Volume 3 - Number 29 | July 18, 2005 - Construction Claims Advisor

Sample Issue

Bookstore

Editorial Board

Construction Law Sites

Past Issues

Press Releases

Forums

You are here: Home » Volume 3 - Number 29 | July 18, 2005

Volume 3 - Number 29 | July 18, 2005

EDITOR'S NOTES | Issue 3-29: This week, two contractors try a variety of methods to dispute lower court rulings. First, a plaintiff runs out of time on a statute of limitations because both parties verbally agreed to delay the proceedings during a separate trial. Second, a contractor unsuccessfully appeals a change of venue for a breach of contract suit. The last two suits bode ill for private parties. The widow of a utility subcontract employee seeks compensation from a project utility’s contract administrator, but the court releases the company from liability. And finally, a homeowner is left without a house or funds to complete it after its general contractor haphazardly secures, then loses, a contractor license.

ARBITRATION BID DENIED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF FAILS TO DO HOMEWORK: Two subcontractors placed their legal dispute on hold while they jointly participated in an unrelated injury suit. Once the suit was over, however, the statute of limitations on the prior case had expired, leaving the plaintiff without legal backing to pursue arbitration.

CHANGE OF VENUE APPEAL DOESN’T CONVINCE COURT: A contractor, on appeal, disputes a trial court’s rejection of its change of venue argument. The appeals court upholds the original venue as well as the trial court’s breach of contract award to the subcontractor.

CALIFORNIA COURTS UPHOLD PRINCIPLE THAT HIRER’S AGENT NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR INJURY: A utility’s contract administrator gets off the hook in a suit filed by the widow of a subcontractor’s employee, who was electrocuted while on the job. Although the administrator was responsible for overseeing safety compliance, the project’s contract placed safety procedure responsibility and accountability upon the subcontractor.