|
| |
|
litigation |
| The Critic views court cases and liens as a
plague on our construction industry. Contractors, employees and their
organizations, and customers should be working together and settling their
differences outside of the court house. But the trend in our industry is
towards more court suits, not less. As the Engineering News Report of
February 15, 1999, editorialized: "If your only tool
is a hammer, then every problem will look like a nail. When it comes to the
construction industry, the main dispute resolution tool remains a lawyer,
and every disagreement will look like a lawsuit. Lawsuits go against the
basic nature of the industry. Construction is not an individual endeavor,
but rather a business of team building. Successful teams and projects are
built on the strengths of each member, while lawsuits and unsuccessful
projects are founded on the weaknesses of team members. A decade or more may
pass before there is any resolution of a dispute by the courts leaving no
one a winner. Some industry sources claim the tide of dispute resolution may
be turning back towards the courts. This may indicate that the construction
industry has become too complacent to combat creeping litigiousness."
The Critic could not agree more with this ENR editorial. These are the
reasons why the Critic devotes its resources to researching and publishing
details on litigation and liens in the construction industry. LASER feels
that the sheer numbers and the types of these lawsuits should be of grave
concern to every contractor and construction customer. This is why we are
publishing the following lists of information:
Some contractors are genuinely attempting to settle contract disputes
while other contractors are still playing hardball. They bid low and then
file change orders. When the customer, or another contractor, is late with
payments, some contractors promptly slap a lien on the customers’
properties, and ask the courts to begin foreclosures and to have the sheriff
auction the property.
One clue to a contractor’s approach is to review
their record on filing liens against the construction customer, even when
the actual dispute is with another contractor. All too often filing of a
lien means that a court suit will swiftly follow. For example, Long
Mechanical has resorted to filing liens in the following matters:
 long V. cattleman's meat
company
Long liened the Cattleman’s Meat Company’s property in Detroit at 1825
Scott Street, for $59,209. But Long’s dispute was actually with another
contractor, Hale Engineering.
long V. thorn apple valley inc.
Long Plumbing, d.b.a. Long Mechanical, filed a $114,000 lien against
Thorn Apple Valley Inc., in Detroit.
BEST ASPHALT V. LONG,
OTHERS
Best and Imperial Floor Covering sued Long and others to foreclose their
construction liens on this job. Long also had a lien filed over this job.
Long received over $447,000 in payments from Detroit Metro Partners Level
I, LLP, for work in Romulus, Wayne County, Michigan. But Long liened Detroit
Metro for another $131,494. This lien later deteriorated into litigation,
"Best Asphalt V. Long, Others."
LONG MECHANICAL V.
ROCHESTER COMMUNITY SCHOOLS
Long and this school had a dispute over almost $200,000 of charges over a
construction agreement. When the case went to arbitration, the Schools were
granted a $27,521 award against Long. But Long won its own award of
$172,000, including interest. Long then sued the School for not swiftly
paying the award. |
   
|
