Hilger Hammond Attorneys at law

Legal Resources & News

Breaking Legal News, Guides & Counsel

AIA 2017 – What’s New About The Old?

AIA 2017 – What’s New About The Old?

by | 21 June 2017 | , ,

In April 2017, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) released the 2017 editions of its flagship agreements, including the Owner-Contractor Agreement (A101), Owner-Contractor Agreement, Cost Plus a GMP (A-102), the General Conditions of Contract (A201) and the Contractor-Subcontractor Agreement (A401).  Significantly, AIA also created a new comprehensive insurance and bonds Exhibit (Exhibit A) to be used with these agreements.

Some interesting changes to note:

Liquidated Damages. Liquidated Damages are now expressly identified with a new provision.  In prior revisions, LDs were merely suggested in a “prompt” as an insertion. Furthermore, the Owner is not required to file a Claim to impose liquidated damages.  Prior AIA versions were silent on whether Owner was required to file a formal claim; courts addressing the question reached differing results.
Captive Insurance Costs.  Contractor must obtain Owner’s prior approval of Contractor’s costs for insurance provided through a captive insurer owned or controlled by Contractor.
Allocation of GMP.  Adopting a revision commonly made by the parties, if a GMP is given, allocation of the GMP does not constitute a separate GMP for each individual line item on the Schedule of Values.

Construction Contract Clauses, Part 3 – Site Investigation Clauses

by | 13 June 2017 | , , ,

A site investigation clause is a provision in a construction contract that indicates that one of the parties has made an inspection of the property, project, or location where certain services, labor, or material will be provided, and that the party making the inspection is satisfied that performance will be possible given the circumstances. The following is an example of a site investigation clause:

Each contractor shall examine the construction site and area and compare its findings with the Drawing and Specification and shall inform and satisfy itself as to all matters necessary for carrying out the work; including but not limited to, general working conditions, labor and equipment requirements, accessibility, condition of the premises, obstructions, drainage conditions, actual levels, excavating, filling, etc. The Contractor shall investigate all conditions as to character of the site and character of existing structures at or adjacent to the site, and the character and extent of the Owner’s and other Contractors’ operations in the area, and in connection with the project, and shall take all such matters into account in submitting its bid. No allowance or extra payment will be subsequently made because of any such items or conditions occasioned by the Contractor’s failure to make such comparison and examination or on account of interferences from the Owner’s, Construction Manager’s and other Contractors’ activities, or by reason of any error or oversight on the Contractor’s part.

Minding Your Zoning Ps & Qs

by | 17 May 2017 | ,

Some say it’s better to beg forgiveness than ask permission. That’s not the case when it comes to complying with zoning ordinances, as recently learned by defendants in a zoning enforcement action brought by the Village of Pentwater.

In Village of Pentwater v Bates, (March 2017), Bates bought a 12×12 storage shed and moved it to an 8-acre wooded, vacant parcel in the Village of Pentwater. Bates initially claimed that village officials said they didn’t need a permit to place the shed on the parcel. Later, the zoning administrator informed Bates that because the parcel was within a single family residential zone, the shed was permitted only if it was an accessory building to a residential structure. Bates responded that they intended to build a house on the parcel. They then received a zoning permit to build a house. Thereafter, however, Bates abandoned any immediate plans to build the home.

Labor Under the Federal Miller Act: The Known Unknown

by | 25 April 2017 | ,

Here’s what we know. On federal projects, the Miller Act requires prime contractors to furnish a payment bond “for the protection of all persons supplying labor and material in carrying out the work provided for in the contract for the use of each person.” The Act authorizes “every person that furnished labor or material in carrying out work provided for in a contract” who has “a direct contractual relationship with a subcontractor but no contractual relationship, express or implied, with the contractor furnishing the payment bond may bring a civil action on the payment bond.”

Further, we know that the Act is “highly remedial in nature” and “entitled to a liberal construction and application in order properly to effectuate the Congressional intent to protect those whose labor and materials go into public projects.” However, while liberally construed in favor of subcontractors, the Miller Act is not without limit.

Beyond notice, timeliness, and venue requirements, which are all necessary elements to state a prima facie claim for relief under the Miller Act, many forget to analyze the obvious: whether the subcontractor performed “labor” within the purview of the Miller Act. Despite the ostensibly inclusive language in the Miller Act requiring a bond for the protection of all persons supplying labor and materials in carrying out the work, several federal courts have imposed limits on the types of work constituting “labor” on construction projects.

Court Enforces Subcontractor’s Demand for Arbitration of General Contractor’s Claim

by | 11 April 2017 | ,

The Court of Appeals recently enforced an arbitration agreement between a contractor and its subcontractor in a dispute involving indemnity and insurance coverage for a claim by subcontractor’s injured worker. (Spence Bros. v Kirby Steel, March 2017). In this case, the general contractor, Spence Brothers, was the project manager overseeing the University of Michigan’s expansion of the Crisler Arena. Spence subcontracted with Kirby Steel to provide structural and metal work. Spence’s letter accepting Kirby’s proposal directed Kirby to list Spence as an additional insured. The parties’ subcontract contained a standard indemnity clause requiring Kirby to defend and indemnify Spence against all losses. The subcontract also required that Kirby’s insurance policy name Spence as a named insured.

Captive Insurance Changes for 2017

by | 4 April 2017 | , ,

On December 18, 2015, the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act) was signed into law. Proponents and sponsors of captive insurance structures often refer to the tax benefits of I.R.C. Section 831(b), which allows eligible insurance companies to make an election to be taxed only the company’s taxable investment income.

In effect, the 831(b) election allows such insurance companies to collect a set amount of insurance premium without having to pay tax on said premiums. Effective January 1, 2017, insurance companies electing taxation under 831(b) can collect up to $2.2 million in insurance premiums while being taxed only on the taxable income generated from the collection and retention of such premiums.

Captive Insurance Structures Designed for Different Needs, Goals and Funding Abilities

by | 29 March 2017 | , ,

Captive insurance entities can be structured in a variety of ways depending on the participant’s needs, goals, and funding abilities. The following are some of the more common structures that can be used.

Pure Captive
In this model, a captive insurance company is typically a wholly-owned subsidiary of a parent company. These captives are usually closely controlled by the parent company and are generally used by companies that have insurance and risk management needs that are significant enough to justify the financial costs of being solely responsible for the captive’s operational costs. Companies that consider forming a pure captive generally do so to improve risk management and to maximize the benefits of I.R.C. 831(b) election thereby sheltering up to $2.2 million in taxes.

Captive Insurance and Risk Retention

by | 24 February 2017 | , ,

The concept behind captive insurance companies is based on the principle that rewards are derived from the assumption and retention of risk. Traditional insurance vehicles purchased through third-party agents is directed at shifting definable risks onto insurance companies that assume such risks based on weighing the statistical probability that, when viewed in the aggregate, the costs to the insurance company for paying claims will be less than the premiums the insurance company charges for assuming those risks. In that sense, insurance companies operate on the business model that they generate revenue, and ultimately profit, by assuming risk. A captive insurance company operates on a similar principle with the main difference being that rewards are the result of retaining risks by the parent company rather than shifting those risks to traditional insurance companies. In short, captive insurance companies are formed as part of a risk management strategy to take advantage of the economic benefits derived from risk retention. One of the more notable benefits of captive insurance models relates to the tax benefits provided to so-called micro captives. Under I.R.C. Section 831(b), micro captives can elect to only be taxed on investment income and avoid tax on income derived from the collection of up to $2.2 million in insurance premiums. As a result, incorporating captive insurance concepts as part of a risk management strategy can provide opportunities to go beyond simply planning for catastrophic and non-catastrophic losses.

Michigan Prevailing Wage Update

by | 15 February 2017 | , ,

Michigan’s prevailing wage law faces potential repeal in 2017. The first three bills proposed by the Michigan Senate are directed at repealing the laws that require labor on Michigan public construction projects be paid at prevailing wage rates akin to union-level wages. This is not the first time this issue has surfaced in Michigan and in other states across the country.

Proponents of repealing prevailing wage contend that requiring higher labor costs is passed through to the taxpayers whereas the opposition claims that prevailing wage results in higher-quality public improvements and a fair wage for the people of Michigan that perform the improvements. The debate over these issues is expected to be heated and continue throughout the year. Check back for additional updates about this issue and the future of Michigan’s prevailing wage legislation on public construction projects.

Court Enforces Subcontractor’s Obligation to Indemnify Contractor

by | 3 February 2017 | , ,

The Michigan Court of Appeals recently affirmed a contractor’s right to defense and indemnity from its subcontractor under the plain language of the parties’ subcontract. Provenzino v Macomb County Department of Roads, et al (January 2017).

In this case, Mr. Provenzino alleged that he was injured when he fell from his motorcycle after encountering a disparity in height between adjacent milled and unmilled lanes of traffic in a construction zone. Provenzino sued multiple parties including Florence Cement Company, the general contractor, and Lois Kay Contracting Company (LKCC), the subcontractor who milled the roadway surfaces. Florence filed a cross claim against LKCC seeking indemnity based upon the indemnification provision in the parties’ subcontract. That provision stated:

Subcontractor agrees, and shall bind all sub-subcontractors to agree to indemnify Contractor, Owner and all other parties the Contractor is obligated to indemnify pursuant to the Prime Contract (hereinafter “Indemnitees”), and to defend and hold Indemnitees forever harmless from and against all suits, actions, legal and administrative proceedings, claims, demands, damages, interest, attorney fees, costs and expenses of whatsoever kind or nature whether arising before or after completion of Subcontractor’s work and in any manner directly or indirectly caused or claimed to be caused by any action or negligence of Subcontractor or Sub-subcontractor, and regardless whether directly or indirectly caused or claimed to be caused in part by a party indemnified hereunder or by anyone acting under their direction, control or on their behalf, until such time as a judgement [sic] is entered against Contractor by a court of law. …[emphasis added].