Is It Defamatory to Call Your Contractor a Crook and a Con Man?
Not according to a decision from a federal court in Ohio. The case involves a landscaping project at a hillside home in Cincinnati. The property overlooks the Ohio River, but like many projects that become cases, it ended up in the ditch. Dissatisfied with the progress of the work, the owner told her neighbors that the contractor was a “crook” and a “con man” who had photoshopped pictures of the work he had done. The case inevitably wound up in litigation with both sides suing the other for breaking their respective promises. In addition to breach of contract damages for unpaid work, the contractor also sought unspecified damages for defamation.
On summary judgment, the court reviewed the elements of a defamation claim under Ohio law and concluded that many of the owner’s insults did not constitute actionable defamation. For example, the court held that referring to the contractor as a crook and a con man was not defamatory but instead constituted the expression of an opinion. As to the statement that the contractor had photoshopped evidence, the court concluded that this was not a protected opinion but rather a statement of verifiable fact that could potentially constitute defamation. The court therefore allowed this portion of the contractor’s defamation claim to proceed to the jury.
The court’s analysis contains a helpful summary of defamation law, which construction lawyers don’t come across every day. Here is the meat of that summary:
Defamation is a false publication that injures a person’s reputation, exposes the person to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, shame, or disgrace, or affects the person adversely in his or her trade or business…. If allegedly defamatory words are susceptible to two meanings, one defamatory and one innocent, the defamatory meaning should be rejected, and the innocent meaning adopted.
The elements of defamation are (1) a false and defamatory statement, (2) unprivileged publication to a third party, (3) a requisite amount of fault on the part of the publisher, and (4) actionability or special harm caused by the statement. Truth is a complete defense to a claim for defamation.…
Whether an allegedly defamatory statement is protected opinion or actionable assertion of fact is a question of law for the district court. Consideration of the totality of circumstances to ascertain whether a statement is opinion or fact involves at least four factors. First is the specific language used, second is whether the statement is verifiable, third is the general context of the statement and fourth is the broader context in which the statement appeared….
Courts examining similar situations of name-calling are split as to whether such statements are defamatory or protected opinion. The majority position seems to be that such name-calling is not defamatory.
A copy of the court’s 42-page opinion addressing these and other claims and counterclaims can be found here.
Listen to this post
Joshua Tree Conservation Plan Remains Under Review
The California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) accepted public comment on the draft Western Joshua Tree Conservation Plan (Draft Conservation Plan) at its February 12, 2025 meeting, but no formal action was taken.
As detailed in our previous alert, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) released the Draft Conservation Plan to the Commission on December 12, 2024, as required by the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act (Act). The Draft Conservation Plan sets forth management practices and guidelines for the avoidance and minimization of impacts to western Joshua trees.
The Commission’s February 12 meeting featured a presentation by CDFW, substantive discussion by the Commissioners, and robust public comment. Many commenters expressed concern about the cost and ultimate feasibility of the Draft Conservation Plan’s requirements. In particular, the Large Scale Solar Association voiced concerns regarding the Draft Conservation Plan’s potential to interfere with the siting and development of solar energy projects, indicating that additional costs generated by required mitigation measures would be passed on to ratepayers. Residents and politicians from desert communities — where Joshua trees are most abundant — focused on the Draft Conservation Plan’s costs and obligations as potential hindrances to affordable housing and local job opportunities. Commenters emphasized that collaboration with CDFW is essential in developing a workable and sustainable conservation effort.
CDFW acknowledged the public comments and ultimately declined to take any formal action at the meeting. Written comments are still being accepted on a rolling basis, though any substantive changes to the Draft Conservation Plan should be submitted by the beginning of March to be considered. The Act mandates that the Commission must take action to adopt the Conservation Plan by June 30, 2025.
The Commission will review the Draft Conservation Plan again at its April 16-17, 2025, meeting. In advance of that meeting, CDFW confirmed it will publish a revised set of Joshua tree relocation guidelines and a list of proposed changes to the Draft Conservation Plan. CDFW Director Bonham also suggested that, in the interim, CDFW may host workshops and/or other community outreach events to solicit further public feedback, though no further details have been provided.
The Top 10 Things Every Employer Should Know About OSHA
In the evolving landscape of workplace safety regulations, it is essential for construction employers to stay well-informed about the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) protocols and guidelines. Our series, “Top 10 Things Every Employer Should Know About OSHA,” breaks down critical aspects ranging from the rights and responsibilities during OSHA inspections to intricacies of compliance standards and potential citation scenarios. This comprehensive guide aims to empower employers with the knowledge needed to navigate OSHA regulations effectively, ensuring safer work environments and minimizing legal risks.
Here’s a recap of our list of the top 10 things every employer should know about OSHA:
No. 1 – Walkaround Representatives
Employers and employees have the right to have representatives present during an OSHA site inspection.
According to 29 CFR 1903.8(c), employers and employees have the right to authorize a representative to accompany OSHA officials during workplace inspections for the purpose of aiding the inspection (also known as walkaround representatives). OSHA regulations require no specific qualifications for employer representatives or for employee representatives who are employed by the employer. We encourage all employers to have a designated walkaround representative present during OSHA inspections, which could include legal counsel.
No. 2 – Be Present in Manager Interviews
We all know that OSHA has the right to interview folks as part of an investigation. Whether a company representative and the company attorney can also attend an interview depends on the position of the person being interviewed.
If the person to be interviewed is a non-managerial employee, OSHA can conduct the interview in private, outside the presence of the employer or the employer’s representatives. Not so with managerial employees. If OSHA wants to interview a management-level employee, the employer has the right to have a company representative and/or attorney present.
No. 3 – Employees Have Rights When It Comes to OSHA Interviews
Although OSHA has the right to conduct private, one-on-one interviews with a company’s non-managerial employees, those same employees have rights too. Read the full article for details and things to consider.
No. 4 – OSHA Must Issue a Citation Within Six Months
OSHA has a time limit on issuing citations. It must issue a citation within six months of the occurrence of any violation. The only exception to this rule is where the employer has concealed the violative condition or misled OSHA. If such a situation occurs, OSHA must issue the citation within six months from the date that OSHA learns, or should have known, of the condition.
So, the moral of the story is just because it’s been a couple months since an OSHA inspection does not mean OSHA has decided not to issue a citation. You can check on the status of OSHA’s investigation by reviewing the OSHA establishment search page to see whether OSHA has closed its inspection or not.
No 5. – OSHA Can Issue Citations for Unsafe Work Conditions That Have Not Resulted in an Employee Injury
Most frequently, employers do not hear from OSHA unless there is a reported workplace injury. When a reported workplace injury occurs, OSHA performs a walkthrough inspection of the worksite and may ultimately issue a citation for hazardous conditions OSHA believes may have caused or contributed to the incident. However, OSHA is not limited to issuing citations for hazardous conditions that may have caused or contributed to a workplace injury. Rather, OSHA can cite employers for any and all hazardous conditions to which workers may have been exposed regardless of whether the cited condition was in any way related to the incident.
No 6. – But No One Was There? OSHA Can Still Cite for Unsafe Work Conditions Where Workers Were Not Exposed
We often hear, “OSHA can’t cite me because I didn’t employ the injured worker.” Unfortunately, this statement is often untrue.
Under OSHA’s Multi-Employer Doctrine, if you are an employer on a worksite where other companies are also performing work (e.g., construction sites and oil/gas well sites), you can be subject to citation for workplace hazards to which other companies’ employees are exposed. OSHA created the Multi-Employer Doctrine in recognition that there are many circumstances in which multiple employers will be working on a single worksite at the same time thereby affecting the working conditions to which all workers are exposed.
No. 7 – OSHA Can Issue Citations for Unsafe Work Conditions That Do Not Violate Any Specific OSHA Standard
Many employers have a false notion that OSHA can’t issue a citation if there is no specific standard violated.
The reality is, however, that OSHA has a catchall/gap filler provision that allows it to cite an employer even if no specific standard was violated: the “General Duty Clause,” Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. OSHA can cite employers for violations of the General Duty Clause if a recognized serious hazard exists in the workplace and the employer doesn’t take reasonable steps to prevent or abate the hazard. The General Duty Clause is used only where there is no standard that applies to the particular hazard.
No. 8 – Employers Have 15 Working Days to Contest a Citation but Have the Option to Negotiate a Settlement with OSHA Before That Deadline
What happens if OSHA issues a citation and you do not agree with any or all of it? You have 15 working days from the date you receive the citation to contest in writing the citation, proposed penalty, and/or the abatement date. Read the full article to learn more about your options and how to reach a favorable settlement.
No. 9 – The Particulars on OSHA Violations: How Much Notice Is Enough?
Just what does an OSHA citation have to include? Section 9(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act requires that citations “describe with particularity the nature of the violation, including a reference to the provision of the Act, standard, rule, regulation, or order alleged to have been violated.”
This statutory mandate is designed to ensure that OSHA properly informs employers of alleged violations so they can correct hazards promptly and avoid unnecessary litigation. However, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission and the courts have consistently interpreted this requirement to mean that citations need only provide employers with “fair notice” of the violation. In other words, as long as an employer is put on notice that a particular condition may violate OSHA standards, additional specifics can be obtained through discovery. As a result, OSHA often issues citations with broad language rather than granular detail.
No. 10 – Unlocking the Secrets of OSHA Inspections Through FOIA Requests
Did you know that you can request files from OSHA? Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), employers, employees, and third parties have the right to request documents from OSHA’s inspection files. These records provide valuable insight into the evidence and reasoning behind OSHA’s decisions, including citations issued during site inspections. They can also be critical in legal proceedings, including lawsuits related to workplace safety.
The Future of NEPA Implementation Without CEQ Regulations
On February 19, 2025, the Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) announced an Interim Final Rule rescinding its longstanding regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and issued a new Memorandum on the Implementation of NEPA (“Guidance”) to all federal departments and agencies. President Trump directed both actions in his January 20, 2025 Unleashing American Energy Executive Order (“EO 14154”).
The Interim Final Rule, to be published in the Federal Register on February 25, 2025, removes all existing CEQ regulations implementing NEPA from the Code of Federal Regulations, many of which have been in place since 1978.
The Guidance implements the President’s direction in EO 14154 to “expedite and simplify the permitting process” and strives to minimize potential delays and confusion associated with the removal of CEQ’s regulatory framework for consistent NEPA implementation across agencies. The Guidance “encourages” agencies to use the CEQ regulations issued during the first Trump Administration (the “2020 Rule”) as “an initial framework” while agencies revise or establish agency-specific NEPA implementing procedures over the next year, as directed by EO 14154. Until those changes are complete, the Guidance directs agencies to follow existing practices and procedures, with adjustments for consistency with the NEPA statute, EO 14154, and the Guidance. Further, the Guidance directs agencies to “consider voluntarily relying” on CEQ regulations for ongoing NEPA reviews and lawsuits on NEPA reviews completed while the regulations were still in effect.
The Guidance expressly states that “[a]gencies should not delay pending or ongoing NEPA analyses while undertaking these revisions.” Despite this explicit instruction, the dismantling of a regulatory structure that stood for nearly five decades may cause at least short-term NEPA review delays.
Background
NEPA applies to a broad range of actions with a federal nexus, including federal permit applications, federal land management decisions, highway construction, and other federally funded projects. Through the NEPA process, federal agencies must evaluate the environmental and related social and economic effects of their proposed actions. The NEPA statute and regulations remained largely unchanged from the 1970’s until recent revisions to the CEQ regulations made during the Trump and Biden Administrations in 2020, 2022, and 2024, and statutory amendments to NEPA made by the Fiscal Responsibility Act in 2023.
Over the decades, courts have developed a robust body of caselaw on the NEPA statute and CEQ regulations. In the last several months, however, two court cases questioned CEQ’s underlying authority to issue binding regulations. In November 2024, a D.C. Circuit panel found the CEQ regulations exceeded CEQ’s authority in Marin Audubon Society v. Federal Aviation Administration, although a majority of the court in denying rehearing indicated that portion of the court’s decision was non-binding dicta. More recently, the District of North Dakota vacated Biden’s 2024 Phase II regulations on the grounds that CEQ lacked rulemaking authority in Iowa v. CEQ.
The Interim Final Rule
The Interim Final Rule rescinds all of CEQ’s NEPA regulations and is expected to be published in the Federal Register on February 25, 2025. The Interim Final Rule does not take a position on CEQ’s prior interpretations of NEPA’s procedural requirements, and CEQ avoided a definitive statement on whether it lacks authority to maintain the NEPA regulations. The Interim Final Rule will be effective 45 days after publication.
CEQ issued this as an “interim final rule,” avoiding the typically required notice and comment rulemaking process. CEQ states that this procedural mechanism was appropriate both because the rule is “procedural” and because there was “good cause” for doing so. Although the Interim Final Rule will be effective April 11, CEQ is allowing a “voluntary” 30-day public comment period, and CEQ committed to “consider[ing] and respond[ing] to comments before finalizing” the Interim Final Rule. This is a procedural process that is vulnerable to litigation under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The Guidance
The Guidance directs agencies to establish or revise their NEPA implementing procedures by February 19, 2026, providing at least 30 days but no more than 60 days for public comment on proposed regulations, to the extent public comment is required. The Guidance offers certain recommendations for agencies as they promulgate and revise their own NEPA implementing procedures, including:
developing clear procedures for reviewing project sponsor-prepared environmental assessments (“EAs”) and environmental impact statements (“EISs”);
ensuring procedures comply with statutory deadlines (two years for EISs and one year for EAs);
limiting alternatives analyzed to those that are “technically and economically feasible” and “meet the purpose and need for the proposed action”;
limiting analyzed effects to those that are “reasonably foreseeable,” regardless of whether those effects can be characterized as “cumulative”;
considering the establishment of “thresholds” for Federal funding that would not constitute a “major Federal action” triggering NEPA review; and
eliminating environmental justice analyses from NEPA reviews, except to any extent otherwise required by law.
The Guidance includes additional recommendations to help promote consistency and predictability in the absence of governmentwide CEQ regulations. The Guidance specifies additional elements that agencies should, at a minimum, include in their procedures. It also requires agencies to consult with CEQ in developing or revising their NEPA procedures. Over the next year, CEQ will host monthly meetings of the Federal Agency NEPA Contacts and NEPA Implementation Working Group required by EO 14154 to share additional guidance and provide assistance to agencies as they work to develop or revise their NEPA procedures.
In the meantime, the Guidance recommends that agencies continue to follow their existing NEPA practices and procedures and voluntarily rely on the CEQ regulations for projects currently undergoing NEPA review and legal challenges.
Implications
The intent of the Interim Final Rule and Guidance, consistent with EO 14154, is to expedite critical project approvals. However, the uncertainty caused by such wholesale changes may have the opposite effect, at least in the near term. These significant changes—in many cases to longstanding regulatory requirements—risk creating confusion at the agency level, which could lead to delays in NEPA reviews. This is especially true in the short-term, where CEQ’s NEPA regulations have been rescinded but agencies have not yet implemented new or revised NEPA regulations of their own. Additionally, inevitable litigation—on the Interim Final Rule itself, on CEQ’s rulemaking authority, or on the agency-specific regulations developed through this process—will further add to uncertainty and confusion. There is a risk that projects may benefit from a potentially faster NEPA review, only to face increased litigation risk after project approval. Moving forward, it will be critically important for project proponents and other stakeholders to engage with relevant permitting agencies and participate actively in the development of agency-specific NEPA implementing procedures.
4 Contract Negotiation Tips for Contractors and Owners
Although we are at a time when buildings can be 3D printed, most modern construction is still produced through contractors and manual labor. With prices continuing to rise on a global scale (yes, affecting products even beyond the grocery store), being able to negotiate a fair contract between contractors and owners can make a difference in outlook and favorability for both parties.
Tip #1: If You’re Looking to Cut Corners, Rethink Your Plans
Just because the materials cost a certain amount in February when you draft a contract, does not mean that they will stay that same amount in April. Consider trying to estimate an over/under price in your contract. Beware that “cutting corners” may lessen the quality of work and could affect safety.
Tip #2: Have a Letter of Intent (LOI)
A letter of intent is not required and even having one is non-binding; however, it does provide some security between the two parties. Think of the LOI as the pre-contract, where you can start to set the expectations before having the legally binding contract signed.
Tip #3: Do Not Pay in Full Up Front
While this may seem counterintuitive, it is a strategy that can help retain your contractor before they take on a new project. This does not mean to withhold large percentages of the payment. You should aim to withhold 1-10% of the total sum until the job reaches substantial completion otherwise you may be stuck with finding someone else to do final repairs, clean up, and finishes.
Tip #4: Include Attorney Fees
There may be times that an owner needs to sue its contractor for breach of contract, negligence, misrepresentation and poor quality of work, etc. Negotiating the contractor’s responsibility for attorney fees if it loses the litigation or arbitration can provide some relief.
It is still best practice to talk with your attorney before you begin any negotiations. Often, the attorney can help you research and prep your contract to make sure that you are getting the most out of the transaction without entering into an unfair deal.
Restoring Western North Carolina’s Infrastructure: NCDOT Receives $250 Million in Federal Emergency Relief Funds
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has announced an immediate allocation of $352.6 million in Emergency Relief funds to support recovery efforts following the devastation caused by Hurricane Helene in September 2024.
Of this funding, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will receive $250 million to repair damaged roadways and bridges, including Interstate 40. Another $32.6 million will be split between the U.S. Forest Service and the National Park Service to make repairs along the Blue Ridge Parkway and other roadways located in national forests.
The Impact of Hurricane Helene
Hurricane Helene left a trail of destruction across the Southeast, including widespread flooding, landslides, and structural damage to roadways and bridges. Western North Carolina, known for its mountainous terrain and vital transportation routes, was particularly hard-hit. The storm caused severe washouts, rockfalls, bridge collapses, and pipe failures, creating hazardous conditions and disrupting travel.
The cumulative cost of federally eligible damage is still being assessed, but early estimates suggest the total will exceed $4 billion. In response, federal, state, local, and tribal agencies have mobilized to restore accessibility and safety to the affected areas.
Emergency Relief Funds: A Lifeline for Infrastructure Recovery
The FHWA’s Emergency Relief program plays a crucial role in providing financial assistance to repair and reconstruct damaged transportation infrastructure after natural disasters. The program’s “quick release” funding mechanism ensures that states receive immediate support for urgent repairs, reducing delays in reopening critical routes.
The newly allocated $250 million for NCDOT will be directed toward repairing damage along North Carolina’s roadways, including I-40, a key transportation corridor linking North Carolina to Tennessee.
Challenges and Considerations for Construction Professionals
While the federal funding is a significant step toward recovery, construction professionals working on these repair projects must navigate several key challenges:
State and Federal Procurement Requirements – Public contracts for federally funded infrastructure projects come with strict guidelines. Even though these projects are state-managed, they often require compliance with federal laws and regulations. Contractors need to ensure they are complying with all applicable laws and requirements, which may include:
The Federal Acquisition Regulation;
The Build America Buy America Act;
Davis-Bacon Act wage standards;
Minority business participation mandates; and
Bonding and insurance requirements, among others.
Licensing Concerns – If you are an out-of-state contractor interested in performing work in Western North Carolina as part of the state and federal disaster relief effort, it is critical that you understand and comply with North Carolina’s licensing laws.
Looking Ahead: A Resilient Future for North Carolina’s Infrastructure
The infusion of federal emergency relief funds into North Carolina’s transportation network is a welcome development for residents, businesses, and the construction industry. As the state embarks on the challenging task of rebuilding, collaboration among government agencies, engineers, contractors, and legal professionals will be essential to achieving a resilient and efficient transportation system.
For construction firms and industry stakeholders, the recovery efforts present both opportunities and responsibilities. With careful planning, regulatory compliance, and strategic risk management, North Carolina can emerge from this disaster with stronger, more sustainable infrastructure that serves future generations.
Mistake No. 8 of the Top 10 Horrible, No-Good Mistakes Construction Lawyers Make: Know the Benefits and Perils of a Privately Administered Arbitration
I have practiced law for 40 years with the vast majority as a “construction” lawyer. I have seen great… and bad… construction lawyering, both when representing a party and when serving over 300 times as a mediator or arbitrator in construction disputes. I have made my share of mistakes and learned from my mistakes. I was lucky enough to have great construction lawyer mentors to lean on and learn from, so I try to be a good mentor to young construction lawyers. Becoming a great and successful construction lawyer is challenging, but the rewards are many. The following is No. 8 of the top 10 mistakes I have seen construction lawyers make, and yes, I have been guilty of making this same mistake.
Most (but not all) commercial construction contracts contain binding arbitration clauses. Whether the contract is between an owner and architect/designer, an owner and prime contractor, or a subcontractor and prime contractor, the decision to arbitrate or litigate a dispute is always negotiable. You can refer back to one of my previous blog posts in this series discussing the pros and cons of binding arbitration vs. litigating in court. But when parties have decided to arbitrate a dispute, the next question is what rules will apply and how will the arbitration be administered?
Most arbitration clauses (especially those in the standard AIA form set of construction project documents) specify that the American Arbitration Association (AAA) will “administer” the arbitration and that the construction rules of the AAA will apply (the “AAA Rules”). Per the AAA Rules, a party filing an arbitration pays a filing fee to the AAA, the amount of which is based on the amount of the claim. For example, the total non-refundable fee (with few exceptions) for a claim (or counterclaim) from $500,000 to $1 million is $12,675. A claim from $1 million to $10 million is $17,450. There are other AAA fees to pay as the process continues. The other primary costs are the compensation (normally hourly) of the selected arbitrator (or panel).
There are many experienced construction lawyers who are unhappy with the administrative services provided by the AAA (I am not one of them) when taking into consideration the amounts charged by the AAA to the clients. Their arguments are as follows: “I know who the good and bad arbitrators in my area are. My clients do not need to pay the huge AAA filing fees to just get a list of potential arbitrators. And once chosen, a good arbitrator takes over the administration of the arbitration and all the AAA case manager does is set up calls (when the arbitrator does not do so), collects the estimated arbitrator fees from the parties, sends out notices and pays the arbitrator.”
Because of the arguments above, and other concerns, there is a growing trend for parties and their construction lawyers, even with an arbitration clause that calls for AAA administration, to completely “bypass” the AAA and have the arbitration administered “privately.” Over the past five years, I would estimate that 33% of the arbitrations for which I have served as an arbitrator (including on a panel of 3 arbitrator) over the past 3 years have been privately administered. What this means is that the parties agree to amend the arbitration clause; enter into a private arbitration agreement (which may call for portions of the AAA Rules to apply); and agree on an arbitrator(s). There can also be an agreement to a private arbitration without a pre-existing arbitration clause. While the arbitrator’s rates will normally be the same as the rates charged by the AAA, the obvious savings to the clients is that the AAA’s initial filing fees and other charges are avoided.
On first blush, especially for large claims and counterclaims, this may look like a win-win for the clients. However, before you go off and recommend this to your clients, you better be fully aware of the risks and issues that can arise.
Avoid issues by having an agreed private arbitration agreement.
If the arbitration clause calls for AAA Rules, and the parties agree to private arbitration, there should always be a carefully well-drafted private arbitration agreement signed by the clients. It should, among other items, set forth what rules will be applicable; what pre-hearing discovery will be allowed; identify the agreed arbitrator (and at what hourly rate); outline the requirement to split the arbitrator compensation; and determine a process if, for whatever reason, the existing arbitrator must withdraw prior to the hearings. I do not agree to serve as a private arbitrator without such an agreement in place (which is where I obtain my authority to issue a binding award). Also, do not forget that such an agreement is a “contract,” and there can be clauses included that were not in the original contract, such as a prevailing party attorneys’ fees/arbitration expenses clause or even an agreement for the most convenient hearing location (not the location of the project). Last year I served as a private arbitrator on a project located in Alabama with counsel in Atlanta, Tennessee and Colorado, and the hearings were in my firm’s offices in Nashville.
Involve your client in the arbitrator selection.
In the AAA process for selecting an arbitrator, the AAA sends a list of potential arbitrators to both counsel, who then send in a confidential list to the case manager with names crossed off and an order of preference (much like jury selection). The case manager then reviews the list and appoints the arbitrator (subject to conflicts). In a private arbitration, both sides must agree on an arbitrator. In most instances, the client will not have any idea of any potential arbitrator, so the client will be heavily relying on your advice, albeit tempered by the admonition that there cannot be any guaranties on how an arbitrator might rule. Another previous blog post in this series discussed the issues of not vetting potential arbitrators. The point here is to involve your client and explain who has been suggested as the private arbitrator. Because if the agreed upon arbitrator rules against your client, despite your fantastic efforts, a losing, disgruntled client may ask (when presented with your final post-hearing invoice), “I don’t recall agreeing to this arbitrator: why did you recommend we use that guy? You told me he would call balls and strikes, and he did not.”
Managing post-arbitrator selection conflicts can be tricky.
While any potential private arbitrator will disclose any conflicts (same process as the AAA), arbitrator conflicts can come up after selection. An example would be the later disclosure of expert witnesses or fact witnesses. If that arbitrator uses or has used one side’s designated expert, there should be a disclosure. The difference is that when the AAA administers the case, if a disclosure is necessary, the arbitrator discloses to the case manager who then deals only with counsel. Under the AAA Rules, the AAA has the sole discretion to rule on whether the arbitrator can continue to serve. In a private arbitration, the arbitrator must manage the conflict directly with counsel. One solution is to designate, in the private arbitration agreement, another qualified arbitrator who is authorized by the parties to rule on any conflict.
Handle party nonpayment issues.
When the AAA administers a case, the arbitrator provides an estimate of his total compensation/expenses, and the AAA bills each side one-half of the estimate. The payments go into the AAA “bank.” The arbitrator sends invoices to the AAA, and the AAA pays the arbitrator from the deposits. The difference is if one side does not pay its share. If a AAA administered arbitration, the case manager manages it internally and does not inform the arbitrator which side has not paid. If the payment is not timely made, the arbitrator is then given the option of proceeding with the hearings or putting the arbitration on hold. The AAA does give the paying party the option to pay the other side’s portion (but most of the time this does not happen). In a private arbitration, the arbitrator is the “bank.” The pre-payments are made to her, and obviously she knows which side has or has not paid.
The bottom line is not making the mistake of allowing the “benefit” of a client not having to pay the AAA fees with the real and material issues that can occur with a private arbitration. Having good, experienced counsel on both sides helps, as well as knowing that many of the identified issues can be anticipated in a well-drafted private arbitration agreement.
Listen to this post
UK Appeal Court Provides Authoritative Guidance on Construction All Risks Insurance Policies
In the UK Court of Appeal decision in Sky UK Limited and Mace Limited v Riverstone, authoritative guidance has been provided on the key principles that apply to Construction All Risks (CAR) insurance policies.
The decision is of great importance to all those involved with the insurance of construction projects because it provides clarification on: (i) the meaning of “damage” under these policies, (ii) recovery of foreseeable damage occurring outside of the policy period, (iii) the recoverability of investigation costs, and (iv) the mechanics of aggregation and deductibles.
Background
From 2014 to 2016, Sky’s global headquarters (Sky Central) was constructed by Mace Limited (Mace) as the main contractor under a Design and Build Contract. For the purpose of the construction, Mace alongside Sky UK Limited (Sky) were insureds under a Construction All Risks (CAR) insurance policy, which ran from 1 February 2014 (commencement of the project) to 15 July 2017 (one-year post-completion).
Sky Central’s roof covers an area of about 16,000 square meters and is said to be the largest timber flat roof in Europe. The roof is made up of 472 individual wooden cassettes, which were installed between December 2014 and May 2015. Following installation, the cassettes were left waiting for permanent waterproofing and it later became apparent that rainwater had entered the cassettes from an early stage. By March 2015, standing water was found inside the gutter compartments of 27 cassettes which had entered these cassettes and remained there, leading to a wetting of internal timbers. The ingress of water mostly occurred during the construction and therefore within the policy period. The appeal concerned crucial issues under the CAR policy arising from of this extensive water damage.
Court of Appeal decision
The Meaning of “Damage” Within the Insuring Clause
The insuring clause in the CAR policy provided that insurers would “indemnify the Insured against physical loss or damage to Property Insured, occurring during the Period of Insurance, from any cause whatsoever…”1 The parties disagreed on whether the wetting of the internal timbers was itself “damage”. The insurers argued that, to constitute “damage”, the timbers needed to have reached a condition where they required immediate replacement or repair. They argued that wetting that could be cured by drying out was not “damage”.
The Court disagreed and determined that, in line with criminal law authorities, “damage” amounted to “any change to the physical nature of tangible property which impair[s] its value or usefulness to its owner or operator.”2 There was no reason to take a different approach—this was the natural and ordinary meaning of “damage”.
It followed that the insurers’ position—that “damage” required the cassettes to have reached a stage which impaired their structural performance and integrity—was rejected. The entry of moisture into the cassettes was a tangible physical change to the cassettes as long as the presence of water, if left unattended, would affect the structural stability, strength, functionality, or useable life of the cassettes (or would do so if left unremedied).
Recovery of Foreseeable Development and Deterioration Damage Occurring Outside the Policy Period
The Court noted that, by a well-established line of authority, a property insurance claim is a claim for unliquidated damages, which means the measure of recovery is based on the common law principles governing damages for breach of contract. The general objective of damages for breach of contract is to put the innocent party back in the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. While it is open to the parties to the insurance contract to modify the measure of damages that the general law provides for, the exclusion of the usual remedies must be expressed in clear words. As a result, the cost of remedying the foreseeable deterioration and development damage—which occurred after the policy period but resulted from insured damage occurring during the policy period—was within the measure of recovery under the policy.
The Court also noted that this conclusion accords with business common sense. A businessperson in the shoes of the insured would “reasonably expect to be compensated for the consequences of the insured damage deteriorating or developing, absent a contract term excluding such recovery.”3 If this was not the case, there would be “serious and unacceptable adverse consequences” because it would make deterioration and development damage occurring after the policy period uninsurable under any subsequent insurance cover.4
Investigation Costs
Concerning the recoverability of investigation costs, the Court determined that, as a matter of principle, where insured damage has occurred for which damages are recoverable under the policy of insurance, the costs of investigating the extent and nature of the damage (including any development and deterioration damage) are recoverable if they are “reasonably incurred in order to determine how to remediate it”.4 Thus, the reasonable costs of investigation of what is reasonably necessary to remedy insured damage was “self-evidently” part of the “full cost of repairing or reinstating” insured damage.6
Aggregation / Deductibles
Lastly, the Court considered whether a deductible of £150,000 “any one event” (the Retained Liability Provision) applied once to the whole of the claim or applied separately in respect of damage to each individual cassette. At first instance, the judge had decided that one deductible of £150,000 applied to Sky’s claim because the proximate cause of the water ingress was the deficient design of the works that failed to provide for a temporary roof over the cassettes during construction. The decision not to provide this roof was therefore the “any one event” for the application of the deductible.
The insurers appealed on the basis that the judge had erred in his construction and application of the Retained Liability Provision by: (a) treating the relevant single “event” as the design decision not to use a temporary roof; and (b) in failing to identify each individual cassette as the “part” or “parts” of the property insured to which the Retained Liability Provision applied. The insurers argued that the term “event” applies to the damage suffered not the cause of the damage—meaning there were numerous “events” for the purposes of this deductible.
The Court dismissed the insurers’ appeal, noting that “any one event” is an expression used in aggregation clauses both for the purposes of deductibles and policy limits and, in this context, has a well-established meaning, which both parties were taken to have been aware of. “Event” refers to the cause of the damage, not the damage itself, and a decision (in this case not to provide a temporary roof) could amount to an “event” for these purposes. “Any one event” is a classic term for aggregation of losses by reference to the cause of the losses.
Conclusion
The key points for policyholders are:
Damage can involve any change to the physical nature of tangible property that impairs its value or usefulness. Property can be damaged even if such damage is capable of remedy.
Recovery is not necessarily confined to damage physically present at the time the policy expires. Unless the policy provides otherwise, the costs of remedying the foreseeable deterioration and development damage are recoverable under the contractual principles that govern common law damages, even if such damage extends beyond the policy period.
Once it is established that there is insured damage, reasonable investigation costs incurred in investigating the cause and extent of the damage should be recoverable.
Lastly, reference to “any one event” in the context of an aggregation clause determining the number of policy deductibles meant the event causing the damage—not the damage itself.
Footnotes
1 [2024] EWCA Civ 1567, [2].
2 [2024] EWCA Civ 1567, [107].
3 [2024] EWCA Civ 1567, [80].
4 [2024] EWCA Civ 1567, [81].
5 [2024] EWCA Civ 1567, [89].
6 [2024] EWCA Civ 1567, [90].
Executive Order Update on Construction Materials
Executive Order Adjusting Imports of Aluminum into The United States
On February 11, 2025, in an executive order titled Adjusting Imports of Aluminum into the United States, President Trump increased, from 10% to 25%, the ad valorem tariff rate on imports of aluminum and aluminum-derivative articles from most countries. The tariff rate on imports of aluminum from Russia will be 200%. President Trump cited national security grounds as the reason for the tariff increases.
The executive order also ended previous exemptions on these imports for allies such as Argentina, Australia, Mexico, Canada, the EU, and the UK.
The tariffs begin on March 12, 2025.
The President stated that these actions aim “to protect America’s steel and aluminum industries, which have been harmed by unfair trade practices and global excess capacity.”
Executive Order Adjusting Imports of Steel into The United States
On February 10, 2025, in an executive order titled Adjusting Imports of Steel into the United States, President Trump increased, from 10% to 25%, the ad valorem tariff rate on imports of steel and steel-derivative articles from most countries. President Trump cited national security grounds as the reason for the tariff increases.
The executive order also ended previous exemptions on these imports from Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, the EU, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, and Ukraine.
The tariffs begin on March 12, 2025.
The President stated that these actions aim “to protect America’s steel and aluminum industries, which have been harmed by unfair trade practices and global excess capacity.”
Important Terms for Price Escalation Clauses to Mitigate the Inflationary Effect of Tariffs on Construction Materials
The prospect of 25 percent tariffs being imposed on all steel and aluminum imports by the newly elected Trump administration, together with the 10 percent increase on tariffs already levied on Chinese imports, has created uncertainty in the construction industry. The uncertainty is permeating existing construction projects because of likely inflation in product and material costs due to shortages and supply chain interruptions. It is also affecting contract negotiations between owners and contractors for new projects. If fully enacted, the tariffs could inflict higher costs for many products and materials, including concrete, lumber, steel, aluminum, drywall, appliances and electrical component parts. Estimates for the increased monetary costs imposed by these new tariffs range in the billions of dollars.
The new tariffs are particularly problematic for GMP contracts where owners and their lenders desire some degree of certainty about how much a project will ultimately cost, especially public or quasi-public projects that rely on bond financing. Left unaddressed, rising tariffs threaten to discourage parties from engaging on new projects, or worse, scuttle projects that are ongoing. Indeed, a recent construction contract negotiation that Bracewell was involved in was significantly prolonged and complicated by protracted haggling over language in force majeure, contingency, allowance, change order and other contractual provisions that could be impacted by the new tariffs.[1] Ultimately, the parties were able to move forward because of an agreed price escalation mechanism that was written into the construction contracts.
The current circumstances beg the question: how can parties involved in construction projects adequately protect against cost overruns caused by the inflationary effect of the new tariffs? As discussed in the 2018 update from Bracewell referenced above, the most common mechanism used to address this issue is a detailed price escalation clause.[2] Unlike 2018, the current Trump administration’s tariffs could be exponentially more expensive by affecting products and materials beyond just steel and aluminum, including Chinese appliances, component parts, and lumber from Canada and Mexico. Prior to the Trump tariffs in 2018, it was uncommon to find price escalation clauses in typical construction contracts. Surprisingly, even after the imposition of steel and aluminum tariffs in 2018, these types of escalation clauses are still uncommon and are not included in standard forms from construction contract authorities like the AIA, which instead rely on the change order process to address inflation.
A price escalation clause, where parties agree at the outset of a project to specific terms and mechanisms to address inflation (in this case imposed by tariffs), is the best solution. Parties are more likely to be able to agree on the parameters of how increased costs will be managed before those increased costs occur, unlike the change order process where one party will generally have leverage over the other and disputes are more common. However, price escalation clauses can be complex and must be fully thought out and sufficiently detailed to address as many contingencies as possible – the fewer variables the better.
Perhaps the most important term in a price escalation clause is the trigger, i.e., when is the clause activated? It does not make sense for a price adjustment mechanism to be triggered for trivial or nominal increases in product and material costs, and most parties, whether it is an owner in a cost-plus agreement or a contractor in a GMP contract, understand that it is customary for certain economic fluctuations to be absorbed by one side. Therefore, a triggering mechanism that is activated beyond smaller price increases is important. The most effective triggering mechanisms relate to a specific percentage increase in the cost of a product or material measured from the time the contract is executed and tied to a reliable and accepted index, like the Producer Price Index published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (PPI). For example, a cost-sharing arrangement could be triggered when the cost of steel increases by 10 percent over and above the cost at the beginning of the contract as reflected in the PPI.
Another triggering mechanism may involve comparing the contractor’s purchase orders at the beginning of a project to purchase orders issued later in the project. This form of trigger is generally harder to enforce and may be subject to varied interpretation and manipulation, but in some cases it may more accurately capture local economic trends.
It is important in any price escalation clause to clarify that only the increased costs beyond the trigger price are subject to sharing, and not all of the underlying cost increases. Of course, both parties should have rights to review and/or audit all documents used to justify the implementation of a cost-sharing mechanism once it has allegedly been triggered. It is also important to specifically set forth the cost-sharing mechanism between the parties for all increases beyond the trigger price. A customary way to document that mechanism is through percentages, i.e., owner pays 30 percent and contractor pays 70 percent of all increased costs for the product or material at issue. Other ways to handle the cost-sharing arrangement are through an express right of the contractor to draw off a contingency fund or through an allowance that is funded by the owner prior to the beginning of the project.
Finally, price escalation clauses should contain a ceiling that when reached allows the parties to either suspend or terminate the project. The protection of a ceiling provision is important because even with a cost-sharing mechanism in place, there is usually a point at which cost increases become so substantial that it is not economically feasible for one or both parties to continue the project. The ceiling should be negotiated up front by the parties and should use the same mechanism as the trigger component of the clause, i.e., a percentage above a certain price index. The price escalation clause should contain language providing options to the parties once the ceiling has been reached. The options may include suspension of the project, a termination for convenience, a declaration of a force majeure or other forms of agreed procedures. A project termination under these circumstances would normally allow the parties to recover their reasonable costs and overhead and would not give rise to a default or a claim for breach.
Price escalation clauses are a valuable tool for both owners and contractors to consider in today’s economic climate to provide at least some level of control against rising product and material costs, but they can be tedious to draft and negotiate, so including outside counsel in the process can be helpful to expedite negotiations.
[1] Bracewell previously provided guidance on whether force majeure clauses can be implicated by steel and aluminum tariffs back in 2018, when the previous Trump administration imposed substantial steel tariffs on China. See “Steel and Aluminum Tariffs: Time to Dust Off the Price Adjustment Clause?,” Bracewell Update, August 28, 2018, and “Steel and Aluminum Tariffs? Can You Turn To Your Force Majeure Clause?,” Bracewell Blog Post, March 22, 2018.
[2] See “Steel and Aluminum Tariffs – Time to Dust off the Price Adjustment Clause?,” Bracewell Update, August, 28, 2018.
First Circuit Broadly Interprets Exclusion in Commercial General Liability Policy Under Current Massachusetts Law
In Admiral Insurance Co. v. Tocci Building Corp., 120 F.4th 933 (1st Cir. 2024), the federal Court of Appeals ruled that, under current Massachusetts law, a general contractor’s Commercial General Liability (CGL) policy does not cover damage to non-defective work resulting from defective work by subcontractors.
The defendant contractor was retained as a construction manager for an entire residential construction project. After several work quality issues and delays on the project, the contractor was terminated before the project’s completion. The owner of the project filed suit against the contractor for breach of contract and related claims but did not allege negligence by the contractor. The complaint included allegations of defective work by the contractor’s subcontractors leading to various instances of damage to non-defective work on the project including: (1) damage to sheetrock resulting from faulty roof work; (2) mold formation resulting from inadequate sheathing and water getting into the building; and (3) damage to a concrete slab, wood framing, and underground pipes resulting from soil settlement due to improper backfill and soil compaction. The contractor’s request for defense and indemnification coverage under its CGL policy was denied by its insurer. The insurer filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment confirming it had no obligation to defend or indemnify the contractor. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer and the contractor appealed.
The Court examined the “Damage to Property” exclusion outlined in subsection (I)(2)(j) of the CGL policy, which provides that there is no coverage for “property damage” to “(6) [t]hat particular part of any property that must be restored, repaired or replaced because ‘your work’ was incorrectly performed on it.” The CGL policy defines “your work,” in relevant part, as “work or operations performed by you or on your behalf.” Since the complaint alleged damage resulting from the contractor’s “incorrectly performed” work on the entire project, the Court interpreted the (j)(6) exclusion as applying to the entirety of the project where the contractor was the construction manager charged with supervising and managing the whole project, the Court enforced the exclusion against coverage for the contractor.
The Court also examined the exception to the exclusion in (j)(6), which provides that the exclusion does not apply to “‘property damage’ included in the ‘products-completed operations hazard.’” The “products-completed operations hazard,” in turn, “includes all ‘bodily injury’ and ‘property damage’ occurring away from premises you own or rent and arising out of ‘your product’ or ‘your work’ except … (2) work that has not yet been completed or abandoned.” Since the contractor was terminated and did not complete or abandon the project prior to damage, the court of appeals concluded that the coverage exclusion in (j)(6) still applied.
In closing, the court of appeals left the door open for potential coverage for damage to non-defective, work arising from a subcontractor’s defective work even with the (j)(6) exclusion. Since the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has yet to rule on the issue, it could interpret “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” to encompass this type of damage, which could allow a general contractor to potentially receive coverage if the work is completed or abandoned, as the exception to the exclusion would then apply.
General Contractor Defeats Owner’s Notice Argument and Prevails in Seattle Condo Dispute
The Washington Court of Appeals recently affirmed a jury verdict and $30 million judgment for general contractor Skanska. The case involves the construction of the 41-story Nexus condominium tower in downtown Seattle. As is often the case, one of the central issues was whether Skanska was entitled to be paid for alleged changes to its scope of work. The owner made a familiar argument: Skanska had not followed the contractual procedures for giving notice and obtaining authorization to perform change order work but had instead relied on more informal communications, including oral directives, emails, and meeting minutes.
The Court of Appeals rejected those arguments finding sufficient evidence for the jury to have concluded that the parties agreed to modify or waive strict compliance with the formal requirements of the contract. This evidence included the owner’s practice of regularly approving change order work that did not follow the contract requirements. Based on the parties’ course of conduct the court found sufficient evidence to support the jury’s award in Skanska’s favor. In addition to recovering its unpaid balance, Skanska was also awarded interest and attorneys’ fees as the prevailing party, including its appellate attorney fees. The court remanded the case for a recalculation of prejudgment interest on certain change order work but otherwise affirmed.
A copy of the court’s decision is available here.
Listen to this article