How California’s Construction Industry has dealt with the New Indemnity Law
October 22, 2014 —
Mark S. Himmelstein, Esq. - Newmeyer & DillionIt has been almost two years since the California legislature enacted changes to the state’s indemnity law affecting commercial construction contracts. Although we do not yet have any court opinions analyzing the new statutes, the attorneys at
Newmeyer & Dillion now have real world experience in negotiating such indemnity provisions. It is time to evaluate how the construction community has reacted to the changes. In this article, we examine the practical applications of the new law to various construction agreements.
Enacted on January 1, 2013, the new legislation was the latest in a series of efforts by subcontractors and their insurers to eliminate “Type I” indemnity clauses. Under a Type I provision, a subcontractor has a duty to indemnify the developer or general contractor for the negligence of the developer or general contractor or other subcontractors, in addition to the negligence of the subcontractor itself. In 2006, the law was changed to preclude Type I provisions regarding “For Sale” residential construction defect claims. At that time, there was no such restriction enacted for commercial construction contracts. However, since then, commercial subcontractors have been seeking similar legislation. Their efforts culminated in the 2013 revisions regarding commercial contracts.
Commercial Subcontracts
Pursuant to the new indemnity statute — Civil Code section 2782.05 — we have revised our clients’ commercial subcontracts to:
(a) Eliminate the requirement that the subcontractor indemnify the general contractor for the general contractor’s “active negligence;” and
(b) Include the subcontractor’s options for defending claims for which they have an indemnity obligation.
Many subcontractors have responded: “Hey, wait a minute, the new legislation eliminated Type I indemnity so you (general contractor) cannot still require any indemnification for the general contractor’s negligence”. Well, that might be the rumor in subcontractor circles, but the new statute does not eliminate indemnity for the general contractor’s passive fault. In addition, the Civil Code lists 13 instances where the new indemnity restrictions do not apply.
Residential Subcontracts
The legislature did not make anyone’s job easier by drafting a different indemnity provision for commercial subcontracts than for residential subcontracts. In fact, the residential and commercial statutes are different in several critical respects. First, the restrictions on indemnity in the residential statute apply only to construction defect claims in newly constructed “For Sale” houses. The statute does not preclude Type I indemnity provisions for any other claims arising out of residential subcontracts. In contrast, the indemnity restrictions in the commercial statute apply to all claims arising out of commercial subcontracts. In addition, the commercial statute allows indemnity for the general contractor’s passive fault. Since some subcontractors on “residential” projects perform off-site “commercial” work as well, we have amended even residential subcontracts to address the subcontractors’ various indemnity obligations for different parts of their work (e.g., residential work versus commercial work).
Owner-Contractor Agreements
The January 1, 2013 new indemnity provisions apply not only to subcontracts, but also to owner-contractor agreements. Civil Code section 2782(c)(1) precludes indemnity for an owner’s active negligence. Interestingly, the exclusions contained in Civil Code section 2782.05 for subcontracts do not apply, and the statute does not provide contractors with the option of defending claims set forth in the sections concerning subcontracts. Therefore, we have revised the indemnity provisions in owner-contractor agreements to exclude indemnity for the owner’s active negligence.
Design Professional Agreements
The 2007 revisions with respect to “For Sale” residential contracts (discussed above), and the 2013 revisions for commercial contracts do not apply to design professionals. The new indemnity statute concerning commercial subcontracts specifically excludes design professionals from the “anti-indemnity” benefits provided to subcontractors. Therefore, Type I indemnity provisions are fair game and can still be included in design professional contracts.
Conclusion
In sum, Civil Code sections 2782 et seq. now contain an increasingly complex framework for indemnity rules in construction contracts. For example, there is one set of rules for “For Sale” residential construction defect claims (no indemnity for the developer’s active or passive negligence), another for any other claims arising out of residential construction (Type I indemnity is permitted), another for commercial subcontracts (no indemnity for the general contractor’s active negligence, but indemnity for the general contractor’s passive negligence unless any of the exceptions apply, in which case Type I indemnity is permitted), and yet another for commercial owner contractor agreements (no indemnity for the owner’s active negligence, but indemnity for the owner’s passive negligence with no exceptions).
California’s indemnity laws are complex, and rumors as to the impact of the new legislation have made it even more difficult to negotiate these provisions. It is imperative that indemnity clauses in construction contracts clearly delineate the obligations for the specific type or types of work contemplated by the contract. The legislature’s attempt to simplify indemnity obligations has actually made such provisions lengthier and more cumbersome. As experienced construction attorneys, our task is to draft indemnity provisions that comply with the laws, address potential claims, and are understandable.
Mr. Himmelstein is a partner in the Newport Beach office of Newmeyer & Dillion and practices in the areas of construction, real estate, business and insurance litigation. He also specializes in drafting and negotiating construction and real estate contracts. Mark can be reached at mark.himmelstein@ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Joint Venture to Develop a New Community in Orange County, California
April 08, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFTaylor Morrison Home Corporation and two of its largest shareholders have created a joint venture “to acquire and develop the 195.5 acres of San Clemente coast known as Marblehead,” according to GlobeSt.com. The Scottsdale, Arizona-based developer is expected to begin construction on the 300 luxury home site in 2015.
“Marblehead is a truly unique site and one of the last undeveloped tracts of coastal land in California,” said Sheryl Palmer, president and CEO of Taylor Morrison, as quoted by GlobeSt.com. “It presents a tremendous opportunity that will deepen our land inventory of exceptional sites and further our standard of building high-quality homes in premier locations across North America.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Assembly Bill 1701 Contemplates Broader Duty to Subcontractor’s Employees by General Contractor
August 17, 2017 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq. & Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq. – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & BargerAB 1701 recently passed the Assembly and is pending in the Senate’s Labor and
Industrial Relations and Judiciary Committees. The Bill, if signed by the Governor, would
create a new section in the California Labor Code (Section 218.7) making “direct contractors” –
defined as a contractor “making or taking a contract in the state for the erection, construction,
alteration, or repair of a building, structure, or other private work” – liable for wages a
subcontractor or sub-subcontractor fails to pay to its employee for work included in the general
contractor’s contract with the project owner.
Under the new law, direct contractors would be liable for up to one year from the date of
completion of the work for unpaid wages, fringe benefits, health and welfare benefits, and
pension fund contributions, including interest and state tax payments owed to a subcontractor’s
employee. The employee, however, would not be able to recover penalties or liquidated
damages from the general contractor.
AB 1701 would give the employee, Labor Commissioner, or a joint labor-management
cooperation committee the right to enforce the direct contractor’s liability through a civil action.
It would also extend to third parties who are owed fringe or other benefit payments or
contributions on the employee’s behalf. Pursuant to the proposed language of the new statute, a
prevailing plaintiff in such an action would be entitled to their reasonable attorneys’ fees and
costs, including expert witness fees.
Although Labor Code § 218.7 would impose certain obligations on the subcontractor to
provide the direct contractor with relevant project and payroll records, the subcontractor’s failure
to comply with those obligations does not relieve the direct contractor from liability.
Impact
AB 1701’s apparent purpose is to protect employees, an undeniably important legislative
goal. However, if passed, the bill could greatly increase general contractors’ exposure when
subcontracting work and their cost of doing business. Especially because the new law would not
impact existing laws requiring a direct contractor to timely pay a subcontractor.
As a result, many coalitions against AB 1701 stress the halting effect this could have on
the construction industry as a whole, particularly private construction, which is not as heavily
regulated as public works.
CGDRB will continue to monitor this Bill and provide updates as developments occur.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Chelsea L. Zwart, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Federal Court of Appeals Signals an End to Project Labor Agreement Requirements Linked to Development Tax Credits
October 20, 2016 —
Gregory R. Begg & Aaron C. Schlesinger – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.What Action Should Owners, Developers and Contractors Take in Anticipation of Successful Challenges to PLA Requirements?
Recently, a federal court in New Jersey issued a decision which very well may invalidate all Project Labor Agreements (“PLA’s”) entered into as a condition to receipt of tax incentives for private development. Tax incentives utilized to promote private development are different, according to the court, than typical public works projects where PLA requirements have generally been held valid. Owners, developers, contractors and governmental entities must assess the consequences of this decision upon contracts already and to be awarded in the future where tax benefits may be linked to a PLA requirement.
In 1993, in what has become known as the Boston Harbor Case, the United States Supreme Court held that state and local governmental entities may condition the award of public works contracts on the contractor’s agreement to enter into PLA’s.
That decision has been followed nationwide since then to uphold the validity of various state and local law bidding conditions requiring successful bidders to negotiate and enter into project labor agreements as a condition to the award of public works contracts. The rationale is that when the government, like any other private party, is participating in an economic market, it may exercise its discretion in setting terms and conditions it believes best suit its interests in the efficient procurement of goods and services in that market. Therefore, a PLA requirement by a governmental entity engaged in market activity is no more or less valid than a PLA requirement on a purely private project.
Reprinted courtesy of
Gregory R. Begg, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Begg may be contacted at gbegg@pecklaw.com
Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Napa Quake Seen Costing Up to $4 Billion as Wineries Shut
August 27, 2014 —
Michael B. Marois, Zachary Tracer and Dan Hart – BloombergThe earthquake that struck northern California yesterday will lead to economic losses of as much as $4 billion, fueled by damaged wineries and shuttered businesses that rely on tourists.
Insurers will probably cover about $2.1 billion, according to an estimate from Kinetic Analysis Corp., which projected total losses of about twice that sum. Costs borne by the industry may be limited because many homeowners don’t have earthquake coverage, according to the Insurance Information Institute.
“The main source of claims could well be commercial claims, those coming from wineries and vineyards and other commercial interests,” Robert Hartwig, the institute’s president, said in an interview today. “It will take a while for the business owners to sort this out.”
Mr. Marois may be contacted at mmarois@bloomberg.net; Mr. Tracer may be contacted at ztracer1@bloomberg.net; Mr. Hart may be contacted at dahart@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael B. Marois, Zachary Tracer and Dan Hart, Bloomberg
Karen Campbell, Kristen Perkins to Speak at CLM 2020 Annual Conference in Dallas
March 02, 2020 —
Karen Campbell & Kristen Perkins - Lewis BrisboisNew York Partner Karen L. Campbell and Fort Lauderdale Partner Kristen D. Perkins will both speak at the upcoming CLM 2020 Annual Conference taking place March 18 to 20 at the Gaylord Texan Resort outside Dallas, Texas.
On March 19 at 2:00 p.m., Ms. Perkins will join a panel discussion titled “Predictive Analytics – You Don’t Need a Crystal Ball to Predict the Future,” exploring how predictive analytics affects litigation management programs, including case budgets, case cycle times, and claims outcomes. The panelists will also look at how machine learning picks up on nuances or anomalies that can affect analytics and give attendees a clearer picture on expected case parameters, and how that information can empower claims professionals during firm selection.
Then, on March 20 at 10:40 a.m., Ms. Campbell will join a roundtable discussion titled “How to Calculate Damages and Defend in Serious Injury Cases,” covering the calculation of both economic and non-economic damages, as well as trends and recent verdicts involving punitive damages and assessing the various types of third-party liability.
Reprinted courtesy of
Karen Campbell, Lewis Brisbois and
Kristen Perkins, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Campbell may be contacted at Karen.Campbell@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Perkins may be contacted at Kristen.Perkins@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
ARUP, Rethinking Green Infrastructure
April 08, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFARUP claims to have rethought green infrastructure, according to their website. Their Cities Alive project “shows how the creation of a linked ‘city ecosystem’ that encompasses parks and open spaces; urban trees, streets, squares; woodland and waterways can help create healthier, safer and more prosperous cities.”
“[G]reen is the new gold,” Garrett Marai said on his California Construction Law blog post that discussed the Cities Alive project. “As well as LEED bronze, silver and platinum.”
ARUP is “an independent firm of designers, planners, engineers, consultants and technical specialists.”
Read the full story, ARUP Cities Alive...
Read the full story, CA Construction Law Blog... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Surety Bond Now a Valid Performance Guarantee for NC Developers (guest post)
June 09, 2016 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback – Construction Law in North CarolinaWelcome summer days! Today we have a guest post by Todd Bryant, president and founder of
Bryant Surety Bonds. He is a surety bonds expert with years of experience in helping contractors get bonded and start their business. While design professionals generally don’t have to deal with performance bonds directly, they are often at the front lines of advising owners as to various Requests for Proposals submitted by hopeful contractors. In that spirit, be sure to read how the new law changes security requirements. Take it away, Todd!
Last year wrapped up with some good news for North Carolina subdivision developers:
House Bill 721 confirmed that construction bonds are, in fact, a viable form of performance guarantee. Previous legislation was ambiguous on this point, but the new bill– which took effect last October– sought to clear up the confusion. Although the new rules have been in effect for eight months, there’s been scant coverage of the changes, and what they mean for developers.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLCMs. Brumback may be contacted at
mbrumback@rl-law.com
