The January 2006 ohioconstructionlaw.com Newsletter

Go Directly to Newsletter Index

Discussion of Contractor Termination, New Delivery Format Highlight January Issue

If you received this, our 72nd issue (closing out six years of publication), in your inbox, we hope you noticed our new look. Now you have the choice of clicking on our whole issue in a .pdf version or going directly to a particular article in an HTML format. Don’t know what all that computerese means? Never mind. Just read our articles in either format, and enjoy! Also, let us know if both formats worked for you and which you prefer. Provide Feedback.

Our lead article for January is actually three articles, all on the subject of terminating a contractor. Scott Davis provides the owner’s view, Rod Davisson gives us the contractor’s view, and the surety’s view is presented by a special guest author, Lee Brewer, an attorney at Alber Crafton PSC who represents a number of sureties and knows this topic well. You will find all of these perspectives in “Terminating a Contractor: Three Perspectives.”

Our usual next column—What the Legislators Are Considering—has been replaced by a link. (We told you there would be some changes in January!) If you click on that link, we think you will find much more information about pending legislation of interest than we were able to provide in our past column. Again, let us know what you think of this new format. There is another change in the works that you should see soon: a new column dissecting current legislation and explaining how certain important statutes work.

“What the Courts Are Saying” covers six cases this month, and they are a varied lot: (1) the Sixth Circuit follow-up to the Ohio Supreme Court ruling we brought you last month on the issue of property rights to groundwater; (2) a decision from the federal court for the Southern District of Ohio on whether a project built partially with federal grant money can enforce a local preference; (3) a discussion from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County on what should happen when one party claims an arbitration clause resulted from fraud; (4) a case from Lake County on additional insured provisions and indemnification clauses; (5) another Lake County decision, this one on enforcing an oral contract; and finally, (6) a ruling on the statutes of limitation from the Court of Appeals for Mahoning County.

This month we have a guest author for “Holman, Gillis & Shevelow on Construction Documents.” Andrew Balcar did a yeoman job of sifting through the EJCDC C-700 form contract and highlighting all of the requirements for notice. If you use the EJCDC documents, you may want to keep Andrew’s chart where you can consult it often.

We conclude with Unforeseen Site Conditions and two Sam Wampler offerings: the regular ADR Corner (continuing the examination of cases challenging an arbitration award by looking at one emphasizing the importance of making a record of the arbitration hearing), followed by an article about Sam Wampler. Why? Because as of January 1, he became the newest partner in Bricker & Eckler’s Construction Law Department. Congratulations, Sam!

Index to January 2006 ohioconstructionlaw.com Newsletter

Feature Article

Terminating a Contractor: Three Perspectives
How do owners, contractors, and sureties view the problem of contractor termination? Scott Davis, Rod Davisson, and guest author Lee M. Brewer of Alber Crafton PSC give you some thoughts and advice on dealing with an unfortunate situation.

Monthly Columns

What the Legislators Are Considering
Starting this month, you can link to information on pending legislation of particular interest, and it’s updated daily.

What the Courts Are Saying . . .
Recent cases this month deal with rights to groundwater (again), local preferences in contracts supported by federal grants, arbitration clauses obtained fraudulently, additional insured clauses, oral contracts, and statutes of limitation.

Upcoming Seminars
Information on upcoming construction seminars featuring Bricker & Eckler construction attorneys.

Holman, Gillis & Shevelow on Construction Documents: What the EJCDC C-700 Requires for Notice
What requirements does the EJCDC C-700 have on notice? Many, many, and guest author Andrew Balcar, Esq. details them all, complete with a chart to post on your wall.

Unforeseen Site Conditions
Type II differing site conditions get Doug Shevelow’s attention this month.

ADR Corner
Sam Wampler explores a recent Court of Appeals decision that shows why you need to make a record of any arbitration proceeding.

Back Page

Firm News
Who is the latest partner in Bricker & Eckler’s Construction Law Department? Sam Wampler makes # 5, and you can learn some little-known facts about Sam here.