According to the Tennessean, lawmakers have struck a deal on how to cover independent contractors for accidents on the job. Yesterday, a House committee passed a new bill that would let the owners of small construction firms opt out of Tennessee's workers' compensation insurance program if they can prove they have no employees other than themselves.
The full story may be found at: http://www.tennessean.com/article/20100429/NEWS0201/4290322/1009/NEWS02
"The bill essentially would undo a 2008 law that would have required all contractors to have workers' comp insurance, even if they had no employees and were covered for accidents by their own health insurance policies." Id.
"The new bill — which is supported by groups representing large and small contractors — would limit exemptions to contractors that can show they own at least 30 percent of the company they work for and that they have either a supervisory role or are performing the work themselves." Id.
"Contractors would have to reapply for exemptions every two years. They could have to pay a $50 filing fee, money that would be used for enforcement." Id.
April 29, 2010
Court reviews whether a city failed on its three defenses in a case brought by two trade contractors
LEE MASONRY, INC. v. CITY OF FRANKLIN, TENNESSEE STANSELL ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. V. CITY OF FRANKLIN, TENNESSEE (Tenn. Ct. App. April 29, 2010)
Two trade contractors alleged that the City breached its contract with them by failing to take reasonable measures to guard against delays and disruptions by other contractors in the City's coordination, management, and scheduling of the contractors and by failing to pay the retainages they were due. The contractors sought damages for the delays.
The City raised three defenses: (1) the "no damages for delays" provision of the contracts; (2) untimely notice of claims by the contractors; and (3) the contractors' acknowledgment and acceptance of time extensions without a reservation for increased compensation in the change orders they executed. The trial court concluded that all three of the City's defenses failed and awarded damages to the contractors. We affirm the trial court's decisions.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/leemasonry_042910.pdf
Two trade contractors alleged that the City breached its contract with them by failing to take reasonable measures to guard against delays and disruptions by other contractors in the City's coordination, management, and scheduling of the contractors and by failing to pay the retainages they were due. The contractors sought damages for the delays.
The City raised three defenses: (1) the "no damages for delays" provision of the contracts; (2) untimely notice of claims by the contractors; and (3) the contractors' acknowledgment and acceptance of time extensions without a reservation for increased compensation in the change orders they executed. The trial court concluded that all three of the City's defenses failed and awarded damages to the contractors. We affirm the trial court's decisions.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/leemasonry_042910.pdf
Court reviews whether the city of Franklin did, in fact, fail on its three defenses in a breach of contract claim
LEE MASONRY, INC. v. CITY OF FRANKLIN, TENNESSEE STANSELL ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. V. CITY OF FRANKLIN, TENNESSEE (Tenn. Ct. App. April 29, 2010)
Two trade contractors alleged that the City breached its contract with them by failing to take reasonable measures to guard against delays and disruptions by other contractors in the City's coordination, management, and scheduling of the contractors and by failing to pay the retainages they were due. The contractors sought damages for the delays. The City raised three defenses: (1) the "no damages for delays" provision of the contracts; (2) untimely notice of claims by the contractors; and (3) the contractors' acknowledgment and acceptance of time extensions without a reservation for increased compensation in the change orders they executed. The trial court concluded that all three of the City's defenses failed and awarded damages to the contractors. We affirm the trial court's decisions.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/leemasonry_042910.pdf
Two trade contractors alleged that the City breached its contract with them by failing to take reasonable measures to guard against delays and disruptions by other contractors in the City's coordination, management, and scheduling of the contractors and by failing to pay the retainages they were due. The contractors sought damages for the delays. The City raised three defenses: (1) the "no damages for delays" provision of the contracts; (2) untimely notice of claims by the contractors; and (3) the contractors' acknowledgment and acceptance of time extensions without a reservation for increased compensation in the change orders they executed. The trial court concluded that all three of the City's defenses failed and awarded damages to the contractors. We affirm the trial court's decisions.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/leemasonry_042910.pdf
April 26, 2010
Court reviews whether construction company was relieved of its contractual obligation due to a material breach as a result of prospective buyers' failure to pay
COREY GERULIS AND WIFE SARA FELMLEE v. DANIEL A. JACOBUS, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. April 26, 2010)
Prospective buyers entered into a contract with construction company for purchase of a home; the contract was amended to provide that a garage would be constructed. A letter was subsequently prepared specifying a time for the buyers to tender payment for the garage. The buyers failed to secure a loan to finance construction of the garage until a year after closing. When the construction company refused to build the garage for the amount specified in the contract amendment, the buyers initiated this action.
The trial court found that the letter clarified the amendment by setting a time for performance and that the buyers' failure to pay within that time was a breach of the agreement which relieved the construction company of its contractual obligations; the court consequently dismissed buyers' action. Finding that there was not an agreement between the parties, the trial court's determination that the letter clarified the amendment is reversed. Finding that a reasonable time for performance was 90 days from closing on the home, and that the buyers' failure to tender payment within such period was a material breach, we affirm the trial court's determination that the construction company was relieved of its contractual obligations.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/gerulisc_042610.pdf
Prospective buyers entered into a contract with construction company for purchase of a home; the contract was amended to provide that a garage would be constructed. A letter was subsequently prepared specifying a time for the buyers to tender payment for the garage. The buyers failed to secure a loan to finance construction of the garage until a year after closing. When the construction company refused to build the garage for the amount specified in the contract amendment, the buyers initiated this action.
The trial court found that the letter clarified the amendment by setting a time for performance and that the buyers' failure to pay within that time was a breach of the agreement which relieved the construction company of its contractual obligations; the court consequently dismissed buyers' action. Finding that there was not an agreement between the parties, the trial court's determination that the letter clarified the amendment is reversed. Finding that a reasonable time for performance was 90 days from closing on the home, and that the buyers' failure to tender payment within such period was a material breach, we affirm the trial court's determination that the construction company was relieved of its contractual obligations.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/gerulisc_042610.pdf
Court reviews whether failure to tender payment constitutes a material breach and relieves a construction company of its contractual obligations
COREY GERULIS AND WIFE SARA FELMLEE v. DANIEL A. JACOBUS, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. April 26, 2010)
Prospective buyers entered into a contract with construction company for purchase of a home; the contract was amended to provide that a garage would be constructed. A letter was subsequently prepared specifying a time for the buyers to tender payment for the garage. The buyers failed to secure a loan to finance construction of the garage until a year after closing. When the construction company refused to build the garage for the amount specified in the contract amendment, the buyers initiated this action.
The trial court found that the letter clarified the amendment by setting a time for performance and that the buyers' failure to pay within that time was a breach of the agreement which relieved the construction company of its contractual obligations; the court consequently dismissed buyers' action. Finding that there was not an agreement between the parties, the trial court's determination that the letter clarified the amendment is reversed. Finding that a reasonable time for performance was 90 days from closing on the home, and that the buyers' failure to tender payment within such period was a material breach, we affirm the trial court's determination that the construction company was relieved of its contractual obligations.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/gerulisc_042610.pdf
Prospective buyers entered into a contract with construction company for purchase of a home; the contract was amended to provide that a garage would be constructed. A letter was subsequently prepared specifying a time for the buyers to tender payment for the garage. The buyers failed to secure a loan to finance construction of the garage until a year after closing. When the construction company refused to build the garage for the amount specified in the contract amendment, the buyers initiated this action.
The trial court found that the letter clarified the amendment by setting a time for performance and that the buyers' failure to pay within that time was a breach of the agreement which relieved the construction company of its contractual obligations; the court consequently dismissed buyers' action. Finding that there was not an agreement between the parties, the trial court's determination that the letter clarified the amendment is reversed. Finding that a reasonable time for performance was 90 days from closing on the home, and that the buyers' failure to tender payment within such period was a material breach, we affirm the trial court's determination that the construction company was relieved of its contractual obligations.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/gerulisc_042610.pdf
April 15, 2010
Court reviews trial court's grant of summary judgment and award of attorney's fees
BOBBY R. HOPKINS v. DOYLE K. RIGGS, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. April 15, 2010)
Bobby R. Hopkins (Hopkins) sued Doyle K. Riggs and Ruth Riggs (the Riggs) alleging, in part, that the Riggs had contracted to construct a road on the Riggs' property for Hopkins' use and had failed to construct an adequate road. The Riggs filed a motion for summary judgment and the Trial Court granted them summary judgment. The Riggs then sought attorney's fees pursuant to the parties' contract. The parties then reached an agreement with regard to attorney's fees, an agreement which the Riggs subsequently alleged was breached by Hopkins. The Riggs then filed a motion and the Trial Court entered an order granting the Riggs additional attorney's fees.
Hopkins appeals to this Court raising issues regarding the grant of summary judgment and the award of attorney's fees. We affirm the grant of summary judgment, hold that the Riggs were entitled to an award of attorney's fees pursuant to the parties' contract, vacate the Trial Court's November 25, 2008 Order granting additional attorney's fees, and remand this case to the Trial Court for entry of an order that complies with the parties' August 6, 2008 agreement.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/hopkinsb_041510.pdf
Bobby R. Hopkins (Hopkins) sued Doyle K. Riggs and Ruth Riggs (the Riggs) alleging, in part, that the Riggs had contracted to construct a road on the Riggs' property for Hopkins' use and had failed to construct an adequate road. The Riggs filed a motion for summary judgment and the Trial Court granted them summary judgment. The Riggs then sought attorney's fees pursuant to the parties' contract. The parties then reached an agreement with regard to attorney's fees, an agreement which the Riggs subsequently alleged was breached by Hopkins. The Riggs then filed a motion and the Trial Court entered an order granting the Riggs additional attorney's fees.
Hopkins appeals to this Court raising issues regarding the grant of summary judgment and the award of attorney's fees. We affirm the grant of summary judgment, hold that the Riggs were entitled to an award of attorney's fees pursuant to the parties' contract, vacate the Trial Court's November 25, 2008 Order granting additional attorney's fees, and remand this case to the Trial Court for entry of an order that complies with the parties' August 6, 2008 agreement.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/hopkinsb_041510.pdf
Court reviews summary judgment ruling and award of attorney's fees in a case about road construction
BOBBY R. HOPKINS v. DOYLE K. RIGGS, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. April 15, 2010)
Bobby R. Hopkins (Hopkins) sued Doyle K. Riggs and Ruth Riggs (the Riggs) alleging, in part, that the Riggs had contracted to construct a road on the Riggs' property for Hopkins' use and had failed to construct an adequate road. The Riggs filed a motion for summary judgment and the Trial Court granted them summary judgment. The Riggs then sought attorney's fees pursuant to the parties' contract. The parties then reached an agreement with regard to attorney's fees, an agreement which the Riggs subsequently alleged was breached by Hopkins. The Riggs then filed a motion and the Trial Court entered an order granting the Riggs additional attorney's fees. Hopkins appeals to this Court raising issues regarding the grant of summary judgment and the award of attorney's fees.
We affirm the grant of summary judgment, hold that the Riggs were entitled to an award of attorney's fees pursuant to the parties' contract, vacate the Trial Court's November 25, 2008 Order granting additional attorney's fees, and remand this case to the Trial Court for entry of an order that complies with the parties' August 6, 2008 agreement.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/hopkinsb_041510.pdf
Bobby R. Hopkins (Hopkins) sued Doyle K. Riggs and Ruth Riggs (the Riggs) alleging, in part, that the Riggs had contracted to construct a road on the Riggs' property for Hopkins' use and had failed to construct an adequate road. The Riggs filed a motion for summary judgment and the Trial Court granted them summary judgment. The Riggs then sought attorney's fees pursuant to the parties' contract. The parties then reached an agreement with regard to attorney's fees, an agreement which the Riggs subsequently alleged was breached by Hopkins. The Riggs then filed a motion and the Trial Court entered an order granting the Riggs additional attorney's fees. Hopkins appeals to this Court raising issues regarding the grant of summary judgment and the award of attorney's fees.
We affirm the grant of summary judgment, hold that the Riggs were entitled to an award of attorney's fees pursuant to the parties' contract, vacate the Trial Court's November 25, 2008 Order granting additional attorney's fees, and remand this case to the Trial Court for entry of an order that complies with the parties' August 6, 2008 agreement.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/hopkinsb_041510.pdf
April 08, 2010
Court reviews trial court's interpretation of a settlement agreement
THOMAS GAZLAY, d/b/a PERSONALIZED PLANTING, INC., v. TULSI ASSOCIATES, et al., and THE ESTATE OF HOWARD SEXTON, for decedent HOWARD SEXTON, et al., d/b/a PRECISION CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (Tenn. Ct. App. April 8, 2010)
Plaintiff subcontractor, sued contractor, who constructed a hotel for co-defendant owner of hotel for breach of contract. Construction company cross-filed against defendant hotel owner. The Trial Court, after hearing proof, entered a joint settlement judgment against both defendants on behalf of the plaintiff and based the judgment on the terms of the settlement agreement which had been entered in a prior action in a suit between the defendants. The owner of the hotel appealed. We hold the Trial Court erred in its interpretation of the settlement agreement between the defendants, and set aside the judgment against appellant and direct that the contractor is liable for all the damages awarded, based on appellants' cross-action against the contractor.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/gazlayt_040810.pdf
Plaintiff subcontractor, sued contractor, who constructed a hotel for co-defendant owner of hotel for breach of contract. Construction company cross-filed against defendant hotel owner. The Trial Court, after hearing proof, entered a joint settlement judgment against both defendants on behalf of the plaintiff and based the judgment on the terms of the settlement agreement which had been entered in a prior action in a suit between the defendants. The owner of the hotel appealed. We hold the Trial Court erred in its interpretation of the settlement agreement between the defendants, and set aside the judgment against appellant and direct that the contractor is liable for all the damages awarded, based on appellants' cross-action against the contractor.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/gazlayt_040810.pdf
Court reviews trial court's interpretation of a settlement agreement between a contractor and a hotel owner
THOMAS GAZLAY, d/b/a PERSONALIZED PLANTING, INC., v. TULSI ASSOCIATES, et al., and THE ESTATE OF HOWARD SEXTON, for decedent HOWARD SEXTON, et al., d/b/a PRECISION CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (Tenn. Ct. App. April 8, 2010)
Plaintiff subcontractor, sued contractor, who constructed a hotel for co-defendant owner of hotel for breach of contract. Construction company cross-filed against defendant hotel owner. The Trial Court, after hearing proof, entered a joint settlement judgment against both defendants on behalf of the plaintiff and based the judgment on the terms of the settlement agreement which had been entered in a prior action in a suit between the defendants. The owner of the hotel appealed.
We hold the Trial Court erred in its interpretation of the settlement agreement between the defendants, and set aside the judgment against appellant and direct that the contractor is liable for all the damages awarded, based on appellants' cross-action against the contractor.
Opinion Available At:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/gazlayt_040810.pdf
Plaintiff subcontractor, sued contractor, who constructed a hotel for co-defendant owner of hotel for breach of contract. Construction company cross-filed against defendant hotel owner. The Trial Court, after hearing proof, entered a joint settlement judgment against both defendants on behalf of the plaintiff and based the judgment on the terms of the settlement agreement which had been entered in a prior action in a suit between the defendants. The owner of the hotel appealed.
We hold the Trial Court erred in its interpretation of the settlement agreement between the defendants, and set aside the judgment against appellant and direct that the contractor is liable for all the damages awarded, based on appellants' cross-action against the contractor.
Opinion Available At:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/gazlayt_040810.pdf
April 01, 2010
Court reviews trial court's decision in a case about a boundary dispute
MARILOU GILBERT v. DON BIRDWELL and wife, CHRISTINE BIRDWELL (Tenn. Ct. App. April 1, 2010)
This case arises from a boundary line dispute. Appellants appeal the trial court's denial of their petition to reopen proof after the court rendered its decision, establishing the disputed boundary in accordance with the Appellee's survey. Finding no error, we affirm.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/gilbertm_040110.pdf
This case arises from a boundary line dispute. Appellants appeal the trial court's denial of their petition to reopen proof after the court rendered its decision, establishing the disputed boundary in accordance with the Appellee's survey. Finding no error, we affirm.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/gilbertm_040110.pdf
Court reviews trial court decision not to reopen proof in a case regarding a boundary dispute
MARILOU GILBERT v. DON BIRDWELL and wife, CHRISTINE BIRDWELL (Tenn. Ct. App. April 1, 2010)
This case arises from a boundary line dispute. Appellants appeal the trial court's denial of their petition to reopen proof after the court rendered its decision, establishing the disputed boundary in accordance with the Appellee's survey. Finding no error, we affirm.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/gilbertm_040110.pdf
This case arises from a boundary line dispute. Appellants appeal the trial court's denial of their petition to reopen proof after the court rendered its decision, establishing the disputed boundary in accordance with the Appellee's survey. Finding no error, we affirm.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/gilbertm_040110.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)