Christopher G. Hill | Construction Law Musings Remember back in 2021 when I “mused” about Dickson v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland et al.? Remember how the Eastern District of Virginia held that mere supervision does not qualify as “labor” under the federal Miller Act? Well, the 4th Circuit recently weighed in on the appeal of… Continue reading Maybe Supervising Qualifies as Labor After All
Month: May 2023
Negotiating Tactics Help Curb Losses in Subrogation
Gavin Souter | Business Insurance Simple but sometimes overlooked negotiating skills can help reduces losses for insurers and other payers that go to subrogation, a pair of subrogation experts said. By adhering to strategies such as always making a settlement demand and building relationships with other claims professionals, insurers and third-party administrators can offset losses… Continue reading Negotiating Tactics Help Curb Losses in Subrogation
The American Rule Doesn’t Stand: Contractor Uses Offer of Judgment to Recover Attorneys’ Fees in Retention Dispute
John Mark Goodman | BuildSmart Last week we saw the Menard court reject the use of an indemnity clause to shift fees in a dispute between contracting parties. This week, a very recent decision from Nevada highlights another creative way to shift fees where there is no statute or contract provision on point: offers of judgment (see Helix Electric… Continue reading The American Rule Doesn’t Stand: Contractor Uses Offer of Judgment to Recover Attorneys’ Fees in Retention Dispute
2023’s Bank Failures: What Contractors, Material Suppliers and Equipment Lessors Can Do to Protect Themselves
Garret Murai | California Construction Law Blog It has been a tumultuous year for the banking industry. Since the beginning of this year the industry has seen the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, the shotgun marriage between failing Credit Suisse and USB, and, most recently, the collapse of First Republic Bank this… Continue reading 2023’s Bank Failures: What Contractors, Material Suppliers and Equipment Lessors Can Do to Protect Themselves
No Cutting the (Priority) Line!: Incidental Beneficiaries to Assumed Contracts and Leases Cannot Assert Cure Claims Against Debtors
Dania Slim and Alana A. Lyman | Pillsbury In rejecting an incidental beneficiary’s cure claim, the Second Circuit reasoned that affording a non-party administrative priority “would let it cut the line and stand in front of even secured creditors in exchange for nothing.” TAKEAWAYS Incidental beneficiaries without legal rights under assumed contracts or leases may… Continue reading No Cutting the (Priority) Line!: Incidental Beneficiaries to Assumed Contracts and Leases Cannot Assert Cure Claims Against Debtors