|
Volume 6 - Number 32 | August 11, 2008
|
EDITOR'S NOTES
In California, the hot topic on legal blogs is a recent decision handed down from the state’s high court. In it, the court ruled that a subcontractor’s duty to defend the prime contractor is not based on the subcontractor’s culpability but whether the sub is implicated in the lawsuit. Exoneration at trial will not excuse the sub’s obligation to pay for attorney fees, the court said. This ruling has significant implications for contractors in the non-residential construction forum.
In Utah, an engineering firm failed in its attempt to push through a timely submitted mechanic’s lien that should have been addressed before the development’s funding went through.
And in Washington, a labor union trust went head to head with the city of Tacoma on who pays for employee benefit contributions associated with the union’s retirement trust after a subcontractor goes out of business and defaults on the benefit payments.
|
|
