Who is a “Contractor” as Used in “Unlicensed Contractor”?
June 08, 2020 —
Taylor Orgeron - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLPA recent Georgia Court of Appeals case established a rule concerning the effect of an unlicensed contractor failing to disclose that he is unlicensed. In Fleetwood v. Lucas,[1] the contractor was hired by the homeowners to perform renovations on two homes. One of the projects went over budget, and the homeowners failed to pay the remaining balances on both projects. Following their failure to pay, the contractor sued the homeowners for breach of contract, and the jury delivered a verdict in his favor. The homeowners appealed on the grounds that the contractor was barred from bringing suit because the contractor did not have a license to perform the work.
Generally, if a contractor does not have a residential or general contractor’s license but performs work when a license is required, the contract is unenforceable. O.C.G.A. § 43-41-17(b). However, under O.C.G.A. § 43-41-17(g), a contractor may perform repair work without a license if the contractor discloses that he does not have a license, and the work does not affect the structural integrity of the project. In this case, the contractor failed to disclose that he did not have a license.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Taylor Orgeron, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLPMr. Orgeron may be contacted at
orgeron@ahclaw.com
Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal Secured by Lewis Brisbois in Coverage Dispute Involving San Francisco 49ers’ Levi Stadium
May 31, 2021 —
Kristen Perkins & Jordon Harriman - Lewis Brisbois NewsroomFort Lauderdale Partner and Vice Chair of Lewis Brisbois’ Insurance Coverage & Bad Faith Litigation Practices Kristen D. Perkins and Los Angeles Partner Jordon E. Harriman had their district court victory confirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit when it affirmed the lower court’s ruling that Lewis Brisbois’ client, an excess insurer, had no duty to defend or indemnify a construction joint venture in a lawsuit filed by San Francisco 49ers fans.
Underlying Case and Lewis Brisbois’ Successful Motion to Dismiss
In the underlying matter, 49ers fans filed a proposed class action against the team, alleging that the team’s home venue, Levi Stadium, violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the state's Unruh Civil Rights Act because it contained physical barriers that hindered access for disabled people. The 49ers subsequently filed a third-party complaint against the construction joint venture that built the stadium, contending that the joint venture’s negligence caused the inaccessibility, and that if the team was held liable for the fans' claims, the joint venture should be obligated to indemnify the team under the terms of the stadium contract.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kristen Perkins, Lewis Brisbois and
Jordon Harriman, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Perkins may be contacted at Kristen.Perkins@lewisbrisbois.com
Mr. Harriman may be contacted at Jordon.Harriman@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pennsylvania Superior Court Fires up a Case-By-Case Analysis for Landlord-Tenant, Implied Co-Insured Questions
February 03, 2020 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn Joella v. Cole, 2019 PA Super. 313, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently considered whether a tenant, alleged by the landlord’s property insurance carrier to have carelessly caused a fire, was an implied co-insured on the landlord’s policy. The court found that the tenant was an implied co-insured because the lease stated that the landlord would procure insurance for the building, which created a reasonable expectation that the tenant would be a co-insured under the policy. Since the tenant was an implied co-insured on the policy, the insurance carrier could not maintain a subrogation action against the tenant. This case confirms that Pennsylvania follows a case-by-case approach when determining whether a tenant was an implied co-insured on a landlord’s insurance policy.
The Joella case stems from a fire at an apartment building in Northampton County, Pennsylvania. The landlord’s property insurance carrier paid the landlord $180,000 to repair the damages resulting from the fire. In March 2018, the insurer brought a subrogation action against Annie Cole, a tenant in the building, alleging that Ms. Cole’s negligent use of an extension cord caused the fire. Ms. Cole raised the affirmative defense that she was an implied co-insured on the landlord’s insurance policy. The subrogating insurer filed a partial motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss Ms. Cole’s defense. In response, Ms. Cole filed a cross motion for partial judgment, arguing that because the lease specified that the landlord would maintain fire insurance for the building, there was a reasonable expectation that she would be a co-insured on that policy. The trial court found in favor of Ms. Cole, holding that the landlord’s insurer could not maintain a subrogation action against her because she was an implied co-insured of the landlord’s insurance policy under the terms of the lease. The landlord’s insurer filed an appeal with the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and WilliamsMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
Insurer's Failure to Settle Does Not Justify Multiple Damages under Unfair Claims Settlement Law
February 04, 2013 —
Tred R. EyerlyAlthough the insurer failed to understand the pertinent law that mandated coverage under the policy, its actions did not rise to an unfair claim settlement practice justifying multiple damages. Gelwan v. Vermont Mut. Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. app. LEXIS 210 (2nd Cir. Jan. 4, 2013).
In 1999, a contractor re-roofed the insureds' home. The job was poorly done, and an imperfect seal was created. Over several years, various structures within the house were damaged by water, which caused the rotting of structural beams and joists.
The insureds sued for coverage under their homeowners policy.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred Eyerlyte@hawaiilawyer.com
New Safety Requirements added for Keystone Pipeline
June 11, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAfter learning about construction defects on the “southern leg of the Canada-to-Texas project,” safety regulators have added two additional conditions “on construction of TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL oil pipeline,” according to Claims Journal. The defects, which have been fixed, included “high rates of bad welds, dented pipe and damaged pipeline coating.”
The first condition requires “TransCanada to hire a third-party contractor chosen by the pipeline safety agency to monitor the construction” and report to the U.S. government, while the second condition requires “TransCanada to adopt a quality management program.”
Both conditions were “buried near the end of the 26 appendices in a voluminous environmental impact statement on Keystone XL released by the State Department on Jan. 31.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Manhattan Condo Lists for Record $150 Million
February 18, 2015 —
Oshrat Carmiel – Bloomberg(Bloomberg) -- Manhattan’s ultra-luxury condo market has a new high-water mark: $150 million.
That’s the price set by developer Chetrit Group for a 21,500-square-foot (2,000-square-meter) triplex at the former Sony Building in Midtown, according to documents filed with the New York State attorney general’s office. It would be a record for a residential listing, topping a $130 million offering planned at Zeckendorf Development Co.’s 520 Park Ave.
As luxury apartments proliferate in Manhattan, builders are offering their premier units at ever-higher prices as a way of standing out from the crowd, said Jonathan Miller, president of New York appraiser Miller Samuel Inc. So far, the highest price ever paid for a condominium in the city is $100.5 million, a deal completed in December for a duplex penthouse at the One57 tower.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Oshrat Carmiel, BloombergMs. Carmiel may be contacted at
ocarmiel1@bloomberg.net
Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment in Landis v. Fannin Builders
April 20, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFThe Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in Landis v. William Fannin Builders. Landis contracted Fannin Builders to build their home. The case involved staining problems on the T1-11 siding chosen by the plaintiffs.
After a year and a half of discussion on how to resolve the problem of uneven staining on the siding, Landis filed suit “against Fannin Builders, alleging claims for breach of contract, breach of the express limited warranty, and violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (“OCSPA”). Fannin Builders, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against 84 Lumber, alleging claims for breach of contract and indemnification. With the trial court’s leave, Fannin Builders also later amended its answer to add a counterclaim against appellees for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. In the counterclaim, Fannin Builders alleged that appellees still owed it $3,908.98 for the construction of appellees’ home.”
“In its decision, the trial court found in appellees’ favor on their breach of contract claim and against appellees on their claims for breach of the express limited warranty and violation of the OCSPA. Additionally, the trial court found in Fannin Builders’ favor on its counterclaim for breach of contract and against Fannin Builders on its third-party claims for breach of contract and indemnity. The trial court determined that appellees’ damages amounted to $66,906.24, and after setting off the $3,908.98 that appellees owed Fannin Builders under the construction contract, the trial court awarded appellees $62,997.26. The trial court reduced its decision to judgment on May 18, 2010.”
Fannin Builders appealed this judgment and assigned the following errors:
[1.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant Breached its Contract with Appellees when it provided a Semi-Transparent Oil-Based Stain that Simply did not Meet their Approval.
[a.] The Contract does not Contain a Satisfaction Clause.
[b.] Even if the Court Implies a Satisfaction Clause, the Court Should Apply an Objective Standard.
[2.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Failing to Consider Appellant’s Right to Cure.
[3.] The Trial Court committed Reversible Error by not Assessing Damages Using “Diminished Value Standard,” and by Creating a Remedy that Constitutes Economic Waste.
[4.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant is Barred from Seeking Indemnification When 84 [Lumber] Never Fulfilled its Obligations Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement Entered on August 2, 2005.
In response to the first assigned error, the Court of Appeals stated: “Because the failure to provide siding of a uniform color, not appellees’ displeasure, breached the contract, we reject Fannin Builders’ contention that the trial court implied a satisfaction clause into the contract and found a breach of that clause. Accordingly, we overrule Fannin Builders’ first assignment of error.”
The Court of Appeals overruled the second assignment of error and provided the following reasoning: “Although Fannin Builders depends upon a term of the limited warranty for its right to cure, the trial court concluded that no breach of the limited warranty occurred. Fannin Builders breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIA’s Quality Standards. Consequently, the limited warranty does not apply to this case, and thus, it does not prevent appellees’ recovery of damages.”
The Appeals Court found “the trial court’s award of damages” was “both reasonable and supported by competent, credible evidence,” and therefore concluded “that the trial court did not err in setting appellees’ damages at $62,997.26.” The Fannin Builders third assignment of error was overruled.
The fourth and final assignment of error was also overruled by the Court of Appeals. “While Fannin Builders correctly asserts that 84 Lumber never installed the replacement siding, it ignores the fact that it ordered 84 Lumber to remove the replacement siding from appellees’ property. Thus, Fannin Builders precluded 84 Lumber from completely performing under the August 2, 2005 letter agreement. […] Consequently, Fannin Builders cannot now claim that the letter agreement is unenforceable or that it is entitled to indemnification from 84 Lumber. Because Fannin Builders assumed all liability for the defective siding in the letter agreement, it is responsible for appellees’ damages.”
James A. Zitesman, Columbus, Ohio Business Attorney, compared the case to Jones v. Centex (Ohio App. 2010), which had a different verdict:
“The common thread is the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the Jones case, the Court found that the buyers had in fact waived all implied warranties, including the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the contract between Jones and Centex, the builder stated that it “…would not sell the property to Purchasers without this waiver.” Probably should have been a sign to the buyers.
In the Landis case, the Court stated, “Contracts for the future construction of a residence include a duty, implied by law, that the builder must perform its work in a workmanlike manner.” The Court gave significant weight to the concept of the implied warranty of good workmanship. The builder relied upon the BIA Warranty which limits builders’ liability and exposure to legal issues. The trial court concluded there was no breach of the limited warranty, rather the builder “breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIAs Quality Standards.”
The Supreme Court of Ohio has accepted the Jones v. Centex Homes case for review.
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
U.K. Construction Unexpectedly Strengthens for a Second Month
March 05, 2015 —
Bloomberg News(Bloomberg) -- U.K. construction growth unexpectedly accelerated for a second month in February, led by a strengthening in homebuilding.
Markit Economics said its Purchasing Managers’ Index rose to 60.1, the highest in four months, from 59.1 in January. It fell to a 17-month low of 57.6 in December. Economists forecast the gauge would slip to 59 in February, according to the median estimate in a Bloomberg News survey.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bloomberg NewsScott Hamilton may be contacted at
shamilton8@bloomberg.net
