California Supreme Court Hands Victory to Private Property Owners Over Public Use
June 21, 2017 —
Sean M. Sherlock - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogIn 1970 the California Supreme Court held that, under certain circumstances, private property owners impliedly dedicate their property to the public if they permit the public to use it. Gion v. City of Santa Cruz (1970) 2 Cal.3d 29. This holding was controversial, and the next year the California Legislature enacted Civil Code section 1009 limiting the public’s ability to permanently use private property through an implied dedication.
In the 40-plus years since then, the lower courts have wrestled with the issue of whether the statute limiting implied dedication applies only to recreational uses by the public, or also to nonrecreational uses. On June 15, 2017, the California Supreme Court issued its unanimous opinion in Scher v. Burke (June 15, 2017, S230104) ___ Cal.4th ___, holding that the limitations on implied dedication apply to nonrecreational as well as recreational uses. The case is significant because it demonstrates that the Supreme Court will apply the plain language of the state’s statutes to uphold private property rights.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sean M. Sherlock, Snell & WilmerMr. Sherlock may be contacted at
ssherlock@swlaw.com
Indemnitor Owes Indemnity Even Where Indemnitee is Actively Negligent, California Court Holds
June 15, 2017 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIndemnity provisions are one of the most fought over provisions in design and construction contracts. But while parties generally understand the intent behind indemnity provisions — that one party (the “indemnitor”) agrees to indemnify (and often defend as well) another party (the “indemnitee”) from and against claims that may arise on a project — few understand how they are actually applied.
In a recent Court of Appeals decision, Oltmans Construction Company v. Bayside Interiors, Inc. (March 30, 2017), Case No. A147313, the California Court of Appeals for the First District examined an indemnity provision and its “except to the extent of” provision whereby a subcontractor agreed to indemnify (and defend) a general contractor from claims arising on a project “except to the extent of” the general contractor’s active negligence or willful misconduct and whether such language either: (1) bars a general contractor from seeking indemnity where the general contractor was actively negligent; or (2) simply bars a general contractor from seeking indemnity where the general contractor was actively and solely negligent, thereby, requiring a subcontractor to indemnify the general contractor where the negligence of another party may have also contributed to the injury or damage.
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
New York Considering Legislation That Would Create Statute of Repose For Construction
April 05, 2021 —
Richard W. Brown & Anna M. Perry - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.New York is considering legislation, which, if enacted, would create a statute of repose limiting the number of years after completion of a construction project that legal action may be asserted against a contractor. New York currently remains the only state without a statute of repose for construction. Earlier this year, however, the New York State Legislature introduced Bills S04127 and A01706 (the “Bill”) , which would impose a 10-year period of repose in which an injured party may bring suit against a design professional and/or a contractor for bodily injury or property damage resulting from a construction defect.
Currently, contractors and design professionals have exposure to bodily injury and property damage claims resulting from construction defects for an unlimited number of years after completion of a project. If enacted, the Bill would limit the period of repose to 10 years after the project is completed, which is deemed to occur upon substantial completion or acceptance by the owner. An additional 1-year grace period is provided for an injured party to file suit where bodily injury or property damage occurs in the tenth year after completion. The Bill notably limits the applicability of the 10-year statute of repose to third-party actions and thereby preserves the existing 3-year and 6-year statutes of limitation applicable to actions asserted by an owner or client for professional malpractice and breach of contract, respectively.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Brown may be contacted at RBrown@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Perry may be contacted at APerry@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Supreme Court of New Jersey Reviews Statutes of Limitation and the Discovery Rule in Construction Defect Cases
July 18, 2018 —
David Suggs – Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.Robert Neff Jr. of Wilson Elser analyzed the recent case, Palisades at Fort Lee Condo. Ass’n v. 100 Old Palisade, LLC, 2017 N.J. Lexis 845, 169 A.3d 473 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, September 14, 2017), and states that this ruling “gives defendants the ability to defend against the assertion that the statute of limitations was tolled until the most recent owner (and plaintiff) discovered the cause of action.”
Neff concludes that a statute of limitations test needs to be conducted at the beginning of each case: “In Palisades, the motions to dismiss based on the statute of limitations were filed at the conclusion of all discovery. While an initial analysis might yield the conclusion that certain discovery will be needed to ascertain the appropriate accrual date (or dates, in the case of multiple defendants), counsel will then know what discovery to seek during the discovery period.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scary Movie: Theatre Developer Axed By Court of Appeal In Prevailing Wage Determination Challenge
July 19, 2017 —
Steven M. Cvitanovic & Omar Parra - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPThe First Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal recently held that the construction of a movie theater, which was performed in furtherance of a city’s redevelopment agenda, constitutes a “public work” within the meaning of California’s prevailing wage law. Cinema West, LLC v. Christine Baker, No. A144265, (Cal. Ct. App. June 30, 2017).
Like many California cities, the City of Hesperia (the “City”) endeavored to revitalize its downtown. In furtherance of this goal, the City acquired vacant property in its downtown with the hope of turning it into a new city hall, a public library, and “complimentary retail, restaurant, and entertainment establishments.” After completing construction of the civic buildings, the City entered into discussions with Cinema West, LLC (“Cinema West”) for the construction of a “state-of-the-art cinema experience.”
Under the agreement with the City, Cinema West agreed to purchase the property from the City at fair market value, obtain financing for the construction costs, and build and maintain the movie theater. The City, on the other hand, agreed to provide Cinema West with an interest-bearing loan forgivable over ten years, and to construct an adjacent parking lot “for use by Cinema West... as a parking lot for the movie theater.” The City, moreover, agreed to issue Cinema West a one-time payment as consideration for the operating covenant.
Reprinted courtesy of
Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Omar Parra, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com
Mr. Parra may be contacted at oparra@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
EPA Announces Decision to Retain Current Position on RCRA Regulation of Oil and Gas Production Wastes
June 03, 2019 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelAfter much study, EPA has decided against changing its current RCRA Subtitle D rules affecting the state regulation of oil and gas exploration & production waste. Since 1988, EPA has determined that most such wastes should be regulated as only non-hazardous wastes subject to RCRA Subtitle D, and not the more onerous hazardous waste provisions of RCRA Subtitle C. (See the Regulatory Determination of Oil and Gas and Geothermal Exploration, Development and Production Wastes, 53 FR 25,446 (July 6,1988).)
As a result, under the Subtitle D rules, the primary regulators of such waste are state regulatory agencies, which follow the state plan non-hazardous waste guidelines developed by EPA. This regulatory disposition has proven to be fairly controversial, and it was recently challenged in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia: Environmental Integrity Project, et al. v. McCarthy. To settle this lawsuit, EPA and the plaintiffs entered into a consent decree by which EPA was to make certain determinations about the future of the program after conducting an appropriate study. That study, Management of Exploration, Development and Production Wastes: Factors Informing a Decision on the Need for Regulatory Action, has been completed, and it concludes, after a fairly comprehensive review of these state regulatory programs, that “revisions to the federal regulations for the management of E&P wastes under Subtitle D of RCRA (40 CFR Part 257) are not necessary at this time.” In a statement released on April 23, 2019, EPA accepted these findings and promised that it would continue to work with states and other stakeholders to identify areas for improvement and to address emerging issues to ensure that exploration, development and production wastes “continue to be managed in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Insurer Granted Summary Judgment on Denial of Construction Defect Claim
January 27, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment, confirming there was no duty to defend or indemnify a construction defect claim against the insured. Fontaine Bros. v. Acadia Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148056 (D. Mass. Aug. 29, 2019).
The City of Worcester contracted with Fontaine Brothers, Inc. to install a new ice refrigeration system at the City's indoor ice rink. After construction, the condensers in two chiller units eroded and stopped operating.
The City sued Fontaine for the costs of leasing temporary chillers and installing new ones. The City alleged that Fontaine installed condensers with carbon steel tubes instead of contractually required stainless stell tubes.Further, Fontaine and its subcontractors did not adequately maintain the condensers, in breach of the contract.
Fontaine's insurer, Acadia Insurance Company, denied coverage. Fontaine sued Acadia. The court noted that the City's complaint plainly alleged faulty workmanship by Fontaine. However, the City's complaint did not allege that Fontaine intended the condensers to corrode and left open the possibility that Fontaine was unaware of any potential problem or did not foresee the corrosion likely to result from the use of carbon steel components or the maintenance work being done by its subcontractor. Therefore, the Cit's complaint did not foreclose the possibility that the corrosion resulting from Fontaine's alleged faulty workmanship and maintenance might be shown to be an unforeseen or unintended consequence of reckless or negligent conduct. Accordingly, it was possible that there was an occurrence under the policy language.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
What to Look for in Subcontractor Warranty Endorsements
February 03, 2020 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction LitigationWith increasing frequency in the construction defect cases we defend, we are seeing commercial general liability insurance policies with “subcontractor warranty” endorsements. Also known as contractor or subcontractor special conditions, these endorsements could have severe and negative consequences for builders that do not comply with their requirements. In researching for this article, I reviewed six different endorsements used by six different carriers, all of which contained some or all of the following requirements:
- The builder must have signed subcontract agreements with its subcontractors that require subcontractors to hold harmless, i.e., defend and indemnify, the builder for “bodily injury” or “property damage” claims caused by their negligence.
- The subcontractors must maintain their own insurance with limits equal to or greater than the limits in the builder’s own policy, with limits of at least $1 million per occurrence.
- The subcontractors’ insurance must not exclude the work being performed for the builder, e.g., the excavator’s policy cannot exclude earth movement claims, the subcontractor’s policy cannot exclude residential construction.
- The subcontractors must maintain their own workers’ compensation and/or employer’s liability insurance.
- The subcontractors must provide the builder with an endorsement or a certificate of insurance indicating that the builder has been added to the subcontractors’ insurance as an additional insured.
- The subcontractors must provide the builder with an endorsement or a certificate of insurance indicating that their insurance carriers have agreed to provide waivers of subrogation in favor of the builder.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
