How California’s Construction Industry has dealt with the New Indemnity Law
October 22, 2014 —
Mark S. Himmelstein, Esq. - Newmeyer & DillionIt has been almost two years since the California legislature enacted changes to the state’s indemnity law affecting commercial construction contracts. Although we do not yet have any court opinions analyzing the new statutes, the attorneys at
Newmeyer & Dillion now have real world experience in negotiating such indemnity provisions. It is time to evaluate how the construction community has reacted to the changes. In this article, we examine the practical applications of the new law to various construction agreements.
Enacted on January 1, 2013, the new legislation was the latest in a series of efforts by subcontractors and their insurers to eliminate “Type I” indemnity clauses. Under a Type I provision, a subcontractor has a duty to indemnify the developer or general contractor for the negligence of the developer or general contractor or other subcontractors, in addition to the negligence of the subcontractor itself. In 2006, the law was changed to preclude Type I provisions regarding “For Sale” residential construction defect claims. At that time, there was no such restriction enacted for commercial construction contracts. However, since then, commercial subcontractors have been seeking similar legislation. Their efforts culminated in the 2013 revisions regarding commercial contracts.
Commercial Subcontracts
Pursuant to the new indemnity statute — Civil Code section 2782.05 — we have revised our clients’ commercial subcontracts to:
(a) Eliminate the requirement that the subcontractor indemnify the general contractor for the general contractor’s “active negligence;” and
(b) Include the subcontractor’s options for defending claims for which they have an indemnity obligation.
Many subcontractors have responded: “Hey, wait a minute, the new legislation eliminated Type I indemnity so you (general contractor) cannot still require any indemnification for the general contractor’s negligence”. Well, that might be the rumor in subcontractor circles, but the new statute does not eliminate indemnity for the general contractor’s passive fault. In addition, the Civil Code lists 13 instances where the new indemnity restrictions do not apply.
Residential Subcontracts
The legislature did not make anyone’s job easier by drafting a different indemnity provision for commercial subcontracts than for residential subcontracts. In fact, the residential and commercial statutes are different in several critical respects. First, the restrictions on indemnity in the residential statute apply only to construction defect claims in newly constructed “For Sale” houses. The statute does not preclude Type I indemnity provisions for any other claims arising out of residential subcontracts. In contrast, the indemnity restrictions in the commercial statute apply to all claims arising out of commercial subcontracts. In addition, the commercial statute allows indemnity for the general contractor’s passive fault. Since some subcontractors on “residential” projects perform off-site “commercial” work as well, we have amended even residential subcontracts to address the subcontractors’ various indemnity obligations for different parts of their work (e.g., residential work versus commercial work).
Owner-Contractor Agreements
The January 1, 2013 new indemnity provisions apply not only to subcontracts, but also to owner-contractor agreements. Civil Code section 2782(c)(1) precludes indemnity for an owner’s active negligence. Interestingly, the exclusions contained in Civil Code section 2782.05 for subcontracts do not apply, and the statute does not provide contractors with the option of defending claims set forth in the sections concerning subcontracts. Therefore, we have revised the indemnity provisions in owner-contractor agreements to exclude indemnity for the owner’s active negligence.
Design Professional Agreements
The 2007 revisions with respect to “For Sale” residential contracts (discussed above), and the 2013 revisions for commercial contracts do not apply to design professionals. The new indemnity statute concerning commercial subcontracts specifically excludes design professionals from the “anti-indemnity” benefits provided to subcontractors. Therefore, Type I indemnity provisions are fair game and can still be included in design professional contracts.
Conclusion
In sum, Civil Code sections 2782 et seq. now contain an increasingly complex framework for indemnity rules in construction contracts. For example, there is one set of rules for “For Sale” residential construction defect claims (no indemnity for the developer’s active or passive negligence), another for any other claims arising out of residential construction (Type I indemnity is permitted), another for commercial subcontracts (no indemnity for the general contractor’s active negligence, but indemnity for the general contractor’s passive negligence unless any of the exceptions apply, in which case Type I indemnity is permitted), and yet another for commercial owner contractor agreements (no indemnity for the owner’s active negligence, but indemnity for the owner’s passive negligence with no exceptions).
California’s indemnity laws are complex, and rumors as to the impact of the new legislation have made it even more difficult to negotiate these provisions. It is imperative that indemnity clauses in construction contracts clearly delineate the obligations for the specific type or types of work contemplated by the contract. The legislature’s attempt to simplify indemnity obligations has actually made such provisions lengthier and more cumbersome. As experienced construction attorneys, our task is to draft indemnity provisions that comply with the laws, address potential claims, and are understandable.
Mr. Himmelstein is a partner in the Newport Beach office of Newmeyer & Dillion and practices in the areas of construction, real estate, business and insurance litigation. He also specializes in drafting and negotiating construction and real estate contracts. Mark can be reached at mark.himmelstein@ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
From the Ground Up
March 06, 2022 —
Maggie Murphy - Construction ExecutiveAs a veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps, Mari Borrero knows a thing or two about stepping up to a challenge. She describes her time in the military as “one of those milestones that changes your life,” and credits the experience with turning her from a self-described “entitled teenager” into the woman she is today: fearless, bold and relentless in pursuit of her dreams.
A career in the construction industry was never on the table for Borrero, who, after being honorably discharged from the Marine Corps, worked as a hospice-care coordinator and then a teacher in support of her then-third-grade son. The common thread in all these occupations? A genuine desire to put the needs of others before her own. Today, Borrero says she can’t imagine doing anything other than what she now calls work—owning and operating a construction business, Auburn, Washington–based American Abatement & Demo.
Easing Transitions
Born in Bayamón, Puerto Rico, Borrero was five when her mother moved the family to Dallas to seek life-saving treatment at Children’s Medical Center Dallas for her brother, who had a rare kidney disease. A local church supported the family, providing housing, food and clothing until they were able to transition into their own space.
Reprinted courtesy of
Maggie Murphy, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ambiguity Kills in Construction Contracting
May 27, 2019 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsWell, 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
In this case, English, a general contractor, entered into a contract for Quality Assurance (QA) functions with RK&K, the defendant, on a contract English entered into with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). Needless to say, because this would not be a post at Musings otherwise, there were issues with the QA performed by RK&K leading to additional costs for English to correct certain work that did not comply with the contract documents between VDOT and English. English sued for breach of contract based upon a term sheet, signed by the parties, from RK&K that required RK&K to indemnify English for claims by VDOT that related to RK&K’s work (the English Term Sheet). RK&K moved to dismiss the complaint based upon a different term sheet, also signed by the parties, which stated that RK&K could not be held responsible for English’s failure to perform pursuant to the contract documents (the RK&K Term Sheet).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Changes To Commercial Item Contracting
May 29, 2023 —
Marcos R. Gonzalez - ConsensusDocsThe FAR Council has recently published two changes to commercial item contracting that clarify the definition of commercial services and simplify commercial item determinations (“CIDs”) for contracting officers (“COs”). Since the 1990s, the federal government has encouraged the purchase of commercial items to ease the regulatory burden on vendors who have not previously conducted federal business, encourage innovation, and lower prices[
1]. These different objectives (cost savings, broadening markets, innovation) often have corollary policies; for example, vendors who are not accustomed to the regulatory burdens of government business are encouraged to enter the market by being exempted from a slew of regulations (found in standard commercial items clause FAR 52.212-4). As a result, the regulations applicable to commercial item contracting are those required by statute and executive orders in addition to generic commercial terms that may be tailored due to potential variation in commercial terms.[
2]
Commercial Products v. Commercial Services
The first change, in effect since November 2021 pursuant to the 2019 National Defense Authorization (“NDAA”), split the old definition of “commercial item” into two separate definitions: “commercial product” and “commercial service.”[
3] We are now blessed with the following definitions of commercial products and services, respectively:
Commercial product means—
(1) A product, other than real property, that is of a type customarily used by the general public or by nongovernmental entities for purposes other than governmental purposes, and–
(i) Has been sold, leased, or licensed to the general public; or
(ii) Has been offered for sale, lease, or license to the general public;
Reprinted courtesy of
Marcos R. Gonzalez, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Gonzalez may be contacted at mgonzalez@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New York’s Highest Court Gives Insurers “an Incentive to Defend”
November 20, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe New York Court of Appeals, that state’s highest court, has ruled that when an insurer disclaims duty to defend, “if the disclaimer is found bad, the insurance company must indemnify its insured for the resulting judgment, even if policy exclusions would have otherwise negated the duty to indemnify.” The insurer who makes a failed claim that there was no duty to defend cannot thereafter claim exclusions.
This recent New York decision is discussed by Allen R. Wolff and Eric R. Reed of Anderson Kill in their Policyholder Advisor. They note that the decision “confirms that the estoppel rule applies in New York , as it does in at least four other states.”
But this may not be the last word. American Guarantee made a motion for reargument, which the court granted. The case will return to the court in January 2014. They note that “if paying defense costs is the only consequence an insurance company faces for breaching its duty to defend the insured, an insurance company has a financial incentive to ‘kick the can down the road.’”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Edinburg School Inspections Uncovered Structural Construction Defects
April 11, 2018 —
David Suggs – Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.Yesterday, the Herald reported that six schools and a nursery have been affected by construction defects in Edinburg. For every eight properties inspected by council, one was found to share analogous issues which caused “a wall to collapse at a city primary school in 2016.” Furthermore, over the course of eighteen months, inspectors will observe more buildings across Edinburg in order to guarantee their “structural safety.”
At Oxgangs Primary School, during Storm Gertrude in January 2016, nine tons of masonry fell from the side of a building. The Herald reported 17 other schools across Edinburg closed due to safety concerns. All schools closed were part of the “same private finance initiative.” Moreover, there have been 20 other examples of defects found that are alike, in which checks were “carried out at public buildings.”
Christine Jardine, a Scottish Liberal democrat who represents Edinburg West, states that the findings were “scandalous,” and “simply not good enough.” In addition, Jardine points out that the council is responsible for buildings to meet the highest of standards, and proper checks are necessary, in order to ensure the safety of their children. Lastly, Jardine suggests that the Scottish government should no longer rely on the funding from local authority. Instead, she proposes that the government must be accountable for “improving council funding.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Texas LGI Homes Goes After First-Time Homeowners
May 13, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to Big Builder, while many consumers have “gone to rentals…as the homeownership rate fell,” that hasn’t stopped Texas-based builder LGI Homes from marketing to the entry-level buyer: “We do not believe that we’re becoming a renter society,” Eric Lipar, LGI CEO told Big Builder. “We believe there is a need and a desire for homeownership.”
“The real growth will be powered by an aggressive sales and marketing operation that aims to pull renters out of their apartments (or single-family rentals) and into LGI homes,” reported Big Builder. “So far this pitch has worked in Texas (Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and Austin), in addition to Phoenix and Tampa, Fla.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Eastern District of Pennsylvania Clarifies Standard for Imposing Spoliation Sanctions
October 19, 2020 —
Kean Maynard - The Subrogation StrategistCourts are faced with the difficult task of drawing a line to determine when the failure to preserve evidence becomes culpable enough to permit a judicial remedy. In State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Cohen, No. 19-1947, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163681, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (District Court) made clear that a party is not entitled to a spoliation sanction without proof that the alleged spoliation was beyond accident or mere negligence. The District Court emphasized that when evidence goes missing or is destroyed, the party seeking a spoliation sanction must show that the alleged spoliation was intentional and that the alleged spoliator acted in “bad faith” before adverse inferences will be provided.
In Cohen, Joshua Cohen (Cohen) rented a residential property to Lugretta Bryant (Bryant). Bryant’s property suffered damages as a result of a kitchen fire. Bryant’s insurer, proceeding as subrogee, hired a fire investigator to determine the cause and origin of the fire. Based on eyewitness testimony and examination of the burn patterns, the fire investigator concluded that the fire started at the General Electric (GE) microwave located in the kitchen. The investigator advised all parties to preserve the microwave so that a joint examination could take place with the property owner and GE present. In the following weeks, the tenant returned to the property to collect belongings and perform some cleaning in anticipation of repairs beginning. Importantly, the tenant claimed the microwave was preserved during these cleaning efforts and remained at the site as instructed. However, in the fall of 2017, one of Cohen’s workers discovered that the microwave was missing and its whereabouts remain unknown.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kean Maynard, White and WilliamsMr. Maynard may be contacted at
maynardk@whiteandwilliams.com
