A construction contract serves many purposes, but the overarching goal is to allocate the risks that come with the project between all involved parties. In many cases, these contracts will include provisions about the need to provide notice for various events that could have a negative impact on the project. These events can include issues…

Read More

Construction projects are not always simple, and some continue to evolve even after the work has begun. Complications and challenges surface during many steps in the construction process, many of which were unexpected during the initial planning stages. While the contractor follows guidelines from the contract, sometimes, the owner requests changes in the original plan.…

Read More

In Epps v 4 Quarters Restoration, LLC et al, No 147727, 2015 WL 5684196 (Mich Sept 28, 2015), the Michigan Supreme Court had occasion to provide additional guidance upon the application of MCL 339.2412(1), which limits an unlicensed builder’s ability to sue to collect compensation for work performed. Our Supreme Court held that the statute does…

Read More

The Michigan Court of Appeals recently affirmed personal liability for violations under the Michigan Builders Trust Fund Act, MCL 570.151 et seq. (“MBTFA”) in Windrush, Inc, v Lee Van Poppering, Shagbark Development, Inc, and Northland Management, Inc, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued September 10, 2015 (Docket No. 315958). The building…

Read More

Subcontractors could face protracted liability for work performed on prior projects according to a recent decision of the Michigan Supreme Court, where a contractor sought and obtained indemnification from its subcontractor, even though the court held the statute of limitations barred recovery on the subcontract itself. In Miller-Davis Co v Ahrens Construction, Inc, 495 Mich…

Read More

The Michigan Court of Appeals recently issued an unpublished opinion that gives guidance to construction law practitioners and contractors. In Lawrence M Clarke, Inc v Draeger et al, Plaintiff was a general contractor engaged to construct a public sanitary sewer system. Plaintiff accepted its subcontractor’s proposal, added a profit margin of 12%, and essentially submitted…

Read More