed on the project. In Utah, the law remains unsettled… Continue reading Contingent Payment Clauses in Utah – “Deal or No Deal?”
Terminating a Contract? Dot the i’s and Cross the t’s!
Stan Martin | Commonsense Construction Law LLC | October 24, 2017 From a Connecticut trial court comes a reminder to follow the contract process when terminating a contract. Failure to do so could constitute a breach by the one issuing the termination letter. A sub and general contractor had many changes, claims and disputes on… Continue reading Terminating a Contract? Dot the i’s and Cross the t’s!
If Defective Work Is An Accident, Does That Mean It’s Covered?
Charles W. Surasky | Smith Currie & Hancock | October 25, 2017 In our last issue, we discussed the growing trend of courts recognizing that most defective work is accidental for purposes of commercial general liability insurance coverage. Does this mean that CGL insurance will pay for property damage caused by defective work? In many… Continue reading If Defective Work Is An Accident, Does That Mean It’s Covered?
California Court of Appeal Clarifies Intent of Faulty Workmanship Exclusions
Tiffany Cassanova | Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. | October 19, 2017 Last month, in Global Modular, Inc. v. Kadena Pacific, Inc., 1 a California Court of Appeal clarified the meaning of the frequently asserted j.(5) and j.(6) exclusions of the standard commercial general liability policy; an issue the court deemed one of “first impression” for… Continue reading California Court of Appeal Clarifies Intent of Faulty Workmanship Exclusions