I'm involved again with a contractor that is in the top 5 in the USA that wants notice of cancellation given and the one part of the paragraph that got me was this - " other entities as required by required by Owner or Contractor" .
So we had the three way conversation with me, my client and the GC admin person handling this matter. I asked her, "who are the other entities and can they change? She did not know of the other entities, she said they could be added at another date and said that the attorneys probably just put that in there.
Ha! So we are to send notice of cancellation to someone that may or may not exist in the future. If the GC fails to provide the future other entities is it my fault. Is my E&O going to have to defend me just because of ambiguous language?
It is well known or at least should be know that courts take a dim view of ambiguous contract language.
"But how will courts interpret an ambiguous contract? There is a general rule that a court will construe ambiguous contract terms against the drafter of the agreement. But this rule only applies where one contracting party is in a superior bargaining position, usually either as a result of greater experience or the assistance of counsel.2"
This is also as ambiguous as requesting a certain endorsement CG (whatever number) and then having or equivalent. Well there is no "equivalent" because the language on a different endorsement may be a bit different therefore the only true equivalent would be the endorsement that is requested. It would be like saying I want a Ford Mustang or equivalent.
There are many that just don't understand that when this stuff goes to court the language may be the main point in the matter. There was once a President that was being questions and he asked "what is the meaning of is". That President was an attorney and knew that in the law words truly do mean something.
Your response to industry hot topics.