Section Newsletter Articles on Construction Law

Extra-contractual remedies in Illinois By James M. Dash and Steven D. Mroczkowski Construction Law, February 2018 Even where no express contract exists, implied contracts can be created as a result of parties’ actions.
Preparing for the changes in the new AIA 2017 forms By Justin L. Weisberg Construction Law, February 2018 After a decade, the AIA released new design and construction contract forms in April 2017. Some of the more notable changes to the AIA construction contract documents are summarized here.
231 W. Scott - What is an attorney supposed to do? By Paul Peterson Construction Law, December 2017 The nightmare that is 231 W. Scott points out several areas that an owner and the owner's attorney should focus on when entering into a construction project.
Seventh Circuit finds duty to defend is triggered under Illinois law where subcontractor’s defective work causes damage to other parts of project By Clifford J. Shapiro Construction Law, December 2017 It remains to be seen whether or to what extent the courts in Illinois will follow the Westfield Insurance Company v. National Decorating Service, Inc. decision with respect to coverage under subcontractor policies in similar circumstances.
The financially distressed subcontractor on a government contract: What a prime contractor should do to protect the project and itself By Jay Bender Construction Law, October 2017 As federal regulations generally place the burden of compliance on prime contractors, a financially distressed subcontractor is a concern not only for the sub, but also for the prime contractor.
Insurance policy did not prevent association recovery from subcontractors for defective work By Justin L. Weisberg Construction Law, October 2017 On February 17, the First District Appellate Court issued an opinion regarding the Implied Warranty of Habitability in the case of Sienna Court Condominium Association v. Champion Aluminum Court et al.
Removable trade fixtures, large and small, are generally not lienable: Illinois court holds no mechanics lien rights in 500-foot-tall Wind Energy System By Steven D. Mroczkowski Construction Law, August 2017 In general, removable trade fixtures are considered personal property not subject to claims under the Illinois Mechanics Lien Act. As made clear by the recent case of AUI Construction Group, LLC v. Vaessen, this is true regardless of the size of the trade fixture.
2015 AAA Construction Industry Arbitration Rules: Fair, efficient & economical arbitrations? By Randall S. Rapp and John N. Rapp Construction Law, June 2017 While the 2015 Rules may not cause significant changes in all arbitrations, they ultimately provide arbitrators adept at managing their arbitrations with the power to provide fairer, more efficient, and more economical arbitration experiences. But the new Rules also add complexity and open the door to court-like discovery and procedures.
Living with the New AAA Construction Industry Arbitration Rules By Raymond A. Fylstra Construction Law, June 2017 While widely and justifiably hailed for modernizing arbitration procedures, the new Rules still leave large gaps and create difficult dilemmas for parties who have already agreed to arbitrate.
Some insurance industry help for defective construction claims By Geoff Bryce Insurance Law, June 2017 According to current case law, the standing rule in Illinois is that there is no comprehensive general liability insurance coverage for any construction defect claim where the claim is that only the building itself was damaged.
Developer insolvency not required for direct implied warranty of habitability claims against residential builders By Raymond M. Krauze Construction Law, April 2017 The ruling in 1120 Club Condominium Association opens the door to future claims against residential builders/general contractors who are not involved in the sale of residential units nor in contractual privity with the homeowners and eliminates a defense that residential builders/general contractors have often relied upon in defeating implied warranty of habitability claims.
Some industry help for no CGL coverage for defective construction claims By Geoff Bryce Construction Law, April 2017 The standing rule in Illinois is that there is no comprehensive general liability insurance coverage for any construction defect claim where the claim is that only the building itself was damaged.
A winter’s tale—Snow liability and construction law By Nathan B. Hinch Construction Law, April 2017 The decision in Murphy-Hylton v. Lieberman Management Services, Inc. is important in clarifying what had been a split issue among Illinois appellate courts – to what extent does the Snow and Ice Removal Act (the “Act”) provide immunity when the claim arises from a snow or ice-related issue, but NOT from the alleged negligent removal of naturally accumulating snow or ice.
Choice of law, choice of forum, and public policy By Howard M. Turner Construction Law, March 2017 This article considers the validity, applicability, and effect of The Illinois Building and Construction Act, including when it is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act.
The sworn contractor’s and subcontractor’s statements By Paul Peterson Construction Law, March 2017 Balancing the desire to obtain good statutory documentation and the need to get the parties paid so the job gets done is not well understood and is not an easy job.
Why construction law? By Stanley N. Wasser Construction Law, March 2017 Trying to decide which area of law to practice? Here's why you should consider construction law.
Oh! Those limitations By Samuel H. Levine Construction Law, January 2017 Four recent Illinois cases address claims limitations.
“Pay if paid” clauses upheld by First District By Jim Dash Construction Law, January 2017 In the first published Illinois decision on the topic in 30+ years, the court in Beal Bank Nevada v. Northshore Center THC, LLC,held on September 30, 2016 that “pay if paid” clauses remain enforceable in contract if the payment condition is an unambiguous condition precedent to payment.
Whither the Doctrine of Implied Warranty of Habitability in new construction—did the Illinois Supreme Court change course in Fattah v. Bim? By Joseph R. Fortunato, Jr. Real Estate Law, January 2017 The recently decided case of Board of Managers of the 1120 Club Condominium Association v. 1120 Club, LLC, et al, seems to breathe new life into the concept of the Implied Warranty of Habitability, but important questions remain unanswered.
Limitations on the rights of fringe benefit funds to collect in a lien foreclosure action By Charles B. Lewis and Adam L. Gill Construction Law, September 2016 A recent decision by the Circuit Court of Cook County, The Chicago District Council of Carpenters, et al., v. Ten East Delaware, LLC, et al clarifies a Fringe Benefits Funds’ standing to record and foreclose upon a mechanics lien against property for work performed by union members.
Previous waiver of the implied warranty of habitability bars claim by subsequent purchaser By Steven D. Mroczkowski Construction Law, September 2016 Fattah v. Bim is a well-reasoned, logical clarification of the body of law governing the implied warranty of habitability.
Henderson Square Condominium puts a bullseye on condominium developers By Geoffrey A. Bryce Construction Law, June 2016 In Henderson Square Condominium Association v. Lab Townhome LLC, the Supreme Court expanded the basis upon which developers can be sued for defective condominium conversions and construction.
Illinois federal court decision holds that alleged property damage outside of subcontractor’s scope of work triggers the duty to defend By Clifford J. Shapiro Construction Law, June 2016 Westfield Insurance Company v. National Decorating Service, Inc. specifically rejects the argument that property damage to any part of a building or structure allegedly caused by a subcontractor’s defective work cannot be covered accidental “occurrence” under the CGL policy.
Specifically naming defendant in caption of summons required Supreme Court Rule 101(d) By Bradford J. Peterson Construction Law, February 2016 Although Supreme Court Rule 101(d) provides that a Summons must “substantially comply” with the model form, such substantial compliance is insufficient where the caption of the Summons fails to name the defendant being served.
Theories of contractor liability for jobsite inuries By Jason G. Schutte and Eric Waldman Construction Law, February 2016 This article outlines the theories of contractor liability for jobsite injuries under Restatement (Second) of Torts §414 and § 343, as well as the various exceptions to these theories and rules under Illinois law.
Is it really new? By Bruce H. Schoumacher Construction Law, January 2016 A recent federal government contract case considered whether equipment delivered to the site was new. You may be surprised at the result.
What are you worth—The new U.S. DOT DBE regulations By Margery Newman Construction Law, January 2016 One of the most hotly contested revisions of the U.S. DOT's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program relates to the personal net worth form and related requirements to qualify.
The resulting loss exception to the Defective Workmanship Exclusion: Are you covered? By Adam B. Whiteman Construction Law, September 2015 The First District recently issued an opinion that may help insureds determine whether they will be able to get insurance coverage for damage resulting from a cause which itself is excluded from coverage.
Pay If/When Paid clauses in Illinois By Jim Dash Construction Law, July 2015 As a matter of pure contract, “Pay When Paid” or “Pay if Paid” clauses generally are enforceable in Illinois so long as the contract makes payment to the upstream party an unambiguous condition precedent to payment downstream. And if (sub)contractor does not have, or believes that it does not have, the leverage to negotiate the terms of its contract, it often will accept the contract, “Pay When/If Paid” clause and all, just in order to get the work.
North Shore Bank and the ever-changing work completion dates By Paul Peterson Real Estate Law, June 2015 In this case the First District Appellate Court was confronted with two mechanics lien claims where neither claimant could prove they did work on the work completion date sworn to in their respective mechanics lien claims and reaffirmed under oath in various court filings.


Select a Different Subject