Here's Some Guidance for Construction Contractors About Mitigating Coronavirus Risks
What can contractors do to avoid losses due to the coronavirus, mitigate the impacts and prepare for what's to come? Peckar & Abramson's Warren E. Friedman walks you through it.
March 27, 2020 at 10:52 AM
5 minute read
The impacts of the coronavirus on the construction industry are serious and widespread. In recent days, work on some construction projects in South Florida has been suspended, and it is likely more suspensions will follow.
Even on projects where work continues, productivity and operations are adversely affected. So what can contractors do to avoid losses, mitigate the impacts and prepare for what's to come?
Find the relevant contract terms. Review each contract carefully for contract clauses that address rights in the event of unforeseen conditions, or excusable conditions or delays. Various terms may be used, and your contract may or may not use the phrase "force majeure." If there is a force majeure clause, scrutinize it carefully to evaluate whether the current conditions fall within the terms of the clause. Many construction contracts contain a clause that affords relief in circumstances outside of the contractor's control or arising from unforeseen conditions.
Provide clear and compliant notice. Identify your contract's express notice provisions for claiming delays and additional costs, including the time limits for giving proper notice, who must be copied on the notice and the method of delivery. For each project, a written notice should be sent to the project's owner that complies with the contract requirements, explains the cause, and reserves rights for time and money.
Pay special attention to suspension and termination clauses. Many contracts give the owner the right to suspend a project. Those clauses typically provide rights for time extensions and additional compensation if the project is re-started. They often also give a contractor the right to terminate the agreement and to receive defined compensation if the suspension lasts for a stated duration. Also, be on the lookout for actions by owners that could be fairly characterized as a suspension, even if they do not expressly call it one.
Document cost and schedule impacts. Document and segregate into separate buckets any impact that the coronavirus has on your construction project. In generating your record, be specific; record impacts in daily reports, schedule updates and timesheets with an express notation, such as "due to coronavirus impacts."
Ensure that contractually required support is created. Contracts may require schedule support or analysis to back up a claim for additional time. Some notice provisions may require a contractor to submit a time impact analysis with a claim for delay. If the delay cannot be quantified at the time of notice, then the notice should identify that this event will result in a delay and additional costs, the extent of which is still being evaluated and will be detailed as soon as it can reasonably be determined.
For contracts that don't address the issue. Under common law, circumstances that are sufficiently disruptive to performance may excuse the contractor's non-performance. However, when a contracting party has the benefit of knowledge or information regarding likelihood of a future occurrence, a concept known as foreseeability begins to operate. The contractor's argument that performance is excused may be undermined where that party arguably should have foreseen the problematic circumstances.
Consider insurance. Contractors should evaluate whether existing insurance policies potentially provide coverage for coronavirus-related losses. It is important to review all insurance policies and request that the project owner provide copies of all applicable insurance policies. Although the wording of each policy must be individually scrutinized, certain specialized insurance products such as trade disruption or supply chain risk insurance, may provide coverage for businesses impacted by the coronavirus.
Assess both prime and subcontracts. A careful analysis of prime and subcontracts should be conducted as well — one approach likely does not fit all, as agreements (particularly, negotiated agreements) often address relevant matters differently. Some subcontract agreements may have flow down of identical terms and conditions as exist in the prime contract, while other agreements have different terms and conditions that would operate in the same situation.
Attempt to identify challenges early. Generally, a contractor may have the responsibility to mitigate the consequences of a delay or disruption. Reach out to subcontractors and vendors to identify and assess potential issues impacting labor and the supply-chain. If supply chain issues are likely, consider exploring alternative sourcing options or consider substitutions. Most construction contracts afford a right to notify the project owner in the event a contractor desires to propose substitutions. If shortages to project labor are expected, consider alternatives such as the retention of temporary labor companies.
Consider unique safety issues pertinent to the pandemic. Revisit office and job site safety protocols to address disease spreading and to implement healthy procedures. Many employers are already providing guidance to employees regarding hygiene, travel, etc. Such measures may become a factor with regard to the continued performance or the shutting down of a project.
Carefully consider language in contracts that are about to be executed. Contracts that may be signed now that the pandemic is underway present unique challenges as one may argue that the conditions were not unforeseen at the time the contract was signed. Contractors should carefully consider the risks of delay and add language that clearly provides for adjustments consistent with how those risks are being allocated.
Regardless of whether project participants have operations in areas directly affected by the coronavirus, the resulting impacts may be felt across the construction industry. During this time of uncertainty, construction project participants need to assess and evaluate their respective risks on an ongoing basis. When both precautionary and proactive measures are implemented, project participants stand a better chance of mitigating their risks.
Warren E. Friedman is a partner in the Miami office of Peckar & Abramson. He focuses his practice on construction law and real estate counseling and litigation. Contact him at [email protected].
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFowler White Burnett Opens Jacksonville Office Focused on Transportation Practice
3 minute readHow Much Coverage Do You Really Have? Valuation and Loss Settlement Provisions in Commercial Property Policies
10 minute readThe Importance of 'Speaking Up' Regarding Lease Renewal Deadlines for Commercial Tenants and Landlords
6 minute readMeet the Attorneys—and Little Known Law—Behind $20M Miami Dispute
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1South Florida Attorney Charged With Aggravated Battery After Incident in Prime Rib Line
- 2'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
- 3Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 4‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 5State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250