2018 Legislative Changes Affecting the Construction Industry
June 06, 2018 —
Melinda S. Gentile - Peckar & AbramsonThe 2018 Florida Legislative Session recently concluded and a number of important construction-related House Bills (HB) and Senate Bills (SB) were presented during the Session. Florida Governor Rick Scott has 15 days to act on the legislation once each Bill has passed the House and Senate. Bills signed by the Governor go into effect on July 1, 2018, unless indicated otherwise. These Bills may impact General Contractors and Construction Managers in a number of ways, not the least of which is the period of time that a cause of action may be initiated for the design, planning or construction of an improvement.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melinda Gentile, Peckar & AbramsonMs. Gentile may be contacted at
mgentile@pecklaw.com
Ahlers & Cressman Presents a Brief History of Liens
August 20, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFBrad Westmoreland on Ahlers & Cressman PLLC’s blog, presented the history of liens in the U.S., going back to 1789. In fact, the lien was created in response to the need of swift and extensive construction in Washington D.C.
“Although it had an abundance of land at the time, America was short on labor and capital,” Westmoreland wrote. “Knowing the state of things, builders were hesitant to provide labor and materials without guarantees that owners would be able to pay.”
According to the Ahlers & Cressman PLLC blog, Thomas Jefferson solved the issue by urging “the Legislature of Maryland to pass a law giving builders ‘a lien upon newly created values of [their] labors.’ The new law would provide builders with the assurance that contracts would not result in a total loss should the owners fail to pay.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Withdrawal of an Admission in California May Shift Costs—Including Attorneys’ Fees—Incurred in Connection with the Withdrawal
January 24, 2018 —
Tony Carucci – Real Estate Litigation BlogUnder California Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.300, a court may permit a party to withdraw an admission made in response to a request for admission upon noticed motion. The court may only do so, however, “if it determines that the admission was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, and that the party who obtained the admission will not be substantially prejudiced in maintaining that party’s action or defense on the merits.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.300(b). The court may also “impose conditions on the granting of the motion that are just, including, but not limited to . . . (2) An order that the costs of any additional discovery be borne in whole or in part by the party withdrawing or amending the admission.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.300(c).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tony Carucci, Snell & WilmerMr. Carucci may be contacted at
acarucci@swlaw.com
Understanding the Miller Act
February 26, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFJohn P. Ahlers of Ahlers & Cressman PLLC, explained who is covered by the Miller Act in regards to Federal public works projects on the firm’s blog. Ahlers stated that “[t]he Miller Act requires that all general contractors post payment bonds on contracts in excess of $25,000.00.”
In his blog post, Ahlers goes over coverage and the distinction between subcontractor and supplier. Ahlers commented, “While, at first glance, it may seem fairly simple to sort out who is and who is not covered by the Miller Act payment bond, the analysis can at times be factually and legally complex. This is an area that, if faced, the contractor should seek legal advice of an experienced construction lawyer before jumping to conclusions.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Certificates Of Merit For NC Lawsuits Against Engineers And Architects? (Still No)(Law Note)
April 22, 2019 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North CarolinaCertificates of Merit are documents intended to show that a true issue exists with a professional’s work, prior to that person being sued. While North Carolina does require that a person suing a medical provider first have the matter reviewed by a professional (and attest to that in the Complaint), there is no requirement for any review prior to a lawsuit against an architect, engineer, or surveyor. Thus, anyone can file a lawsuit against an engineer/architect/surveyor without first having their case eyeballed reviewed by another professional.
Over the years, there have been attempts at adding a Certificate of Merit requirement to design professional lawsuits. See, for example, examples here: from
2005; from
2007; from
2011; and from
2013.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLCMs. Brumback may be contacted at
mbrumback@rl-law.com
California Supreme Court Finds Negligent Supervision Claim Alleges An Occurrence
July 21, 2018 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiAnswering a question posed by the Ninth Circuit, the California Supreme Court found that a suit against a employer for negligent hiring, retention and supervision of a employee who intentionally injures a third party alleges an occurrence under a CGL policy. Liberty Surplus Co. Corp. v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction Co., 2018 Cal. LEXIS 4063 (Cal. June 4, 2018)
Ledesma & Meyer Construction Company (L&M) contracted with the school district to manage a construction project at a middle school. L&M hired Darold Hecht as an assistant superintendent on the project. In 2010, Jane Doe, a 13-year-old student at the school, sued alleging that Hecht had sexually abused her. Doe’s claims included a cause of action against L&M for negligent hiring, retaining, and supervising Hecht.
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
Texas Court of Appeals Conditionally Grant Petition for Writ of Mandamus to Anderson
April 25, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFThe Texas Court of Appeals conditionally grant mandamus relief to Anderson Construction Company and Ronnie Anderson (collectively “Anderson”)… from the trial court in a construction defect lawsuit filed by Brent L. Mainwaring and Tatayana Mainwaring. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.001-.007 (West 2000 & Supp. 2010). Relators contend the trial court abused its discretion by compelling discovery while the case was abated by operation of law.
The Court of Appeals opinion describes what led up to the proceedings: “The Mainwarings’ original petition identified certain defects in their Anderson-constructed home. Those defects concerned the roof trusses and framing, air conditioning, mortar and masonry, exterior doors and windows, and weep holes. With respect to the five areas of defects identified in their original petition, the Mainwarings gave Anderson the statutorily required notice on January 13, 2010. After implementing agreed extensions, Anderson made an offer of settlement for the defects the Mainwarings identified in their notice. Almost eight months later, the Mainwarings filed an amended petition adding defects they had not included in their original petition and notice. The additional defects the Mainwarings included in their amended petition had not been addressed by Anderson’s offer of settlement.”
Following these events, Anderson claimed the Mainwarings did not respond in writing to their settlement offer. “Anderson filed a verified plea in abatement on December 2, 2010. In the trial court, Anderson claimed that the Mainwarings failed to respond in writing to Anderson’s settlement offer, as required by Section 27.004(b) of the RCLA. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(b)(1). The Mainwarings moved to compel discovery responses from Anderson. The Mainwarings alleged that they rejected Anderson’s settlement offer, and that if their response was insufficient, they contend that Anderson’s offer was rejected by operation of law on the twenty-fifth day after the Mainwarings received it. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(i). The Mainwarings’ motion to compel was not supported by affidavit. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(d)(2). On January 13, 2011, Anderson filed a verified supplemental plea in abatement. Anderson alleged that the Mainwarings failed to provide written notice concerning the newly alleged defects and complained the Mainwarings were attempting to circumvent the inspection and resolution procedure of the RCLA. Over Anderson’s objection that the lawsuit had been abated, the trial court granted the Mainwarings’ motion to compel discovery.”
After listening to both sides, the Court of Appeals offered this reasoning for their opinion: “The parties do not dispute that Anderson inspected the property before the Mainwarings alleged the existence of additional defects in their amended pleading, nor do the Mainwarings claim that Anderson has been given an opportunity to inspect the additional defects the Mainwarings identified in their amended pleadings. We conclude the trial court did not have the discretion to deny or lift the abatement until the Mainwarings established their compliance with the statute. In other words, the Mainwarings are required to provide Anderson a reasonable opportunity to inspect the additional defects identified by their amended pleading, which will allow Anderson the opportunity to cure or settle with respect to the newly identified defects.”
The Court of Appeals spoke directly on the issue of mandamus relief: “The Mainwarings contend that mandamus relief is not available because the trial court’s ruling does not prevent Anderson from making settlement offers during the discovery process. ‘An appellate remedy is “adequate” when any benefits to mandamus review are outweighed by the detriments.’ In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004). The failure to abate a case is typically not subject to mandamus. See In re Allstate Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co., 85 S.W.3d 193, 196 (Tex. 2002) (citing Abor v. Black, 695 S.W.2d 564, 567 (Tex. 1985)). In this case, however, the case was abated by operation of law. By ignoring the statutory abatement, the trial court interfered with the statutory procedure for developing and resolving construction defect claims. See In re Kimball Hill Homes Tex., Inc., 969 S.W.2d 522, 525 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, orig. proceeding) (An appeal provides an inadequate remedy for the trial court’s failure to observe automatic abatement pursuant to the RCLA.). The benefits of mandamus review are not outweighed by the detriments of mandamus review in this case.“
In conclusion, “The trial court had no discretion to compel discovery while the case was abated, and Anderson, who has been compelled to respond to discovery during a period the case was under an automatic abatement, has no adequate remedy on appeal. Accordingly, we conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus. The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to vacate its order of February 3, 2011, and fails to refrain from proceeding with the case until a motion to reinstate is filed that establishes compliance with the notice and inspection requirements of the Residential Construction Liability Act.”
Read the trial court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court’s Ruling on SB800 “Surprising to Some”
October 16, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFDescribing it as “surprising to many in the residential home building industry,” Jay Drake of Reuben, Junius & Rose LLP has a piece discussing the recent California Court of Appeals decision that SB800 is not a homeowner’s only remedy for construction defects. The court found, according to Mr. Drake that “the primary purpose of the Act was to provide a property owner with remedies for repair of construction defects before the defects caused actual damages.” In the case before the court, the construction defects had already lead to further damages.
Mr. Drake notes that the legislative history of SB800 puts the bill in response to an earlier California court case in which the courts determined that without actual damage to property, a homeowner could not file a construction defect lawsuit. The court concluded that SB800 was not intended to limit the homeowner’s rights after a construction defect situation has lead to damage.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
