They’re Here: AIA Rolls Out 2017 Updates to Contract Documents

The American Institute of Architect’s (“AIA”) Contract Documents are among the most widely used form agreements in construction.  For purposes of keeping up with critical court decisions and industry trends, the AIA reviews and amends its core documents every ten years.  2017 marked a decade since the last updates, and like clockwork the AIA has released revised versions of its documents over the course of this year.    Several months ago, the AIA released new versions of 14 documents, including its flagship agreements for the design-bid-build delivery model.  And just recently, the AIA has released 20 additional new documents relating primarily to the scope of architects’ services. read more

Sirrah, Sirrah: Arizona Supreme Court Holds that Successful Party in Breach of Implied Warranty Lawsuit is Entitled to Attorneys’ Fees

It is well-established Arizona law that a warranty of habitability and workmanship is implied into all residential construction contracts.  In Sirrah Enterprises, LLC v. Wunderlich, 242 Ariz. 542 (2017), the Arizona Supreme Court recently decided “whether the successful party on a claim for breach of the warranty qualifies for an attorney-fee award under either a contractual fee provision or A.R.S. § 12-341.01.”  The Court held that the warranty is an imputed term of the construction contract, such that the prevailing party on a claim for breach of that term qualifies for an attorneys’ fee award under a controlling contractual fee provision or § 12-341.01. read more

Pool Change: Arizona Legislature Tweaks Mandatory Provisions For Swimming Pool Construction Contracts

I have previously addressed the required minimum elements of Arizona construction contracts, which are set forth in A.R.S. § 32-1158(A).  When it comes to contracts for the construction of residential in-ground swimming pools and spas, however, those minimum elements are not enough. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1158.01(A), pool and spa contracts must also include several additional provisions.  These additional provisions were recently tweaked by the Arizona Legislature through Senate Bill 1116, which became effective on August 9, 2017. read more

Amberwood Development, Inc. et al. v. Swann’s Grading, Inc.: Persuasive Authority on the Scope of Indemnification Provisions

Division One of the Arizona Court of Appeals recently issued a decision addressing contractual indemnification provisions in Amberwood Development, Inc., et al. v. Swann’s Grading, Inc., 2017 WL 712269.  Given that Amberwood Development is an unpublished memorandum decision (and not an opinion), it will have no precedential effect on any subsequent Arizona cases.  It is, nevertheless, worth reviewing because it touches on two key aspects of indemnification provisions—(1) what acts or omissions are covered; and (2) whose acts or omissions are covered.  In Amberwood Development, the court ultimately found that the subcontractor, Swann’s Grading, Inc. (“Swann’s”), was obligated to indemnify the general contractor, Amberwood Development, Inc. (“Amberwood”), for: (1) Swann’s non-negligent actions; and (2) all claims “arising out of or connected to Swann’s work,” regardless of who caused them. read more

Construction Contract Provisions that are Statutorily Void and Unenforceable in Arizona

sign-40599_150In an earlier post, I addressed the statutorily-required minimum elements of Arizona construction contracts between contractors and property owners.  As a reminder, those minimum elements are set forth in A.R.S. § 32-1158(A).  This post will, however, address the other side of that same coin—namely, the relatively few construction contract provisions that are statutorily void and unenforceable in Arizona.

First, A.R.S. § 32-1129.05(A) provides that the following are against Arizona’s public policy and are void and unenforceable: read more