The Miller Act: A Primer
The Miller Act, 40 U.S.C. §§ 3131-3134, governs performance and payment bond acquisition and claims on federal projects (that is, projects being constructed on US Government property, or for the US Government or any agency of the US Government). Unlike the many tricky provisions hidden in the Texas Mechanics’ Lien statute, the Miller Act is relatively simple to maneuver, but not without pitfalls for the unwary. Under the Miller Act, contractors on federal projects must post two bonds: A performance bond and a labor and material payment bond. A corporate surety company issuing these bonds
Proposed Changes to Reporting Injuries
On March 28, 2022, OSHA issued a press release notifying the public that OSHA is proposing significant changes to its injury reporting protocol. These changes impact the occupational and recordkeeping requirements found in 29 CFR 1904.41.
OSHA recently posted the notice of the proposed changes on its website, seeking public comment. The highlights of some of the proposed changes include:
Require establishments with 100 or more employees in certain high-hazard industries to electronically submit information from their OSHA Forms 300, 301 and 300A once a year.
Update the system used to d
Feds Require Clean Concrete and Eco-Friendly Asphalt
On March 30, 2022, the General Services Administration (“GSA”) issued two new standards intended to address greenhouse gas emissions in the design and construction of federal projects. These are the first of many anticipated regulations that will be issued to reduce greenhouse gasses in the design and construction industries.
The standards apply to all GSA projects, capital and small, and regardless of funding source. For instance, they apply to paving upgrades, new construction, modernizations, and privately-financed projects. Most significantly and immediately, they apply to the $3.4
Attorney’s Fees Back
Generally, in Texas the right to be awarded attorney’s fees is limited to whether a contract or statute provides for the recovery of such fees. Without a right by contract or statute each party is responsible for their own attorney’s fees and there is no right to shift those fees to the losing party. Assuming there is a statute or contract which allows a party to recover fees, how do you determine which party has the right to recover its fees? In other words, what makes a party a “prevailing party”?
On April 8, 2022 the Texas Supreme Court issued its opinion in Sunchase IV Homeown
“As-Is” Means What it Says
When entering into an agreement, it is important to understand its terms and provisions. Some agreements contain provisions that fundamentally affect the nature of the parties’ contractual relationship. One such provision is an “as-is” provision, which provides that the acquiring party takes the subject property in the condition it is in. An “as-is” provision can potentially have a profound effect on a party’s rights and obligations, and as such, should be identified and considered carefully when determining whether to enter into an agreement.
In Richard Uribe v. Briar-Ridge, LLC,
Lonergan is Dead, Long Live Lonergan
Lonergan, the much debated 1907 Texas Supreme Court opinion that the Court reaffirmed in its MasTecopinion in 2012, was overruled by the Texas Legislature in 2021 and codified as Chapter 59 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code (“Chapter 59”). While the law became effective on September 1, 2021, exceptions and unanswered questions abound.
The effect of Chapter 59 is to limit contractors’ liability for design defects when the contractor plays no part in the preparation of the design documents. Although Chapter 59 is brief and may seem to the point, it is important to familiarize yours
The Economic Loss Rule, Affirmed Again
In White Star Pump Co., LLC v. Alpha Hunter Drilling, LLC (No. 14-20-00207-CV, 2021 WL 5707713, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 2, 2021, no pet.), the Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the importance of the economic loss rule in Texas. At the trial level, the jury rejected a well operator, Alpha Hunger Drilling, LLC’s (“Alpha Hunter”) claims but for its negligent undertaking claim and awarded it $1.6 million for the market value of the pump and the loss of use of the pump. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed and rendered a take-nothing judgment because Alpha Hunter







