On a traditional design-bid-build project, the design professionals prepare the plans, the owner gives them to the contractor, and the contractor builds the project.  So what happens when the plans are wrong?

[Disclaimer – this video contains profanity.  Just giving you a heads up.]

The answer to that questions depends on where the project is located.

If the project is almost anywhere but Texas, then when the owner gives the plans to the contractor, there is an implied warranty by the owner that the plans are accurate and sufficient for construction of the project.

In Texas though, there is no implied warranty on behalf of the owner that the plans are accurate and sufficient when the plans are given to the contractor.  Unless there is specific language in the contract saying that the owner warrants the accuracy of the plans, then the contractor must proceed at its own risk.

If the plans given to the contractor turn out to be incorrect, the contractor can submit Requests for Information seeking clarification.  This may lead to delays, changes to the plans, and requests for change orders that the contractor did not anticipate at the time it submitted its bid or entered into the contract.

In this situation, a contractor may find itself facing schedule delays, and whether the contractor is entitled to an extension of time will be determined by the other provisions of the contract.  In addition, the contractor may end up incurring significant additional costs that may or may not be recoverable based on the language of the contract.

So how can a contractor avoid a situation where incorrect plans have caused delays and damages that may or may not be recovered?   I’m glad you asked.

The situation is avoided by addressing it in the contract and negotiating a resolution with the owner.  This requires carefully reading the contract.  There are a issues that are frequently seen in construction contracts that can impact the contractor’s rights with respect to incorrect plans.

Pay attention to contract provisions that address:

  • Whether the owner warrants the drawings and specifications;
  • The contractor’s responsibility for reviewing the plans and specifications for errors;
  • Whether the contractor is allowed to rely on the accuracy of information provided by the owner;
  • Whether the contractor is responsible for reviewing the site and satisfying itself as to whether the work can be constructed per the drawings and specifications; and
  • Whether the contractor is entitled to additional time or costs incurred due to incorrect plans.

Most likely, the contractor will discover that most (if not all) of the risk for errors in the plans have been shifted to the contractor.

If this is the case, then during the contract negotiation process the contractor can propose revisions to minimize this risk, including proposing language specifically stating that the owner warrants the accuracy of the plans and specifications.  The owner may not accept the contractor’s proposed revisions, but it should at least provide an opportunity for both parties to discuss the risks associated with incorrect plans and find some resolution that both parties can live with.

 

 

 

 

I once had a teacher who called the word “please” a magic word.  For instance, if you asked to go to the restroom, the response was usually, “what’s the magic word?”   Then you said “please” and got to go the restroom.

This exchange repeated itself numerous times a day as students made various requests.  The word “please” usually worked.  Of course, there were other times when even if you used the word “please,” your request was still denied, which sort of muddied the water as to what was so magic about it to start with.

As it turns out, in construction law, there are also some magic words.  In fact, the recent case of Nu-Build & Associates, Inc. v. Sooners Group, L.P. illustrates this point because in that case, failing to use the magic word “reasonable” caused $3.6 million in damages to disappear.

You read that correctly.  One minute there was an award of $3.6 million in damages, and the next minute – “poof” – the damages were gone.

Here’s what happened.  Nu-Build was the general contractor for a project owned by Sooners Group.  Sooners Group terminated Nu-Build before the project was complete and hired a replacement contractor.   As often happens, a lawsuit followed.

Following a bench trial, the Court awarded Sooners Group $3.6 million in damages for its costs to complete the project after Sooners Group terminated Nu-Build.  On appeal, however, the Court of Appeals reversed the $3.6 million damages awarded to Sooners Group, and the court’s opinion is instructive to construction lawyers.

Here are two important statements from the Court of Appeals that construction lawyers should remember related to recovering damages for the cost of completing a project:

  1. One,  when seeking damages for completion costs, whether based on a contract or a tort, you must establish that the completion costs are reasonable.
  2. Two, proof of the amounts charged and paid are not evidence that the amount is reasonable.

The Court of Appeals determined that Sooners Group had not adduced any evidence at trial that the completion costs were reasonable, therefore, the entire amount was reversed.

Point number 2 seems illogical to owners and contractors who have had to complete a terminated party’s work.   From their perspective, the amounts charged and paid to complete a project or scope of work are inherently reasonable or else they wouldn’t have paid them.  Why would someone intentionally pay unreasonable costs to complete a project?

Despite the appeal of that logic, the law takes a different view.  There has to be evidence that the completion costs were reasonable to support an award of damages.

So what does this mean for construction lawyers?  One thing it means is that careful thought should be given to selecting experts and contractors that can establish that completion costs are reasonable.

And as simple as it sounds, it means making sure your experts literally say the magic word “reasonable” several times.  There’s no way to know for sure, but if one of Sooners Group’s experts had testified that Sooners Group’s $3.6 million in completion costs were reasonable, those damages costs may not have disappeared.

 

 

 

Consider the following scenario.  In a dispute between an owner and contractor, neither party can locate a copy of the signed construction contract in their files.

Without a signed contract, can the contractor still compel arbitration?  As it turns out, in certain circumstances, yes.

In Ladymon v. Lewis, the court of appeals addressed this scenario.   Some homeowners sued their builder, but no one could locate a signed version of the construction contract.

The builder filed a motion to compel arbitration.  The first step, however, in compelling arbitration is to establish the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and show that the agreement covers the claims that have been asserted.

So how can you establish the existence of a valid arbitration agreement if you don’t have a copy of the signed contract?  Well, like most things in a lawsuit, you make the best argument you can with what you have.  So that’s what the builder did.

The builder submitted an affidavit that basically said: (i) we can’t find the signed version of the contract but here is an unsigned form contract; (ii) I remember signing this form contract when we built this home; and (iii) I remember getting a copy back from the homeowners with their signature.

Not the strongest evidence you would like supporting a motion to compel arbitration.  Not surprisingly, the homeowners did not think the evidence was sufficient and filed their own affidavit saying that they did not remember signing any documents with the builder prior to construction except for financing documents.

The trial court denied the builder’s motion to compel arbitration and the builder appealed.   On appeal, the builder argued that its affidavit established that there was a valid, enforceable arbitration agreement between the parties.

[T]he absence of a party’s signature does not necessarily destroy an otherwise valid contract. . .

And the court of appeals agreed.  The court said:

[T]he absence of a party’s signature does not necessarily destroy an otherwise valid contract and is not dispositive of the question of whether the parties intended to be bound by the terms of a contract. If a contract is not signed by a party, then other evidence may be used to establish the nonsignatory’s unconditional assent to be bound by the contract, including any arbitration provision.

The court of appeals said that the builder had sufficiently established the existence of a valid contract between the parties that contained an arbitration provision.

And what about the homeowners’ testimony that they did not recall signing the contract?  The court of appeals basically said that saying you do not recall doing something is really no evidence at all.

So if you find yourself in a situation where you cannot locate a signed copy of a contract, all hope is not lost.  Use what you have and make your best arguments.  There’s a still a chance you can enforce an unsigned contract.

 

Like most sports fans in the Dallas area, I’ve spent the last couple of weeks paying attention to the countdown for one our local sports heroes, Adrian Beltre of the Texas Rangers, to reach the magical baseball milestone of 3,000 hits.  Even at the age of 38, Beltre is still playing at a high level and all season long there was never any doubt about whether he would reach the 3,000 hit plateau, it was just a question of when.

The “when” was answered on Sunday, July 30th, when Beltre became the 31st player in the history of baseball to amass 3,000 hits.  I was fortunate enough to be at the ballpark Sunday to experience it live.

 

 

Thankfully baseball is a game that acknowledges some milestones are so rare they should be celebrated.  So after the hit, the game was stopped down for several minutes as Beltre’s family and teammates all came onto the field to congratulate him while a banner commemorating the achievement was unveiled on the outfield wall.  The opposing players that were on the field at the time also made it a point to personally congratulate him.

It was a great moment to see.  And I don’t think that the cheering and congratulations were just because a player reached the 3,000 hit milestone.  A lot of it was due to the fact that the player reaching that milestone was Adrian Beltre.

Adrian Beltre is one of those players who by all accounts, does it the right way.  He is respected by players whether they play with him or against him.

Any time I’ve heard his teammates talk about Beltre, they all say he the consummate teammate.  Everyone can see that he plays hard, but it is also obvious that he enjoys playing the game. And you also don’t accumulate 3,000 hits unless you treat every at bat with the same intensity regardless of the score or conditions.

In addition to his performance on the field, Beltre is also a good person off the field.  He gives back to his community through donations to charitable organizations and giving his time to participate in events hosted by charities.  It’s no wonder he has been a fan favorite in Texas since arriving a few years ago.

So what does any of this have to do with avoiding or minimizing construction disputes?  A lot really.  Sometimes people in the construction world focus on so many things, they overlook the importance of something very basic.  If you want to avoid or reduce construction disputes, focus on doing it right.

  • Show up on time.
  • Work hard.
  • Don’t take shortcuts.
  • Be accountable and be willing to hold those around you accountable.
  • Be honest.
  • Accept responsibility for your actions.
  • Treat every project and job with the same intensity and commitment regardless of the size or fee involved.
  • And commit to doing this day in and day out, regardless of the circumstances or conditions.

You see, a lot of the same principles that allow an athlete like Adrian Beltre to excel are the same principles that allow people to excel in any industry.  So just do it right.  It’s simple to say, but too often overlooked.

 

It is not uncommon for a construction contract to contain a dispute resolution section that typically requires the parties to mediate a dispute and, if mediation fails, they either arbitrate or litigate the dispute.

Chapter 154 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code outlines various alternative dispute resolution procedures available to parties.  Of the dispute resolution methods in Chapter 154, mediation and arbitration are the most prevalent.

Usually overlooked and seldom used are the following three dispute resolution options:

  • Mini-trial
  • Moderated Settlement Conference
  • Summary Jury Trial

Mini-trial and Moderated Settlement Conference

A mini-trial and moderated settlement conference are similar to mediation in that they involve the use of neutral parties, but the role of the neutral parties is different than mediation.

The Mini-trial

  • Conducted under an agreement of the parties.
  • Each party and their counsel present the party’s position before selected representatives for the parties or before an impartial third party.  This allows the parties to define the issues and develop a realistic basis for settlement negotiations.
  • The impartial third party may issue an advisory opinion regarding the merits of the case.  The advisory opinion is not binding unless the parties enter into a written settlement agreement.

The Moderated Settlement Conference

  • Is a forum for case evaluation and realistic settlement negotiations.
  • Each party and their counsel present the party’s position before a panel of impartial third parties.
  • The panel may issue an advisory opinion regarding the liability and/or damages of the parties, but the advisory opinion is not binding on the parties.

Summary Jury Trial

  • Intended to provide a forum for early case evaluation and development of realistic settlement negotiations.
  • Each party and their counsel present the position of the party before a panel of six jurors unless the parties agree to a different number of jurors.
  • At the conclusion, the jury panel may issue an advisory opinion regarding the liability and/or damages of the parties.

The summary jury trial is different than a mini-trial or moderated settlement conference because it is conducted in a courtroom using jurors from the jury pool.  Summary jury trials typically last one day, and each party has a predetermined amount of time to submit their arguments and evidence.  The rules of evidence are generally loosely enforced so as not to bog down the proceeding.

After the parties present their arguments, the jury is given a predetermined amount of time to deliberate, and then the jury provides its “verdict,” which is just an advisory opinion.  This allows the parties to have some idea of how a group of jurors will perceive their case.

The Benefits

There are many benefits to getting the perspective of a neutral third party through a mini-trial, moderated settlement conference, or summary jury trial.  It allows you to see what arguments or facts were well-received or were confusing to the neutral.  And it also allows you to see how a neutral will react to your opponent’s arguments and facts.  But most of all, it will hopefully give the parties a framework for settlement negotiations so that the case can be resolved.

Almost any type of case can be appropriate for a mini-trial, moderated settlement conference, or summary jury trial so keep them in mind for helping you get a case resolved.