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
The Overlooked Nevada Rule In an Arena Project Lawsuit
August 04, 2016 —
Scott Van Voorhis – Engineering News-RecordWhen crunching the numbers on the construction wrap-up program for the T-Mobile Arena project outside Las Vegas, insurance broker Aon Risk Services South allegedly failed to take into account a Nevada workers’ compensation rule, one of many intricate features of the state’s workers’ compensation regulations. Others had apparently missed this aspect of the rule, too. “Many business owners and executives are unaware of this regulation and … are paying more premium to their workers’ compensation carriers than they should be,” warned Bradley Rowe, a commercial insurance broker in Las Vegas, in a blog post in 2014. Two years later, the prime contractor joint venture on the completed $230-million arena is battling in court with Aon, charging the broker with professional negligence and breach of contract, according to court documents filed in U.S. District Court in Nevada.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-RecordYou may send questions or comments to
enr.com@bnpmedia.com
Federal Court Requires Auto Liability Carrier to Cover Suit Involving Independent Contractor Despite “Employee Exclusion”
August 30, 2017 —
H. Scott Williams & Brendan Holt - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.A recent federal court decision rendered in July of 2017 highlights the importance of worker classification in the transportation industry and the potential insurance implications. In Spirit Commercial Auto Risk Retention Grp., Inc. v. Kailey, 1 the court determined that an “employee exclusion” in a motor carrier’s automobile liability insurance policy did not exclude coverage for liability resulting from the bodily injury of an independent contractor operating the motor carrier’s tractor-trailer. In April of 2014, a team of two drivers hired by the motor carrier, Kailey Trucking Line (KTL), were involved in a collision while operating KTL’s truck. The passenger in the truck, who was not operating the vehicle at the time, was killed in the accident. Subsequently, the spouse of the decedent filed suit against KTL as well as the driver of the truck.
KTL sought coverage for the suit under its automobile liability insurance policy, issued by Spirit Commercial Auto Risk Retention Group, Incorporated (Spirit). However, Spirit took the position that it had no duty to defend or indemnify KTL, and ultimately filed a declaratory judgment action in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The policy issued to KTL provided coverage for damages due to bodily injury or property damage caused by an accident resulting from the ownership, maintenance, or use of a covered auto. However, the policy excluded from coverage any bodily injury to an employee or fellow employee of the insured arising out of and in the course of employment of the insured. Accordingly, to the extent that the decedent qualified as an “employee” of KTL, Spirit had no duty to indemnify KTL in the litigation.
Reprinted courtesy of
H. Scott Williams, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Brendan C. Colt, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Holt may be contacted at bch@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Williams may be contacted at hsw@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ninth Circuit Upholds Corps’ Issuance of CWA Section 404 Permit for Newhall Ranch Project Near Santa Clarita, CA
April 11, 2018 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog On April 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in a unanimous opinion, rejected the challenges to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) decision to issue a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit to the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall), which is planning a large residential and commercial project in Los Angeles County near Santa Clarita, CA (the Newhall Ranch project). The Newhall Ranch project, which involves the discharge of dredge and fill materials into the Santa Clara River, has been scaled back and modified, and the Ninth Circuit held that it is consistent with the CWA, the Corps’ regulations and procedures, as well as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Ninth Circuit provides an excellent primer on the Section 404 permitting process. The case is
Friends of the Santa Clara River v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLPMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Hunton Andrews Kurth’s Insurance Recovery Practice, Partners Larry Bracken and Mike Levine Receive Band 1 Honors from Chambers USA in Georgia
June 14, 2021 —
Walter J. Andrews - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogThe 2021 Chambers and Partners rankings for Georgia insurance recovery practices and lawyers are out and Hunton Andrews Kurth has received top honors. The rankings include Hunton Andrews Kurth’s Insurance Recovery practice and partners Lawrence J. Bracken II and Michael S. Levine, with all receiving Band 1 honors – the organization’s top-tier ranking. “The top-level ranking of our practice in Georgia, and the work that Larry and Mike bring to our clients in Georgia, specifically, is emblematic of the work our team is doing nationwide,” said Insurance Recovery Practice Head, Walter J. Andrews. “The Firm and I could not be more proud,” he added.
Chambers and Partners is an independent research company operating across more than 200 jurisdictions delivering detailed rankings and insight into the world’s leading lawyers. Its rankings are viewed as one of the most credible and reliable industry benchmarks.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Walter J. Andrews, Hunton Andrews KurthMr. Andrews may be contacted at
wandrews@HuntonAK.com
Formaldehyde-Free Products for Homes
March 05, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFBuilder Magazine reported that builders are “making indoor air quality a major concern,” including choosing healthier, formaldehyde-free products.
Builder explained the problems with certain chemicals: “Formaldehyde and other VOCs, most frequently found in wood products, finishes, and paints, have been chief among the pollutants targeted for potentially dangerous health effects, such as respiratory issues and irritation of the eyes, nose, throat, and skin.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
As Laura Wreaks Havoc Along The Gulf, Is Your Insurance Ready to Respond?
October 19, 2020 —
Walter J. Andrews, Michael S. Levine, Andrea DeField & Meagan R. Cyrus - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogAs Texas and Louisiana brace for Hurricane Laura to make landfall, policyholders in the affected regions should be making last minute preparations to ensure their properties are covered in the storm’s wake.
Hurricane Laura is expected to make landfall as a Category 4 storm tonight, or early Thursday morning between Houston, Texas and Lake Charles, Louisiana. With wind speeds reaching over 120 mph, Laura has the potential for catastrophic damage to life and property and long-term disruption of normal business operations. The following three steps are crucial to ensuring that you protect your property and business and maximize insurance proceeds should your property fall in the path of this storm:
- Locate a copy of your policy.
Having your policy on hand prior to a loss will aid in starting your claim as soon as possible, as it may be more difficult to get in touch with your broker following a storm where thousands of claims are taking place simultaneously.
Reprinted courtesy of
Walter J. Andrews, Hunton Andrews Kurth,
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth,
Andrea DeField, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Meagan R. Cyrus, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Andrews may be contacted at wandrews@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Ms. DeField may be contacted at adefield@HuntonAK.com
Ms. Cyrus may be contacted at mcyrus@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ahead of the Storm: Preparing for Dorian
September 16, 2019 —
Adam P. Handfinger, Stephen H. Reisman & Gary M. Stein - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.While Hurricane Dorian churns in the Atlantic with its sights currently set on the east coast of Florida, storm preparations should be well underway. As you are busy organizing efforts to secure your job sites, we at Peckar & Abramson offer some quick reminders that may prove helpful:
- Review your contracts, particularly the force majeure provisions, and be sure to comply with applicable notice requirements
- Even if not expressly required at this time, consider providing written notice to project owners that their projects are being prepared for a potential hurricane or tropical storm and that the productivity and progress of the work will be affected, with the actual time and cost impact to be determined after the event.
- Consult your hurricane plan (which is often a contract exhibit) and confirm compliance with all specified safety, security and protection measures.
- Provide written notice to your subcontractors and suppliers of the actions they are required to take to secure and protect their portions of the work and the timetable for completion of their storm preparations.
Reprinted courtesy of Peckar & Abramson, PC attorneys
Adam P. Handfinger,
Stephen H. Reisman and
Gary M. Stein
Mr. Handfinger may be contacted at ahandfinger@pecklaw.com
Mr. Reisman may be contacted at sreisman@pecklaw.com
Mr. Stein may be contacted at gstein@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
