A New Decade Dawns for AIA Contracts
For the construction law bar, the ubiquitous and widespread use of the American Institute of Architects' (AIA) contracts by public entities, developers, owners, contractors and architects all but assures their continued presence in construction litigation.
August 21, 2017 at 04:21 PM
7 minute read
For the construction law bar, the ubiquitous and widespread use of the American Institute of Architects' (AIA) contracts by public entities, developers, owners, contractors and architects all but assures their continued presence in construction litigation.
On April 27, the AIA issued revised versions of its flagship documents for the first time since 2007. Whether advising a client in advance of commencing work or reviewing for impending litigation, there are several key changes to the new contracts that are important to every practitioner. We address the most significant changes to the owner and contractor agreement, the subcontract and a new form of agreement for sustainable building.
|Agreement Between Owner and Contractor
The A107-2007, the standard agreement between an owner and a contractor, is now the A104-2017. The incorporated A201—the General Conditions of the Contract for Construction—was also revised, but retains the same document number.
Under the new A104, contractors have additional rights to verify the sufficiency of a project's financing. In addition to requiring an owner provide evidence of adequate financing, the contractor is not required to commence work until the owner has provided such evidence. An owner who delays providing evidence must grant an extension of time to the contractor to complete its work.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 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 All'Pittsburgh History': Boring Name, Big Development for Attorney-Client Privilege
6 minute readSettlement of Commercial Litigation Matters: Approaches and Issues to Keep in Mind
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Justices Wade Into South Carolina's Medicaid Fight With Planned Parenthood
- 2Fisher & Phillips Elects 25 New Partners In 15 Cities
- 3New York State Bar Outlines 2025 Legislative Priorities, Aiming for Fairness, Equity
- 4Family of 'Cop City' Activist Killed by Ga. Troopers Files Federal Lawsuit
- 5Houston Appeals Court Split Over Race Discrimination Suit Involving COVID-19 Vaccine Distribution
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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