| HOW LONG DO OHIO CONTRACTORS HAVE TO SUE THE STATE? |
|
11/30/2009 Link
|
|
|
A common element of construction contracts is a mandatory dispute resolution procedure that must be completed before a lawsuit can be filed. On state funded construction projects in Ohio contractors must engage in the “Article 8” dispute resolution process before it can bring an action against the state. A contractor must bring a lawsuit within two years of the “exhaustion” of this process. Thus, it is vital for contractors to understand when it has completed this process. While this standard is seemingly straightforward, it is not uncommon for the decision makers in this process to miss deadlines, give incomplete decisions or simply ask for more information – sometimes all in the same “decision”. A recent appellate court opinion, clarifies when the claim is “exhausted” and, therefore, when the statute of limitations clock begins to tick. Submited by Stephen Withee.
|
 |
| All Bets Are Off With Takeover Agreements |
|
11/11/09 Link
|
|
|
Where a bonded contractor defaults under a performance bond, the surety sometimes chooses to complete the bonded obligations itself. When “the surety chooses to step into the contractor’s shoes and complete the contact,” it typically does so “under a new contract between it and the owner.” Int’l Fid. Ins. Co. v. County of Rockland, 98 F.Supp.2d 400, 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). Because such takeover agreements establish a new playing field, they may be the subject of intense negotiation. Takeover agreements are sometimes undertaken in conjunction with voluntary defaults, which are themselves often a matter of intense negotiation. See Mid-State Surety Corp. v. E. Bethlehem Twp. Mun. Auth., Civil Action 01-240, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15447, at *11-12 (W.D. Pa. July 29, 2005) (takeover agreement corresponded with execution of letter establishing voluntary default). Submitted by Eric D. Foerg.
|
|
| What is Foul is Not Fair Rules Indiana Court of Appeals In Homeowner Nuisance Case |
|
11/9/2009 Link
|
|
|
In 1997, homeowners, Randall Bonewitz and Russell Dellinger (“Homeowners”) purchased an old farm house in rural Indiana that bordered a property owned by Ted Parker (“Parker”). At the time the Homeowners purchased the home, Parker was using his land for agricultural purposes. In 2003, Parker started a new business on his farm, drying wet mycelium, which was used as animal feed, in furnaces he built on his land. While Parker used some of the animal feed he dried, the majority of it was sold to others. Submitted by Matthew P. Voors.
|
|
| NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO FINDS SUPPLIER OF CRUSHED STONE BACKFILL NOT TO BE A “SUBCONTRACTOR” WITHIN THE MEANING OF AN INSURANCE POLICY |
|
11/9/2009 Link
|
|
|
In Mosser Construction, Inc. v. The Travelers Indemnity Company, 2009 Westlaw 3426484 (N.D. Ohio), October 26, 2009, the district court determined that a supplier of crushed stone backfill to a general contractor was not a “subcontractor” within the meaning of an insurance policy, but was rather a “material supplier,” and as a result the general contractor was not entitled to defense or indemnification from the insurance company. Submitted by Daniel P. King and Takeia R. Johnson.
|