New Law Impacting Florida’s Statute of Repose
June 29, 2017 —
Meredith N. Reynolds & K. Stefan Chin – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.On June 14, 2017, Governor Scott signed House Bill 377 into law, clarifying that Florida’s ten-year
Statute of Repose commences either when the work is completed or when final payment becomes
due, whichever is latest. The new law resolves a problem for contractors created by a recent Florida
court ruling that held the Statute of Repose to commence as late as when the owner made final
payment. The applicable amendments to Florida Statute Section 95.11 take effect on July 1, 2017
and apply to all causes of action that accrue on or after that date.
Perhaps the most critical component of a construction professional’s risk management program is
the length of time that it is liable for the work performed on a project. While contractual warranty
periods typically run one or two years from substantial completion, the true length of a contractor’s
post-completion obligation is measured by the “Statute of Repose,” which establishes the period of
time following the completion of construction that a lawsuit can be filed for construction defects.
Reprinted courtesy of
Meredith N. Reynolds, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
K. Stefan Chin, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Ms. Reynolds may be contacted at mreynolds@pecklaw.com
Mr. Chin may be contacted at kschin@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rent Increases During the Coronavirus Emergency Part II: Avoiding Violations Under California’s Anti-Price Gouging Statute
April 06, 2020 —
Dan Schneider - Newmeyer DillionIn my earlier article, Profiting From Fear: What You Need to Know About Price Gouging During the Coronavirus Emergency, I discuss price gouging and how the anti-price gouging statute, California Penal Code 396 (“CPC 396”), protects buyers of goods and services deemed vital and necessary for the health, safety and welfare of consumers. Part II of the article provides guidance to landlords on the parameters applicable to acceptable price increases and focuses attention on the application of CPC 396 to rental housing and related issues.
California Penal Code 396
As it pertains to housing, defined as “any rental housing with an initial lease term of no longer than one year,” price gouging occurs when a landlord increases the rent of an existing or prospective tenant by more than 10 percent of the previously charged or advertised price following an emergency or disaster declaration for a period of 30 days.2 A residential landlord is only allowed to increase rent in excess of 10 percent if “the increase is directly attributable to additional costs for repairs or additions beyond normal maintenance that were amortized over the rental term that caused the rent to be increased greater than 10 percent or that an increase was contractually agreed to by the tenant prior to the proclamation or declaration” (CPC 396(e).) Further, landlords are prohibited from evicting a tenant and then re-renting the property at a rate that the landlord would have been prohibited from charging the evicted tenant under the statute (CPC 396(f).)3
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dan Schneider, Newmeyer DillionMr. Schneider may be contacted at
daniel.schneider@ndlf.com
Construction Law Job Opps and How to Create Them
October 24, 2021 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsFor this weeks Guest Post Friday, Kirsten Grant (@kgrantcareers on Twitter) has graced us with her thoughts on a very timely topic: How to get a job as a construction attorney. Before becoming a career specialist at Kaplan University, one of the largest online universities in the nation, Kirsten Grant had faxed almost 1000 resumes, e-mailed close to 300 resumes, personally mailed 20 resumes with each one featuring “special inserts” to encourage hiring managers to read her resume (50% of those resumes received calls for an interview) and interviewed with 50 companies over the course of 5 months. Based on the feedback hiring managers provided, in addition to 10 years experience in human resources, training, recruiting and staffing she REALLY learned what hiring managers look for in a candidate and today helps over 40,000 adult learners understand how to conduct successful job searches and earn a promotions.
As the real estate industry makes torrid adjustments to right itself due to foreclosures, short sales, and falling house prices, court rooms are seeing more construction law cases. As houses and properties fall into states of disrepair and as efforts are taken to repair them a chain of events take place:
- Property is purchased
- Contractors are hired to make repairs to a property
- The selected contractor files permits for the type of work performed
- After work has been performed, contactor receives compensation
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Allegations that Carrier Failed to Adequately Investigate Survive Demurrer
July 30, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's dismissal of a complaint alleging bad faith for the insurer's failure to adequately investigate the claim. Maslo v. Ameriprise Auto & Home Ins., 2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 564 (Cal. Ct. App. June 27, 2014).
The insured was injured in an auto accident caused by an uninsured motorist. The insured sought policy limits of $250,000 from the insurer. In response, the insurer demanded arbitration. The arbitrator awarded $164,120.91.
The insured sued, alleging the breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The First Amended Complaint (FAC) alleged the insured was not at fault. The police report found that the uninsured motorist was the sole cause of the accident. The insured provided the police report and medical records to the insurer. When the insured demanded the $250,000 policy limits, the insurer did not respond.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Approaches in the Absence of a Differing Site Conditions Clause
April 10, 2019 —
Parker A. Lewton - Smith CurrieA contractor who has encountered unforeseen conditions will typically rely on the contract’s differing site conditions clause as a means to recovery. Most construction contracts address those issues directly. In ConsensusDocs Standard Agreement and General Conditions between Owner and Constructor, the starting point is § 3.16.2. But what if the contract does not contain a differing site conditions clause? Or, what if the contract does contain such a clause, but the contractor failed to provide adequate notice or satisfy other conditions or requirements of the contract? When reliance on a differing site conditions clause is impractical, a contractor still may seek recovery in certain instances under one or more of the following legal theories: misrepresentation; fraud; duty to disclose; breach of implied warranty; and mutual mistake.
Misrepresentation
Misrepresentation occurs when an owner “misleads a contractor by a negligently untrue representation of fact[.]” John Massman Contracting Co. v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 24, 31 (1991) (citing Morrison–Knudsen Co. v. United States, 170 Ct. Cl. 712, 718–19, 345 F.2d 535, 539 (1965)). A contractor may be able to recover extra costs incurred, under a theory of misrepresentation, if it can show that (1) the owner made an erroneous representation, (2) the erroneous representation went to a material fact, (3) the contractor honestly and reasonably relied on that representation, and (4) the contractor’s reliance on the erroneous representation was to the contractor’s detriment. See T. Brown Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 132 F.3d 724, 728–29 (Fed. Cir. 1997). These four requirements can be satisfied, for example, through the use of deposition testimony detailing the owner’s representations and the contractor’s reliance thereon. See, e.g., C & H Commercial Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 35 Fed. Cl. 246, 256–57 (1996).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Parker A. Lewton, Smith CurrieMr. Parker may be contacted at
palewton@smithcurrie.com
Vacation during a Project? Time for your Construction Documents to Shine!
October 09, 2023 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North CarolinaHappy Lazy Day Everyone! What’s that? You didn’t know that August 10th is considered National Lazy Day? Well, it is. And it ties nicely in with today’s theme: how to take a vacation during the thick of the construction project.
Everyone needs a break. You are no different. It can seem, however, that it is impossible to disconnect from the ongoing onslaught of questions, requests for information, change orders, pay applications, and the like. But you can. The key to taking–and enjoying–your vacation is to plan ahead. This is the time for your construction documents to shine. Make sure that your designs are on schedule; make sure that the change orders and RFIs have been processed so there is no backlog. And make sure that your second in command is familiar enough with the day to day details to step into your shoes for the duration.
Then– be sure to give everyone notice. Is it any of their business that you are taking some time off? No. However, everyone procrastinates. So, if you give the entire team advance notice that you will be “off grid” starting on X date, they will be more inclined to get pending issues to you sooner rather than later. They won’t want to be stalled on progress, and with a heads up on when you are out of pocket, they will make it a priority to get requests to you ahead of your departure date.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale LiggettMs. Brumback may be contacted at
mbrumback@rl-law.com
Supreme Court of New York Denies Motion in all but One Cause of Action in Kikirov v. 355 Realty Assoc., et al.
April 28, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFIn the construction defect suit Kikirov v. 355 Realty Associates, LLC, et al., the Supreme Court of the State of New York granted a dismissal of the plaintiff’s fourth cause of action, but denied the defendants’ motion in all other respects. The plaintiff alleged breach of contract, among other claims. “355 Realty was the sponsor of 355 Kings Highway Condominium, a condominium project located at 355 Kings Highway, in Brooklyn, New York. The condominium units were allegedly marketed as ‘ultra luxury condos,’ and a ‘Manhattan style condominium building,’ which would be the ‘epitome of luxury and quality.’ The construction of the six-story 28 unit residential condominium building began in approximately November 2003. […] Plaintiff entered into a purchase agreement, dated December 21, 2005, with 355 Realty (which was executed on behalf of 355 Realty by Michael Marino, as its member) for the purchase of Unit 2G in the building.”
The plaintiff alleged that construction defects emerged soon after moving into the unit: “After taking occupancy of his condominium unit, plaintiff allegedly experienced serious leakage and moisture problems in his unit, which caused a dangerous mold condition to develop, in addition to causing actual damage to the structural elements of his unit. According to plaintiff, the walls, moldings, and wood floors of his unit are constantly wet and moist, and there is severe buckling of the wood floors. Plaintiff claims that these problems have caused his unit to be uninhabitable. Plaintiff alleges that he has been forced to remove all of his personal belongings from his unit and has been unable to occupy his unit.”
According to the plaintiff, Foremost attempted to repair the defects, but only made the situation worse: “Specifically, plaintiff asserts that Foremost’s contractors opened his walls to remove the stained drywall, but never corrected the cause of the leaks, destroyed the walls, and never properly taped and painted the sheet rock. Plaintiff alleges that Foremost repaired the openings in a defective manner. Plaintiff also claims that his floor was repaired at that time by a subcontractor hired by Foremost, but the basic structural problem was never resolved and the leaks continued, compromising the beams and causing the mold conditions, in addition to all of the physical damage present in the unit. On or about July 16, 2009, plaintiff allegedly sent a notice of the defects to 355 Realty and to the managing agent designated by the condominium board, by certified mail, return receipt requested. Plaintiff asserts that defendants have failed and refused to repair and remedy the defective condition, and that the damage is extensive and requires major structural repairs.”
The plaintiff filed suit on May 4, 2010, and the original complaint asserted eight causes of action. “By decision and order dated September 13, 2010, the court granted a motion by defendants to dismiss plaintiff’s second cause of action for breach of implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, his third cause of action for breach of implied warranties, his fifth cause of action for negligence as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, his seventh cause of action for negligence as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ, and his eighth cause of action for violations of General Business Law § 349 and § 350, and granted plaintiff leave to replead his first cause of action for breach of contract as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, his fourth cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, and his sixth cause of action for breach of contract as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ.”
The plaintiff amended their complaint on October 18, 2010, and “has repleaded these three causes of action by asserting a first cause of action for breach of contract as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, a second cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, and a third cause of action for breach of contract as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ. In addition, plaintiff, in his amended complaint, has added a fourth cause of action for fraud.”
The defendants, on the other hand, “argue that each of the four causes of action alleged by plaintiff in his amended complaint fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and that plaintiff’s amended complaint must be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). Defendants also cite to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), and (5), asserting that dismissal is also required based upon documentary evidence and the Statute of Limitations contained in the limited warranty.” The defendants’ motion to dismiss the first cause of action, breach of contract against 355 Realty, was denied: “While defendants dispute that the alleged defects are actually structural in nature, plaintiff’s allegations as to their structural nature are sufficient, at this juncture, to withstand defendants’ motion to dismiss. Thus, dismissal of plaintiff’s first cause of action must be denied.”
Next, the court reviewed the second cause of action, which was breach of statutory warranties: “Defendants’ motion also seeks dismissal of plaintiff’s second cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, which alleges that, under applicable law, including General Business Law § 777-a, et seq., the sponsor warranted to purchasers of units that the units would be constructed in a skillful, careful, and workmanlike manner, consistent with proper design, engineering, and construction standards and practices, and free of material latent, design, and structural defects. Defendants argue that General Business Law § 777-a, known as the housing merchant implied warranty, is inapplicable to this case because it is limited to the construction of a ‘new home,’ defined in General Business Law § 777 (5) as ‘any single family house or for-sale unit in a multi-unit residential structure of five stories or less.’ As noted above, the building in which plaintiff’s condominium unit is located is a six-story building.”
The motion to dismiss the second cause of action is denied. The court provided this reasoning: “the full text of the offering plan has not been provided, the court is unable to examine the entire written agreement so as to determine the purpose of the inclusion of the text of General Business Law § 777.”
In the third cause of action, the plaintiff alleges “a breach of contract claim as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ based upon their contract with 355 Realty, pursuant to which they agreed to be the general contractors/construction managers for the condominium, to undertake oversight responsibility for the design and construction of the condominium, to prepare and/or review drawings, plans, and specifications for the condominium, and to otherwise manage and oversee the project. Plaintiff alleges that Vision, Foremost, and MMJ breached their contractual obligations in that the condominium units were improperly and inadequately designed and constructed, and completed in an incompetent and unworkmanlike manner, with material design and construction defects.”
The motion to dismiss the third cause of action was denied as well: “Plaintiff alleges, in his amended complaint, that Vision, Foremost, and MMJ have acknowledged notice of the defects and have not denied that they are responsible for providing a warranty to plaintiff. Plaintiff also refers to this warranty, in his amended complaint, by noting that paragraph 16 of the purchase agreement stated that the ‘[s]eller shall not be liable to . . . the [p]urchaser for any matter as to which an assignable warranty . . . has been assigned . . . to [p]urchaser and in such case the sole recourse of such . . . [p]urchaser . . . shall be against the warrantor . . . except that in the event a contractor or subcontractor is financially unable or refuses to perform its warranty . . . [s]eller shall not be excused from its obligations enumerated in the [offering p]lan under Rights and Obligations of Sponsor.’ Consequently, the court finds that dismissal of plaintiff’s third cause of action as against Foremost and MMJ must also be denied.”
In the fourth cause of action, the plaintiff alleges “that defendants made false statements and representations orally, in advertisements, and in the purchase agreement, that the condominium was properly and adequately designed and constructed and completed in a competent and workmanlike manner, in accordance with the condominium plans and specifications and proper design, engineering, and construction standards and practices consistent with applicable standards for a first class, luxury condominium in Brooklyn.”
The court dismissed the fourth cause of action stating, “it must be dismissed because it is duplicative of his first cause of action for breach of contract.” Therefore, “defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint is granted to the extent that it seeks dismissal of plaintiff’s fourth cause of action, and it is denied in all other respects.”
Read the court’s decision… Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams Recognized by BTI Consulting Group for Client Service
April 12, 2021 —
White and Williams LLPWhite and Williams is proud to be included in BTI Consulting Group’s report of “The 70 Law Firms Improving Client Service Performance More Than All Others."
The pandemic forced law firms to navigate and respond instinctively as new client situations popped up daily and weekly. White and Williams was quick to establish a Covid-19 team and resource center to help clients navigate the rapidly developing business and legal issues brought on by the pandemic and provide timely and practical advice. This recognition is a testament to the firm’s commitment to provide clients with best-in-class service and the trust that clients have instilled in the firm.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams LLP
