loader
Page is loading...
generic_insight_detail

Legal Insight

Barnes & Thornburg LLP Construction Law Update - April 2016

April 1, 2016   |   Atlanta | Chicago | Columbus | Dallas | Delaware | Elkhart | Fort Wayne | Grand Rapids | Indianapolis | Los Angeles | Minneapolis | South Bend

Welcome to the April 2016 edition of the Construction Law Update, an e-publication that features articles authored by the attorneys in Barnes & Thornburg LLP's Construction practice group.

If you are not currently on our mailing list and would like to receive issues of the e-newsletter directly via e-mail, visit our subscription page to sign up.


Time Is Money: Ohio Supreme Court Weighs In On Liquidated Damages for Delayed Roadwork
By Bill Nolan
Recently, the Ohio Supreme Court for the first time applied its long-standing test for determining the validity of liquidated damages to a public works project. Learn more about the lessons learned from this liquidated damages case against Boone Coleman Construction Co. and other considerations to help minimize damages you may face.

Illinois Federal Court Decision Holds That Alleged Property Damage Outside Of Subcontractor’s Scope of Work Triggers The Duty To Defend
By Clifford Shapiro
Westfield Insurance Company v. National Decorating Service, Inc. holds that, under Illinois law, allegations that a subcontractor’s defective work caused property damage to a building or project outside the scope of the subcontractor’s own work triggers the duty to defend contained in the subcontractor’s general liability insurance (“CGL”) policy. Read more about this decision and how the issue presents future uncertainty under Illinois law.

California Upholds Contractor’s Professional Negligence Claim against Geotechnical Engineer in the Absence of Privity
By Scott Murphy
Within the past two years California courts have recognized negligence claims against professional engineers and architects in the absence of privity. This article explores two recent cases which explain how this trend continues and is being applied in the commercial setting.

Lessor of Equipment Entitled to Miller Act Recovery, Even Though the Manufacturer Delivered the Equipment
By Timothy J. Abeska
Read this article to learn more about U.S. ex rel. Pileco, Inc. v. Slurry Systems, Inc., and how it addressed the reach of the Miller Act in a dispute arising from an Army Corps of Engineers reservoir project.

© 2016 Barnes & Thornburg LLP. All Rights Reserved. This page, and all information on it, is proprietary and the property of Barnes & Thornburg LLP. It may not be reproduced, in any form, without the express written consent of Barnes & Thornburg.

This Barnes & Thornburg LLP publication should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general informational purposes only, and you are urged to consult your own lawyer on any specific legal questions you may have concerning your situation.

Visit us online at www.btlaw.com and follow us on Twitter @BTLawNews.



Subscribe

Do you want to receive more valuable insights directly in your inbox? Visit our subscription center and let us know what you're interested in learning more about.

View Subscription Center
Trending Connect
We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to use cookies.