Perhaps the most significant change to the A201-2017 is the inclusion of a comprehensive insurance exhibit. Prior to the inclusion of the insurance exhibit in the 2017 update, parties to an AIA construction contract would often draft a separate insurance exhibit or rider that was reviewed and approved by their insurance agents. The new standard form insurance exhibit, which becomes Exhibit A to a comprehensive owner-contractor agreement, alleviates the need to create a separate exhibit from scratch.

The new insurance exhibit uses a “check-box” list of insurance requirements that the owner and contractor can use to allocate insurance requirements for the project. Because the insurance provisions are set forth in the standard exhibit, the parties can reduce their reliance on their insurance professionals to negotiate and approve the insurance requirements for a project. The insurance exhibit is used with the 201 and incorporated into any contract using the A101, A102, or A103. It is not incorporated into the simplified A104 or A105.

__________________________________________________________________________________

W Mason is an partner with the law firm Fox Rothschild LLP. W practices in Fox Rothschild’s Litigation department in West Palm Beach, Florida. W is Board Certified in Construction Law by the Florida Bar Association. W focuses his practice on construction and commercial litigation throughout Florida. You can reach W at (561) 804-4432 or wmason@foxrothschild.com.

Please see my post, over on Fox’s In the Weeds blog, regarding the possible resurgence of hemp as a Florida cash crop and, perhaps, as a crop to replace the citrus industry.


Dori K. Stibolt is a partner with the law firm of Fox Rothschild LLP.  Dori defends and counsels management in labor and employment litigation matters pertaining to wage and overtime claims, discrimination, harassment, retaliation, leave/restraint, and whistle-blower claims.  You can contact Dori at 561-804-4417 or dstibolt@foxrothschild.com.

In the case of Mantiply v. Horne (In re Horne), 876 F.3d 1076 (11th Cir. 2017) the Eleventh Circuit decided an issue of first impression in the Circuit: Whether the Bankruptcy Code authorizes payment of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by debtors in successfully pursuing an action for damages resulting from the violation of the automatic stay and in defending the damages award on appeal.

The stay violator argued on appeal that the debtors were not entitled to appellate fees as a matter of law under Section 362(k)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code because the statute only provides for mandatory fees for damages and attorneys’ fees incurred in ending a stay violation, not incurred in pursuing a damages award nor fees incurred in defending a damages award on appeal.

The Eleventh Circuit disagreed with the stay violator and held that Section 362(k)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code specifically departs from the American Rule and authorizes costs and attorneys’ fees incurred by the debtor in ending a willful violation of an automatic stay, prosecuting a damages violation, and defending those judgements on appeal.

Specifically, the Court reasoned that, unlike Section 330, Section 362(k) specifically and explicitly provides for the recovery of “costs and attorneys’ fees” in the measure of damages arising from a willful violation of the automatic stay, allowing for a departure from the American Rule.  Moreover, nothing in the text of Section 362(k)(1) limits the scope of attorneys’ fees to solely ending a stay violation.  Instead, Section 362(k)(1) speaks to full recovery of damages including fees and cost incurred from violating the stay.  The Court noted that this result makes sense in the context of bankruptcy litigation where the lion’s share of damages from violations of the automatic stay are attorneys’ fees and the debtors are least able to afford them.

The Takeaway?  While there are always exceptions to the rule, it is generally best to attempt to settle “willful” stay violations early on.  The damages in what may seem like a simple matter, escalate quickly.  If you choose to litigate and lose, you could be responsible for paying “actual damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees” to the debtor(s) for all the proceedings related to the stay violation dispute and, to add insult to injury, your own attorneys’ fees and costs.


 

  Heather L. Ries is an attorney with the Financial Restructuring and Bankruptcy Department of the law firm of Fox Rothschild LLP. Heather focuses her practice in matters related to bankruptcy, creditors’ rights, commercial workout and foreclosure disputes, and commercial litigation. You can contact Heather at 561-804-4419 or hries@foxrothschild.com.

The form and contents of a claim of lien are set forth in Fla. Stat. § 713.08. The claim of lien must expressly state:

  • the name of the lienor and the address where notices or process under the Construction Lien Law may be served on the lienor. Fla. Stat. § 713.08(1)(a).
  • the name of the person with whom the lienor contracted or by whom he or she was employed. Fla. Stat. § 713.08(1)(b).
  • the labor, services, or materials furnished and the contract price or value thereof. Materials specially fabricated at a place other than the site of the improvement for incorporation in the improvement but not so incorporated and the contract price or value thereof shall be separately stated in the claim of lien. Fla. Stat. § 713.08(1)(c).
  • a description of the real property sufficient for identification. Fla. Stat. § 713.08(1)(d).
  • the name of the owner. Fla. Stat. § 713.08(1)(e).
  • the time when the first and the last item of labor or service or materials was furnished. Fla. Stat. § 713.08(1)(f).
  • the amount unpaid to the lienor for labor, services, or materials and for unpaid finance charges due under the lienor’s contract. Fla. Stat. § 713.08(1)(g).
  • if the lien is claimed by a person not in privity with the owner, the date and method of service of the notice to owner. If the lien is claimed by a person not in privity with the contractor or subcontractor, the date and method of service of the copy of the notice on the contractor or subcontractor. Fla. Stat. § 713.08(1)(h).

The claim of lien may be prepared by the lienor or the lienor’s employee or attorney and must be signed and sworn to or affirmed by the lienor or his or her agent acquainted with the facts stated. See Stunkel v. Gazebo Landscaping Design, Inc., 660 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 1995).

________________________________________________________________

W Mason is an partner with the law firm Fox Rothschild LLP. W practices in Fox Rothschild’s Litigation department in West Palm Beach, Florida. W is Board Certified in Construction Law by the Florida Bar Association. W focuses his practice on construction and commercial litigation throughout Florida. You can reach W at (561) 804-4432 or wmason@foxrothschild.com.

The answer appears to be yes (I did 30 seconds of Google research to find peacocks flying), peacocks can fly but not on United.

As a follow up to my recent post regarding Delta airlines tightening up its emotional support animal (“ESA”) policy, one of my colleagues alerted me to a news story about an emotional support peacock.   The peacock was denied boarding, but there are some fun photos.


Dori K. Stibolt is a partner with the law firm of Fox Rothschild LLP.  Dori defends and counsels management in labor and employment litigation matters pertaining to wage and overtime claims, discrimination, harassment, retaliation, leave/restraint, and whistle-blower claims.  You can contact Dori at 561-804-4417 or dstibolt@foxrothschild.com.

I’ve posted several times, hereherehere, and here regarding the dilemma of service dogs and emotional support animals (“ESA”).

I was interested to see that Delta has recently tightened up its rules for service dogs and ESAs who fly on its planes.

Delta, as of March 1, 2018, will require the following:

  • All customers traveling with a service or support animal must show proof of health or vaccinations of the animal 48 hours in advance of the flight.
  • In addition to the current requirement of a letter prepared and signed by a doctor or licensed mental health professional, those with psychiatric service animals and emotional support animals will also need to provide a signed document confirming that their animal can behave properly (not aggressive and won’t pee on the plane).

Delta has picked up on what many airline passengers these days have suspected and that is that many passengers flying with ESAs are gaming the system to fly animals not normally allowed on-board (including turkeys, pigs, flying sugar gliders, etc.) or to avoid the fee associated with flying a pet.

Additionally, Delta is also facing a lawsuit from a passenger who was bitten in the face by a 50 pound dog who was flying in the lap of a middle seat passenger who claimed the dog was an ESA.  Besides the risk of severe dog bite, having an unrestrained 50 pound dog riding in the lap of a middle seat passenger simply creates safety risks on a plane.  Most airlines strongly recommend that babies over 40 pounds have their own airline seat even if the child is under the age of two (when most airlines permit babies to fly for free in the lap of an adult).

Businesses, including airlines who must comply with the Air Carrier Access Act (which require accommodation of ESAs not required by other land-based businesses), are increasingly facing dilemmas on how to accommodate real service animals (which are limited under the ADA to dogs or miniature ponies) and not running afoul of the ADA while managing the needs of other customers and their obligations under various health code requirements.

Businesses are damned if they do (bites, dog’s peeing on the floor [which I recently witnessed at a popular West Palm Beach restaurant]) and damned if they don’t (ADA lawsuits and bad publicity).  The dog that mauled the Delta passenger belonged to a military veteran and we all know that a business that excludes such a dog from their premises will draw negative publicity as being anti-military, anti-veteran and anti-disabled.


Dori K. Stibolt is a partner with the law firm of Fox Rothschild LLP.  Dori defends and counsels management in labor and employment litigation matters pertaining to wage and overtime claims, discrimination, harassment, retaliation, leave/restraint, and whistle-blower claims.  You can contact Dori at 561-804-4417 or dstibolt@foxrothschild.com.

Please see my post, over on Fox’s In the Weeds blog, regarding a recent Florida Court decision which found part of Florida’s medical marijuana law to be, likely, unconstitutional.


Dori K. Stibolt is a partner with the law firm of Fox Rothschild LLP.  Dori defends and counsels management in labor and employment litigation matters pertaining to wage and overtime claims, discrimination, harassment, retaliation, leave/restraint, and whistle-blower claims.  You can contact Dori at 561-804-4417 or dstibolt@foxrothschild.com.

I’ve posted several times, here, here, here, and here regarding the dilemma a business owner faces when a customer enters the premises with a dog.  Is it a service dog, is it an emotional support animal (“ESA”), what are my obligations under the health code and my obligations to other customers, etc.?

Now comes news of a new service called dog parker which is providing climate controlled, web camera equipped metal boxes around New York that members can use to leave their dog in a safe environment for short periods of time (i.e. to run into the drug store or pick up take out).

What do you think of this idea?


Dori K. Stibolt is a partner with the law firm of Fox Rothschild LLP.  Dori defends and counsels management in labor and employment litigation matters pertaining to wage and overtime claims, discrimination, harassment, retaliation, leave/restraint, and whistle-blower claims.  You can contact Dori at 561-804-4417 or dstibolt@foxrothschild.com.

I previously blogged on the standard for punitive damages in Florida.  To be entitled to an award of punitive damages, a plaintiff must show that the defendant’s conduct rises to a high level of culpability.

But what if a statute authorizes the recovery of punitive damages?  Certain statutes, like Florida’s unauthorized publication of likeness and wiretapping statutes, specifically provide for an award of punitive damages to a successful plaintiff.  As a result, some plaintiffs have argued that the culpability standard does not apply to claims for punitive damages brought pursuant to these statutes.

The Fifth DCA has rejected this argument and held that a statute authorizing punitive damages should be read in connection with Florida’s punitive damages standard.  In a recent case, James v. Intelligent Software Solutions, Inc., the USDC for the Middle District of Florida dismissed a plaintiff’s claims brought pursuant to a statute that authorized punitive damages where the facts were insufficient to show the defendant’s conduct was willful, wanton, or malicious.

Thus, regardless of statutory authorization, punitive damages still may only be awarded where a defendant’s conduct satisfies the culpability standard.

I’ve posted before here on the Oregon wedding cake case (not to be confused with the Colorado wedding cake case that went to the Supreme Court).

Now comes recent news that the Oregon Court of Appeals has upheld a $135,000 fine against two bakers, Melissa and Aaron Klein, who refused to bake a cake for same sex couple Rachel Bowman-Cryer and Laurel Bowman-Cryer who were getting married.

Carson Whitehead, Assistant Attorney General with the Oregon Department of Justice, represented Bureau of Labor and Industries. He argued the case turns on two simple facts:

The Kleins refused to provide the exact same service for a same-sex couple that they would with a heterosexual couple, and the denial of services was based on sexual orientation.

Here in Palm Beach County, Florida, bakeries are similar required to serve same-sex couples as set forth in Palm Beach’s anti-discrimination law, which was expanded in 2015.


Dori K. Stibolt is a partner with the law firm of Fox Rothschild LLP.  Dori defends and counsels management in labor and employment litigation matters pertaining to wage and overtime claims, discrimination, harassment, retaliation, leave/restraint, and whistle-blower claims.  You can contact Dori at 561-804-4417 or dstibolt@foxrothschild.com.