Below is a link to a webinar I did with SunRay Construction Solutions, LLC on certain bond claims. Specifically, this webinar focuses on recovering on the following types of bonds that can be issued in connection with Arizona construction projects: (1) lien discharge bonds; (2) Arizona Little Miller Act bonds; and (3) federal Miller Act bonds.
What Happens After I Record My Lien? How Do I Get Paid?
Below is a link to a webinar I did with SunRay Construction Solutions, LLC a few months ago. As set forth in the title, this webinar focuses on what happens (or should happen) after a contractor or supplier records their mechanics’ and materialmen’s lien in Arizona. Among other things, it touches on the mechanics (no pun intended) of a lien foreclosure lawsuit in Arizona.
USING LIEN WAIVERS IN ARIZONA: PROCEED WITH CAUTION.
Below is a link to a webinar I did with SunRay Construction Solutions, LLC on using lien waivers in Arizona. I cover all four of Arizona’s statutory lien waivers and then discuss some general lien waiver do’s and don’ts. As I try to make clear in the webinar, be careful when signing lien waivers!
Arizona Preliminary 20-Day Notices, Mechanics’ Liens, and Bond Claims
It has been a while since my last blog post. But that does not mean that I haven’t been busy! Among other things, I have conducted a series of webinars with the good folks at SunRay Construction Solutions, LLC that have subsequently been uploaded to YouTube.
Below is one of the earlier installments in this series of webinars, which generally addresses preliminary twenty day notices, mechanics’ liens, and bond claims in Arizona.
Forced to Warp Speed: The Anatomy of a Constructive Acceleration Claim.
In the construction world, the term “acceleration” refers to speeding up the pace of work on a project. Accelerated performance often results in increased costs for those contractors whose work is affected. These increased costs, which can be substantial, often include overtime payments, hiring costs and salaries of additional workers, and extra material costs due to the shortened schedule.
Generally, a project (or portions of a project) can be accelerated in three ways: (1) voluntarily; (2) at the direction of another party; or (3) constructively. Voluntary acceleration occurs where the contractor unilaterally decides to quicken its pace. Directed acceleration, on the other hand, occurs when the contractor is ordered to expedite performance by either the owner or the general contractor. Not surprisingly, it is uncommon for disputes over acceleration costs to arise in either of these two contexts. If the acceleration is voluntary, the contractor typically bears the cost. If the acceleration is directed, the party directing the acceleration usually bears the costs.
The third category—constructive acceleration—occurs where the owner or general contractor refuses to give the contractor a time extension for an “excusable” delay. As explained here, excusable delays usually entitle contractors to at least additional time. The denial of a time extension in these circumstances necessarily forces the contractor into a precarious position—either accelerate performance to maintain the existing schedule or run the risk of facing delay claims from the upstream party (which can include liquidated damages). Disputes over entitlement to acceleration costs typically arise in constructive acceleration scenarios.
Although Arizona’s courts have not yet directly addressed constructive acceleration claims, courts in other jurisdictions have. For instance, the Ohio Court of Appeals held as follows in Sherman R. Smoot Co. v. Ohio Dept. of Adm. Serv., 736 N.E.2d 69, 78 (Ohio App. 2000) (citations omitted):
Constructive acceleration occurs when a contractor has a justified claim for an extension of time, but is required to incur additional expenses because the project owner refuses to grant the extension and requires the contractor to complete the project by the original completion date. In order to prevail on a claim for constructive acceleration, it must be established that (1) that the contractor experienced an excusable delay entitling it to a time extension, (2) that the contractor properly requested the extension, (3) that the project owner failed or refused to grant the requested extension, (4) that the project owner demanded that the project be completed by the original completion date despite the excusable delay, and (5) that the contractor actually accelerated the work in order to complete the project by the original completion date and incurred added costs as a result.