Design Professionals Owe a Duty of Care to Homeowners
July 09, 2014 —
Stephen A. Sunseri - Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLPToday, the California Supreme Court, in Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP (Jul. 3, 2014, S208173) __Cal.4th__ [2014 WL 2988058], held that architects owe a duty of care to future homeowners of residential buildings, particularly if they act as principal architects on a project, and are not subordinate to any other design professional. Until now, design professionals were rarely held liable, if at all, for third-party claims for design deficiencies.
In Beacon, architectural and engineering firms provided sole design services for The Beacon residential condominium project, a 595 unit project located in San Francisco. The condominiums were initially leased after construction, but were eventually sold to individual owners. The design firms claimed their role was limited to only providing design recommendations to the project's owner, who ultimately controlled and directed which design elements to construct. Not long after completion of the project, the homeowners' association sued the design firms (among others) for construction defects and damages related to alleged water infiltration, inadequate fire separations, structural cracks, and other purported safety hazards. The claims included allegations under SB 800 (the "Right to Repair Act," Civil Code §895, et seq.) and common law negligence theories.
The design firms demurred to the complaint, which the trial court sustained. On appeal, however, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's ruling, concluding that the design firms owed a duty of care to third parties. The Supreme Court affirmed.
Historically, liability for deficient goods and services hinged on whether there is a contractual relationship between a buyer and seller. However, the Supreme Court recognized that in certain circumstances a contractual relationship is not required. In its ruling, the Supreme Court relied on fifty year old precedent, Biankanja v. Irving (1958) 49 Cal.2d 647. In Biankanja, the California Supreme Court outlined several factors to determine whether a duty of care is owed to non-contracting third parties. Although Biankanja analyzes many factors, emphasis was placed placed on whether a purported harm was foreseeable by a defendant's conduct and how close of a connection there is between that conduct and an injury.
Here, the Court recognized that even though the design firms did not actually build the project, they did conduct weekly inspections, monitored contractor compliance, altered design elements when issues arose, and advised the owners of any nonconforming work. In applying the Biankanja factors to these circumstances, the Supreme Court determined the homeowners were intended beneficiaries of the design work and the design firms' primary role in the project bore a close connection to the alleged injuries. As a result, the Supreme Court held that the allegations in the complaint were sufficient and, if proven, establishes the defendants owed a duty of care to the homeowners' association.
Interestingly, the Supreme Court sidestepped the issue of whether SB 800 was intended to exclusively capture design defects in its scope, even though the Court indicated it may. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court's ruling is significant. The case will affect how design professionals allocate risk on future residential projects, perhaps by raising design prices or insuring around the liability exposure. The likely outcome, however, is that design professionals are now targets in construction defect lawsuits.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stephen A. Sunseri, Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLPMr. Sunseri may be contacted at
ssunseri@gdandb.com
Lucky No. 7: Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Issues Pro-Policyholder Decision Regarding Additional Insured Coverage for Upstream Parties
November 02, 2020 —
Daniela Aguila - Saxe Doernberger & VitaIn Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Columbia Ins. Group, Inc,1 the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that a subcontractor’s insurer was obligated to defend and indemnify the project owner’s insurer for damages associated with the subcontractor's employee's personal injury lawsuit where the underlying complaint alleged negligence by the additional insureds. The case cements the notion that under Illinois law, one can significantly benefit from the facts presented in third party complaints as a basis for additional insured coverage.
Rockwell Properties (“Rockwell”) was the project owner, along with Prairie Management & Development (“Prairie”), the general contractor, on a construction project in Chicago. Prairie subcontracted HVAC services to TDH Mechanical (“TDH”). When an employee of TDH Mechanical sustained serious injuries performing work at a construction site, a suit was lodged against Rockwell and Prairie in state court. The lawsuit did not bring any claims against TDH but instead alleged that both Rockwell and Prairie had negligently failed to supervise the subcontractors’ work on-site, thus contributing to the worker’s injuries.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniela Aguila, Saxe Doernberger & VitaMs. Aguila may be contacted at
dag@sdvlaw.com
Traub Lieberman Attorneys Lisa M. Rolle and Justyn Verzillo Win Motion for Summary Judgment
December 23, 2024 —
Lisa M. Rolle & Justyn Verzillo - Traub LiebermanIn this subrogation action brought in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Dutchess County, Traub Lieberman attorneys Lisa M. Rolle and Justyn Verzillo successfully obtained dismissal of a third-party complaint against their client, a fire-system protection company. In the underlying case, a fire sprinkler system within a commercial building leaked water into multiple tenant spaces, causing damage. The tenants’ insurers alleged that they each paid several hundred thousand dollars to cover their insureds’ claims. The insurers then filed complaints against the company which originally installed the sprinkler (the “Installer”), asserting that the company breached its duty of care. The Installer commenced a third-party action against the property owner and two fire-system protection companies—including Traub Lieberman’s client—who had separately conducted annual inspections of the sprinkler system over the years. The property owner and the two fire-system protection companies each asserted cross-claims against each other.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman and
Justyn Verzillo, Traub Lieberman
Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Verzillo may be contacted at jverzillo@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hawaii Court Finds No Bad Faith, But Negligent Misrepresentation Claim Survives Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Action
November 06, 2013 —
Tred Eyerly — Insurance Law HawaiiJudge Mollway, U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Hawaii, found the insurer was not in bad faith for allegedly leading its insured to believe that construction defects would be covered under the policy. The court, however, allowed the insured's negligent misrepresentation claim to survive summary judgment. Ill Nat'l Ins. Co v. Nordic PCL Constr., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151748 (D. Haw. Oct. 22, 2013).
The insurer denied coverage when Nordic was sued for construction defects related to its construction of two Safeway stores in Honolulu. Prior to the issuance of the policies the Ninth Circuit had issued its opinion in Burlington Ins. Co. v .Oceanic Design & Constr., Inc., 398 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2004), which predicted that Hawaii appellate courts would rule that construction defects were not "occurrences." Nevertheless, Nordic's witnesses contended when the policies were purchased, they believed construction defects were covered. Specifically, Nordic thought the policies provided completed operations coverage for property damage arising out of Nordic's subcontractors' work.
Nordic further contended that only after the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals decided in Group Builders, Inc. v. Admiral Ins .Co., 123 Haw. 142 (Haw. Ct. App. 2010) that construction defect claims did not constitute an "occurrence" did the insurer change its position and decide the policies did not cover construction defects.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred EyerlyTred Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Chambers USA 2020 Ranks White and Williams as a Leading Law Firm
June 15, 2020 —
White and Williams LLPWhite and Williams is once again recognized by Chambers USA as a leading law firm in Pennsylvania for achievements and client service in the area of insurance law. In addition, four lawyers received individual honors – two for their work in insurance, one for his work in banking and finance and another for his work in commercial litigation.
White and Williams is acknowledged for its renowned practice offering expert representation to insurers and reinsurers across an impressive range of areas including coverage, bad faith litigation and excess liability. The firm is recognized for its notable strength in transactional and regulatory matters, complemented by its adroit handling of complex alternative dispute resolution proceedings and is described as "reasoned and respectful." Chambers also acknowledged the firm's broad trial capabilities, including handling data privacy, professional liability and toxic tort coverage claims as well as its experience in substantial claims arising from bodily injury and wrongful death suits. White and Williams' cross-disciplinary team is also highlighted, characterized for "work[ing] well together and provid[ing] exceptional representation."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams LLP
The Construction Industry's Health Kick
October 02, 2018 —
Erin Ansley - Construction ExecutiveThe construction industry appears to be on a health kick, and by all accounts it isn’t a fad. Trends identified in recent years in the health care sector are strengthening with a surge of new projects nationwide.
“All parts of the country are experiencing significant health care design and construction activity,” observes Hank Adams, HDR’s global director of health. “We’re expecting continued growth into the near future and feel optimistic that the marketplace will continue to be strong.”
Modern urban planning strategies, engineering advancements and sophisticated design take center stage as oversized hospitals serving large patient populations within a 100-mile radius make way for more specialized centers that target the overall wellness of the local community.
Reprinted courtesy of
Erin Ansley, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman Partner Greg Pennington and Associate Kevin Sullivan Win Summary Judgment Dismissing Homeowner’s Claim that Presented an Issue of First Impression in New Jersey
December 02, 2019 —
Gregory S. Pennington & Kevin Sullivan - Traub LiebermanOn July 12, 2019, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP’s Gregory S. Pennington and Kevin Sullivan secured summary judgment dismissing a homeowner’s claim for damaged flooring. The claim at issue arose from the homeowners’ attempt to discard their refrigerator. In the process of removing the refrigerator, the homeowners scratched their kitchen and dining room floors. The homeowners made a claim under their homeowners policy for the cost to repair and replace the damaged flooring. Their homeowners’ insurer denied their claim based on a policy exclusion barring coverage for damage consisting of or caused by marring and scratching. When their insurer denied coverage, the homeowners filed suit in the New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division in Bergen County. The case presented the issue of first impression in New Jersey of whether a homeowner’s self-inflicted, but accidental damaging of its own floors was barred by the homeowner’s policy’s marring or scratching exclusion. Greg and Kevin successfully argued that the exclusion applied to bar coverage.
Reprinted courtesy of
Gregory S. Pennington, Traub Lieberman and
Kevin Sullivan, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Pennington may be contacted at gpennington@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at ksullivan@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Filing Motion to Increase Lien Transfer Bond (Before Trial Court Loses Jurisdiction Over Final Judgment)
May 15, 2023 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIf a construction lien is recorded against real property, the lien can be transferred to a lien transfer bond. This transfers the security or collateral of the construction lien from the real property to the lien transfer bond. The lien transfer bond can be a bond posted by a surety company or it can be cash. This is governed by Florida Statute s. 713.24. The amount of the lien does not dictate the amount of the lien transfer bond. Rather, the lien transfer bond needs to be in the amount of the lien, plus interest on that amount for three years, plus $1,000 or 25% of the amount of the lien (whichever is greater so factor in the 25%) to cover attorney’s fees. Fla. Stat. 713.24(1).
If you are looking to transfer a construction lien to a lien transfer bond, make sure to consult with counsel.
Keep in mind there is a statutory mechanism for a lienor to increase the lien transfer bond to cover attorney’s fees and costs and notice the word “must” in the statute below. Pursuant to Florida Statute s. 713.24(3):
Any party having an interest in such security or the property from which the lien was transferred may at any time, and any number of times, file a complaint in chancery in the circuit court of the county where such security is deposited, or file a motion in a pending action to enforce a lien, for an order to require additional security, reduction of security, change or substitution of sureties, payment of discharge thereof, or any other matter affecting said security. If the court finds that the amount of the deposit or bond in excess of the amount claimed in the claim of lien is insufficient to pay the lienor’s attorney’s fees and court costs incurred in the action to enforce the lien, the court must increase the amount of the cash deposit or lien transfer bond. Nothing in this section shall be construed to vest exclusive jurisdiction in the circuit courts over transfer bond claims for nonpayment of an amount within the monetary jurisdiction of the county courts.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
