Yet ANOTHER Reason not to Contract without a License
October 25, 2021 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsRemember when I stated that you cannot lawfully perform construction work in Virginia without a contractor’s license? Remember when I said that you risk non-payment if you do so? If you needed another reason, a relatively recent Virginia Court of Appeals decision upholding a criminal conviction for performing construction work without a license should be that reason.
In Riddel v. Commonwealth, the Court took up an appeal from the conviction of Jeff Riddel where Mr. Riddel was verbally asked by homeowners to inspect and then repair their septic system. Mr. Riddel then contracted with Fairfax Suburban Septic to pump out and repair the system. Mr. Riddel then delivered the homeowners an invoice from Fairfax Suburban Septic and instructed the homeowners to pay Fairfax Suburban Septic directly. After payment, the homeowners became aware that the work was not completed and that neither Mr. Riddel nor his subcontractor was licensed to perform septic work in Virginia.
During the trial, Mr. Riddel argued on a Motion to Strike the Commonwealth’s evidence that (1) he merely arranged for licensed contractors to perform the repairs to the septic system, arguing that Virginia Code §§
54.2-801 to 802 permitted Riddel to arrange the work without a contractor’s license and (2) no written contract to perform a septic inspection or repairs existed. The Circuit Court denied the motion and Mr. Riddel was convicted under Va. Code 54.1-111 for performing the work without a license. Needless to say, he appealed.
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
Planes, Trains and Prevailing Wages. Ok, No Planes, But Trains and Prevailing Wages Yes
October 25, 2021 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogThe California Supreme Court doesn’t often delve into construction-related issues, but this year we’ve got two cases, both related to the payment of prevailing wages on California public works projects.
The first, Mendoza v. Fonseca McElroy Grinding Co., Inc. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 1118 which we discussed in our last blog post, concerned whether mobilization work qualifies as a “public work” and in turn requires the payment of prevailing wages. On the same day that the Supreme Court issued its decision in Mendoza, it issued a decision in Busker v. Wabtec Corporation, et al. , Case No. S251135 (August 16, 2021). This is the equivalent of being struck by lightning twice.
In Busker, the California Supreme Court considered whether on a public transportation project “field work” (e.g., building and outfitting radio towers on land adjacent to train tracks) and “onboard work” (e.g., installing electronic components on train cars and locomotives”) requires the payment of prevailing wage.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Michigan Supreme Court Finds Faulty Subcontractor Work That Damages Insured’s Work Product May Constitute an “Occurrence” Under CGL Policy
November 02, 2020 —
Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogIn Skanska USA Bldg. Inc. v. M.A.P. Mech. Contractors, Inc., 2020 WL 3527909 (Mich. June 29, 2020), the Michigan Supreme Court addressed whether unintentionally faulty subcontractor work that damages an insured’s work product constitutes an “accident” under a commercial general liability insurance policy. In aligning itself with a growing number of jurisdictions, the Michigan Supreme Court answered, “yes.” In Skanska, a construction manager brought an action against a commercial general liability (CGL) insurer seeking coverage as additional insured for the cost of repairs to correct faulty work performed by its subcontractor in renovation of medical center. In 2009, the construction manager hired MAP to install a steam boiler and related piping for the medical center’s heating system. MAP’s installation included several expansion joints, which it was later discovered, were installed backward. Significant damage to concrete, steel, and the heating system occurred as a result. The construction manager performed the work of repairing and replacing the damaged property to the tune of $1.4 million, and submitted a claim to MAP’s CGL insurer, Amerisure, seeking coverage as an additional insured.
Amerisure denied the claim contending that MAP’s defective construction was not a covered “occurrence” within the CGL policy. The policy defined “occurrence” as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions,” but did not define the term “accident.” The trial court looked to the Court of Appeal’s decision in Hawkeye-Sec. Ins. Co. v. Vector Const. Co., 185 Mich. App. 369 (1990), which defined “accident” as “…a result which is not anticipated and…takes place without the insured’s foresight or expectation and without design or intentional causation on his part.” But, again citing Hawkeye, the trial court concluded that “[d]efective workmanship, standing alone, is not an occurrence within the meaning of a[ ] general liability insurance contract[;] an occurrence exists where the insured’s faulty work product damages the property of another.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Taylor, Traub LiebermanMr. Taylor may be contacted at
jtaylor@tlsslaw.com
Bert L. Howe & Associates Celebrates 21-Year Success Story
July 31, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFJuly 31, 2014 marks the 21st anniversary of Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc. (BHA). The company commenced operations on this date 21 years ago today. During the last two decades, the landscape of the construction defect industry as a whole has shifted significantly. In the early nineties, the industry consisted substantially of multi-family residential projects, and construction defect litigation was a regional concern focused primarily on Southern California.
In the intervening 21 years, the construction defect industry has become a nationwide concern with the majority of states adopting builders’ right to repair legislation. To mark the 21st anniversary of BHA, we spoke with some of the key personnel to get some insights and impressions of how the industry and the company have evolved throughout the years.
On July 31st, 1993, Bert formed the company after a long career as a general contractor. He had become involved in the construction forensics field in 1988, providing general construction investigation and expert support services to legal professionals handling multifamily residential cases.
James Howe, the firm's current President and Chief Operating Officer, joined the company in November 1993. Previously, he had been recruited by The New York Times and served as operations manager for their Orange County, Los Angeles, and Inland Empire operations.
In January of 1994, operations were relocated to a small, 1,100-square foot, two-story walk-up in Anaheim Hills, California. James stated that they purchased furniture from Plummers, and he and Bert carted all of the furniture up the stairs and assembled it themselves over the weekend.
Immediately, they hired the first employee, Matthew J. Nardella, an architect and graduate from Cal Poly University, who also came to the firm with substantial construction and design experience.
Matt was scheduled to begin work on January 17th, 1994, the day of the Northridge earthquake. “I remember calling Bert,” Matt said. “‘Bert, is everything okay down there? Do you want me to come in?’ All of the news said freeways collapsed. I didn’t know what was going on with the roads,” Matt continued. “Bert’s like, ‘Yeah, nothing happened here, get over here.’ I said, ‘Okay, I’ll be there.’” Matt chuckled at the memory.
Even back in early 1994, Bert was in high demand as an expert witness. “He was everyone’s go-to-guy,” Matt Nardella stated. “The day a case was filed they would call him first.”
“He had a real desire,” Susan Howe, BHA’s Chief Executive Officer, said. “The primary way Bert worked on growing the business was by showing up, being prepared, and being full of ideas. If there was a problem or an issue, he would come up with a solution on how to handle it in the scope of what we were doing. He identified solutions and provided additional benefits to his clients. That’s how he grew the business, really. He grew each individual relationship.”
During that period, the type and scope of projects began to shift into a more diversified mix, including hotels, resorts, warehouses, storage facilities, restaurants, and more, though, at the time, BHA mainly provided expert witness support in construction defect cases involving attached housing developments, such as condominiums and townhomes.
Many of the other current key employees within the firm were hired during the mid-90s and continue with the firm today. Don MacGregor, John B. A. Mancini, and Jorge Porter were hired during this period. “The business was growing quickly and constantly from the moment I walked in the door,” Don MacGregor said, speaking of his early days with BHA. “Within just a few months of me being hired, the firm added six additional architects, engineers, and design professionals to meet client demands.”
Between 1995 and 1996, the company moved to a larger office (about 2,000 square feet), then added an additional 1,000 square feet of office space by adding on an adjoining unit. However, by 1997, James started looking for new, bigger office space. It was during this time that the firm’s current Chief Executive Officer joined the company.
Susan G. Howe left an executive position at a Newport Beach based business bank to focus her energy full time on the company's financial affairs and regulatory compliance issues.
When James walked in to what is now the firm’s Corporate Headquarters at 5415 E. La Palma in Anaheim Hills, it seemed enormous. At 5,500 square feet, it was twice the size of the modest current office. The space had previously been built out by American Express Travel Related Services.
In 1998, shortly after moving operations to Anaheim Hills, another key person in the BHA story joined the firm, Mark Chapman. "I remember interviewing Mark and feeling strongly that he was destined to become a recognized presence within this industry,” James Howe stated. “I was particularly intrigued with his dual credentials. Being a licensed professional engineer and a licensed general contractor provided the credibility he needed to speak to both civil engineering issues and general contracting or cost issues. This seemed like a win-win for the client. He was also a very strong negotiator coming in, and I respected that," James mused.
Mark recalled the recruitment process and his early discussions with James. "The job at BHA was different and intriguing enough to get me to make what ultimately turned out to be the right decision,” Mark stated. “I had been concerned with design for most of my career, but was interested in this highly specialized niche industry. I knew the industry existed, but it was still highly specialized at the time. I had no idea that I could make a career out of it. Nor did I realize that my skill set as an engineer and contractor was the perfect fit to handle the multi-faceted analysis that is sometimes required. The combination of design analysis, field work, meetings, and mediations turned out to be a refreshing career change.
"Working with Bert was a learning experience I will always remember and cherish,” Mark said. “He always said his door was open anytime I needed anything. When I did have a question, he would always take whatever time was needed to listen, think about it, and give me an answer. I was always impressed because not only did he always have an answer, it was always the right answer. Bert made me feel like family. I knew I had made it and gained his confidence when I walked into his office one day and asked his opinion and he simply said ‘You can handle it, I trust you.’ The past 16 years of my life have been the most rewarding personally and professionally. I owe it mostly to my experience at BHA, the Howe family's generosity, and my associates. It takes a great team to be successful. No one can do it by themselves.”
Soon enough, the once cavernous space was too small. The company was still growing, and arrangements were made to lease the adjoining unit, 5413, doubling the corporate office's footprint to a little over 12,000 square feet. James wondered if the firm would once again fill the new space: “Again, it seemed big at the time,” James said. “Somehow we filled it up, and now we’re busting out of it.”
John Springman joined BHA in June of 2000. John had worked with Bert throughout the years on several cases, John as the architectural expert and Bert as the general contracting/cost designee. They had worked so well together, that Bert spent a year or two recruiting him to join BHA.
By this time, Bert, Susan, and James had expanded their vision from only Bert as an expert witness, to BHA becoming a ‘multi-disciplinary’ firm with experts in differing fields. “At first, [Bert’s] primary form of testimony was cost estimating and standard of care for general contracting practices,” Susan said, “but he soon realized the value in developing a construction experts group comprising licensed architects, engineers, roofing and waterproofing experts, and building envelope specialists."
Susan explained how innovative the one-stop shop philosophy was back then. “[Bert] had not only to recruit John Springman and people like him, but we had to communicate the synergies, cost and productivity benefits to our existing client base, because it was innovative and different.”
However, it didn’t take long for BHA’s clients to reap the great benefits having access to a multi-disciplinary integrated support solution offered: “We were able to provide cost savings to our clients, because we were collecting the data and sharing it to all of the different disciplines within our own organization,” Susan said.
In the early 2000s, the projects began changing from condominium developer cases to single-family home cases. According to John, “The insurance industry started to write in exclusions for condominiums. Forced to go elsewhere for business, it went to single family homes.”
Also around this time, the Aas court decision changed the construction defect industry in California. The court ruled that you have to have damage to have a claim. “Just because a code wasn’t followed didn’t matter unless damage occurred from it,” John said. “It is under breach of contract and other things, but not negligence. Insurance covered negligence, so it took away insurance coverage. Then SB 800 [California’s Right to Repair Act] came about and took a lot of those things and brought them back in.”
While continuing to grow its California market, in 1999 BHA extended its reach into other regions beginning with Nevada and Arizona. By 2003, their reach extended to the east coast with satellite offices in Ohio, Kentucky, and South Carolina.
The types of projects BHA handled also diversified. BHA continued their work with production housing and condominiums and other attached housing, and they supplemented this work with cases involving high-rise and mid-rise buildings, hospitals, hotels, schools and universities, religious institutions, sprawling custom homes, retail complexes, as well as handling delay claims, premises liability, trip-and-fall cases, worker compensation files, and others.
Susan recalled one of BHA’s first international cases that involved a mining operation in Chile. “The core of it was construction defect, but our main job was design analysis and estimating on a really huge scale,” Susan said. The firm was engaged directly through AIG. “An adjuster there contacted Bert at the West Coast Casualty seminar, a few weeks later Bert and half of the office were in Santiago. It was a very memorable assignment; I remember the litigation part of the case was handled largely in the capital city of Santiago. But the mining operations were quite remote. Each of our employees had to undergo altitude testing prior to being performing site investigations at the mining and processing facilities.”
By 2010, BHA had grown to a staff of over forty associates, with satellite offices across the country to support the growing regional businesses. However, in September of 2011, BHA’s beloved founder and President Bert Howe passed away after suffering a heart attack.
While Bert’s presence is still missed by the associates and, most especially, his wife and son, the company was well-positioned to continue on. Susan explained that James for about five years before Bert’s death had been slowly deleveraging Bert from the business. “He was helping his father to be able to work less,” Susan stated. “And as a result of that, we had all these great people like Matt Nardella, John Springman, Mark Chapman, Brad Hughes, John Tolman, Charlie Miller, Jerry Miles, and others who had significant tenure with the firm. They had all worked very closely with Bert, and had really matured, and now they had a few extra gray hairs."
So what’s next for Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.? Susan sees greater technological changes, as well as diversification in the types of projects, and the ability to offer additional value added services to their clients.
James stated that BHA has the capability to competitively enter new markets providing a superior credibility, cost, and customer service proposition. “Leveraging from our smart office techniques, proprietary construction forensics technologies, and mature business processes, we could effectively go into any regional market as efficiently as any other company, more efficiently than most, and bring a great deal of value to clients with minimal capital investment in these various markets.”
James also sees more opportunities for career BHA employees who are ready to take on new responsibilities. “I would like to see, and I’m trying to create, new opportunities and challenges for people to continue to be upwardly mobile,” James said. “I am energized by the prospect of delivering additional value to clients, and providing additional opportunities for key people here to grow and improve their lives economically through the growth of the company."
BHA currently is comprised of sixty employees, serving clients throughout the U.S. with offices in Anaheim Hills, California; Sacramento, California; San Diego, California; Las Vegas, Nevada; Salt Lake City, Utah; Denver, Colorado; Phoenix, Arizona; Miami, Florida; Houston, Texas; and San Antonio, Texas.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
CC&Rs Not the Place for Arbitration Agreement, Court Rules
May 24, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFIn January, the California Court of Appeals ruled that an arbitration clause inserted in a development’s CC&Rs by the developer could not be enforced. The case, Villa Vicenza Homeowners Association v. Noble Court Development, involved a case in which, according to the opinion, “following the first sale Nobel controlled the board of directors of the Association and because the initial condominium buyers noticed defects in common areas and common facilities and did not believe Nobel had provided a reserve fund sufficient to repair the defects, the condominium owners brought a derivative action on behalf of the Association against Nobel.”
The court concluded, “The use of CC&R's as a means of providing contractual rights to parties with no interest in or responsibility for a common interest development is also problematic from the standpoint of determining what if any consideration would support such third-party agreements. By their terms the CC&R's bind all successors, even those with whom a third party such as Nobel has never had any contractual relationship and to whom Nobel has not provided any consideration.” The court determined that “the trial court did not err in denying Nobel's motion to compel arbitration.”
Read the court’s decision
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Montana Federal District Court Finds for Insurer in Pollution Coverage Dispute
October 24, 2021 —
Melanie A. McDonald - Saxe Doernberger & VitaApplying Louisiana law, a recent federal court decision exemplifies why policyholders should thoroughly read claims-made policies to understand when notice is due to insurers and truthfully complete policy applications. In Admiral Insurance Company v. Dual Trucking, Inc.,1 the Court determined the insurer, Admiral Insurance Company (“AIC”), owed no duty to defend or indemnify Dual Trucking and Transport, LLC (“DTT”), Dual Trucking of Montana, LLC (“DTM”), and Dual Trucking, Inc. (“DTI”) (collectively, the “Dual Entities”) under two Environmental Impairment Liability Policies (“EIL Policies”) and four Contractor Pollution Liability Policies (“CPL Policies”). The Court justified its decision because the Dual Entities: 1) did not give notice during the 2012-2013 EIL Policy period; 2) had discovered or knew of, but did not disclose, potential pollution conditions before the inception of the 2013-2014 EIL Policy and before the expiration of the extended reporting period of the 2012-2013 EIL Policy; 3) failed to provide AIC with notice during the extended reporting period of the 2013-2014 EIL Policy of claims for which the Dual Entities were seeking coverage; and 4) materially misrepresented known facts on the CPL Policy applications.
I. Factual Background.
The Dual Entities were Louisiana-based companies that provided oilfield equipment rental services. In 2011, the Dual Entities leased land in Montana under three leases, collectively referred to as “the Bainville site.” Shortly afterward, the Dual Entities applied for, and AIC issued, an EIL Policy and two CPL Policies with a policy period of October 1, 2012, to October 1, 2013. AIC renewed all three policies for the October 1, 2013, to October 1, 2014, policy period.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melanie A. McDonald, Saxe Doernberger & VitaMs. McDonald may be contacted at
MMcDonald@sdvlaw.com
Hunton Insurance Practice Again Scores “Tier 1” National Ranking in US News Best Law Firm Rankings
December 05, 2022 —
Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogOn November 3, 2022, US News announced its
annual law firm rankings, where Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP garnered the highest (Tier 1) ranking among national insurance law practices. Hunton’s insurance team also received Tier 1 honors for “Insurance Law” in three regions (Washington, DC, Atlanta and San Francisco) and Tier 2 honors for “Litigation – Insurance” in Washington, DC. US News ranks law firms in tiers from 1 (highest) to 3 (lowest) based on quantitative data that speaks to general demographic and background information on the practice group, attorneys and other data that speaks to the strengths of a law firm’s practice, as well as qualitative client feedback about:
- the practice group’s expertise,
- responsiveness,
- understanding of a business and its needs,
- cost-effectiveness,
- civility, and
- whether the client would refer another client to the firm.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
SEC Climate Change Disclosure Letter Foreshadows Anticipated Regulatory Changes
November 08, 2021 —
Karen C. Bennett & Jane C. Luxton - Lewis BrisboisWashington, D.C. (October 13, 2021) - In late September 2021, the Division of Corporation Finance of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a Sample Letter providing guidance to companies on how their climate disclosures will be analyzed for compliance with material risk reporting obligations. The Sample Letter precedes the SEC’s issuance of mandatory climate-related disclosure rules anticipated by year-end and signals a greater focus on specific information used to support securities filings, a development that businesses should take seriously.
The Sample Letter builds on climate change guidance the SEC issued in 2010 and identifies nine categories of disclosures the SEC suggests may be material risks that must be disclosed. These include:
- Consistency between a company’s corporate social responsibility report and its SEC filings;
- Risks associated with climate-related legislation, regulation, or policy, and resulting compliance costs;
- Litigation risks related to climate change; and
- Risks linked to an array of operational and market factors, including capital expenditures, continuity of business operations, supply chain stability, changing demand, reputation, availability of credit and insurance, and other climate-change related potential impacts on the financial condition of the company.
Reprinted courtesy of
Karen C. Bennett, Lewis Brisbois and
Jane C. Luxton, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Luxton may be contacted at Jane.Luxton@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
