California Clarifies Its Inverse Condemnation Standard
December 30, 2019 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn City of Oroville v. Superior Court, 446 P.3d 304 (Cal. 2019), the Supreme Court of California considered whether the City of Oroville (City) was liable to a dental practice for inverse condemnation damages associated with a sewer backup. The court held that in order to establish inverse condemnation against a public entity, a property owner must show that an inherent risk in the public improvement was a substantial cause of the damage. Since the dental practice did not have a code-required backwater valve — which would have prevented or minimized this loss — the court found that the city was not liable because the sewage system was not a substantial cause of the loss. This case establishes that a claim for inverse condemnation requires a showing of a substantial causal connection between the public improvement and the property damage. It also suggests that comparative negligence can be a defense to inverse condemnation claims.
In December 2009, a dental practice, WGS Dental Complex (WGS), located in the City, incurred significant water damage as a result of untreated sewage from the City’s sewer main backing up into WGS’ building. WGS submitted a claim to its insurance carrier, The Dentists Insurance Company (TDIC) and, in addition, sued the City for its uninsured losses, alleging inverse condemnation and nuisance. TDIC joined the litigation, alleging negligence, nuisance, trespass and inverse condemnation. Under California law, when a government entity fails to recognize that an action or circumstance essentially amounts to a taking for public use, a property owner can pursue an inverse condemnation action for compensation. The City filed a cross-complaint against WGS for failing to install a code-required backwater valve on their lateral sewer line, which would have prevented or minimized the backup.
The City filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court denied. WGS then sought a judicial determination on the issue of inverse condemnation. The City presented evidence that the sewage system was designed in accordance with industry standards, and that WGS failed to comply with the City’s plumbing code by failing to install a backwater valve on its private sewer lateral. The trial court found the City liable for inverse condemnation because the blockage that caused the backup originated in the City’s sewer line. The court held that the blockage was an inherent risk of sewer operation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, holding that the City would have had to prove that the WGS’s lack of a backwater valve was the sole cause of the loss in order to absolve itself of liability.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and WilliamsMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
New Jersey Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Coverage Gap Dispute
October 26, 2017 —
Austin D. Moody - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.On Tuesday, October 24, the New Jersey Supreme Court heard arguments in a 17-year-old battle over whether Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) will have to help cover the costs of asbestos-related injury suits that were filed against it after insurers began to universally exclude coverage for asbestos-related liabilities. The Court considered the arguments made by two excess insurers, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. (St. Paul) and parent Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. (Travelers), that the Court should overturn a state appellate court’s ruling that Honeywell does not have to contribute to these costs.
During the course of this case, Honeywell has sought coverage under more than 300 different policies, ultimately settling with all insurers except St. Paul and Travelers, who had issued a total of 10 excess policies to Honeywell’s predecessor, Bendix Corp. (Bendix) between 1968 and 1983. Honeywell has only sought coverage for claims made by individuals who allege that they were first exposed to asbestos prior to 1987.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Austin D. Moody, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Moody may be contacted at
adm@sdvlaw.com
California Judicial Council Votes to Rescind Prohibitions on Eviction and Foreclosure Proceedings
September 28, 2020 —
David Rao & Lyndsey Torp - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogThe California Judicial Council’s emergency rules staying evictions and judicial foreclosures are coming to an end.
On March 27, 2020, the Governor of California issued executive order N-38-20, giving the Judicial Council emergency authority to act in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. On April 6, 2020, the Judicial Council of California voted to approve temporary emergency rules of court. Rule 1 prohibited the issuance of a summons, or the entering of a default, in an eviction action for both residential and commercial properties except as necessary to protect public health and safety. Rule 1 also continued all pending unlawful detainer trials for at least 60 days, with no new trials being set until at least 60 days after a request was filed. Rule 2 stayed all pending judicial foreclosure actions, tolled the statute of limitations, and extended the deadlines for responding to such actions.
Rule 1 and Rule 2 were to remain in effect until 90 days after the Governor declared the state of emergency resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic lifted, or until repealed by action of the Judicial Council. On August 13, 2020, the Judicial Council voted 19-1 to sunset Rule 1 and Rule 2 as of September 1, 2020. Beginning September 2, 2020, California state courts are authorized to issue summons on unlawful detainer actions, enter defaults, and set trial dates on request. Stays on pending judicial foreclosure actions will be lifted.
Reprinted courtesy of
David Rao, Snell & Wilmer and
Lyndsey Torp, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Rao may be contacted at drao@swlaw.com
Ms. Torp may be contacted at ltorp@swlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
4 Ways to Mitigate Construction Disputes
March 20, 2023 —
Bill Shaughnessy - ConsensusDocsResolving construction disputes in litigation (court or arbitration) can be expensive and may drag on for years. Most disputes could have been avoided, or at least mitigated, had the parties (both owners and contractors) identified contract risks during negotiations and been more proactive in communicating the risks during execution of the work. This article highlights four practical risk management approaches that help all parties focus on their mutual interest in close coordination and clear communication at the beginning of the project as well as throughout performance:
- Identifying and allocating risks;
- Accurate scheduling;
- Clear project documentation and communication; and
- Real-time dispute resolution.
The intent of these techniques is not to shift legal obligations or risks. Rather, the intent is to keep project personnel and project management for all the participants focused on communicating and working together, including responsibly confronting real problems to avoid or mitigate their impact. Allocating risks, scheduling, project documentation and communication, and real-time dispute resolution are independently relevant on a bilateral basis between the owner, designer, and the various contractors. These approaches and their diligent execution by the parties during construction contribute far more to a successful project than anything lawyers and claims consultants can contribute in after-the-fact legal proceedings.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bill Shaughnessy, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs)Mr. Shaughnessy may be contacted at
bshaughnessy@joneswalker.com
Liquidating Agreements—Bridging the Privity Gap for Subcontractors
September 03, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorWhat is a subcontractor to do when the owner has demanded additional work, but has refused to pay for it? Typically, a subcontractor cannot sue the owner because the subcontractor doesn’t have a contract with the owner. Perhaps the subcontractor and general contractor should enter into a liquidating agreement through which the general contractor can pursue the claim on behalf of the subcontractor.
Liquidating agreements bridge the privity gap between owners and subcontractors who sustain damages because of the others actions. Liquidating agreements or pass-through agreements grant the general contractor a release of its liability to the subcontractor after the general contractor prosecutes the subcontractor’s pass-through claim against the owner and gives the subcontractor any recovery.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
Apartment Construction Increasing in Colorado while Condo Construction Remains Slow
March 12, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFDennis Huspeni writing for the Denver Business Journal reported that Colorado is having a surge of new apartment construction, but very little condominium building. According to Huspeni, “some business leaders and government officials worry that Colorado’s construction defect laws” are the reason for the lack of condominium construction.
Huspeni in the Denver Business Journal alleged that there is a large “liability risk for builders, developers and subcontractors” because current state laws “make it easier for homeowners’ associations to file large, class-action lawsuits against builders for construction problems associated with new condominiums.”
Huspeni spoke with John Batug, senior vice president and regional manager of Wells Fargo’s community banking real estate group, who stated that condo development usually occurs at the same rate as apartment development. Batug alleged that construction defect litigation “seems to have pushed that component of the market out.”
A bill that is supposed to “jump-start” the “condominium construction sector will be introduced this session, but its sponsor said he remains unsure what types of legal reform will be a part of it,” reported Ed Sealover in the Denver Business Journal.
Lakewood Mayor Bob Murphy told Sealover that “city and business leaders would like to see two particular changes in the law: 1.They want to require a super-majority of condo owners to have to agree to legal action before any lawsuit is filed — instead of just needing two of them to move forward. 2.They want a requirement to attempt some sort of alternative dispute resolution before a suit can be filed.”
However, not everyone is in favor of the proposed suggestions. Jonathan Harris, vice president of The Point Homeowners Association, told Sealover that the “bill that the Metro Mayors Caucus wants ignores the fact that arbitration can be an expensive process for property owners.”
Read the full story, Huspeni Article...
Read the full story, Sealover Article... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Contractor Tests the Bounds of Job Order Contracting
March 01, 2021 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogMost contractors have heard of design-bid-build, design-build, construction manager at risk, and even public private partnerships, various project delivery methods, which, at their heart, focus on balancing the interests of the various parties involved in a construction project, from owners, to design professionals, to contractors. There’s one project delivery method you may not be as familiar with though: Job Order Contracting, also known by its acronym JOC.
JOC contracting is a project delivery method used on public works projects and has been authorized to be used by California K-12 school districts, community colleges, CalState universities, and the Judicial Council of California, which, among other things, is responsible for the construction of California state courts. It is intended to be used on smaller, independent, long-horizon project typically involving maintenance, repair and refurbishment. Think periodic maintenance of facilities.
JOC contracts are administered by public entities issuing a request for proposals. The public entity then awards a JOC contract to the lowest responsible bidder. The lowest responsible bidder then enters into a JOC contract with the public entity. JOC contracts typically have a duration of one (1) year and are limited to a total construction value of $4.9 million increased annually based on the Consumer Price Index. When entering into a JOC contract, a JOC contractor agrees to perform work at prices set forth in a Construction Task Catalog also known as a unit price book which includes current local labor, material and equipment costs. Unit prices are then adjusted by a “bid adjustment factor” based on the JOC contractor’s bid. When work is needed, the public entity will then issue a job order to the JOC contractor.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Contract Change # 10: Differing Site Conditions (law note)
March 28, 2018 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North CarolinaPreviously, the A201 required a Contractor to provide notice to the Owner and Architect within 21 days after discovery of unforeseen site conditions. This notification is required prior to the conditions being disturbed, so as to allow the Design Team the ability to evaluate the site and determine the compensability of any such differing conditions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina
