Lien Law Change in Idaho
December 05, 2022 —
Grace Maldonado - Gordon & Rees Construction Law BlogJuly 1, 2022, the Idaho Legislature’s amendments to I.C. 45-507 came into effect. This statute regulates the steps and requirements to sustain a valid mechanics and materialmen lien. There were three changes to the statute: (1) clarification as to who may personally serve a notice of lien; (2) additional contents that must be included in a lien claim; and (3) authorization for attorney fees.
Prior to the amendments, any person could, on behalf of the entity (contractor) seeking to establish a lien, personally serve the owner of the property with a claim of lien. Now, for personal service to be considered effective, the owner or reputed owner must be personally served by an officer “authorized by law” to serve process. Essentially, a process server needs to be employed for personal service. A contractor may still serve an owner via certified mail
The second change relates to required disclosures. Now, in order to have a valid lien, a contractor must attach a copy of the required disclosures and acknowledgement of receipt of said disclosures with the claim of lien. If the claim does not contain the required documents, it will be considered invalid. This is an important change, because even if the contractor provides all required documents to the owner if there is no copy of the documents attached to the claim of lien the contractor will lose their lien rights – assuming the deficiency is not corrected prior to the statute of limitations running.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Grace Maldonado, Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniMs. Maldonado may be contacted at
gmaldonado@grsm.com
The Looming Housing Crisis and Limited Government Relief—An Examination of the CDC Eviction Moratorium Two Months In
December 14, 2020 —
Zachary Kessler - Gravel2GavelMonths after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a nationwide eviction moratorium using its emergency pandemic powers under the Public Health Service Act, the efficacy of this unprecedented measure remains unclear. While the Order ostensibly protects tenants facing homelessness or housing insecurity due to the financial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic through the end of 2020, legal challenges have been initiated in Ohio and Georgia, with additional lawsuits appearing likely. Further, even barring legal challenges, courts have not handled these cases in a uniform manner. With lawmakers unable to reach any stimulus or COVID-19 relief agreement before the election, the CDC Order appears likely to remain the only federal eviction moratorium through its expiration on December 31, 2020.
Since the Order’s enactment, the CDC has since released new guidance, answering some of the open questions not covered by the initial Order. This guidance, while non-binding, is largely more favorable to landlords and property management companies than the initial text of the Order, as it provides that landlords are not required to make tenants aware of the Order’s protections and may challenge the truthfulness of the tenants’ declarations in any state or municipal court. The guidance also clarified the potential criminal penalties for violating the Order and the criminal penalties for perjury for bad faith submissions of the requisite declaration by tenants.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Zachary Kessler, PillsburyMr. Kessler may be contacted at
zachary.kessler@pillsburylaw.com
North Dakota Supreme Court Clarifies Breadth of Contractual Liability Coverage
October 30, 2018 —
Michael S. Levine & Latosha M. Ellis - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogNorth Dakota’s highest court delivered a blow to Mid-Continent Casualty Company in Borsheim Builders Supply, Inc. v. Manger Insurance Co., ruling that a contract between a policyholder and general contractor fit the insured contract exception of contractual liability.
Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) policies generally exclude an insured’s contractual assumption of another party’s liability. The exclusion typically contains an exception for what is known as an “insured contract.” However, many policyholders and insurance claims personnel often miss the significance of the insured contract exception. This was the case in Borsheim.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews KurthMr. Levine may be contacted at
mlevine@HuntonAK.com
New Defendant Added to Morrison Bridge Decking Lawsuit
March 26, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe Morrison Bridge in Multnomah County, Oregon, has added a new company to their lawsuit regarding problems with the slip-resistant FRP decking, according to The Oregonian. The county has already named the installer, the supplier, and the manufacturer. Now, they have added Hardesty & Hanover, LLP, the company “that contracted with the decking manufacturer to provide engineering and design for the project.”
The Oregonian reported that “the county has identified a construction design professional who can testify that Hardesty & Hanover made errors that contributed to the Morrison Bridge's damage,” according to the amended complaint.
First, Conway construction (the deck installer) filed suit against the decking manufacturer and supplier. Then, the “county inserted itself into the suit last fall,” stated The Oregonian, and “is seeking more than $2 million to repair or replace the decking, plus damages.” A trial is scheduled for February 2015.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Design Professionals Owe a Duty of Care to Homeowners
July 09, 2014 —
Stephen A. Sunseri - Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLPToday, the California Supreme Court, in Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP (Jul. 3, 2014, S208173) __Cal.4th__ [2014 WL 2988058], held that architects owe a duty of care to future homeowners of residential buildings, particularly if they act as principal architects on a project, and are not subordinate to any other design professional. Until now, design professionals were rarely held liable, if at all, for third-party claims for design deficiencies.
In Beacon, architectural and engineering firms provided sole design services for The Beacon residential condominium project, a 595 unit project located in San Francisco. The condominiums were initially leased after construction, but were eventually sold to individual owners. The design firms claimed their role was limited to only providing design recommendations to the project's owner, who ultimately controlled and directed which design elements to construct. Not long after completion of the project, the homeowners' association sued the design firms (among others) for construction defects and damages related to alleged water infiltration, inadequate fire separations, structural cracks, and other purported safety hazards. The claims included allegations under SB 800 (the "Right to Repair Act," Civil Code §895, et seq.) and common law negligence theories.
The design firms demurred to the complaint, which the trial court sustained. On appeal, however, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's ruling, concluding that the design firms owed a duty of care to third parties. The Supreme Court affirmed.
Historically, liability for deficient goods and services hinged on whether there is a contractual relationship between a buyer and seller. However, the Supreme Court recognized that in certain circumstances a contractual relationship is not required. In its ruling, the Supreme Court relied on fifty year old precedent, Biankanja v. Irving (1958) 49 Cal.2d 647. In Biankanja, the California Supreme Court outlined several factors to determine whether a duty of care is owed to non-contracting third parties. Although Biankanja analyzes many factors, emphasis was placed placed on whether a purported harm was foreseeable by a defendant's conduct and how close of a connection there is between that conduct and an injury.
Here, the Court recognized that even though the design firms did not actually build the project, they did conduct weekly inspections, monitored contractor compliance, altered design elements when issues arose, and advised the owners of any nonconforming work. In applying the Biankanja factors to these circumstances, the Supreme Court determined the homeowners were intended beneficiaries of the design work and the design firms' primary role in the project bore a close connection to the alleged injuries. As a result, the Supreme Court held that the allegations in the complaint were sufficient and, if proven, establishes the defendants owed a duty of care to the homeowners' association.
Interestingly, the Supreme Court sidestepped the issue of whether SB 800 was intended to exclusively capture design defects in its scope, even though the Court indicated it may. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court's ruling is significant. The case will affect how design professionals allocate risk on future residential projects, perhaps by raising design prices or insuring around the liability exposure. The likely outcome, however, is that design professionals are now targets in construction defect lawsuits.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stephen A. Sunseri, Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLPMr. Sunseri may be contacted at
ssunseri@gdandb.com
Client Alert: Catch Me If You Can – Giorgio Is No Gingerbread Man
November 26, 2014 —
Steven M. Cvitanovic, Jesse M. Sullivan, & Colin T. Murphy - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Giorgio v. Synergy Management Group, LLC (2014) Case No. B248752, a California Court of Appeal held in an opinion published on November 6, 2014, that the Los Angeles County trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting service by publication on Defendant John Giorgio ("Giorgio") after numerous attempts to find his current address produced a single address in Los Angeles from which mailed service was returned. The Court ruled that publication in a Los Angeles newspaper was proper because Plaintiff had a reasonable belief that service by publication in that county was most likely to give actual notice to the party to be served.”
In this intentional tort action, Synergy Management Group, LLC ("Synergy") alleged in its Complaint that Giorgio converted assets of Synergy's assignor by submitting false expense reports which resulted in the misappropriation of the assignor's assets. Synergy personally served Giorgio with the original Complaint at a North Carolina airport and Giorgio failed to respond. Synergy subsequently filed a First Amended Complaint and attempted service via an address in the Netherlands. Again, Giorgio did not respond. Synergy then filed a request for entry of default against Giorgio which was entered that day.
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys
Steven M. Cvitanovic,
Jesse M. Sullivan and
Colin T. Murphy
Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com; Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at jsullivan@hbblaw.com; and Mr. Murphy may be contacted at cmurphy@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
No Occurrence Found for Damage to Home Caused by Settling
October 22, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Nebraska Supreme Court found the insurer properly denied coverage to the general contractor for damage to a home caused by settlement. Cizek Homes, Inc. v. Columbia Nat. Ins. Co., 2014 Neb. LEXIS 152 (Neb. Sept. 9, 2014).
The general contractor built and then sold the residence. Subsequently, the homeowners complained that the soil beneath their residence was settling and causing damage to their home. The homeowners presented a draft complaint to the general contractor, alleging that negligence and faulty workmanship had caused damage to the home.
The general contractor notified its carrier, Columbia. Coverage was denied.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
California Supreme Court Holds Insured Entitled to Coverage Under CGL Policy for Negligent Hiring
June 13, 2018 —
Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP - TLSS Insurance Law BlogIn its recent decision in Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Ledesma & Meyer Constr. Co.,2018 Cal. LEXIS 4063 (Cal. June 4, 2018), the Supreme Court of California addressed the question of whether an insured’s negligent hiring, retention and supervision of an employee who intentionally injured a third-party can be considered an occurrence under a general liability policy.
The insured, L&M, was the construction manager on a project at a middle school in California. It was alleged that one of its employees sexually abused a thirteen year old student during the course of the project. The student later brought a civil suit against L&M based on its negligent hiring, retention and supervision of the employee-perpetrator.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
