 |
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||
My friend Alderman Brendan Reilly forwarded the following important reminder to all condominium managers and boards:
|
|
The tragic event last week at a Chicago high rise in which a woman died due to the building’s lack of updated fire control should serve as a warning to all condominium associations that the safety of the people in the building must be the top priority of a condominium’s manager and Board of Directors. There is simply nothing more important than the safety of those enter the building. Chicago has recently put off the requirements for buildings to upgrade safety. The fact that the City has put off the deadline does not mean that management should put it off. Without proper fire safety, a small fire can lead to tragedy.
At Lewin Law Group, we work with condominiums on risk analysis and on contract negotiation. We can walk condos through the safety requirements and can negotiate contracts with safety contractors that will make sure proper systems are added while still making sure that the condo building is protected in the contract process. For the past twenty years, we’ve been working to help protect building and companies from loss. Let us help you protect your building.
For more on the fire, see the excellent editorial in the January 16, 2012 Chicago Tribune.
Rep. Elaine Nekritz has introduced H.B. 3950 which would allow Illinois condominium associations to grant easements for high speed internet. The bill amends sections 14.3 and 18.4 of the Illinois Condominium Property Act (765 ILC 605 et seq.).
The sections in question currently allow easements for laying of cable television cable. Under the bill, the phrase “or high speed internet” would be added.
The bill is a common sense provision that gives condominium associations the opportunity to upgrade existing communications. In current economic conditions, upgraded cable and internet options may serve as solid selling points to increase the value of units.
We note that a number of cable and internet provides are offering bulk high speed internet packages to condominium buildings. Those packages can substantially reduce the amount that owners pay for cable and internet and can also serve as an attractive selling point for units.
For the full text of the proposal, see:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/97/HB/PDF/09700HB3950.pdf
One of the unfortunate day-to-day hassles for any condominium association manager (and the association’s Board of Directors) is responding to requests for records. Too often, disgruntled owners flood a manager with voluminous records requests as the owners go on fishing expeditions seeking to right some perceived slight. On the other hand, too often property managers and condominium boards default to a “batten down the hatches” mentality in any conflict and in doing so, fail to properly respond to reasonable records requests. Too often, that drive for secrecy results in needless and costly litigation.
In Palm v. 2800 Lake Shore Drive Condominium Association, Case No. 1-08-2436 (1st Dist. May 2010) the Illinois Appellate Court was faced with an owner’s request for records, and with an association’s denial of that request. The court came down strongly on the side of the owner and granted the owner substantial attorney fees.
The case should serve as a warning to all managers and board members that despite the fact that so many records requests are onerous, they must be taken extremely seriously.
As importantly, condominium associations operating in the City of Chicago must be aware that the City of Chicago Condominium Ordinance (Chicago Municipal Code, 13-72-080a) provides owners with a much stronger remedy than does the Illinois’s Condominium Property Act (765 ILCS 605/1 et seq) and that Illinois courts will enforce the Chicago ordinance.
In Palm, a unit owner (and former board member) alleged that the defendant Association’s president had exceeded her authority in various ways and that the board had taken action in violation of various laws. Palm requested that the Association provide him with certain records. The Association’s president and its counsel denied that request. In particular, the Association claimed that the Chicago ordinance and the State act were in conflict and that as such, the Chicago ordinance was invalid.
After several hearing and re-hearings, the trial court ordered the Association to produce records and further granted Palm’s petition for interim attorney fees. Palm advised the court that although he had paid his attorney only $200 per hour, the fair market price for those services was $300 per hour. According to Palm, his attorney had accepted a lower rate because the law allowed fee recovery. The attorney took the case expecting that the Association would pay his full fee. The trial court agreed and granted fees at $300 per hour.
On appeal, the Court initially concluded that it was clear that the City’s ordinance was validly enacted under the City’s Home Rule power. The Appellate Court then considered whether the City’s ordinance and the State Act were in conflict. The Ordinance states in pertinent part:
“No person shall fail to allow unit owners to inspect the financial books and records of the condominium association within three business days of the time written request for examination of the records is received.” Chicago Municipal Code 13-72-080 (2009).
Meanwhile, the Illinois Condominium Property Act :
“[A]uthorizes any member of a condominium association to inspect, examine, and make copies of certain association records at any reasonable time, at the association’s principal office, when the request is made in writing and with particularity, and provides that the association’s failure to make the records available within 30 days of receipt of the request constitutes a denial.”
Further, the “The General Not for Profit Corporation Act, 805 ILCS 105/107.75, allows any member of such a corporation who is entitled to vote to inspect the corporation”s books and records “for any proper purpose at any reasonable time.”
According to the Illinois Appellate Court, a statute that was intended to limit Home Rule authority needs to expressly say so. There was nothing in either law to say that there was an intent to limit Home Rule authority. The Appellate Court found nothing to “specifically excludes home rule units from governing the manner by which a unit owner can gain access to a condominium association’s financial books and records.” As such, it found the City’s ordinance valid. The records were required to be turned over within three days, as opposed to within thirty as the State Act provided (or not at all, as the Association contended).
The Appellate Court then went on to discuss the matter of attorney fees. The Chicago ordinance provided for attorney fees to a prevailing party. The Association claimed again that the ordinance violated Home Rule and further, that only a state statute and not a local ordinance could provide for an award of attorney fees. Again, the Appellate Court agreed with the plaintiff, and found that there was no violation of Home Rule and that the attorney fees provisions were valid.
It is very important for Chicago condominium associations to remember that under the Chicago ordinance, the attorney fee door only swings one way. The ordinance states:
“In any action brought to enforce any provision of [the Ordinance] . . . the prevailing plaintiff shall be entitled to recover, in addition to any other remedy available, his reasonable attorney fees.” Chicago Municipal Code 13-72-100 (2009). [emphasis added]“
The Appellate Court found the Chicago ordinance to be “a consumer protection provision allowing plaintiffs to bring a meritorious action to enforce the Ordinance without fearing a financial loss.” As a result, since the ordinance provides that prevailing plaintiffs are entitled to attorney fees, but does not punish losing plaintiffs by forcing them to pay the Association’s fees, it was valid. Only prevailing plaintiffs are entitled to an award of attorney fees. Had the Association prevailed, the plaintiff would not have been forced to pay the Association’s fees.
The Appellate Court considered the question of the amount of attorney fees. As noted above, the plaintiff sought attorney fees in the amount of $300 per hour, despite the fact that the plaintiff paid his attorneys only $200 per hour. The Appellate Court examined the question based on an “abuse of discretion” standard and found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion with the award.
One important matter not discussed in that decision is the fact that the Chicago Municipal Code also has a penalty clause for failure to comply with the terms of the ordinance. Section 13-72-110 provides in relevant part:
” Any person found guilty of violating any of the provisions of this chapter upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not less than $100.00 nor more than $300.00 for the first offense and not less than $300.00 nor more than $500.00 for the second and each subsequent offense in any 180-day period, provided, however, that all actions seeking the imposition of fines only shall be filed as quasi-criminal actions subject to the provisions of the Illinois Civil Practice Act (Illinois Revised Statutes 1975, Ch. 110, par. 1 et seq.). Repeated offenses in excess of three within any 180-day period may also be punishable as a misdemeanor by incarceration in the county jail for a term not to exceed six months under the procedure set forth in Section 1-2-1.1 of the Illinois Municipal Code (Illinois Revised Statutes 1975, Ch. 24, par. 1-2-1.1) under the provisions of the Illinois Code of Criminal Procedure (Illinois Revised Statutes 1975, Ch. 38, pars. 100-1, et seq.) in a separate proceeding. Each failure to comply with the provisions of this chapter with respect to each person shall be considered a separate offense. A separate and distinct offense shall be regarded as committed each day on which such person shall continue or permit any such violation. In addition to such fines and penalties, violation of any provision of this chapter shall be cause for revocation of any license issued to such violator or offending party by the City of Chicago. Nothing herein shall be construed to preclude the revocation of any license for violation of any other provision of the Municipal Code of Chicago.
As such, the failure to respond to a request for records may subject the association to fines ranging from $100.00 per request to $500.00 per request and even for a potential jail term (although it is difficult to conceive how a court could find that one individual caused the denial. To date, there is no record of any appellate court specifically enforcing that section. However, Illinois Appellate Courts have enforced similar provisions in the Chicago Municipal Code (for example, see Express Valet, Inc. v. City of Chicago.
The bottom line is that Chicago condominium associations must be very cautious in handling requests for record. Denying requests should only be done in extreme circumstances and with the knowledge that the result may be costly litigation with the Association potentially paying for both its own attorneys and that of the party making the request.
Author’s Note: The author thanks Erin Adams for her assistance in pointing out the penalty clause in the Chicago Ordinance.
One of the trickiest problems facing any condominium association is setting assessments at a proper level. Set them too low and necessary work, not to mention reserves, cannot be funded. Set them too high and the sale price of the units is reduced. One way to keep assessments as low as possible is to make sure that the association receives all the assessments billed. Too often condo board members are sympathetic to neighbors who may be facing financial challenges and as such, do not take action to collect what is due. Unfortunately, the failure to do so may put the association’s financial standing at risk and may violate the Board’s fiduciary obligation to the owners.
Collection through Forcible Entry and Detainer
The quickest and most efficient manner to obtain payment of assessments is through an eviction suit (“forcible entry and detainer”). Doing so allows the association to take possession of the unit and rent it out until all amounts due have been recovered. The procedure does not provide the association with ownership of the unit. The owner of record continues to be responsible for property taxes, mortgage payments and insurance.
The suit proceeds on an expedited basis and as such is the most time-efficient manner to collect amounts due. That is a major factor for condo associations since they need the assessments to fund on-going operations. With judgment in a forcible entry and detainer suit, the association can take possession sixty days after judgment is entered.
The procedure to obtain a judgment in a forcible action is relatively straightforward. Initially, the Association needs to decide on a trigger period for beginning the process. Depending on the building, that trigger should either be a set time period of overdue payments or a set dollar amount due.
Where there is wide variation in size of units such that assessments for some units are significantly higher than others, a trigger based upon amount due may be more efficient. For example, if the assessment on a penthouse unit is $1,000.00 per month, while the assessment on a low floor studio is $300.00 per month, the association may want to use a dollar-figure trigger. However the trigger is set, the association should take into consideration two important matters. First, the trigger must be applied consistently. Every owner that meets the given criteria must be subject to collection proceedings. Second, the association must consider the fact that the collection proceedings do take time. As such, whatever the trigger, the association should factor in that after the proceedings begin there likely will be several more months until a judgment is obtained.
The second step is to identify the proper name of all unit owners subject to collection. That individual (or legal entity) must be sent a thirty day notice and demand for possession. If there is no response, suit is filed.
After suit is filed, the unit owner is to be served with summons. Once service is attempted by the sheriff, service may be obtained through Notice by Posting (which is also done by the sheriff but does not require actual contact with the unit owner).
Once summons is served, the matter proceeds to trial (or, in most cases, some agreement is reached with the owner to pay the amounts due). At trial, the only defense is that the budget was not properly approved.
After judgment is entered, the court assigns a “Stay Date” which is from 60 to 180 days from the judgment. The owner has until that date to pay the amounts due. If not, the owner may be evicted. If the unit owner happens to be renting the property out, then an order may be entered to have the rents paid directly to the association.
Overall, this is the most effective and time-efficient manner by which to collect overdue assessments. The down side is that it may make the Association a landlord, and some associations are simply not equipped to play that role.
Collection through Breach of Contract Lawsuits
The other major method for collecting overdue assessments is through a Breach of Contract lawsuit. Unfortunately, that method is not expedited so it may take longer to obtain a judgment. On the other hand, it does not include possession. Where the associations does not have the resources to put a unit up for rent, a breach of contract suit may be more effective.
Service upon the individual or legal entity that owns the unit is required. Notice by posting is not available. Post judgment collection proceeding may take time. In addition, if the person is not paying the assessment, then it is unlikely that the person has bank accounts that could be garnished. Instead, collection would be limited to 15% of the owner’s wages.
Where the owner is known to have tangible assets (for example, expensive antiques or a wine collection), those assets may be seized to satisfy the judgment.
Collection through breach of contract is the best option either where the association simply does not want possession or where the owner is known to have assets (bank accounts or physical property) that may be used to satisfy the judgment.
Collection through Lien Foreclosure
A third option is collection through lien foreclosure. This is an extremely cumbersome process by which the association obtains title to the property through a foreclosure action and then the property is sold to satisfy the judgment. The entire process can take years and may become expensive. There is also a risk as a buyer may materialize who is willing to pay more for the property than the Association is willing to offer, but less than the amounts due. This procedure is not recommended.
No matter which path is taken (forcible entry, contract, or lien foreclosure), the association should recognize that it has a lien pursuant to 765 ILCS 605/9. The association may want to consider recording that lien.
Conclusion
There is no doubt that collection of assessment is an unpleasant matter, but it is also necessary for the financial health of the association. When the condo association chooses an attorney to represent it in all matters, that attorney chosen should also be experienced in handling collection matters.
At Lewin Law Group, we strive to be the law firm for condominium associations. Whether the issue is a rule change, meeting requirements, defending the association in liability matters, or in collecting overdue assessments, the trial-proven firm of Lewin Law Group is the answer.
A new Illinois Appellate Court case has provided new light on indemnity agreements and in doing so, provides a warning to contractors that indemnity agreements may be interpreted extremely broadly.
Indemnification agreements, of course, are contractual agreements by which one party agrees to pay the liability of another party. Under Illinois law, construction contracts cannot include terms by which one party agrees to indemnify another for the party’s own negligence (i.e., a subcontractor cannot agree to pay for the general contractor’s own negligence). However, there are still some ways to get around that requirement, usually by use of insurance agreements. Typically, the agreements are read narrowly (to provide a limited obligation). However, where language is appropriate, they can be very broad, which creates a danger for the party indemnifying the other.
In Water Tower Realty v. Fordham, 1st Dist. IL (2010), the Illinois Appellate Court was faced with a question as to whether an indemnity agreement covered just third party losses or whether it also covered first party losses. That distinction is extremely important. “Third party losses” are those sustained when the party seeking indemnity is sued by somebody else. “First party losses” are for those the party seeking indemnity sustained itself. That distinction is described in greater detail below.
The case arose from an agreement entered into between Fordham 25 E. Superior LLC ["Fordham"] and Water Tower Realty ["Water Tower"] relative to construction of a building. Water Tower owned property across the street from the construction site. To obtain the consent of Water Tower to construct the building, Fordham agreed to an indemnity provision that provided in relevant part as follows:
“To the fullest extent permitted by law, we agree to indemnify, defend and hold you * * * harmless from and against any and all loss, liability, claims, injury damage and other expense arising out of the Work and shall defend any suit or action brought against you or any of the indemnified part[ie]s, based on any such alleged injury or damage, and shall pay all damages, costs and expenses, including all reasonable attorneys” fees, connected therewith or resulting therefrom or incurred by you in enforcing the terms thereof.”
As a result of the construction, Water Tower allegedly suffered various damages. Five years after the building was completed, Water Tower filed suit against Fordham for breach of that indemnity agreement. The first issue faced by the court was whether the action was time-barred. In Illinois, there is a four year limitation for construction lawsuits. However, there is a ten year statute for breach of written contract. The court ruled that the suit was for breach of a written contract and as such, the ten year statute applied.
According to Water Tower’s suit, that company owned the property and leased the property in question. However, during the time of construction, the project made it impossible to lease the property. As a result, Water Tower suffered damages. Water Tower sought indemnification for those losses, but Fordham refused the demand.
Fordham sought to dismiss the suit on the basis that the indemnification agreement covered only third party losses. According to Fordham, as nobody had sued Water Tower, Water Tower had suffered no third party losses and as such, was not entitled to indemnification.
Fordham prevailed before the trial court. On appeal, the court first ruled that the ten year statute applied. The court then went on to discuss the scope of the agreement. According to the court, the operative language was “indemnify * * *[Water Tower] against any and all loss * * * arising out of the Work.” Fordham admitted that the clause, on its face, might cover first party losses.
Fordham, however, pointed to the following clause which provided: “and [we] shall defend any suit or action brought against you” to argue that the intent was to limit indemnification to third party claims.”
The court rejected Fordham’s argument, finding that the second clause was not intended to limit the first clause. Relying on law from Ohio and Iowa, the court ruled that a party wishing to limit the scope of an indemnification clause must do so expressly. According to the court, there was nothing in the agreement that expressly limited the scope of the agreement.
The bottom line in this matter is that the parties may well have originally intended to have indemnification only for third party claims. The language, however, was broad enough to encompass first party claims. By using that language and by not expressly limiting the scope, Fordham ended up taking on a great deal of liability.
When negotiating such an agreement, the parties must be clear as to what they intend to cover and must draft an agreement covering those matters and nothing else.
One of the most challenging tasks for any condominium board or manager is contracting for renovations. There are many pitfalls along the way, from negotiating a favorable contract, to approving it right, to making sure that the building handles the job appropriately so that it doesn’t end up holding the bag if something goes wrong.
With that in mind, here are some guidelines for handling a renovation to make sure it goes smoothly. Of course, the association should retain the services of competent attorney to guide the association through the project. Too often, attorneys representing condominium associations know a bit about condo governance, but very little about construction law. Find somebody who knows the ins and outs of both condominiums and construction. The goal must be to get the best possible deal, reduce risk, and at the same time, keep the unit owners informed and pleased.
1. It is a Buyer’s Market
It is no secret that the construction industry is in a slump. Right now, business is very slow for most contractors. Condominium associations, since they have projects that need to go forward despite economic conditions, are some of the few buyers out there. Condominiums should remember that the construction companies need the work, and as such, the condominiums should use market conditions to get the best deal possible.
The first way to get the best deal is to do something what condominiums should be doing on all contracts anyway: Get multiple bids. The more bids, the more likely to find a company that will push the price down.
The second task is to compare those bids. Make sure that the bids are for the exact same work. Make sure you have apples to apples. If one bidder is out of line (either high or low), find out why. At times, you will have a series of bidders who bid low on a project, not seeing a problem that is seen by another bidder [for example, that bidder may realize that concrete may need to be cut, or electric relocated]. The result, if one of the low bidders gets the job, is that there likely to be add orders or change orders for the allegedly undiscoverable problem. Don’t assume a high bid is just because a bidder is setting a high price. Find out way.
Conversely, if one bid is noticeably low, find out why. That bidder may simply have given himself a lower margin, or that bidder may be aware of a way to do the job at a lower cost. In the latter case, there is nothing wrong with bringing the suggestions of the low bidder to the attention of the other companies to see if they can produce a lower bid doing similar work.
Finally, be ready to negotiate. If you have two low bids, see if the companies are willing to go even lower. There is rarely a risk in asking for a lower price. Remember, they need your work.
2. Demand Favorable Contract Terms
The second step, once you have a bidder with a price that you like, is to work on the details of the contract. Again, realize that economic conditions favor the condominium association right now. There are several parts to a construction contract. Given the current conditions, contractors are likely to look only at “price” and “scope of work” and ignore the rest.
Perhaps the most important details are the sections known as “insurance” and “indemnity.” Those two sections, drafted right, require the contractor and the contractor’s insurer to defend the condo association if things go wrong. Remember, accidents do happen. Protect the association.
With regard to insurance, for projects exceeding $10,000.00, the association starts off in a position of strength. The Illinois Condominium Property Act, 765 ILCS 605/12(e)(i), requires that if the contract is over $10,000.00, the contractor must list “the association, its board of directors, and its managing agent as additional insured parties.” Demand enforcement of that provision.
The next battle, of course, is to get the strongest possible indemnification clause, and in doing so, to take advantage of what is known in Illinois as the “targeted tender rule” in order to require that the contractor’s own insurer, and not the association’s, defend the association for personal injuries or property damage that occurs on the project.
There are several other terms that the condominium association should attempt to add to the contract. Those terms provide additional safety to the association, as well as making sure that the project is done at the association’s convenience.
One final note ” associations should not sign the form prepared by the contractor. Use your own forms. Control the process.
3. Approve it Right
Once the contract is in an acceptable form, make sure to approve it right. That requires a thorough review of the declarations, by-laws, and of course the budget. Depending on the nature of the project, a Special Meeting may be required. Comply with the rules to the letter. As a matter of practice, be prepared to answer questions, and in particular, be able to explain the bidding process and why the particular contractor was chosen. Be ready to defend the necessity of the work. Know how you are going to pay for it. If a Special Assessment is required, know exactly what must be done to get it approved. The more you are able to answer questions, the less likely you are to have unit owner cause problems down the line.
4. Protect the Association’s Money from Unscrupulous Contractors: Get a Bond, and Insist on Progress Payments
The worst possible mistake that an association can make would be to turn over funds to a contractor without receiving some protection. For any large renovation project, the association should demand a bond. Typically, the contractor pays for the bond. The bond protects the association if the contractor fails to perform.
Another method of protecting the association’s money is to make use of progress payments. Pay only for the percentage of work completed (on a schedule set forth in the contract). Only when that work has been approved should payment be made.
Associations should be cautious about doing business with any potentially under-capitalized contractors. If the contractor needs payment to buy materials, it is a warning sign that the contractor may not be able to complete the job.
5. Don’t let your maintenance staff take control or do any of the work.
Finally, once the work starts, take steps to make sure the association is not held liable for any negligence of the contractors. That means making sure that the association does not control the “means and methods” of the work. Don’t tell the contractor what to do. Don’t tell the contractor how to do it. Don’t lend the contractor equipment. Other than pointing out the area where the work needs to be done and what time to start and stop, don’t give any instructions to the contractor. Too often, building superintendents are sought as resources for the contractor. Don’t let that happen. Minimize contact between the contractor and the superintendent.
Following these steps will help a renovation project go smoothly and reduce risk. Renovations always cause stress to a building and the owners. The goal is to reduce that risk and reduce the stress to keep the owners happy and protect their investment.
About the Author: David M. Lewin has nearly twenty years experience working in construction litigation and representing contractors, owners, and condominium associations. He has written numerous articles on construction related topics. From 2008-2010, he served as Chairman of the Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel’s Insurance Coverage Committee. His website is www.chicago-construction-lawyer.com. His telephone number is (312) 725-2084.
In any construction project, contractors attempt to shift risk. The usual way to do so is by requiring that sub-contractors add the owner, general contractor, and other to the sub’s Commercial General Liability [CGL] policy as additional insureds so the sub”s insurer has the risk. In Illinois, given the “targeted tender rule”, the result often is that the sub’s carrier has the entire risk.
Insurers writing coverage in Illinois have long sought to limit the scope of coverage for additional insureds. Illinois courts have gone back and forth as to whether narrow forms will be found to bar coverage. For instance, in Liberty Mutual v. Statewide, the 7th Circuit ruled that an additional insured endorsement provided almost no coverage (with the court noting that it also cost very little, and you get what you pay for).
In Pekin v. Pulte, decided by the Illinois Appellate Court for the First District on August 25, 2010, the court found that an additional insured endorsement that provided coverage for vicarious liability only did in fact provide coverage in a relatively typical construction accident case. The case arose from a suit filed by Kenneth Kaiser against Pulte and Kunde Construction (the sewer sub-contractor). Kaiser allegedly fell into an unguarded sewer manhole in the yard of a house under construction. The complaint alleged that Pulte was guilty of various acts and was also liable for certain acts of agents, servants, and employees. Pulte filed a counter-claim against Kunde.
Pulte issued a CGL policy to Kunde. Pulte sought coverage as an additional insured under that policy. Pekin denied the tender, and this suit followed.
The Pekin policy included (in relevant part) the following additional insured endorsement:
Who is an Insured (Section II) is amended to include as an insured any person
or organization for whom you are performing operations when you and such person or organization have agreed in writing in a contract or agreement that such person or organization be added as an additional insured on your policy. Such person or organization is an additional insured only with respect to liability incurred solely as a result of some act or omission of the named insured and not for its own independent negligence or statutory violation . . .
According to Pekin, as the complaint alleged negligence of Pulte and not simply vicarious liability, the endorsement did not apply. In contrast, Pulte argued that as the accident arose out of the work of Kunde, the policy should provide coverage. It is important to note that certain ISO forms do provide coverage for work “arising out of” the work of the named insured. It appears that the endorsement in question was drafted to avoid that broad language and as such, provide narrower coverage.
In analyzing the matter, the court looked at the policy, the complaint, and also at the construction contract in an attempt to determine the intent of the parties and to analyze the policy of insurance.
The court found that, under the complaint, Pulte might found independently liable to Kaiser. However, liability solely on account of the acts of Kunde could not be precluded.
Further, in examining the construction contract, the court found that under the contract, Kunde was obligated to defend and indemnify Pulte unless Pulte was the sole cause of the accident. The contract required insurance to cover that indemnity provision.
Finally, the court looked at what it considered the purpose of an insurance policy. According to the court, the purpose was to cover situations such as those presented. As a result, the court found that Pekin had a duty to defend.
The decision ultimately is interesting in that it rejected an attempt by an insurer to draft a narrow additional insured endorsement that would limit coverage. In the end, the court interpreted the endorsement as if it had been drawn much broader. That is of course good news for insured. However, there is no guaranty that courts outside the First District will take such an approach. As a result, general contractors should still insist that subs provide ISO form additional insured endorsements.
Crain’s is reporting that Chrysler is going to add 500,000 square feet to the Belvidere Assembly Plant, creating 200,000 hours of construction.
In the past, J.S. Alberici has been the GC for work at that plant. It will be interesting to see who gets this contract.
Greg Hinz of Crain’s Chicago Business is reporting that WalMart has reached a deal to open “several dozen stores” in Chicago. The stores will vary in size and format from the traditional big box format down to some smaller stores focusing on groceries.
According to Hinz, the stores will create about 10,000 retail jobs and 2,000 construction jobs. The construction jobs will be with union contractors. The retail jobs will pay a minimum of $8.75 per hour (.50 over minimum wage), with an average of about $11 per hour plus benefits.
The deal was announced by Alderman Anthony Beale of the 9th Ward, and is expected to have Mayor Daley’s strong support.
Any day when a deal is reached for 2000 Chicago construction jobs is a good day.
| Get email alerts when we update our blog!
|
