CM Report On Construction (2007)
2007
A summary of significant recent developments in the law focusing on substantive issues of litigation and featuring analysis and commentary on construction-related interests.
Download this publication as a PDF
Articles in this report
CASE NOTE: Architect Prevails In Lawsuit Brought By Project Investor
In F.H. Paschen/S.N. Nielsen, Inc. v. Burnham Station, L.L.C. (2007 WL 837240; 2007 Ill. App. LEXIS 245), a lawsuit was brought against an architect by a project investor. The Burnham Station, L.L.C. (Burnham) is an Illinois limited liability company that was formed by James Letchinger and JDL Development to acquire and develop certain real estate located at 15th and Clark Streets in Chicago, Illinois, for the design, construction, and sale of condominiums and town homes. The plaintiff, FHP/SNN, was an investor of Burnham Station and executed a subscription agreement to purchase six membership interests in Burnham for $600,000.
The use of common law actions by plaintiffs to recover for injuries sustained as a result of working on construction projects is more prevalent since the abolition of the Illinois Structural Work Act in 1995. Since the Illinois Structural Work Act was repealed, plaintiffs have generally sought recovery under either § 414 or § 343 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (“Restatement”).
How To Include Hold Harmless And Indemnity Provisions In Your Construction Contract In Indiana
Those involved in construction contracts with subcontractors and who wish to minimize their exposure for damages in the event an employee of the subcontractor becomes injured while working on the project, should consider the use of “hold harmless” and indemnity provisions in their contracts.
The Indiana Supreme Court recently ruled that an employee injured in a workplace accident to which the Worker’s Compensation Act applies does not have a third-party claim against the employer for spoliation of evidence arising from the accident. Glotzbach v. Froman, 54 N.E.2d 237 (Ind. 2006).
Survey Of States That Currently Have “Anti-Indemnity” Acts
On February 1, 2005, Rep. Thomas Holbrook sponsored and introduced House Bill 0704.
The bill would have amended the Illinois “Anti-Indemnity Act”. The bill provided that “in contracts or agreements for the listed types of construction, alteration, repair, or maintenance, any covenant, promise, or agreement to procure an insurance policy to indemnify or hold harmless another person from that person’s own negligence is void as against public policy and wholly unenforceable.” House Bill 0704. The final date of action for this bill was on January 9, 2007.
When Is A General Contractor Liable For The Injuries Of An Employee Of A Subcontractor
A common question in construction litigation arises when an employee of a subcontractor is injured on a jobsite and seeks to recover monetary damages from the general contractor (hereinafter “GC”). A recent Illinois case from the First District Appellate Court provides some insight into the question, and, importantly, suggests specific steps a GC can and should take to minimize its exposure.
