Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Client Alert: Court of Appeal Applies Common Interest Privilege Doctrine to HOA Litigation Meetings

March 19, 2014 — David W. Evans, Steven M. Cvitanovic, and Michael C. Parme - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Seahaus La Jolla Owners Assoc. v. Superior Court (No. D064567, March 12, 2014), the California Court of Appeal held a homeowners association’s (“HOA”) litigation meetings related to the HOA’s construction defect lawsuit were subject to protection under the attorney-client privilege. Specifically, the court concluded the common interest doctrine applied to the subject litigation meetings, thereby barring the defendants in the HOA’s lawsuit from seeking discovery related to the content and disclosures made during those meetings. The plaintiff HOA initiated a construction defect lawsuit against a residential developer and builder, seeking damages for construction defects related to common areas. The defendants took the depositions of individual homeowners and inquired regarding the communications and disclosures made at informational litigation update meetings. The meetings were conducted by the HOA’s counsel with groups of homeowners, some of whom had filed their own, separate lawsuits against the same defendants. Motions to compel were filed after attorney-client privilege objections were asserted by counsel for the HOA. After the court-appointed discovery referee opined that the common interest doctrine applied and that the communications presented at the meetings were subject to the attorney-client privilege, the trial court rejected this recommendation and overruled the HOA’s privilege objections. The HOA filed a petition for a writ of mandate. The defendants argued the privilege had been waived based on the presence of persons who were not the clients of the HOA’s attorney, that the subject communications were not “confidential communications” and that the individual homeowners and the HOA did not share common interests at the time. After setting forth a comprehensive discussion of the statutory principles underlying the attorney-client privilege and the bases for waiver, as provided in California Evidence Code §§ 912 and 952, and summarizing applicable decisional law, the court specifically analyzed the question of whether the common interest doctrine applied in the context of the disputed HOA litigation meetings. The common interest doctrine protects confidential communications made by counsel to third parties if the third parties are present to further the interest of the client or are those to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for the transmission of the information or the accomplishment of the purpose for which the lawyer was consulted. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Steven M. Cvitanovic, and Michael C. Parme of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com, Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com, and Mr. Parme may be contacted at mparme@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

2018 California Construction Law Update

January 10, 2018 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
The California State Legislature introduced 2,495 bills during the first year of the 2017-2018 Legislative Session. Of these, 859 were signed into law. While much political attention was focused on several California laws that could be viewed as California’s rebuke of Washington, including California’s legalization of marijuana, enactment of “sanctuary state” legislation, and bills focused on climate change, 2017 also saw the enactment of a package of bills intended to address the state’s housing affordability crises (for a great summary of these bills see Wendel Rosen’s Landuse Group’s recent article Slate of New Housing Bills Takes Effect January 1, 2018 ), as well as a range of other bills of interest to the construction industry including bills related construction financing, alternative project delivery methods, and solar construction. Each of the bills discussed below took effect on January 1, 2018, except as otherwise stated. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black, Dean, LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Caltrans to Speak before California Senate regarding Bay Bridge Expansion

August 06, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The San Francisco Chronicle reported that at an upcoming California Senate hearing, Caltrans is expected to defend itself against “allegations that they ‘gagged and banished’ engineers who identified construction problems on the new Bay Bridge eastern span and that the agency failed to maintain basic quality control on the project.” Members of the “Senate Transportation and Housing Committee will question Caltrans Director Malcolm Dougherty, other state officials and the head of the bridge's lead contractor, American Bridge/Fluor, about two reports last week from an investigator and a panel of six engineers who were critical of how the $6.4 billion project was managed.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Colorado HB 13-1090: Concerning Payment of Amounts Due Under a Construction Agreement

February 21, 2013 — David M. McLain — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
On January 17, 2013 Representative Fischer introduced House Bill 13-1090 into the Colorado House of Representatives. HB 1090 was assigned the House Business, Labor, Economic and Workforce Development Committee. The bill, sponsored by Senator Tochtrop in the Senate, sets the following requirements for both private and public construction contracts: The owner and contractor must make regular progress payments approximately every 30 days to contractors and subcontractors for work actually performed. To receive the progress payments, the contractor and subcontractor must submit a progress payment invoice plus any required documents. A contractor must pass on the progress payment to the subcontractor within 5 days or by the end of the billing cycle. Interest accrues on unpaid progress payments. A contract may extend a billing cycle to 60 days, but the contract must duly warn of this. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain
mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Subcontractors Eye 2022 with Guarded Optimism

October 11, 2021 — Louise Poirier - Engineering News-Record
While work continues to be plentiful for specialty contractors across the five-state region of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Texas, concerns remain for how the project landscape will continue to evolve as the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to weigh on the world. Reprinted courtesy of Louise Poirier, Engineering News-Record Ms. Poirier may be contacted at poirierl@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Ten-Year Statute Of Repose To Sue For Latent Construction Defects

November 12, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
If you are dealing with latent construction defects, it is imperative that you consult with counsel to understand your rights. This not only includes claims for property damage stemming from latent construction defects, but also personal injury stemming from such defects. There is a ten-year statute of repose to sue for latent construction defects. See Fla.Stat. s. 95.11(3)(c). After the expiration of this statute of repose you are out of luck, meaning you can no longer sue. Now, I probably will not be the first to tell you that the statute of repose is not written so clear that you know the precise date it ends (or the last date you can sue for a latent defect). For this reason, you really want to operate conservatively, meaning it is always better to sue early if you think you could be running on the end of the statute of repose period. It is always advisable to avoid any legitimate argument that you filed your construction defect lawsuit too late. In Harrell v. The Ryland Group, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D2054b (Fla. 1st DCA 2019), a subsequent owner of a house sued the original homebuilder in negligence for a construction defect causing a personal injury. The subsequent owner claimed the homebuilder defectively installed an attic ladder (that provided access to the attic for the original construction) which collapsed as he was using it. The homebuilder filed a motion for summary judgment that the statute of repose expired so the owner’s claim was time-barred. The First District agreed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Insurer Not Bound by Decision in Underlying Case Where No Collateral Estoppel

February 25, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Eleventh Circuit determined that the trial court did not err by refusing to give preclusive effect to findings made in the underlying state-court action because there was no collateral estoppel. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sharif, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2114 (11th Cir. Feb. 4, 2014). Bashir's owned a grocery and was insured by Nationwide. The decedent was accidentally killed by a pistol stored under the cash register. The decedent's personal representative sued Bashir in state court. Nationwide declined to defend because it maintained that the employment exclusion applied to bar coverage. The personal representative argued two alternative claims, the first assuming the decedent was not an employee of Bashir's and the second assuming that he was. The state court granted a motion to dismiss the second claim that the decedent was an employee. In a subsequent trial, judgment was awarded against Bashir and another defendant in the amount of $950,000. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Hybrid Contracts for The Sale of Goods and Services and the Predominant Factor Test

February 15, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Florida’s Uniform Commercial Code (also known as the UCC) applies to transactions for goods. “Goods” is defined by Article II of the UCC as “all things (including specially manufactured goods) which are movable at the time of identification to the contract for sale other than the money in which the price is to be paid, investment securities (chapter 678) and things in action.” Fla. Stat. s. 672.105(1). The UCC does NOT apply to transactions for services. Transactions for services are governed by common law. Oftentimes, transactions or contracts include BOTH goods and services. In this scenario, referred to as a hybrid contract, does the UCC or common law apply? In this scenario, courts apply the predominant factor test to determine whether the UCC or common law governs the transaction:

Whether the UCC or the common law applies to a particular hybrid contract depends on “whether the[ ] predominant factor, the [ ] thrust, the[ ] purpose [of the contract], reasonably stated, is the rendition of service, with goods incidentally involved (e.g., contract with artist for painting) or is a transaction of sale, with labor incidentally involved (e.g., installation of a water heater in a bathroom).” In such instances, the determination whether the “predominant factor” in the contract is for goods or for services is a factual inquiry unless the court can determine that the contract is exclusively for goods or services as a matter of law. Allied Shelving & Equipment, Inc. v. National Deli, LLC, 154 So.3d 482, 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (citations omitted).

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES