Appeals Court Reverses Summary Judgment over Defective Archway Construction
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFA judge has ruled that a plaintiff can go forward with her suit that she was injured by a defective archway during a birthday party. A three-judge panel of the California Court of Appeals issued this ruling on January 23, 2012, in the case of Trujillo v. Cosio.
Ms. Trujillo attended a birthday party at the home of Maria Cosio and Joel Verduzco. A piñata was hung between a tree and a brick archway. Ms. Trujillo went to get candy that had fallen from the piñata, during which the archway fell on her hand. Subsequent examination of the archway showed that it had not been “properly anchored to the supporting pillars to protect the arch from falling.”
Ms. Cosio and Mr. Verduzco argued that they could not have been aware of the defective nature of the archway’s construction, as it had been built at the request of the prior property owner. The structure was constructed without building permits. Mark Burns, a civil engineer testifying for the plaintiff, said that “a reasonable property owner would have thoroughly tested the archway to ensure it was capable of withstanding such horizontal forces before allowing children to enter into the area.” Mr. Burns noted that twenty rope pulls would have been sufficient to demonstrate the structure’s instability.
The trial court rejected Mr. Burn’s statements, finding that the respondents did not have any knowledge of the defect and that a visual inspection should have sufficed. The court noted that this a triable issue, whether visual inspection suffices, or whether the property owners should have done as Mr. Burns suggested and yank a rope twenty times. The court noted that “although a jury may ultimately disagree with Burn’s opinion, it was supported by sufficient foundation and was not speculative.”
The opinion was written by Judge Flier, with Judges Rubin and Grimes concurring.
Read the court’s decison…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Life After McMillin: Do Negligence and Strict Liability Causes of Action for Construction Defects Still Exist?
January 24, 2018 —
Thomas Balestreri and Amanda Crawley - Balestreri, Potocki, & HolmesThe ruling is in but the battle will likely continue over the practical application of SB 800. On January 18, 2018 the California Supreme Court issued its decision in
McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (Van Tassel) (January 18, 2018, S229762) __ Cal.4th __, holding that the statutory prelitigation scheme in The Right to Repair Act (“the Act”) that provides for notice and an opportunity for the Builder to repair defects applies to all claims for construction defects in residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003, regardless whether the claim is founded on a violation of the Act’s performance standards or a common law claim for negligence or strict liability. (
McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (Van Tassel) (January 18, 2018, S229762) __ Cal.4th __.) With this holding, has the Court ruled that common law causes of action for construction defect still survive? If so, what will they look like and what standards will be applied?
The short answer is that it appears that common law causes of action still survive, at least for now, but it is not clear from this decision what they will look like and what standards will apply.
Portions of the decision seem to suggest that the Act is the sole and exclusive remedy for construction defect claims: “…even in some areas where the common law had supplied a remedy for construction defects resulting in property damage but not personal injury, the text and legislative history [of the statute] reflect a
clear and unequivocal intent to supplant common law negligence and strict product liability actions under the Act.” (
McMillin (January 18, 2018, S229762) __Cal.4th.__ [p. 6].) (Italics added for emphasis) However, at the end of the decision, the Court seems to be saying that there may still be a place for common law claims for negligence and strict liability alongside the Act but that these causes of action may be subject to the performance standards in the Act.
The
McMillin case went up to the Supreme Court on a procedural issue: whether a common law action alleging construction defects resulting in both economic loss and property damage is subject to the Act’s prelitigation notice and cure procedures. The Van Tassels had dismissed their claims under the Act opting to proceed solely on their common law claims including negligence and strict liability. McMillin sought a stay to force the Van Tassels to comply with the Act’s prelitigation procedures. The Supreme Court held that the Van Tassels must comply with the statutory procedures and affirmed the stay issued by the trial court. But the question remained: now that the Van Tassels were left only with common law claims, how would they proceed under the Act?
To understand how the Court dealt with this question, one must first understand how the Court dealt with the narrow procedural question presented by the case. The Court provides a very detailed, clear explanation of the reasons why it felt the Legislature intended for all construction defect claims involving residential construction must comply with the prelitigation requirements of the Act. In summing up its conclusions the Court makes three definitive holdings.
First, for claims involving economic loss only—the kind of claims involved in
Aas—the Court holds that the Legislature intended to supersede
Aas and provide a statutory basis for recovery. (
McMillin (January 18, 2018, S229762) __Cal.4th.__ [p. 10].) In other words, the Court clearly agrees that the Act was meant to allow recovery of damages based solely on economic damages. No surprise there. Second, the Court held for personal injuries, the Legislature made no changes to existing law that provides common law remedies for the injured party. (Id.) Nobody has ever contested that. Finally, the Court held that for construction defect claims involving property damage and not just economic loss “the Legislature replaced the common law
methods of recovery with the new statutory scheme.” (
Id.,) (Italics added for emphasis.)
In other words, the Court is not saying that negligence and strict liability are not permitted causes of action. The Court is merely stating that these causes of action must comply with the Act’s statutory scheme just as the same as a claim for economic loss. Here the Court is focusing on the procedure that must be followed. “The Act, in effect, provides that construction defect claims not involving personal injury will be treated the same procedurally going forward whether or not the underlying claims gave rise to any property damage.” (
Id.)
Having laid out its fundamental premise, the Court then deals with Plaintiff’s arguments regarding the intent of the Legislature and makes light work of them all. In the process, the Court disapproves
Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal. App. 4th 98, and
Burch v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 1411, to the extent they are inconsistent with the views expressed in the
McMillin opinion.
This is where the decision gets interesting. The Court reminds us that the Van Tassels had dismissed their statutory causes of action for violation of the performance standards under Section 896. One would think at that point that Plaintiffs had to be wondering if they had any claims left given that the Court had ruled that the Act was the sole means of recovery for construction defects. Not so fast. The Court points out that the complaint still rests on allegations of defective construction and that the suit remains an “ ‘action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in, the residential construction’ of the plaintiffs’ homes (§896)
and McMillin’s liability under the Van Tassels’ negligence and strict liability claims depends on the extent to which it [McMillin] violated the standards of sections 896 and 897.” (
McMillin (January 18, 2018, S229762) __Cal.4th.__ [p. 19].) (Emphasis added.) WHAT DID THE COURT JUST SAY? Did the Court just say that a plaintiff could bring a common law cause of action for negligence or strict liability based on a violation of the performance standards under Section 896? What exactly would that claim look like? What would be the elements of such a cause of action?
To answer these questions, the Court states in the very next paragraph, which also happens to be the last paragraph in the decision: “In holding that claims seeking recovery for construction defect damages are subject to the Act’s prelitigation procedures regardless of how they are pleaded,
we have no occasion to address the extent to which a party might rely upon common law principles in pursuing liability under the Act.” (
McMillin (January 18, 2018, S229762) __Cal.4th.__ [p. 19].) (Italics added for emphasis) Is the Court answering “No” to the questions posed above? Probably not. It is simply following the age old rule that an appellate court will
not rule on an issue that is not specifically presented by an appeal, leaving that question for another day.
All we know for sure from
McMillin is that every claim for construction defects falling within the scope of the Act must follow the prelitigation procedure. There are no hall passes for negligence and strict liability. The larger question posed by the last two paragraphs in the decision, is whether the law recognizes a cause of action for negligence and strict liability for construction defects based on the standards in Section 896. The answer will have to be worked out by judges and trial attorneys in courtrooms across the State! The parameters of this hybrid cause of action that the Court seems to have posited will need more careful consideration than can be offered on first reading of
McMillin v. Superior Court.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Balestreri, Potocki, & Holmes
A New Study: Unexpected Overtime is Predictable and Controllable
January 31, 2022 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessA new study by Dodge Construction Network and Versatile, a construction technology pioneer using artificial intelligence (AI) and the internet of things (IoT) to optimize construction processes, found that unexpected overtime is predictable and controllable through regular job site activity measurement. According to the study, overtime is predictable at an 88% confidence level, if proper measurement is utilized.
Overtime is a persistent feature of construction sites, however, it is often unplanned and unpredictable. Despite the cost of overtime, its impact on skilled workers, and its implications for safety and other key factors on a project site, it is often applied to address immediate concerns rather than planned to maximize its effects. This recent study shows that in order to best understand overtime and its impact, data and measurement of jobsite activities are key.
“Unique insights derived from advanced data and analytics tools will empower construction crews to build better,” said Meirav Oren, co-founder and CEO of Versatile. “Overtime can be a very effective tool on the jobsite. Through the power of data, general contractors gain the ability to minimize unnecessary overtime while maximizing its strategic benefits.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
2015 California Construction Law Update
December 31, 2014 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogOver 2,200 bills were introduced during the second and final year of the 2013-2014 legislative session of which 931 were signed into law. For the design and construction industry, the end of the second session, like the end of the first session, saw a number of new prevailing wage bills signed into law, which again reflected the strong Democratic majorities in both the Assembly and Senate. The end of the second session also saw the enactment of laws consolidating several existing design-build authorization sections and extending the 5% cap on retention for public works projects.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
Excessive Corrosion Cause of Ohio State Fair Ride Accident
August 10, 2017 —
David Suggs – Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.The manufacturer of the Fire Ball ride at the Ohio State Fair claims that excessive corrosion “led to the accident that killed a teenager and injured seven others…in July.”
According to a statement by KMG International, reported by ABC News, “Corrosion on the interior of the support beam reduced the beam's thickness, which led to the accident at the fair.” Furthermore, “The company said it conducted an investigation into the incident, which included a visit to the scene and a review of video footage of the incident. The company also conducted a metallurgical inspection of the ride.”
A U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) spokesperson said “it is aware of 22 deaths associated with amusement attractions since 2010, including Wednesday's incident, but excluding water park and work-related fatalities.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Problems May Delay Bay Bridge
May 10, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFFaulty bolts could lead to a delay in the opening of the Bay Bridge. Caltrans noticed problems with bolts and found that the bolts had cracked. Of the 98 bolts already tightened, 30 have failed. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, workers will be tightening all 288 bolts and then testing them. According to Tony Anziano, Caltrans’s toll bridge program manager, repairs could take one or two months. Mr. Anziano noted that the manufacturer might be responsible for part of the expense, but that the budget for the bridge also has funds set aside for unanticipated repairs.
The bolts were supplied by Dyson, an Ohio company, but it was clear whether Dyson manufactured the bolts or simply marketed them.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Investing in Metaverse Real Estate: Mind the Gap Between Recognized and Realized Potential
May 10, 2022 —
Robert G. Howard, David W. Wright & Craig A. de Ridder - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogThe Metaverse is an immersive world combining virtual reality and augmented reality, where users are represented by avatars and roam virtual spaces. It comprises a variety of platforms and environments that can be explored, experienced, and developed. Online social games like Second Life, Fortnite and Minecraft are among the first wave of successful Metaverse games. Now, Meta and Microsoft see the Metaverse as a place to play, live, and work. A JP Morgan white paper stated that opportunities in the Metaverse seem “limitless.” The bank predicted that virtual worlds will “infiltrate every sector in some ways in the coming years.” A March 31 report by Citi concluded that the Metaverse has the potential to become a $13 trillion opportunity by 2030, with total global users of between one and five billion. According to Citi, the Metaverse will become a significant part of the next iteration of the internet (referred to as Web3) enabled by a variety of existing and emerging technologies, including 5G connectivity, secure blockchain and payment platforms, crypto assets, cloud computing, artificial intelligence, 3D modeling tools and headset devices.
A Land Rush, Virtually Speaking
Not surprisingly, investors are speculating regarding the value and potential of “virtual land” within the Metaverse, where land sales in 2021 exceeded $500 million and attracted a lot of attention and hype. The Sandbox, Decentraland, Somnium Space and CryptoVoxels are the most active platforms and owners can build almost anything on their virtual parcels. The open-source Ethereum blockchain, with self-executing smart contract functionality, operates as the foundational layer for most platforms. Parcels of land in The Sandbox and Decentraland are purchased with cryptocurrencies (called SAND and MANA, respectively) on their platforms and can also be sold and purchased on secondary marketplaces like OpenSea.
Reprinted courtesy of
Robert G. Howard, Pillsbury,
David W. Wright, Pillsbury and
Craig A. de Ridder, Pillsbury
Mr. Howard may be contacted at robert.howard@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Wright may be contacted at david.w.wright@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Deridder may be contacted at craig.deridder@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Nafta Could Settle Canada-U.S. Lumber War, Resolute CEO Says
February 02, 2017 —
Jen Skerritt - BloombergA renegotiation of Nafta could be used to settle a lumber dispute that’s been simmering between Canada and the U.S. for decades and threatens to make housing unaffordable for thousands of Americans, according to the world’s largest newsprint maker.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jen Skerritt, BloombergMs. Skerritt may be followed on Twitter @jenskerritt
