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.
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.
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.
The proper place to file notice of one’s intent to appeal an administrative decision of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“ROC”) is the subject of the Court of Appeals’ recent decision in Johnson v. Arizona Registrar of Contractors, 242 Ariz. 409 (App. 2017). Specifically, the Court was tasked with deciding whether it was sufficient for a homeowner seeking to appeal the ROC’s denial of her recovery fund claim to file her notice of appeal with the ROC, rather than the superior court. The Court concluded that the homeowner’s filing was insufficient, holding that the notice must be filed in the superior court pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-904. As a result, the Court ultimately upheld the dismissal of the homeowner’s ROC appeal. The takeaway from Johnson is clear—those appealing an administrative decision of the ROC must file their notices of appeal in superior court.
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.