Do Construction Contracts and Fraud Mix After All?
October 27, 2016 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsOn several occasions here at Construction Law Musings, I’ve discussed the fact that, with a few exceptions, fraud claims and written construction contract based claims do not mix. One of the exceptions to the so called “economic loss rule” that would seem to preclude both fraud and contract claims in the same lawsuit is where fraud is used to induce the contract in the first place. This exception would only apply where an independent duty, wholly outside of the duties created by the contract, is properly plead and proven to the court. For the same reason, namely a separate duty outside of the contract, the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (“VCPA”) may allow for an exception that would allow a cause of action under this statute.
Up until recently, the courts of Virginia have used these exceptions sparingly. However, the recent Loudoun County, VA Circuit Court opinion in Interbuild, Inc. v. Sayers (opinion also found at Virginia Lawyers Weekly) may signal a broadening of these exceptions. In the Interbuild case, the Court considered a claim for fraud in the inducement and breach of the VCPA. The basic facts plead by the plaintiffs were that Interbuild induced them into the contract through statements that it had been an established business since 1981, the project did not require a building permit, it had obtained all necessary subcontractor prices and would provide full-time project supervision, the project would be completed within 16 weeks, 4000 PSI concrete would be used for the project and that the project would be located in the agreed-upon area depicted and that they reasonably relied on these representations in deciding to enter into the contract to build their recreational facility.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PCMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Delaware Court Holds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship
May 07, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiA Delaware trial court found that the carrier properly denied coverage to a contractor who allegedly caused property damage due to faulty workmanship. Westfield Ins. Co., Inc. v. Miranda & Hardt Contracting and Building Serv., L.L.C., 2015 Del. Super. LEXIS 160 (Del. Super. Ct. March 30, 2015).
In 2004 and 2005, Miranda built a home pursuant to a contract with Fenwick Ventures, LLC. The homeowners purchased the home from Fenwick in 2006. In 2012, the homeowners contacted Fenwick to complain about defects in the home's construction. In 2014, the homeowners filed a complaint against Fenwick and Miranda.
The lawsuit alleged that during the construction of the home, Miranda used inadequate building materials, improperly installed building materials, violated building codes, and fraudulently represented that the home was properly constructed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Trends: “Nearshoring” Opportunities for the Construction Industry
July 22, 2024 —
Jerry P. Brodsky & Roberto Hernandez - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.“Nearshoring” is a hot topic throughout Latin America and is receiving increasing attention in the United States. We offer this introduction to “Nearshoring” and the opportunities it presents for your reference.
“Nearshoring” has become increasingly relevant in the context of the globalized economy. This phenomenon describes relocating production and service operations to countries geographically close to consumer markets, instead of opting for more distant locations as in traditional “offshoring”, considering, as dominant criteria, production conditions and costs.
Mexico, for example, given its strategic geographic closeness to the United States and its highly skilled labor force, is an attractive location for companies in a wide range of industries which are considering relocation or construction of new facilities and seeking to optimize costs, maintain efficiency and mitigate supply chain risks.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jerry P. Brodsky, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Roberto Hernandez, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Brodsky may be contacted at jbrodsky@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
St. Mary & St. John Coptic Orthodox Church v. SBS Insurance Services, Inc.
January 18, 2021 —
Michael Velladao - Lewis BrisboisIn St. Mary & St. John Coptic Orthodox Church v. SBS Insurance Services, Inc., ----Cal.App.5th--- (November 23, 2020), the California First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's entry of judgment in favor of SBC Insurance Services ("SBC") regarding a claim for water damage sustained by a residence owned by St. Mary & John Coptic Church ("St. Mary") under property coverage afforded by a policy issued by Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company ("Philadelphia"). The policy was procured by SBC on behalf of St. Mary. Philadelphia denied coverage of the claim based on the vacancy exclusion in its policy, but entered into a settlement and loan receipt agreement, whereby St. Mary gave Philadelphia the right to control litigation in St. Mary’s name against SBC or third parties who might be liable for the loss in exchange for a loan of money to repair and remediate the damage sustained by the residence. The loan was to be repaid out of any recovery made against SBC or third parties. After a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of SBC and held that the vacancy exclusion was ambiguous. Essentially, the exclusion did not apply to the time period prior to the time St. Mary purchased the residence, such that the 60-day vacancy requirement could not be satisfied. The trial court reasoned that since St. Mary did not have an insurable interest in the property before it purchased the property, the 60-day requirement did not include the period before such residence was purchased and St. Mary held an insurable interest.
The parties’ dispute arose of out of the Pope of the Coptic Church requesting St. Mary to purchase a home to be used as his papal residence in the Western United States. St. Mary also intended to use the home as a residence for visiting bishops. The home was purchased on May 28, 2015. As part of the purchase, SBC placed the home under St. Mary’s commercial policy, rather than purchasing a separate homeowner’s policy for the residence. Subsequently, the home sustained water damage due to a broken pipe. The water damage was discovered on July 24, 2015, 57 days after the inception of the Philadelphia policy and the loss. St. Mary tendered the property loss to Philadelphia, which denied coverage of the claim based on the reasoning that the home had been vacant for 60 consecutive days prior to the loss. Subsequently, St. Mary filed suit against SBC after securing the loan receipt agreement with Philadelphia based on the argument that the vacancy exclusion barred coverage of the claim and SBC breached its duty of care by not securing the proper coverage of the home. The trial court entered judgment in favor of SBC finding that the vacancy exclusion did not apply to bar coverage of the loss, such that SBC did not breach its duty of care owed to St. Mary as its broker.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Velladao, Lewis BrisboisMr. Velladao may be contacted at
Michael.Velladao@lewisbrisbois.com
Implied Warranties for Infrastructure in Florida Construction Defect Claims
December 30, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe homeowners in the Lakeview development built by Maronda Homes in Orange County, Florida started having water and drainage problems shortly after the homeowners association took control of the community. They fought their case all the way to the Florida Supreme Court, where the question was whether implied warranties of fitness covered the community’s infrastructure.
William Martin III, writing on the DestinLog, notes that previous Florida Supreme Court decisions went the other way. In a case involving a seawall, the court held that “unless the seawall was part of or in connection with the construction of a home or in support of a residence.” In the Lakeview case, they determined that the community’s infrastructure was just that: “essential to the habitability of the residence.” The court specifically included roads for ingress and egress, drainage systems to divert flooding, retention ponds to correct water flow damage, and underground pipes which are necessary for living accommodations.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Biden's Next 100 Days: Major Impacts Expected for the Construction Industry
May 10, 2021 —
Tom Ichniowski, Pam Radtke Russell & Bruce Buckley - Engineering News-RecordAs President Joe Biden’s busy first 100 days in office—which included enactment of a $1.9-trillion pandemic rescue bill and proposals for two other massive measures—wrap up, the months ahead also are expected to generate plenty of legislative and regulatory action with major impact for the construction sector.
Reprinted courtesy of
Tom Ichniowski, ENR,
Pam Radtke Russell, ENR and
Bruce Buckley, ENR
Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com
Ms. Russell may be contacted at Russellp@bnpmedia.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Study Finds Mansion Tax Reduced Sales in New York and New Jersey
May 13, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFA study by two Columbia University economists demonstrated that “the extra 1% ‘mansion’ tax New York state and New Jersey impose on home sales above $1 million actually reduce[d] the number of total real estate transactions, in addition” it pushed “home sales that might have taken place for above $1 million to below that threshold,” Forbes reported.
The “mansion” tax only occurs when the residential sale is above $1 million, “meaning a buyer who pays $999,999 for a house, condo or coop would owe no mansion tax.”
The study showed a “dramatic” gap “in sales of homes for between $1 million and $1,040,000 (with more sales missing in that range than bunched just below $1 million).” The economists’ concluded that “the mansion tax causes an ‘unraveling’ effect, actually disrupting some sales of properties that would otherwise have taken place.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brown Paint Doesn’t Cover Up Construction Defects
April 25, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFIn a decision that describes the case as illustrating “the perils that real estate brokers and their agents assume when acting as a dual listing agent to both the buyers and sellers of the same house,” the California Court of Appeals has issued a decision in William L. Lyon & Associates v. The Superior Court of Placer County. Lyon & Associates sought summary judgment to dismiss the claims of the Henleys who bought a home in a transaction where a Lyon agent represented both sides.
The prior owners of the home, the Costas, had used a Lyon agent in purchasing their home. When they later sought to sell it, that agent “became aware of some of the house’s defects and problems.” In response, the Costas sought the help of another agent, Connie Gidal, also of Lyons & Associates. Photos taken in the presence of Ms. Gidal show defects of the paint and stucco. The Costas also took the step of painting the house dark brown. During the sale process, “rain caused many of the painted-over defects to reappear.” The Costas “purchased more dark brown paint and covered up the newly visible damage prior to inspection by the Henleys.”
With the damage concealed, the Henleys bought the home in May 2006. The agreement with Lyons & Associates noted that “a dual agent is obligated to disclose known facts materially affecting the value or desirability of the property to both parties.” Escrow closed on May 9, 2006. The contract with the broker included a two-year limit on the time to bring legal action.
The Henleys moved in during June 2006, and “began to discover construction defects that had been concealed by the Costas.” In addition to the painted-over stucco problems, the Henleys found that the Costas had “installed quartzite stone overlays on the backyard steps in a manner that caused water intrusion on the house’s stucco walls.”
In May 2009, the Henleys sued the Costas, Ron McKim Construction, Lyons & Associates, and Ms. Gidal. Their complaint alleged that Lyons & Associates had committed breach of contact, negligence, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent nondisclosure in connection with the construction defects. The Costas named Lyons in a cross complaint. Lyons moved for summary judgments on the grounds that the two-year statute of limitations had expired before the complaint and cross-complaint were filed. Both the Henleys and the Costas opposed this claim. The court denied the motion and Lyons appealed.
The appeals court upheld the denial, noting that the both California Supreme Court decision and later action by the legislature compels real estate brokers and salespersons “to conduct a reasonably competent and diligent visual inspection of the property offered for sale.” The court noted that under California law, brokers have responsibilities to both sellers and buyers. The section of law cited by Lyons applies to seller’s agents. The court rejected the contention by Lyons that they were “cooperating brokers.” The Henleys were “not constrained by the two-year statute of limitations.”
Lyons contended that even if California’s statute did not apply, there was a contractual limit of two years. The court also rejected this, agreeing with the Henleys that “the two-year limitation period must be extended by the discovery rule.”
The court noted that “Lyon & Associates may not reap the benefit of a shortened contractual limitation period when its own alleged malfeasance contributed to the delay in the discovery of the buyer’s injury.” The court found that the Henleys could proceed with their breach of contract claim, because, “when a breach of contract is committed in secret, such as the intentional nondisclosure of a real estate broker regarding a previously visible construction defect, the contractual limitations period is properly held subject to the discovery rule.” The court felt that the interpretation favored by the California Association of Realtors would “halve the applicable statute of limitations period.”
In addition to rejecting Lyon request for summary judgment on the claims made by the Henleys, the court also rejected the request of summary judgment on the claims made by the Costas, concluding that neither claim is time-barred. Costs were awarded to both the Henleys and Costas.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
