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
EEOC Focuses on Eliminating Harassment, Recruitment and Hiring Barriers in the Construction Industry
September 09, 2024 —
Aaron C. Schlesinger & Stephen E. Irving - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), whose mission is to enforce the nation’s anti-discrimination laws, released new guidelines on June 18, 2024, entitled
Promising Practices for Preventing Harassment in the Construction Industry. The guidelines are in support of its Strategic Enforcement Plan for the fiscal years 2024-2028 for combatting systemic harassment and eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring in the construction industry. With these guidelines, the EEOC has identified harassment as an ongoing issue in the construction industry, and that immediate attention and resolution is required.
The EEOC specifically recommends that the following five core principles that it has found effective in preventing and addressing harassment be implemented by construction industry employers:
- Committed and engaged leadership;
- Consistent and demonstrated accountability;
- Strong and comprehensive harassment policies;
- Trusted and accessible complaint procedures; and
- Regular, interactive training tailored to the audience and the organization.
Reprinted courtesy of
Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Stephen E. Irving, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com
Mr. Irving may be contacted at sirving@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurer Sued for Altering Policies after Claim
January 13, 2014 —
CDJ STAFFA lawsuit alleges that Fidelity National Property & Casualty Insurance Co. retroactively cancelled policies, substituting policies that covered less after claims were made due to damages from Hurricane Sandy. Insurance Journal reports that Dayton Towers Corp., which owns seven high-rises in Queens, New York City, has sued the insurer.
According to Dayton, the policies covered the buildings for amounts from $2.5 to $2.7 million. The total coverage for all seven buildings was $18.5 million. Under new policies, the buildings were covered for $250,000 each, for a total of $1,750,000, which is the amount that Fidelity paid Dayton.
The lawsuit alleges that the policy does not allow for the terms to be rewritten when claims are pending.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Word of the Day: “Contractor”
September 16, 2024 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogWhat’s in a word? When it comes to insurance policies, a word, can potentially mean millions of dollars.
In
California Specialty Insulation, Inc. v. Allied World Surplus Lines Insurance Company, 102 Cal.App.5th 1 (2024), an insured and its insurer battled it out over the word “contractor,” and whether an exclusion from coverage of bodily injury to any employee or temporary worker “of any contractor or subcontractor,” excluded a personal injury claim brought by an employee of a general contractor against a subcontractor.
The California Specialty Contractor Case
In 2017, Air Control Systems, Inc. (“Air Control”) was contracted to perform improvements at a building in Los Angeles, California. Air Control in turn subcontracted with California Specialty Insulation, Inc. (“CSI”) to install duct insulation on the project.
During construction, an employee of Air Control was injured when he fell 16 to 20 feet from a ladder that was struck by a scissor lift driven by an employee of CSI. Approximately two years later the Air Control employee filed a personal injury lawsuit against CSI.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
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
Construction Workers Unearth Bones
June 28, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFWhile digging for a new steam line at Eastern Michigan University, workers unearthed some old bones. Experts have yet to determine if the bones are human or animal, however Walter Kraft, the EMU vice president of communications, noted that a handle also unearthed might have come from a casket. Cindy Heflin, reporting in AnnArbor.com notes that until 1900 a Catholic cemetery was located in the area. Although the bodies were relocated, these may have been left behind.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California’s Fifth Appellate District Declares the “Right to Repair Act” the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims
September 03, 2015 —
Stephen A. Sunseri – Gatzke Dillon & Balance LLPAugust 26, 2015 - The Fifth Appellate District ruled SB800 (California's "Right to Repair Act" [the "Act"]) provides the sole remedy for homeowners in construction defect actions. The court found "no other cause of action is allowed to recover for repair of the defect itself or for repair of any damage caused by the defect." (McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court of California (Aug. 26, 2015, No. F069370) __ Cal.App.4th __ [2015 WL 5029324].) The court issued a blistering criticism of the Fourth Appellate District's prior opinion in Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98, which severely limited the reach of the Act to actions not involving property damage and allowing property damage claims to proceed freely under common law without any constraints posed by the Act.
In McMillin, the court reviewed whether a homeowner was required to follow the Act's prelitigation procedures even after dismissing a cause of action arising under the Act. In deciding the issue, the court quoted directly from the first line of the Act (Civ. Code § 896) and found "[i]n any action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in, the residential construction … , the claimant's claims or causes of action shall be limited to violation of" the standards set out in the Act. The court recognized the statutory exceptions to this rule, such as for claims arising under contract, or any action for fraud, personal injuries, or statutory violations. (Civ. Code., § 943.) However, this result directly conflicts with the Fourth Appellate District's decision in Liberty Mutual, which found homeowners can circumvent the entire Act by simply alleging property damage claims. McMillin rejects Liberty Mutual's "reasoning and outcome" as being inconsistent with the express language of the Act.
McMillin found that Liberty Mutual failed to fully analyze the statutory language of the Act, which (on its face) limits any action for construction deficiencies to the requirements of the Act. McMillin concludes the Legislature intended that all construction defect actions (for new residences sold on or after January 1, 2003), are subject to the requirements of the Act, including the prelitigation procedures, regardless of whether a complaint expressly alleges a cause of action under the Act or not.
McMillin is a great victory for homebuilders, but battle lines are now clearly drawn between the two appellate districts. McMillin directly conflicts with Liberty Mutual, and because of this conflict, the issue will need to be resolved by the California Supreme Court. Until such review is granted, the conflict will remain and trial courts will likely continue to conflate the issue.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stephen A. Sunseri, Gatzke Dillon & Balance LLPMr. Sunseri may be contacted at
ssunseri@gdandb.com
Quick Note: Staying, Not Dismissing, Arbitrable Disputes Under Federal Arbitration Act
July 31, 2024 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesAs you hopefully know from posted articles, arbitration is a creature of contract. Stated differently, there must be a contractual basis to have a dispute resolved through binding arbitration. The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) applies to transactions involving interstate commerce. Oftentimes, lawsuits are filed despite an arbitration provision in a contract because parties can, if they desire, waive their rights to have their dispute resolved through binding arbitration.
In what should not be a shocker, the United States Supreme Court in Smith v. Spizzirri, 144 S.Ct. 1173, 1178 (2024), held that when a federal “district court finds that a lawsuit involves an arbitrable dispute, and a party requests a stay pending arbitration, section 3 of the FAA compels the court to stay the proceeding.” Dismissing the lawsuit should not be the option. Staying the lawsuit should.
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
