Gillotti v. Stewart (2017) 2017 WL 1488711 Rejects Liberty Mutual, Holding Once Again that the Right to Repair Act is the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims
June 05, 2017 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq. & Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq. - Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger BulletinBackground
In Gillotti v. Stewart (April 26, 2017) 2017 WL 1488711, which was ordered to be published on May 18, 2017, the defendant grading subcontractor added soil over tree roots to level the driveway on the plaintiff homeowner’s sloped lot. The homeowner sued the grading subcontractor under the California Right to Repair Act (Civil Code §§ 895, et seq.) claiming that the subcontractor’s work damaged the trees.
After the jury found the subcontractor was not negligent, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the subcontractor. The homeowner appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly construed the Right to Repair Act as barring a common law negligence theory against the subcontractor and erred in failing to follow Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98. The Third District Court of Appeal disagreed and affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the subcontractor.
Impact
This is the second time the Third District Court of Appeal has held that Liberty Mutual (discussed below) was wrongly decided and held that the Right to Repair Act is the exclusive remedy for construction defect claims. The decision follows its holding in Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court (Hicks) (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 333, in which the Court of Appeal held that the Right to Repair Act’s pre-litigation procedures apply when homeowners plead construction defect claims based on common law causes of action, as opposed to violations of the building standards set forth in the Right to Repair Act. Elliott is currently on hold at the California Supreme Court, pending the decision in McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132, wherein Liberty Mutual was rejected for the first time by the Fifth District. CGDRB continues to follow developments regarding the much anticipated McMillin decision closely, as well as all related matters.
Discussion
The Right to Repair Act makes contractors and subcontractors not involved in home sales liable for construction defects only if the homeowner proves they negligently cause the violation in whole or part (Civil Code §§ 911(b), 936). As such, the trial court in Gillotti instructed the jury on negligence with respect to the grading subcontractor. The jury found that while the construction did violate some of the Right to Repair’s building standards alleged by the homeowner, the subcontractor was not negligent in anyway. After the jury verdict, the trial court found in favor of the grading subcontractor.
The homeowner moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial on the grounds that the trial court improperly barred a common law negligence theory against the grading subcontractor. The trial court denied the motions on the grounds that “[t]he Right to Repair Act specifically provides that no other causes of action are allowed. See Civil Code § 943.” The trial court specifically noted that its decision conflicted with Liberty Mutual, in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the Right to Repair Act does not eliminate common law rights and remedies where actual damage has occurred, stating that Liberty Mutual was wrongly decided and that the Liberty Mutual court was naïve in its assumptions regarding the legislative history of the Right to Repair Act.
In Gillotti, the Third District Court of Appeal stated that the Liberty Mutual court failed to analyze the language of Civil Code § 896, which “clearly and unequivocally expresses the legislative intent that the Act apply to all action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in, residential construction, except as specifically set forth in the Act. The Act does not specifically except actions arising from actual damages. To the contrary, it authorizes recovery of damages, e.g., for ‘the reasonable cost of repairing and rectifying any damages resulting from the failure of the home to meet the standards....’ ([Civil Code] § 944).”
The Court also disagreed with Liberty Mutual’s view that because Civil Code §§ 931 and 943 acknowledge exceptions to the Right to Repair Act’s statutory remedies, the Act does not preclude common law claims for damages due to defects identified in the Act. The Court stated: “Neither list of exceptions, in section 943 or in section 931, includes common law causes of action such as negligence. If the Legislature had intended to make such a wide-ranging exception to the restrictive language of the first sentence of section 943, we would have expected it to do so expressly.”
Additionally, the Court of Appeal rejected the argument that Civil Code § 897 preserves a common law negligence claims for violation of standards not listed in Civil Code § 986. It explained that the section of Civil Code § 897, which provides, “The standards set forth in this chapter are intended to address every function or component of a structure,” expresses the legislative intent that the Right to Repair Act be all-encompassing. Anything inadvertently omitted is actionable under the Act if it causes damage. Any exceptions to the Act are made expressly through Civil Code §§ 931 and 934. The Court concluded in no uncertain terms that the Right to Repair Act precludes common law claims in cases for damages covered by the Act.
The homeowner further argued that she was not precluded from bringing a common law claim because a tree is not a “structure,” and therefore the alleged tree damage did not fall within the realm of the Right to Repair. The Court of Appeal also rejected this argument, holding that while the tree damage itself was not expressly covered, the act of adding soil to make the driveway level (which caused the damage) implicated the standards covered by the Right to Repair Act. The Court explained that since under the Act a “structure” includes “improvement located upon a lot or within a common area” (Civil Code § 895(a)), as the driveway was an improvement upon the lot, the claim was within the purview of the Right to Repair Act. As the soil, a component of the driveway, caused damage (to the trees), it was actionable under the Act.
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
Coping with Labor & Install Issues in Green Building
October 08, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFBuilder reported on the problem that builders have with using green techniques—finding skilled laborers and subs. “If a green product is not installed correctly it most likely won’t do its job,” building scientist Carl Seville said to Builder.
Austin Trautman of Vali Homes told Builder that the biggest problem he had with his first net-zero prototype house was the HVAC work. “It’s actually a simpler system with straightforward installation, but they just couldn’t figure it out.”
Cliff Majersik, executive director of the Institute for Market Transformation, said that teaching subs the new techniques is worthwhile: “Once you know how to do it, an energy-efficient house can even be less expensive to build.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
KF-103 v. American Family Mutual Insurance: Tenth Circuit Upholds the “Complaint Rule”
May 12, 2016 —
Adria Robinson – Colorado Construction LitigationIn Colorado, the “complaint rule” requires insurance carriers to provide a defense to its insured when the allegations contained in the complaint allege any set of facts that may fall within an insurance policy. Some insurers have pushed back on this rule arguing that it may cause an insurer to exercise its duty to defend although the underlying facts ultimately do not fall within the policy.
In KF 103-CV, LLC v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, 2015 WL 6517782, the Tenth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals upheld the complaint rule. In its decision, the Tenth Circuit cited several Colorado state court rulings recognizing the courts’ intent to incentivize insurers to defend policies that may facially fall within the terms of the policy. Where there is uncertainty about coverage, the Tenth Circuit cited a Colorado Supreme Court case stating, “[t]he appropriate course of action for an insurer who believes that it is under no obligation to defend, is to provide a defense to the insured under the reservation of its rights.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Adria Robinson, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMs. Robinson may be contacted at
robinson@hhmrlaw.com
Don’t Put All Your Eggs in the Silent-Cyber Basket
August 07, 2022 —
William P. Sowers, Jr. & Michael S. Levine - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogThe Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently gave another reminder why cyber insurance should be part of any comprehensive insurance portfolio. In Construction Financial Administration Services, LLC v. Federal Insurance Company, No. 19-0020 (E.D. Pa. June 9, 2022), the court rejected a policyholder’s attempt to find coverage under its professional liability insurance for a social engineering incident that defrauded over $1 million.
Construction Financial Administrative Services, which goes by CFAS, disburses funds to contractors. One of its clients, SWF Constructors, was hacked, and a bad actor posing as the client asked CFAS to distribute $600,000 to a sham third party. John Follmer, an executive at CFAS and the only person authorized to approve distribution of funds, approved it. The next day, the bad actor, again posing as the client, asked Follmer to transfer an additional $700,000. Follmer approved that distribution too.
Reprinted courtesy of
William P. Sowers, Jr., Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Modern Tools Are Key to Future-Proofing the Construction Industry
September 19, 2022 —
Guillaume Le Gouic - Construction ExecutiveThe U.S. construction industry is facing a tech revolution that’s upending the roles of skilled workers. Many traditional contractors are struggling to embrace the new technologies customers increasingly demand, while the industry struggles to attract young professionals. According to the latest
American Community Survey data, the median age of a construction worker is 41.
This is particularly concerning given the confluence of two trends: the construction industry is facing a critical workforce shortage that’s only
expected to intensify, and the workforce is aging—
NCCER is predicting around 40% are expected to retire by 2031. Industry leaders must prioritize using the latest industry solutions and innovations to modernize construction work, transform the construction industry and appeal to the next generation of contractors.
Throughout COVID-19, the construction sector experienced a higher number of workers quitting jobs as opposed to being laid off, indicating the older workforce likely took the opportunity to retire early, along
with more than three million other Americans who did the same. Currently, industry leaders are not doing enough to communicate opportunities to help shift the career perception of electrical contractors from simply being “blue collar” and un-exciting. A 2019 National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) found only
3% of people ages 18 to 25 were interested in pursuing a construction career, with most respondents noting the desire for a less physically demanding job.
Reprinted courtesy of
Guillaume Le Gouic, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Two-Part Series on Condominium Construction Defect Issues
May 19, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFGregory L. Shelton, construction law attorney at Horack, Talley, Pharr & Lowndes, P.A., wrote a two-part series in the Charlotte Observer about condominium construction defect issues. The first part described “common defects and their consequences,” while the second part explained “how legal time limits can prevent the association or its owners from suing the parties responsible for defective construction.”
If interested in purchasing a condo unit, Shelton recommended hiring a building inspector, though he cautioned that “the inspector should be truly independent. His client should be you and not ‘the sale.’” In the second part, Shelton discussed the complexities of statutes of limitations and statutes of repose.
Read the full story, Part 1...
Read the full story, Part 2... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Virtual Mediation – How Do I Make It Work for Me?
December 21, 2020 —
Adrian L. Bastianelli, III & Jennifer Harris - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Mediation took the construction industry by storm in the late 1980’s and has become a staple for resolving construction claims. Today, most construction contracts, including the ConsensusDocs, require mediation as a condition precedent to binding dispute resolution, whether it be arbitration or litigation. As a result, many construction executives have spent long hours sitting in conference rooms trying to reach resolution with their counterpart through mediation in order to avoid the alternative – costly arbitration or litigation that often produces an unsatisfactory result.
While many businesses have foreclosed the possibility of meeting in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the contractual requirements for mediation remain. Thus, in most cases, in-person or live mediation is no longer an option; however, attorneys and mediators have developed a virtual process to replace the live process. With a new process comes many questions: Does the virtual process work? What are the best practices and pitfalls for virtual mediation? Will virtual mediation continue when COVID-19 fades away? How do I make virtual mediation work for me? The answers to these questions and more are discussed below.
Reprinted courtesy of
Adrian L. Bastianelli, III, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Jennifer Harris, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Bastianelli may be contacted at abastianelli@pecklaw.com
Ms. Harris may be contacted at jharris@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Difference Between Routine Document Destruction and Spoliation
October 18, 2021 —
Steven A. Neeley - Construction ExecutiveIn today’s world, there is a tendency to believe that everything must be preserved forever. The common belief is that documents, emails, text messages, etc. cannot be deleted because doing so may be viewed as spoliation (i.e., intentionally destroying relevant evidence). A party guilty of spoliation can be sanctioned, which can include an adverse inference that the lost information would have helped the other side. But that does not mean that contractors have to preserve every conceivable piece of information or data under all circumstances. There are key differences between routine document destruction (when done before receiving notice of potential claims or litigation) and spoliation.
The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals decision in Appeal of Sungjee Constr. Co., Ltd., ASBCA Nos. 62002 and 62170 (Mar. 23, 2021) provides a good reminder. There, Sungjee challenged its default termination under a construction contract at Osan Air Base in South Korea. Sungjee argued that the government denied it access to the site for 352 days (out of a 450-day performance period) by refusing to issue passes that were needed to access the base. The government argued that it had issued the passes, but it could not produce them to Sungjee in discovery because they had been destroyed as part of a routine document destruction policy. The base security force issued hard copy passes and entered the information in a biometric system. The government was able to produce the biometric system data but not the hard copy passes because they were destroyed each year.
Sungjee argued the government was guilty of spoliation and moved for sanctions. It asked the Board to draw an adverse inference that the passes would have shown that the government had not issued proper passes on a timely basis, which delayed Sungjee’s performance. The Board denied Sungjee’s motion for several reasons.
Reprinted courtesy of
Steven A. Neeley, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Neeley may be contacted at
steve.neeley@huschblackwell.com
