Construction Costs Up
February 21, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe cost of putting a building up just got a little higher. The General Contractors of America have tracked an 0.7 percent increase in the cost of building materials between December and January, leading to a 1.3 percent increase through 2012. Ken Simonson, the organization’s chief economist, said that “contractors had to contend with huge leaps in prices for gypsum, wallboard and lumber, as well as significant increases in the cost of insulation and architectural coatings such as paint.”
And it isn’t just building materials. Simonson notes that diesel prices are up too, which increases the costs of moving heavy machinery across the site, among other considerations. Don’t expect things to change. “It is clear that costs are rising significantly higher in February,” said Simonson.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Protect Projects From Higher Repair Costs and Property Damage
March 04, 2024 —
Michael Teng - Construction ExecutiveEvery aspect of a jobsite costs more today, from materials and labor to tools and equipment.
Take construction input costs for example. While relatively flat in 2023, they
remain almost 40% higher than they were pre-pandemic. With borrowing costs still high in the face of a stubbornly strong economy, project financing will remain a challenge.
Still, contractors are expected to break more ground in 2024, fueled in part by the CHIPS Act, the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
Despite wages growing and the labor market remaining tight, many businesses are expected to dive deeper into their backlogs. Meanwhile, the economy is
expected to grow with a chance for a short and mild recession. As industry leaders gauge economic pressures, it’s clear businesses must manage their costs—and financial risks in 2024. It’s a year where insurance and safety should take priority. Below are economic trends to monitor, and insurance strategies to help protect this year’s bottom line.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Teng, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Study May Come Too Late for Construction Defect Bill
February 14, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFColorado State Senator Mark Scheffel removed his bill, Senate Bill 13-052, from the calendar of the Senate Judiciary Committee in anticipation of a study which he feels would be pertinent to the discussion. The bill would stop communities from suing developers over noise and vibration issues associated with transit facilities, and would also provide for developers fixing construction defects before being sued. Senator Scheffel said that the intent of his bill was to spur development near transit facilities.
The study, commissioned by the Denver Regional Council of Governments, would focus on the effects of the state’s construction defects law on housing. It might not come soon enough for the senator’s bill. The Denver Business Journal reports that the study, which will take four months to complete, doesn’t yet have a contract. The Legislature must adjourn by May 8, so it is not possible for the study to be concluded before the end of this legislative session.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kahana & Feld P.C. Enhances Client Offerings, Expands Litigation Firm Leadership
March 22, 2017 —
Kahana & Feld, P.C.SANTA ANA, Calif., March 9, 2017 – Celebrating 10 successful years of practice, Managing Partner
Amir M. Kahana, Esq. , of Kahana & Feld P.C. (formally Kahana Law), is pleased to announce he has added as name partner
Jason Daniel Feld, Esq., expanding client offerings to include insurance defense and bolstering its construction defect and real estate law practice.
Feld joins the AV Preeminent firm that for the past decade has become known for its prowess in general business litigation matters, including cases involving employment, construction, real estate and intellectual property law. The firm is home to a group of proven trial attorneys who are among Southern California’s top rated counsel.
Feld brings 18 years of experience, with his practice focusing on defending homebuilders, contractors and developers in Arizona, Texas and California. He primarily chooses to represent smaller, family-owned and operated clients, providing the unique opportunity to also assist with overall best practices and risk prevention. In addition, Feld serves on several prominent insurance carrier panels, allowing him to cultivate valuable relationships with the builder and contactor community. A resident of Tustin Ranch, Feld received his juris doctor cum laude from Whittier Law School and a bachelor’s degree from University of Houston.
“Jason’s breadth of experience, leadership and work ethic are qualities I have admired throughout the many years of our friendship. He embodies the integrity and admirable character that are at the core of our firm’s fabric,” said Kahana, a resident of Irvine. “I am thrilled to have Jason join forces with our firm as we enter our second decade and are poised for significant growth. Our clients will benefit from our expanded areas of practice, allowing us to provide counsel and litigation support in a variety of areas.”
Under Kahana’s leadership, the firm has become known for holding its client relationships in the highest regard while providing premier quality legal services and sound risk assessment at a reasonable cost. With integrity always coming first, the firm’s record of success extends well beyond the office as each associate is proudly involved in his or her community, donating time and resources to a variety of worthy community organizations.
“I feel honored to join Amir and this talented and energetic firm,” said Feld. “I feel fortunate to have found a new home with partners and associates who share the same values and commitment to serving the community. I look forward to helping grow the firm in the years ahead.”
About Kahana & Feld, P.C.
Kahana & Feld, P. C. focuses on general business litigation and insurance defense, with particular emphasis on employment, real estate, construction defect and intellectual property litigation. The AV Preeminent firm is led by attorneys who have been named among Southern California’s Top Rated. The firm was founded with the goal of providing high-quality legal services at fair and reasonable rates. The firm believes that what defines attorneys is not their billing rates, but their record of success, and Kahana & Feld’s track record speaks for itself. For more information, please visit: http://www.kahanafeld.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Taylor Morrison v. Terracon and the Homeowner Protection Act of 2007
June 11, 2014 —
Buck Mann – Colorado Construction LitigationOn January 30, 2014, the Colorado Court of Appeals decided the case of Taylor Morrison of Colorado, Inc. v. Bemas Construction, Inc. and Terracon Consultants, Inc. 2014WL323490. The case addressed a substantial issue of Colorado constitutional law, as well as a variety of procedural issues of potential importance to construction litigation attorneys. Of particular interest is the question of whether the provisions of the 2007 Homeowner Protection Act (“HPA”) are limited in application to contracts between residential homeowners and construction professionals, or whether they have broader application between commercial construction professional parties as well. As discussed below, the Court of Appeals stated that it would not answer the question, and then, separately, implied that the statute might only apply to homeowner transactions – with the resulting exclusion of commercial transactions. However, after its analysis, it left the actual decision of that issue to a future court in a later case.
The factual background for the case involved claims of breach of a contract for soils engineering by Terracon Consultants, Inc. (“Terracon”) and negligent excavation work by Bemas Construction, Inc. (“Bemas”). Plaintiff was Taylor Morrison of Colorado (“Taylor Morrison”), the developer and general contractor for a residential subdivision called Homestead Hills. After it constructed many homes, Taylor Morrison began to receive complaints of cracking drywall resulting from foundation movement and it made repairs at significant expense. Taylor Morrison then filed suit against Terracon and Bemas in connection with their respective roles in the original construction.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Buck Mann, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. Mann may be contacted at
mann@hhmrlaw.com
Scaffolding Collapse Kills Workers at China Construction Site
November 30, 2016 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe New York Post reported that a scaffolding collapsed in Beijing, China, “sending iron pipes, steel bars and wooden planks tumbling down on about 70 workers in the country’s worst work-safety accident in over two years.” Out of seventy workers, sixty-seven are reported to have died in the accident, while two are injuried, and one worker is missing. The cause of the accident is still under investigation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Significant Victory for the Building Industry: Liberty Mutual is Rejected Once Again, This Time by the Third Appellate District in Holding SB800 is the Exclusive Remedy
December 15, 2016 —
Richard H. Glucksman & Ravi R. Mehta – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Bulletin I. Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court (Certified for Publication, Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016
The California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District recently elaborated on the scope of the Right to Repair Act, commonly known as SB-800 (“Act”). In
Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (Kevin Hicks, et al.) (certified for publication, Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016), the Court considered whether the Act (and specifically the Act’s pre-litigation procedure) applies, when homeowners plead construction defect claims based only on common law causes of action, as opposed to violations of the building standards set forth in the Act (
Civil Code §896). The Court answered this question affirmatively.
The homeowners of seventeen (17) single-family homes filed a Complaint against the builder of their homes, Elliott Homes, Inc. (“Elliott”), alleging common law causes of action for construction defects. Elliott filed a motion to stay the litigation on the ground that the homeowners failed to comply with the pre-litigation procedure set forth in the Act. The trial court denied the motion, agreeing with the homeowners that this pre-litigation procedure did not apply because the homeowners had not alleged a statutory violation of the Act. Elliott appealed. The Court of Appeal purely considered the question of whether the Act, including its pre-litigation procedure, applies when a homeowner pleads construction defect claims based on common law causes of action, and not on statutory violations of the Act’s building standards.
To answer this question, the Court analyzed a recent case decided by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District:
Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98. In this subrogation case, a builder’s insurer asserted common law causes of action (but not statutory building standard violations) alleging construction defects against the builder to recover amounts paid to the homeowner after a sprinkler system failure caused extensive damage to the subject property. The trial court sustained the builder’s demurrer to the Complaint on the ground that it was time-barred under the Act. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order, holding that common law construction defect claims arising from actual damages are not covered by the Act because “the Act does not provide the exclusive remedy in cases where actual damage has occurred.” (
Liberty Mutual, 219 Cal.App.4th 98, 109).
The
Elliott Court declined to follow
Liberty Mutual, finding that that Court failed to properly analyze the language of the Act. The
Elliott Court analyzed both the statutory scheme and the legislative history of the Act to arrive at the conclusion that common law causes of action for construction defects do indeed fall within the purview of the Act.
According to the
Elliott Court, the Act “broadly applies to
any action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in…residential construction and in such an action, a homeowner’s claims or causes of action shall be limited to violation of the standards set forth in the Act, except as specified.” Further, the Act expressly provides that “no other cause of action for a claim covered by this title or for damages recoverable under Section 944 is allowed.”
Civil Code §943(a). In turn,
Civil Code §944 allows for a recovery for the cost of repairing a building standard violation, or for the cost of repairing any damage caused by such a violation, among other things.
The limited exceptions to the Act’s applicability concern the enforcement of a contract, or any action for fraud, personal injury, or violation of a statute. Civil Code §943(a). Additionally, the Act does not apply to condominium conversions. Civil Code §896.
The Elliott Court explains that apart from these exceptions, the Legislature intended the Act to apply to all construction defect claims (regardless of damage) relating to the construction of residential properties whose sales contracts are signed after January 1, 2003. There is no exception in the Act, express or implied, for common law causes of action.
Next, the Court turns to the Act’s legislative history to buttress this conclusion. This history makes clear that the Act is a legislative response to the California Supreme Court’s holding in
Aas v. Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal.4th 627, that construction defects in residential properties are only actionable in tort when actual property damage manifests. Senate Judiciary Committee hearings indicate that the Act was the product of protracted negotiations between varying interested parties, including construction industry trade groups and consumer protection groups. The Legislature intended (1) to promulgate building standards, violations of which would be actionable, even without damage, and (2) to allow homeowners to recover for actual damage caused by construction defects not covered by the building standards. In other words, the Act was intended to provide homeowners redress regardless of whether damage had manifested.
Therefore, the Court concluded that common law causes of action for construction defects, regardless of damage, are subject to the pre-litigation procedure set forth in the Act. The Court issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its earlier order, and to enter a new order granting Elliott’s motion to stay the litigation until the homeowners (and Elliott) have satisfied the pre-litigation procedure of the Act.
II. McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132
Similar to the Third Appellate District Court’s ruling in
Elliott, the Fifth Appellate District Court also rejected the holding of
Liberty Mutual in a matter now pending before the California Supreme Court:
McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132 (review granted and opinion superseded sub nom.
Albany v. Superior Court 360 P.3d 1022). Also similar to
Elliott, in
McMillin a group of homeowners filed common law construction defect claims against the builder of their homes. The builder,
McMillin, moved to stay the litigation pending compliance with the Act’s pre-litigation procedure. The trial court denied the motion, holding that the Act does not apply because the homeowners have not asserted statutory building standard violations contained within the Act.
In reasoning substantially similar to that of
Elliott, the
McMillin Court rejected Liberty Mutual’s holding that the Act is not the exclusive remedy for pursuing construction defect claims, with or without damage. Thus, the
McMillin Court issued a writ of mandate to vacate the trial court’s earlier order and to enter a new order granting McMillin’s motion to stay.
On November 24, 2015, the California Supreme Court granted the homeowners’ petition for review. In August of 2016, briefing was completed and the matter is now awaiting the scheduling of arguments. CGDRB will continue to closely monitor the pending appeal of this matter to the California Supreme Court, as well as all related developments.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Ravi R. Mehta, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Mehta may be contacted at rmehta@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
To Catch a Thief
March 06, 2023 —
Christopher Durso - Construction ExecutiveTony Rader calls it “peeling back the onion”—the slow, methodical process of uncovering the full extent of an embezzlement scam that eventually totaled more than $1 million. What National Roofing Partners (NRP) first discovered was bad enough. The Coppell, Texas–headquartered company, which oversees a nationwide network of nearly 250 commercial roofing contractors, learned in 2018 that a South Texas firm called Statewide Texas Roofing was billing clients for work on behalf of NRP and pocketing all the money. It turned out to be a scheme masterminded by NRP’s then-president, who created Statewide, staffed the company with his kids and used phony work orders to steal hundreds of thousands of dollars in client fees from NRP. He’d been president for six years and with the company since it was created in 2007. It was a huge betrayal—and still just the tip of the iceberg.
“Initially, we thought it was only half a million [dollars] or so,” says Tony Rader, NRP’s chief operating officer. “But I’ll never forget, [Chief Executive Officer] Steve [Little] and I were talking over a bourbon one night, and that’s when I told him, ‘I’ve seen this once before, and this is like an onion. You’ve only peeled off the outer layers. We’re going to be finding stuff for a year, and it’s just going to get bigger and bigger and bigger.’ He said, ‘You think?’ And I said, ‘Oh, I’m pretty sure.’” Rader was all too correct. Working with a third-party forensic accountant, NRP found that not only were its then-chief financial officer and several other employees involved in the scheme, but the president had also abused his corporate credit card, racking up personal charges going back to 2013—on luxury vacations, expensive dinners, clothes, jewelry, even his daughter’s destination wedding in Jamaica. The final tally on his scams: $1.4 million.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Durso, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
