Sellers of South Florida Mansion Failed to Disclose Construction Defects
October 08, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFA couple who reportedly sold their custom, beach-front home on Golden Beach for more money than any other home in that town previously, may have failed to disclose construction defects, according to Daily Business Review.
The original owners, reported Daily Business Review, claimed (according to court documents) that “they were ‘unable to spend even one night because an overwhelming smell of mold in the home triggered a severe reaction in Mrs. Hochberg.’" They also alleged the new home had “cracked walls, drafty doors, leaky windows, poorly cut marble and peeling stucco.” The owners sued the subcontractors, but lost due to not filing within the four-year statute of limitations.
While water leaks were disclosed during the sale with a notation that all leaks had been repaired, “the extent of the home's repair history was not discussed during nearly eight months of haggling over the property, the buyer's broker said.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Top Five General Tips for All Construction Contracts
October 26, 2020 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsFor this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Musings we welcome Spencer Wiegard. Spencer is a Partner with Gentry Locke Rakes & Moore, LLP. He is a member of the firm’s Construction Law and Commercial Litigation practice groups. Spencer focuses his practice in the areas of construction law and construction litigation. Spencer is a member of the Board of Governors for the Virginia State Bar Construction Law and Public Contracts Section, and a member of the Legislative Committee of the Associated General Contractors of Virginia and the Executive Committee for the Roanoke/SW Virginia District of the Associated General Contractors of Virginia.
I would like to thank Chris for inviting me to author today’s guest post. Over the past few days, I have found myself wading through the terms and conditions of a lengthy and complicated construction contract, while at the same time aggressively negotiating for Houston house leveling cost readjustments. As I slogged through the legalese, I was reminded of a presentation that I gave earlier this year to the Roanoke District of the Virginia Associated General Contractors. The district’s executive committee asked me to speak to its members concerning the broad topic of “Construction Contracts 101.” At the beginning of my presentation, I passed along my top five general tips for all construction contracts. Although some of these tips may sound like common sense, I often encounter situations where these basic rules are violated by experienced contractors, subcontractors, suppliers and design professionals. My top five general tips for all construction contracts are:
- Reduce the terms of the agreement to writing.
- The written agreement should include all important and relevant information and terms. If it was important enough to discuss prior to signing the contract, it is important enough to include in the written contract;
- At a minimum, include who, what, when, where, how, and how much;
- Both parties should sign the written agreement; and
- Don’t ignore handwritten changes to the contract, as these changes may either mean that you don’t have a deal, or they may become part of the contract when you sign it.
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
California Builders’ Right To Repair Is Alive
March 19, 2014 — David J. Byassee - Ulich & Terry LLP
The California Supreme Court surprised everyone on December 11, 2013 when it denied Brookfield Homes’ request for review of the ruling in the case of Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC (2014) 219 Cal.App.4th 98, which was decided by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District Division Three (Orange County). In that case the Court of Appeal held that the Right to Repair Act aka SB800 is not the exclusive remedy for a homeowner seeking damages for construction defects that have resulted in property damage. Under the ruling, homeowners may choose to sue builders under common law theories of liability such as strict liability and negligence, in addition to liability under the Act. This ruling made homeowners' compliance with the prelitigation requirements of the Act optional and thereby put builders' “right to repair” in jeopardy. The ruling undermined the expectations of California's homebuilders who, for the past decade, understood that their liability is limited by the Act and that they have a right to repair.
Since the Liberty Mutual case was handed down, the topic has become a hotbed item with several divisions of the Court of Appeal. On February 19, 2014, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District Division Three (Los Angeles County) issued a ruling against Premier Homes in the case of Burch v. Superior Court 2014 Cal.App.LEXIS 159 that, without independent analysis, simply adopted the holding in the Liberty Mutual case.
But on February 21, 2014, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District Division Four (Los Angeles County) ruled in the case of KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc. v.Superior Court 2014 Cal.App.LEXIS 167 that a homeowner's failure to give the builder an opportunity to inspect and repair a construction defect excused the builder's liability under the Act. Additionally, the Court of Appeal went out of its way to state it had ruled earlier in that case that the Act is the exclusive remedy.
The various rulings lay a foundation for ultimate intervention by the California Supreme Court. In the meantime, these opposing cases will be cited by counsel for homeowners and builders alike for opposing positions as they continue to navigate construction defect disputes.
Mr. Byassee is a strategic litigator specializing in representation of builders and developers. For more information regarding dispute resolution procedures under SB800, Mr. Byassee may be contacted at (949) 250-9797 or by email at dbyassee@ut-law.com.
Published courtesy of David J. Byassee, Ulich & Terry LLP
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Worker’s Compensation Exclusivity Rule Gets “Trumped” by Indemnity Provision
October 27, 2016 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Sorry, I couldn’t help myself with the title.
The next case, Aluma Systems Concrete Construction of California v. Nibbi Bros., Inc., California Court of Appeals for the First District, Case No. A145734 (August 16, 2016), discusses the interplay between indemnity provisions and the worker’s compensation exclusivity rule.
The worker’s compensation exclusivity rule generally provides that worker’s compensation insurance is the exclusive remedy of employees for injuries or death arising out of the course and scope of their employment.
In the Aluma case, the California Court of Appeals, addressed what happens when a subcontractor’s employees are injured on a project, sue the general contractor, and the general contractor, pursuant to an indemnity provision in its subcontract, tenders the claim to the subcontractor whose worker’s compensation insurance has already paid the employees.
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com
New California Construction Laws for 2020
March 09, 2020 — Smith Currie
The California Legislature introduced more than 3,033 bills in the first half of the 2019-2020 session. This article summarizes some of the more important bills affecting contractors in their roles as contractors, effective January 1, 2020, unless otherwise noted. Not addressed here are many other bills that will affect contractors in their roles as businesses, taxpayers, and employers. Each of the summaries is brief, focusing on what is most important to contractors. Because not all aspects of these bills are discussed, each summary’s title is a live link to the full text of the referenced bills for those wanting to explore the details of the new laws.
BIDDING & PREQUALIFICATIONS
Disabled Veteran Preferences Strengthened (AB 230, Brough)
The California Legislature intends that every state procurement authority meet or exceed a DVBE participation goal of a minimum of 3% of total contract value. State departments must require prime contractors to certify at the completion of each contract the amount each DVBE received from the prime contractor, among other information. This new law requires the prime contractor to provide upon request proof of the amount and percentage of work the prime contractor committed to provide to one or more DVBEs under the contract in addition to proof of payment for work done by the DVBE. Additionally, prime contractors must now obtain permission before they may replace a listed DVBE.
County of San Joaquin Now Authorized to Establish Bid Preferences (AB 1533, Eggman)
This new law extends to the County of San Joaquin existing law that authorizes local agencies to establish preferences for small businesses, disabled veteran businesses, and social enterprises in facilitating contract awards. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Smith Currie
Additional Dismissals of COVID Business Interruption, Civil Authority Claims
December 29, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Among the recent decisions dismissing complaints for business interruption and civil authority coverage due to closures caused by COVID-19 are Pappy's Barber Shops, Inc. v. Farmers Group, Inc., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166808 (S.D. Calif. Sept. 11, 2020) and Sandy Point Dental v. Cincinnati Insurance Co., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171979 (E.D. Ill. Sept. 21, 2020). The difficulty in proving "direct physical loss" was the downfall of both cases.
In Pappy's, claims were made for business income losses insured as a result of local and state closure orders. The policy required "direct physical loss of or damage to property at the described premises." Plaintiffs argued that "direct physical loss of" did not require a tangible damage or alteration to property and that the loss of the ability to continue operating their businesses as a result of the government orders met this requirement.
The court relied upon a prior decision, 10E, LLC v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Connecticut, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165252 (C.D. Calif. Sept. 2, 2020) [post here], where the court noted that under California law, losses from inability to use property did not amount to "direct physical loss" within the meaning of the policy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com
Expired Contract Not Revived Due to Sovereign Immunity and the Ex Contractu Clause
September 15, 2016 — David R. Cook Jr. – AHHC Construction Law Blog
A few months ago, a decision by the Supreme Court of Georgia in Georgia Department of Labor v. RTT Associates, Inc. provided a strict rule for contractors who work with state agencies to determine whether a state agency has waived its sovereign immunity. The issue as framed by the Court was “whether an agency’s waiver of immunity from a breach of contract claim as a result of entering into a written contract remains intact in the event the contract is extended without a written document signed by both parties expressly amending the contract, as required by its terms.”
The case involved a contract executed on March 1, 2012, by a contractor, RTT Associates, Inc. (RTT), and the Georgia Department of Labor (DOL), whereby RTT was to develop certain computer software for the DOL by the completion date, June 30, 2012. The contract required that amendments be in writing and fully executed by both parties. Time was of the essence and RTT’s obligation under the contract survived the expiration or termination of the contract.
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com
Ambiguity Kills in Construction Contracting
February 15, 2018 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
Well, I’m back and hope to have a more consistent publishing schedule moving forward. I appreciate the continued readership through what has been a busy time for my solo construction practice over the last couple of months. Now, back to our program. . .
Here at Construction Law Musings, I have often beaten the drum of a solid contract that leaves as little as possible to chance or the dreaded “grey areas” where we construction lawyers like to make money. An example of the issues that can arise from ambiguity can be found in a case from 2017 in the Western District of Virginia, W.C. English, Inc. v. Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP et al
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill – The Law Officeof Christopher G. Hill, PC
