Construction Law Toolbox

Construction Industry Legislation for 2012

Christopher Solop — Thu, 10 May 2012 10:15:53 -0600

There are only two pieces of construction related legislation that passed during the 2012 session worthy of mention. The first piece of legislation is HB 1301. Click here to see HB 1301. This bill amends Miss. Code Ann. § 85-7-185 to add the requirement that an owner or contractor furnish a copy of a payment bond when requested by a subcontractor or supplier. The second bill is SB 2902. Click here to see SB 2902. This bill makes it a misdemeanor for a contractor to negotiate a joint check "tendered in payment for material or equipment furnished or labor performed" without the authorization of the other party. The offending contractor could also be fined up to $500.00, ordered to make full restitution and be required to pay the attorney’s fees.

Mississippi Code Section 31-5-41 Not Applicable to Performance Bonds

Christopher Solop — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 09:42:50 -0600

The Mississippi Supreme Court recently decided an appeal concerning whether Miss. Code Ann. § 31-5-41 applied to a performance bond surety where the performance bond incorporates the terms and conditions of a construction contract. Miss. Code Ann. § 31-5-41 provides that all public or private construction contacts that contain a provision agreeing to "indemnify or hold harmless another person from that person’s own negligence is void as against public policy and wholly unenforceable." It also states that "[t]his section does not apply to construction bonds or insurance contracts or agreements."

In the case decided by the Court, the general contractor was sued by the owner of a building for alleged construction defects. The owner also sued the performance bond surety for breach of the performance bond and bad faith denial of its claims. The surety sought to enforce its indemnity agreement with the general contractor. However, the trial court denied the surety’s claim for indemnification finding its potential liability arouse out of its own negligence. The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the trial court simply finding the language of Miss. Code Ann. § 31-5-41 provides that it does not apply to "contraction bonds or insurance contracts or agreements." The Court went on to state that "[t]his remains true even if the performance bond incorporates the construction contract by reference."

Even though the general contractor was unable to use Miss. Code Ann. § 31-5-41 as a defense against the surety’s claim for indemnity, this statutory provision does afford the general contractor protection against broad indemnity provisions in other construction related contracts.

When do you have a contract with a public entity?

Christopher Solop — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 09:38:25 -0600

It can be unclear when a contractor bidding on a public construction project actually has a binding contract with a public entity. This question appears to have been addressed by the Mississippi district court in Northeast Mississippi Community College District v. Vanderheyden Construction Company. In that case, the community college had issued an advertisement for bids from qualified contractors for the construction of a new science and math building. The advertisement reserved the right to reject any and all bids. After bids were opened, Vanderheyden was declared the low bid. The Board of Trustees ("the Board") voted to award the contract to Vanderheyden but after the board meeting the second low bidder challenged the award alleging a number of deficiencies in Vanderheyden’s bid. Rather than risk a lawsuit by the second low bidder, the Board decided to rescind the award and readvertise. At the second bid opening the protester on the original procurement was the low bidder and Vanderheyden was the second low bidder.

The issue presented to the district court was whether the Board could properly rescind its prior award to Vanderheyden and readvertise the project. The district court concluded that "a public entity cannot reject all bids and readvertise the project after it has already accepted the lowest responsible bidder." In analyzing the actions of the Board, the district court when on to state:

[T]he court is of the opinion that once the board chose to accept Vanderheyden’s bid, the reserved right to reject any and all bids had not been exercised and it was no longer operative. To hold otherwise would be contrary to well-established principles of contract law and would permit the possibility of favoritism in public bidding, the very evil which the bidding process statutes were enacted to prevent.

Therefore, once a public entity has officially accepted a bid, there is a binding contract between the parties unless the public entity has expressly conditioned the award upon certain requirements.

U.S. Government Accountability Office Report

Brenda T. Redfern — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:20:48 -0600

The U.S. Government Accountability Office ("GAO") has recently issued a report setting forth statistics for bid protests for the fiscal years 2007 through 2011. See GAO Report here. The report also contains a synopsis of a number of recent notable GAO decisions on various issues including Historically Underutilized Business Zones ("HUBZones") and Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business Concerns ("SDVOSBC").

Both Christopher Solop and Lynn Patton Thompson file pre- and post-award bid protests and practice before the GAO and the United States Court of Federal Claims.

Lynn Thompson Wins Two Bid Protests at GAO for BISC Client

Christopher Solop — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:24:14 -0600

Lynn Patton Thompson recently secured 2 wins for client W.B. Construction and Sons, Inc. before the General Accountability Office (GAO) in Washington, DC. The protests involved separate procurements and different issues, and Ms. Thompson prevailed on both.

On December 16, 2011, the GAO issued its public decision sustaining W.B. Construction’s protest of an award made by the Department of the Army for various construction and maintenance services at Fort Polk, Louisiana. The procurement was advertised as an 8(a) set-aside. When the Army announced award to an entity that was not certified as an 8(a) concern, W.B. Construction protested. You can read the full decision here.

On January 4, 2012, the GAO issued its public decision sustaining W.B. Construction’s protest of an award to Tanner Heavy Equipment, LLC by the Army’s Corps of Engineers. Award was to be made on the basis of the lowest, technically-acceptable bid. W.B. Construction submitted the lowest bid and was deemed technically acceptable. However, the Army refused award to W.B. Construction because its bid had omitted a price for one line item and was alleged to be unbalanced. GAO sustained W.B. Construction’s protest. As demonstrated by Ms. Thompson, omission of the price for one line item did not render W.B. Construction’s bid non-responsive, and the Army did not comply with applicable regulation in determining that W.B. Construction’s bid was unbalanced. You can read the full decision here.

Appeals from School Board Orders--Do not delay!

Christopher Solop — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 09:34:36 -0600

If you are bidding on a project for a school board and are aggrieved by the decision to award the contract to another party, you must appeal the order "within ten (10) days from the date of adjournment of the meeting at which the order is entered." Miss. Code Ann. § 37-7-115. The procedure for appealing the award decision is the same as set forth in Miss. Code Ann. § 11-51-75 and requires preparing and filing a bill of exceptions with the circuit court. Because of the short time within which to appeal the decision, a contractor must not delay in deciding whether to appeal or walk away and fight another day.

"Redesignated" HUBZones Expiring October 1, 2011 - May Affect Your HUBZone Eligibility

Lynn Patton Thompson — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 07:38:16 -0600

On October 1, 2011, "redesignated" HUBZone areas will expire. These areas were previously set to expire at earlier dates, but in 2004, Congress extended and "grandfathered" their HUBZone status until the results of the 2010 Census were published. The original "redesignated" expiration date was June 1, 2011, but it was extended and now will take effect on October 1, 2011. The Small Business Administration is encouraging all currently-certified HUBZone concerns to assess the impact expiration of "redesignated" areas will have on their eligibility to remain in the HUBZone program, whether a concern’s principal office is currently located in a "redesignated" area or if it relies upon the employment of residents in redesignated areas to meet the "35%" rule.

The HUBZone program does not require termination of existing HUBZone contracts if a concern is no longer eligible after October 1, 2011. However, because a concern must be properly certified and eligible as of the date (a) it submitted its initial offer for the contract and (b) the date the contract was awarded, expiration of "redesignated" areas may impact pending offers. Also, regardless of whether a current HUBZone concern has an offer pending for a federal contract, it must always notify the SBA of any "material" change which could impact its HUBZone eligibility. Firms that will no longer qualify for the HUBZone program as of October 1, 2011, can voluntarily de-certify. If that is not done, the SBA will send proposed de-certification letters which must be responded to within thirty (30) days.

Concerns which voluntarily decertify or otherwise become non-compliant with the HUBZone program as of October 1, 2011, can re-apply after ninety (90) days have passed since the date of a voluntary decertification agreement or decertification.

Mississippi Department of Employment Security (MDES) offers E-Verify Assistance

Christopher Solop — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 08:39:02 -0600

In an article published on June 9, 2011, by Brenda Redfern, employers were reminded that effective July 1, 2011, the Mississippi Employment Protection Act requires all Mississippi businesses to E-Verify all new employees. In conjunction with this statutory mandate, the Mississippi Department of Employment Security ("MDES") has announced it will E-Verify any prospective employees for employers who are looking to retain workers through MDES. Click here to see the article published regarding this e-verify service in the Mississippi Business Journal on July 18, 2011. An employer simply has to place a job order with MDES by calling 888-844-3511 or contacting a WIN Job Center. MDES will send a list of prospective employees, all of whom will be E-Verified. When an individual is hired, the employer simply notifies MDES and it will send an official "Certification of I-9 Completion" to the employer. This service can assist contractors in identifying potential employees and save many administrative hours and headaches.

In addition, MDES has also agreed to implement a process it calls "reversal referrals". This is where an employer identifies a prospective employee and can send him/her to a WIN Job Center where the individual is E-Verified. The name of the individual is sent back to the prospective employer by MDES and, if hired, MDES will send the required certification. Employees that use MDES for E-Verification may relieve themselves from potential liability under the Mississippi Employment Protection Act.

Contractors should consider taking advantage of this free service by MDES in these difficult economic times.

The Duty to Proceed--Do I really have to do change order work without getting paid?

Christopher Solop — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 13:49:20 -0600

During the course of construction, contractors will sometimes find that the owner and/or architect are demanding more work than the contractor reasonably interprets the plans and specifications to require. The typical owner and/or architect solution to the dispute is simply to tell the contractor its interpretation is incorrect and direct the contractor to proceed with what the contractor considers additional work. Later, the owner may attempt to rely upon the lack of a written change order authorizing the performance to deny compensation and/or time for performance of additional work.

Does the contractor walk off the job or proceed with the additional work notwithstanding this dispute? Most contracts require contractors to proceed with the work notwithstanding the existence of a dispute; otherwise, the contractor might be subject to a default termination. However, such provisions also typically require the owner to continue payments under the contract for undisputed work. The idea is to keep the project moving forward—i.e., to prevent the contractor from bringing the project to a halt pending resolution of disputed items and to prevent the owner from holding the contractor’s funds hostage pending the resolution of the dispute.The contractor must therefore generally proceed with the performance of additional work without immediate compensation for that work.

However, it does not mean that the contractor is performing the work gratuitously. The refusal of the owner to issue a change order for the additional work may not insulate it from liability. "[U]nder Mississippi law, where the owner orders the contractor to perform extra work outside the contract, the contractor is entitled to compensation for that work, despite the fact that no change order was issued." See Sentinel Industrial Contracting Corp. v. Kimmins Industrial Service Corp. In Sentinel, the Mississippi Supreme Court recognized the inherent inequity in allowing the contractor to demand a subcontractor perform extra-contractual work without a change order and then deny compensation because a change order had not been issued.

This same rationale should apply to the situation where an owner directs the contractor to perform work without a change order. When this occurs, the contractors must place the owner and/or architect on written notice of its objection to the additional work and reserve its right to recover the costs and/or time associated with the change order work. Simply stated, the duty to proceed does not entitle the owner to avoid paying for legitimate change order work even in the absence of a written change order.

Claims for Construction Defects--Where did I put my insurance policy?

Christopher Solop — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 10:12:36 -0600

Mississippi contractors should know that Mississippi law (§15-1-41) allows a party to bring suit for defective construction within six (6) years “after the written acceptance or actual occupancy or use, whichever occurs first, of such improvement by the owner thereof.” The last thing a contractor wants to be confronted with, especially if the contractor is no longer in business, is a demand or lawsuit to address allegedly defective work. This scenario may not have seemed likely five years ago, but with the downturn in the economy, many contractors are being forced to close their doors. Don’t panic—yet. Your insurance or that purchased by your subcontractors where you were identified as an additional insured may provide you with defense and indemnity protection.

When you do get a demand or served with a lawsuit from a former client alleging defective construction, you should contact your legal counsel and insurance agent. Your legal counsel can advise you how to respond to the demand or lawsuit and your insurance agent can help you find the policy in place when the project was constructed. You will then be in a position to notify your insurance carrier of the situation. Hopefully, your policy will either cover the claim of defective construction or pay for the cost associated with defending against the claim. If your insurance carrier or that of your subcontractor sends you a letter denying coverage, do not take no for an answer—at least not right away. You should have your attorney review the applicable policy language to verify whether there is coverage.

General Disclaimers in Plans and Specifications

Christopher Solop — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:40:22 -0600

In an attempt to avoid liability for the various deficiencies in its plans and specifications, some architects and engineers rely upon the general disclaimers set forth in the contract documents. However, the United States Supreme Court has held these general disclaimers are unenforceable as a matter of law. In U.S. v. Spearin, the Supreme Court ruled that the Owner is responsible and affirmatively warrants the adequacy of its plans and specifications and that responsibility "is not overcome by the usual clauses requiring builders to visit the site, check the plans, and to inform themselves of the requirements of the work." Similarly, in Baldi Bros. Constructors v. U.S., the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled that such general contractual provisions, even including a provision which states the owner does not guarantee the statements of fact in the specifications, will not relieve the owner from liability for providing misleading information to the contractor

Neither the Owner nor the design professional can fully shield itself from liability for its errors and/or omissions in the plans and specifications through disclaimers in the contract documents. Likewise, disclaimers shifting the burden of costs associated with errors and/or omissions are also generally unenforceable. A contractor is therefore typically entitled to rely on the representations in the plans and specifications, but the contractor should nevertheless perform a reasonable site inspection and review of the plans and specifications so that obvious errors and/or omissions can be addressed prior to bidding.

When a contractor does find itself confronted with such general disclaimers and the owner and/or architect nonetheless issues a directive to proceed, the contractor must document its position with regard to the error and/or omission to protect its position. The lack of such documentation may substantially impair, if not be fatal, to the contractor’s claim for additional compensation and/or time.

July 1, 2011 Deadline for ALL Employers to Comply with Mississippi Employment Protection Act

Brenda T. Redfern — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 09:49:07 -0600

By now, most employers have heard of the federal "E-Verify" program which is designed to identify and prohibit employment of illegal aliens. In the 2008 legislative session, the Mississippi Legislature adopted the "Mississippi Employment Protection Act" ("MEPA") which has features similar to the "E-Verify" Act, but is broader in its application.

Unlike federal law, the MEPA applies to every employer. An "employer" is defined as "any person or business that is required by federal or state law to issue a United States Internal Revenue Service Form W-2 or Form 1099 to report income paid to employed or contracted personnel in Mississippi." In other words, the MEPA applies to virtually everyone.

So what must the employer do under the MEPA? "Every employer shall register and utilize the status verification system [i.e., the federal E-Verify Program] to verify the federal employment authorization status of all newly hired employees." There are no exceptions! So if you are a small business and hire just one new employee, you are still covered and expected to verify the employment authorization status of the employee. Under the law, employers in the state of Mississippi shall only hire U.S. legal citizens or legal aliens. The E-Verify Program is the authorized means by which employers can verify the employee’s status.

The MEPA was implemented in stages since its adoption. However, effective July 1, 2011, the MEPA is fully implemented and, as mentioned previously, applies to all employers.

What are the consequences for failing to comply? Substantial! Any contract with the state or other public body can be cancelled and you can be ineligible for any public contracts for up to three years. You can also lose any license, permit, certificate or other document issued by any public entity which gives you the right to do business in Mississippi for up to one year. Effectively, these consequences could put you out of business, even if you do not hire an illegal alien! The mere failure to follow the verification requirements could subject you to these penalties.

Can the state do this? Yes. On May 26, 2011, the United States Supreme Court handed down a decision affirming similar laws in Arizona. In the case of Chamber of Commerce of the U.S.A. v. Whiting, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Arizona’s law which the Court concluded did not preempt the federal law, but instead merely imposed licensing conditions on businesses operating within the state. The Supreme Court further concluded that nothing prevented states from making mandatory the federal E-Verify program. The MEPA appears to be consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling and, therefore, would likely be upheld.

Bottom line: Comply with the MEPA. If you have not already registered for E-Verify, do so now and learn how to use it so that you will be ready on July 1^st.

CONTRACTORS SHOULD PREPARE FOR 3% WITHHOLDING FROM GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Brenda T. Redfern — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 13:07:30 -0600

As part of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 ("TIPRA"), Congress required federal, state and local governments to withhold 3% on payments made to government contractors and some others from payments made for property or services. Implementation of the law was set to take effect January 1, 2011, but was delayed until January 1, 2012. The IRS just released its final regulations related to the law. The good news for contractors is that the IRS has delayed implementation until January 1, 2013.

The delays in implementation have resulted at least in part from the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. However, unless the law is repealed, the deferment will come to an end and contractors should begin preparing now for its eventual implementation since your cash flow will be impacted. The law is a flat withholding on the gross amount irrespective of any other conditions such as whether the contractor owes any back-taxes or whether the contractor even expects to have taxable income.

When do I have to file a demand for arbitration?

Christopher Solop — Wed, 18 May 2011 15:16:16 -0600

Parties frequently include arbitration clauses in their construction documents. In such instances, when a dispute arises, the party with a claim may ultimately need to pursue it by filing a demand for arbitration. When the arbitration clause requires compliance with the American Arbitration Association’s ("AAA") Construction Industry Arbitration Rules, or another alternative dispute organization, the claimant can simply file a demand for arbitration with that organization. When the agreement does not specify an alternative dispute organization or a method for the initiation of arbitration, the claimant must rely upon the procedures set forth in the Mississippi Construction Arbitration Act ("the Act"), Miss. Code Ann. §§ 11-15-101, et seq. (Rev. 2004). Under the Act, the claimant shall:

...within the time specified by the contract, if any, file with the other party a notice of an intention to arbitrate which notice shall contain a statement setting forth the nature of the dispute, the amount involved, and the remedy sought....

According to the Mississippi Court of Appeals, such a "demand for arbitration" must be initiated within three (3) years from the time the cause of action accrues. This issue was addressed by the Court of Appeals in Haycraft v. Mid-State Construction Company, Inc. In that case, Haycraft filed suit against Mid-State sometime in 1994. Mid-State filed a motion to have Haycraft’s complaint dismissed because the agreement between the parties included a provision that permitted Mid-State to require arbitration. The court therefore dismissed Haycraft’s lawsuit.

Approximately six years later Haycraft filed an application for arbitration. Mid-State filed an objection to Haycraft’s demand for arbitration with the circuit court. The court found Haycraft’s application for arbitration untimely based upon the general three (3) year statute of limitation found at Miss. Code Ann. §15-1-49 (Rev. 2003). The Court of Appeals agreed and found Haycraft’s right to demand arbitration began when its cause of action accrued. It was therefore Haycraft’s obligation to initiate an application for arbitration within three (3) years from that date or its cause of action would be barred by the statute of limitation. Because Haycraft did not timely pursue its right to arbitrate, Haycraft’s claim was barred.

The key point to remember is that a claimant must act timely to preserve its right to arbitration. A demand or application for arbitration must be timely submitted to the opposing party or the claim’s right to relief may be barred by the three (3) year statute of limitation.

New Reporting Requirement: All LLCs must file reporting form by April 15th!

Brenda T. Redfern — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 12:41:17 -0600

In the 2010 session, the Mississippi legislature substantially rewrote the laws regarding limited liability companies ("LLCs"). One requirement of particular importance is that all LLCs must file an annual report no later than April 15^th each year. The reporting requirement differs depending upon whether the entity is a Mississippi LLC or a non-Mississippi LLC which is qualified to do business in Mississippi.

Mississippi LLCs:

If the entity is a Mississippi LLC, the report may be filed online by going to the following web page: LLC Annual Report. After submission of the report online, there is no need to mail anything to the Mississippi Secretary of State and there is also no filing fee.

Non-Mississippi LLCs:

If the entity is one which was originally formed in another jurisdiction and then qualified to do business in Mississippi, you cannot file online. In that case, go to LLC Annual Report and complete the information in the form online. You then need to print out the form and mail it to the Mississippi Secretary of State, Business Services Division, P.O. Box 136, Jackson, MS 39205-0136with a check in the amount of $250.

Time is running out, so remember to file your report no later than April 15^th! And watch our blog or check with the Mississippi Secretary of State for additional updates regarding changes in the LLC Act and the impact it has on you!

SBA Final Rule Makes Important Changes to Size Regulations, 8(a) Business Development/Small Disadvantaged Business Status Determinations

Lynn Patton Thompson — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 12:07:36 -0600

Effective March 14, 2011, a final rule by the Small Business Administrations implements important changes to various regulations affecting size status and eligibility for the 8(a) Business Development Program/SDB Status Determinations. Substantive changes include the rule on affiliation among joint ventures, calculation of net worth, and new requirements for 8(a) joint venture agreements.

Prior to this new final rule, entities were not affiliated as joint venturers provided they only joint ventured to submit no more than 3 offers on Federal projects over a 2-year period. Under the new rule, joint ventures can be awarded 3 projects over a 2-year period and not be considered affiliates based on their joint venture activities. Joint venturers can now re-constitute their joint venture and be awarded 3 additional projects over subsequent 2-year periods.

Other changes affect the determination of who is economically disadvantaged. In determining one’s net worth, "[f]unds invested in an Individual Retirement Account or other official retirement account that are unavailable to an individual until retirement age without a significant penalty will not be considered in determining an individual’s net worth." Personal income averages for initial and continuing 8(a) program eligibility have also been established by the SBA.

The required contents of 8(a) joint venture agreements will also change effective March 14, 2011. To the extent other SBA contracting-assistance programs rely on the regulation for proper 8(a) joint venture agreements, those other programs will be affected by these changes, as well.

This final rule is extensive and includes other substantive and technical changes. Click here to view the Final Rule.

Only One Bite at This Apple: The Exclusive (Maybe) Remedy of Workers' Compensation

J. Ryan Perkins — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:18:07 -0600

In Mississippi, workers’ compensation laws replace traditional negligence actions against the employer in exchange for a no-fault system of payment to the employee. This exclusivity of remedy is the product of the "bargain" underlying the workers compensation laws. According to that bargain, the benefit to workers is compensation for all work-related injuries without reference to fault of either the employee or employer. Employees, in return, surrender the right to pursue "all other liability." Employers benefit by having the amount they have to pay to any worker capped. Employers in turn agree to assume the financial burden (through insurance) of all work-related injuries without reference to fault.

The exclusive remedy creates immunity to suits for damages by the employee against the employer but only if the employer actually provides the insurance required by the statutes. If the employer is required to provide insurance and fails to do so, then the employee may pursue a claim under the workers’ compensation act or can sue the employer for damages. The employee gets to decide which route to take and, if a suit for damages is filed, the employer is even prohibited from asserting that the employee assumed the risk or contributed to the injury.

The penalty for failing to maintain required workers compensation insurance gets even stronger. The employer (including the president, secretary and treasurer if the employer is a corporation) can be subject to criminal prosecution for a misdemeanor which carries a potential penalty of $1,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year, in addition to the recovery to which the employee is entitled. A civil penalty up to $10,000 can also be assessed by the Mississippi Workers Compensation Commission.

For contractors, the burden is even greater. General contractors are considered "statutory employers" of the employees of subcontractors. If the subcontractor provides workers compensation insurance, then the general contractor gets the same protections as the subcontractor has. However, if the subcontractor does not provide workers compensation insurance, the general contractor is statutorily responsible to provide the insurance and be liable for payment or compensation to the injured employee.

The potential consequences (damages, fines and jail time) for failure to provide required insurance are too great to ignore. General contractors cannot assume that subcontractors are carrying workers compensation coverage. As a matter of routine, general contractors should require proof of such insurance, together with an acknowledgement from the insurance provider that coverage will not be cancelled without advance written notice to the general contractor. It is also wise for the general contractor to require that the subcontractor’s coverage add the general contractor as an additional named insured.

Bid Protests--Time is not on your side

Christopher Solop — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 14:02:03 -0600

If you believe you have grounds for protesting the decision of a board of supervisors, or municipal authorities of a city, town, or village to reject a bid or award a contract, you need to act promptly. The clock is ticking and fast.

Under Miss. Code Ann. §11-51-75 (Rev. 2002) you have only ten (10) days from the adjournment of the meeting to appeal the adverse decision of the board of supervisors or municipal authorities to the circuit court. Do not wait for the official copy of the minutes to the meeting. Contact your legal counsel immediately since he/she will need to prepare a bill of exceptions (essentially a statement of the facts) that must be signed by the president of the board of supervisors or the municipal authority and presented to the circuit court clerk to perfect the appeal.

Remember, in the context of bid protests, if you delay you will lose the right to challenge the decision of the board of supervisors or municipal authority.

Choose Your Arbitration Clause Wisely

Christopher Solop — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 15:57:30 -0600

During the last several decades arbitration has become a valuable method for resolving disputes between parties in the construction setting. A simple arbitration provision might read as follows:

Claims and disputes not resolved shall be decided by arbitration which shall be in accordance with the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association currently in effect. The locale of any arbitration shall be Jackson, Mississippi.

Simple and straightforward, but is it enough? It depends on what your expectations are for arbitration. An arbitrator is bound by the requirements of the arbitration clause. Therefore, if you are drafting an arbitration clause, you might want to consider including certain "bells and whistles" that will get you to the finish line faster. Here are some items you might want to consider including in an arbitration clause.

Location of the arbitration proceeding;
Number of arbitrators and experience requirements;
Limitations on discovery;
Specific rules governing admissibility of evidence at hearing, i.e. state or federal rules of evidence verses the liberal rules for admissibility of the AAA;
Time within which arbitration hearing must be conducted; and
Payment of fees and costs.

Remember, it is your arbitration clause so draft it to suit your business objectives.

WHEN IS AN INSURED "MADE WHOLE"?

Brenda T. Redfern — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 09:34:33 -0600

A basic tenet of law is that when one party is injured by another party the innocent party is entitled to be "made whole." This concept in its simplest terms means that the innocent party should be awarded damages sufficient to put the innocent party back in the position it was in before the injury occurred. Often, the innocent party has insurance which will provide compensation to the innocent party until a recovery from the wrongful party can be obtained. The insurance company holds what is called a "right of subrogation" to any funds the innocent party receives from the wrongful party—a concept entitled to prevent the innocent party from double recovery (i.e., recovery from both the insurance company and the wrongful party).

In the case of Armstrong and Hill v. Miss. Farm Bureau Ins. Co., Armstrong and Hill were both injured in an automobile accident. Farm Bureau made payments to Armstrong and Hill under an insurance policy. Armstrong and Hill sued the negligent party and obtained a judgment which they collected from the negligent party. Farm Bureau took the position that it was entitled to receive the funds the negligent party had paid pursuant to Farm Bureau’s right of subrogation. Conversely, Armstrong and Hill took the position that Farm Bureau was not entitled to the money because their damages were higher than what they had been awarded by the jury in the trial and, therefore, they were not "made whole."

In a case of first impression, the Mississippi Supreme Court decided what "made whole" means in a factual setting of this kind. The Court ruled that the jury had decided what dollar amount of damages were necessary to make Armstrong and Hill "whole" when the verdict was rendered. Since it was a jury verdict, Armstrong and Hill could not contend that their damages were higher and re-litigate the issue with Farm Bureau. Thus, since Farm Bureau had already paid Armstrong and Hill, Farm Bureau was entitled to the funds paid by the negligent party.

This decision still leaves unanswered what would happen if the insurance company pays more than the jury awards. We’ll have to await that answer for another Court ruling.