Expert Can be Questioned on a Construction Standard, Even if Not Relied Upon
August 07, 2022 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIt’s not uncommon in construction defect litigation for each side retain one or more experts to give their opinion as to whether something was constructed in accordance with the standard of care. This usually results in what we legal practitioners call a “battle of the experts.”
The California Code of Civil Procedure and Evidence Code include specific provisions applicable to experts including when they must be disclosed, when and how they can be deposed, and what opinions they can render. When attempting to challenge an expert it is not uncommon for one side to argue that the other side’s expert did not consider a certain fact or certain standard in reaching his or her opinion, therefore, allowing that party to argue at trial that the expert’s opinion is somehow flawed.
However, there are also certain limitations, including a limitation restricting a party from cross-examining an expert on any scientific, technical, or professional test, treatise, journal or similar publication if the witness did not rely on such publication in arriving at or forming his or her opinion. The next case,
Paige v. Safeway, Inc. (2021) 74 Cal.App.5th 1108, involved a case of first impression: Namely, whether an expert who did not rely on a publication in forming his or her opinion can nevertheless be questioned on a publication (in this case an ASTM standard) because the publication is a “reliable authority.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Delay Leads to Problems with Construction Defects
November 27, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Bardwells bought a new home in the Philadelphia area in 2000. Now, thirteen years later they’ve learned that their house has been slowly rotting away due to moisture trapped beneath the stucco. And they’re not alone. The O’Days bought a home for about $1 million, and it now needs about $200,000 in repairs. All the stucco has been removed and their home is being rebuilt. Monica Bardwell said that “everything was rotted,” and “there was not a piece of good wood to be salvaged.”
Other area homeowners are finding similar problems. Wendy Meyer had her home inspected by Kevin Thompson. Mr. Thompson said, “I shouldn’t be able to take a piece of plywood like that and crush it in my hands completely disintegrated.”
Mr. Thompson described it as due to “faulty construction,” which he estimated accounted for such damage “95 percent of the time.” The Pennsylvania Builders Association says that diligent homeowners can head off problems with maintenance. “Make sure water isn’t continually on the outside of the stucco,” said Brent Sailhamer of the PBA. “Make sure there are no large cracks where water can seep behind the stucco.”
For those who bought their homes as far back as the Bardwells, it’s already too late to sue anyone. Pennsylvania construction defect law allows 12 years for lawsuits.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wisconsin Federal Court Addresses Scope Of Appraisal Provision In Rental Dwelling Policy
September 05, 2022 —
James M. Eastham - Traub LiebermanIn Higgins v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 22-C-198, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117477 (E.D. Wis. July 5, 2022), the Court addressed the often disputed question of whether an appraisal provision in an insurance policy is limited to disputes over valuation or extends beyond valuation to causation and/or coverage. The underlying loss in the Higgins case involved a fire at a rental dwelling owned by the Plaintiff and insured by State Farm under a Rental Dwelling policy for, among other things, fire losses. Subsequent to being notified of the fire, State Farm investigated and provided the Plaintiff with its estimated cost of repair. Plaintiff disputed the estimate, including the repairs necessary, and also sought additional sums for debris removal and lost rent.
The insurance policy at issue in Higgins included an appraisal provision which provided: “If you and we fail to agree on the amount of loss, either one can demand that the amount of the loss be set by appraisal.” Pursuant to this provision, Plaintiff demanded that State Farm submit to an appraisal to resolve the parties' disagreements. State Farm responded by indicating that it would enter into appraisal over the areas where there were "pricing differences" but not areas where there were "scope differences." According to State Farm, there were a number of issues regarding the scope of repairs necessary to restore the dwelling to its pre-loss condition. Plaintiff disagreed with State Farm's position and did not seek to move forward with the appraisal process on only the items State Farm identified as appropriate for appraisal.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James M. Eastham, Traub LiebermanMr. Eastham may be contacted at
jeastham@tlsslaw.com
Supreme Court Declines to Address CDC Eviction Moratorium
August 04, 2021 —
Zachary Kessler, Amanda G. Halter & Adam Weaver - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogIn a closely watched 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court sided against the challengers to the eviction moratorium issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), keeping a stay in place that leaves the eviction ban in effect through July 31. The CDC has indicated it will not renew the eviction moratorium when it expires at the end of the month.
The CDC’s eviction moratorium was first adopted at the expiration of the CARES Act’s limited eviction protection for federally funded rental properties. The more broadly applicable order, extended under both the Trump and Biden administrations, prohibited landlords from evicting tenants unable to pay due to the financial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, when the tenant confirmed in writing that they had done their best to make any partial payment, were at risk of becoming homeless or having to move into unsafe group housing, and earn below a set income limit. The CDC extended the order most recently on June 24. In announcing that one-month extension, CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky indicated that it would be the order’s final extension.
Reprinted courtesy of
Zachary Kessler, Pillsbury,
Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury and
Adam Weaver, Pillsbury
Mr. Kessler may be contacted at zachary.kessler@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Weaver may be contacted at adam.weaver@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Where Breach of Contract and Tortious Interference Collide
January 11, 2022 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsClaims for breach of contract are numerous in the construction law world. Without these claims we construction attorneys would have a hard time keeping the doors open. A 2021 case examined a different sort of claim that could arise (though, “spoiler alert” did not in this case) during the course of a construction project. That type of claim is one for tortious interference with business expectancy.
In Clark Nexsen, Inc. et. al v. Rebkee, the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia gave a great explanation of the law of this type of claim in analyzing the following basic facts:
In 2018, Clark Nexsen, Inc. (“Clark”) and MEB General Contractors, Inc. (“MEB”) responded to Henrico County’s (“Henrico”) Request for Proposals (“RFP”) for the design and construction of a sport and convocation center (the “Project”). Henrico initially shortlisted Clark and MEB as a “design-build” team for the Project, but later restarted the search, issuing a second RFP. Clark and MEB submitted a second “design-build” proposal, but Henrico selected Rebkee Co. (“Rebkee”) for certain development aspects of the Project. MEB also submitted proposals to Rebkee, and Rebkee selected MEB as the design-builder for the Project. MEB, at Rebkee’s request, solicited proposals from three design firms and ultimately selected Clark as its design partner. From December 2019 to May 2020, Clark and MEB served as the design-build team to assist Rebkee in developing the Project. In connection therewith, Clark developed proprietary designs, technical drawings, and, with MEB, several cost estimates. In February 2020, MEB submitted a $294,334.50 Pay Application to Rebkee for engineering, design, and Project development work. Rebkee never paid MEB. Henrico paid MEB $50,000.00 as partial payment for MEB’s and Clark’s work. MEB then learned that Rebkee was using Clark’s drawings to solicit design and construction proposals from other companies. On July 23, 2020, Rebkee told MEB that Henrico directed it to cancel the design-build arrangement with MEB and Clark and pursue a different planning method. MEB and Clark sued and Rebkee for, among other claims, tortious interference with a business expectancy. Rebkee moved to dismiss the tortious interference claim.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
JD Supra’s 2017 Reader’s Choice Awards
March 22, 2017 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogJD Supra, one of the world’s leading content distribution companies for the legal industry, announced its Readers’ Choice Awards for 2017 earlier this week. We were honored to be among a group of 200 authors selected from over 40,000 who published legal news, commentary and analysis on legal issues of importance to the clients we serve.
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
Case Dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment Granted for BWB&O’s Client in Wrongful Death Case!
November 18, 2024 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPCongratulations to San Diego Partner JohnPaul Salem on his recent MSJ victory in a wrongful death case!
Plaintiffs, the family of a pedestrian who was struck and killed by a train at a San Diego trolley station when he walked onto the tracks while warning lights and bells were active, filed suit for (i) dangerous condition of public property; and (ii) negligence arising out of the accident. Plaintiffs alleged BWB&O’s Client had created a dangerous condition and failed to warn of the alleged danger.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Limits The Scope Of A Builder’s Implied Warranty Of Habitability
September 10, 2014 —
Edward A. Jaeger, Jr. and William L. Doerler – White and Williams LLPIn Conway v. Cutler Group, Inc., -- A.3d --, 2014 WL 4064261 (Pa.), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania addressed the question of whether a subsequent home buyer can recover from a home builder pursuant to the builder’s implied warranty of habitability, a warranty that protects those who purchase a newly constructed home from latent defects. Concluding that a builder’s warranty of habitability is grounded in contract, the Court held that a subsequent purchaser of a previously inhabited home cannot recover damages from a builder-vendor based on the builder-vendor’s breach of the implied warranty of habitability. The Court’s decision leaves unanswered the question of whether a purchaser who is also the first user-purchaser of a new home can pursue a breach of warranty action against a builder with whom the purchaser is not in privity of contract.
In Conway, the Cutler Group, Inc. (Cutler) sold a new home to Davey and Holly Fields. The Fields subsequently sold the home to Michael and Deborah Conway. After the Conways discovered water infiltration problems in their home, they filed a one-count complaint against Cutler, alleging that Cutler breached its implied warranty of habitability. In response to the Conways’ complaint, Cutler filed preliminary objections, arguing that the warranty of habitability extends from the builder only to the first purchaser of a newly constructed home. The trial court sustained Cutler’s preliminary objections based on the lack of contractual privity between the parties and the Conways appealed the trial court’s decision. On appeal, the Superior Court reversed, stating that the implied warranty of habitability is based on public policy considerations and exists independently of any representations by the builder, and even in the absence of an express contract between the builder and the purchaser. Cutler appealed the Superior Court’s decision to the Supreme Court.
To address the question of whether the implied warranty of habitability extends to a subsequent purchaser of a used residence, the Court discussed the history of the implied warranty of habitability in Pennsylvania. As stated by the Court, the Court adopted the implied warranty of habitability in the context of new home sales to reject the traditional doctrine of caveat emptor (buyer beware) because the purchaser of a new home justifiably relies on the skill of the developer. Thus, as between the builder-vendor and the buyer, the builder should bear the risk that the home he builds is habitable and functional. In adopting the doctrine, the Court noted that the doctrine is rooted in the existence of a contract – an agreement of sale – between the builder-vendor and the buyer.
Reprinted courtesy of
Edward A. Jaeger, Jr., White and Williams LLP and
William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Jaeger may be contacted at jaegere@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
