NARI Addresses Construction Defect Claim Issues for Remodeling Contractors
November 05, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe blog of the National Association of the Remodeling Industry (NARI) reported on issues for remodeling contractors that could result in construction defect claims. The most common problems "include water intrusion and water damage (windows, roofs, siding, etc.), heaving/settlement of flatwork areas, structural deficiencies/damage and material defects, etc."
NARI suggests starting by analyzing contractual provisions. A few of the provisions addressed by NARI include Dispute Resolution, Performance Guidelines, and Notice of Claim Provisions. The article also covers Warranties, Applicable Laws, Potential Legal Action, and Insurance Coverage.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
What is a “Force Majeure” Clause? Do I Need one in my Contract? Three Options For Contractors, Subcontractors and Suppliers to Consider
June 20, 2022 —
William L. Porter - Porter Law GroupIn the world of the building and construction industry, the general rules of contracting are fairly simple. A supplier agrees to supply equipment or materials for a specific price and within a certain time frame, does so, and is paid an agreed sum. Likewise, contractors and subcontractors agree to build structures per plans and specifications within certain time frames and are paid accordingly. Pretty simple. But what happens when some outside event makes performance impossible or unduly expensive or substantially delayed? What happens, for example, if a ship is sitting off the coast of Long Beach for three months with equipment ordered for the project and it cannot be unloaded due to a labor shortage? What if government mandates cause factories that build needed equipment to close due to an epidemic or pandemic? What if the supply warehouse holding the equipment until it is ready for installation unexpectedly burns to the ground? What if a Russian missile blows up the factory in Ukraine where the intended equipment is being manufactured? What happens then? Who bears the financial consequence?
A properly constructed “force majeure” clause may provide the answer to these questions. The Marriam-Webster Dictionary defines “force majeure” as a literal translation from the French meaning “a superior or irresistible force.” It further defines the term as “an event or effect that cannot be reasonably anticipated or controlled.” The Oxford Dictionary defines force majeure as “unexpected circumstances, such as a war, that can be used as an excuse when they prevent somebody from doing something that is written in a contract.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Porter, Porter Law GroupMr. Porter may be contacted at
bporter@porterlaw.com
Blackstone to Buy Chicago’s Willis Tower for $1.3 Billion
March 19, 2015 —
Hui-yong Yu – Bloomberg(Bloomberg) -- Blackstone Group LP agreed to buy Chicago’s Willis Tower, the second-tallest building in the U.S., and plans to upgrade the retail and observatory space in a bet on growth in the city.
The price was $1.3 billion, a record for a Chicago office building, according to Blackstone executives. The sellers of the 110-story skyscraper, formerly known as Sears Tower, are a group including New York-based investors Joseph Chetrit and Joseph Moinian, and American Landmark Properties Ltd.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hui-yong Yu, BloombergMs. Yu may be contacted at
hyu@bloomberg.net
US Appeals Court Halts OSHA Vaccine Mandate, Unclear How Long
November 15, 2021 —
Debra K. Rubin & Jeff Yoders - Engineering News-RecordThe U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans on Nov. 6 stayed the Biden administration's requirement that workers at U.S. companies with at least 100 employees be vaccinated against COVID-19 or be tested weekly, citing potential "grave statutory and constitutional" issues raised by opponents of the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration's emergency temporary standard announced on Nov. 4.
Reprinted courtesy of
Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record and
Jeff Yoders, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com
Mr. Yoders may be contacted at yodersj@enr.com
Read the full story... 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
Bats, Water, Soil, and Bridges- an Engineer’s dream
December 31, 2014 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback – Construction Law in North CarolinaWant to know how bats may affect your engineering plans? Want to hear about cool new bridges? Read on.
Over the past month, I’ve had the pleasure of attending two events hosted by the North Carolina Chapter of the ACEC (American Council of Engineering Companies). The first of these was the Joint Transportation Conference, held in conjunction with the NC DOT. The second was the annual ACEC Engineering Excellence Awards. At both events, I learned interesting information that engineers should know. Today, I will discuss the Transportation Conference, including some new regulations and unusual design methods. I will save the highlights from the Excellence Awards for later this week.
1. It’s a cave, it’s a bat, it’s bats, man!
Did you know that your future bridge project may be affected by the Northern Long-Eared Bat? It’s true. Right now, the federal government is considering listing the bat on the Endangered Species List, due to the 98-99% mortality rate the bats are experiencing due to “white nose syndrome”. Over 1,700 projects in North Carolina could be impacted, including work on bridges, culverts, abandoned buildings, and guardrails–essentially, any activity involving tree clearing, structure demolition/removal, or structure maintenance. On November 26th, 2014, the US Fish and Wildlife Service extended the comment period to discuss the implications of listing the bat on the endangered species list. If the bat is listed, there is no grandfathering of projects. All projects will immediately be required to engage in protective activities. Stay tuned, but be aware that your transportation projects could be affected starting sometime next year.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North CarolinaMs. Brumback may be contacted at
mbrumback@rl-law.com
A Trivial Case
November 07, 2022 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogConstruction defect cases leading to physical injury are rarely trivial, at least in the eyes of the injured party, but alas sometimes they are as the next case,
Nunez v. City of Redondo Beach, 81 Cal.App.5th 749 (2022), demonstrates.
The Nunez Case
Monica Nunez, Vice President of Finance and Accounting at a restaurant chain and a part-time fitness instructor at a gym, tripped and fell on a public sidewalk in Redondo Beach. Ms. Nunez, who was in her forties, tripped following a group run when her back foot hit a sidewalk slab that was elevated at its highest point approximately 11/16 inches. Ms. Nunez landed on her left knee and right arm and in the process fractured her kneecap and elbow.
Ms. Nunez sued the City of Redondo Beach for her injuries alleging causes of action for dangerous conditions on public property under Government Code section 835, nuisance under Government Code section 815.2, and failure to perform a mandatory duty under Government Code section 815.6.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Construction and Contract Issues Blamed for Problems at Anchorage Port
August 27, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFA third-party audit of the construction at the Port of Anchorage has found fault with the design provided by the engineers. In response, PND, the engineering firm involved, has claimed that it was not their design, but faulty construction of it that lead to an interruption in the construction project.
Separately, the Office of the Inspector General has called into question how MARAD, the agency which oversaw the port construction, handled the planning and contracts for the project.
Control of the project has been taken over by the Municipality of Anchorage, and they have called into question PND’s open cell sheet pile design and PND’s design of the dock infrastructure. Simpson, Gumpertz and Heger reviewed the design, comparing it to a design provided by CH2M Hill, and found that the PND design was inadequate. A contract was subsequently awarded to CH2M Hill.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
