Skip to content
Home » Construction Owners » Page 4

Construction Owners

Effect of Municipalities’ Ultra Vires Contracts

In several prior blog posts, we discussed the effectiveness of implied-contract claims against public owners, such as counties, school boards, and municipalities.  For instance, prior posts have addressed:

This post will cover the success of a quantum-meruit claim against a municipality based on ultra vires contracts — or contracts that were executed without formal authority.Read More »Effect of Municipalities’ Ultra Vires Contracts

Ga. Supreme Court Interprets Intent and Scope of Atlanta’s OCIP

Read the opinion here: Case – ArcherWestern v Pitts

Construction owners occasionally use an Owner Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP) to insure personal and property damage on their projects.  The Georgia Supreme Court recently interpreted the City of Atlanta’s OCIP for construction of the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.  After a sub-subcontractor’s employee was killed on the project, his estate sued the City of Atlanta and several contractors, alleging that they failed to ensure the subcontractor at fault maintained the level of insurance required by the OCIP program.  Instead of the required $10,000,000 in bodily-injury coverage, the subcontractor at fault maintained only $1,000,000 in coverage. Read More »Ga. Supreme Court Interprets Intent and Scope of Atlanta’s OCIP

Contractual Limitations Period Must Have Clearly Identifiable Starting Point

Many construction-related contracts contain a contractual period of limitations — a contract term that establishes a period of time during which a party must file a claim against the other party (“limitations provision”).  Such a contractual provision precludes an aggrieved party from filing a lawsuit after the period expires.   They are generally enforceable in Georgia.

In Carrier Corp. v. Rollins, Inc., the Court of Appeals of Georgia interpreted a limitations provision contained in a $2 million contract for installation of an HVAC system at the owner’s headquarters.  The owner filed suit alleging that the HVAC system installed by the contractor never functioned properly. Read More »Contractual Limitations Period Must Have Clearly Identifiable Starting Point

Recovery of County’s Ultra Vires Payments

At some point, a county’s board or administrators may be faced with complaints from the community about payments made to a private entity. Members of the community (or competitors of the payee) may raise a number of complaints, including:

• payments were made to a friend of a commissioner,
• payments were made without a valid contract,
• the contract was not properly recorded,
• the contract was not effectively approved, or
• the county failed to comply with public works bidding laws.Read More »Recovery of County’s Ultra Vires Payments

Recovery of Attorney Fees and Interest Under The Georgia Prompt Pay Act

In November 2010, the Georgia Court of Appeals interpreted the Georgia Prompt Pay Act to mandate the recovery of reasonable attorney fees to a prevailing party. 

The Prompt Pay Act

Georgia’s Prompt Pay Act (the “Act”) generally provides additional remedies to a contractor or subcontractor where they perform construction work on property and the owner of the property fails to remit payment within statutory deadlines.  Where the Act applies, it provides for an award of attorney fees and interest on late payments.  In Electric Works CMA, Inc. v. Baldwin Technical Fabrics, Inc., the court explained that attorney fees are recoverable without the necessity of showing bad faith.Read More »Recovery of Attorney Fees and Interest Under The Georgia Prompt Pay Act

Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP provides clients a broad variety of high quality legal services while retaining the personal touch and more economical rates of a small firm.

Linkedin

North Atlanta Office
(Vinings)

3330 Cumberland Boulevard
Suite 185
Atlanta, GA 30339

P: 770-818-4444

Northeast Atlanta Office
(Tucker)

100 Crescent Centre Parkway
Suite 625
Tucker, GA 30084

P: 770-988-7755

Copyright 2020 Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP

Disclaimer
The text and materials on the Autry, Hall & Cook internet site are for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. This internet site is not intended to create, and receipt of the information on this site does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between you and Autry, Hall & Cook. You should not act upon the information contained in this internet site without seeking the advice of an attorney. Please do not send us any confidential information until after you have received from us a written statement that we have agreed to perform the legal services you requested.

Hosting by Southern Web