SB800 CONFIRMED AS EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CLAIMS
January 24, 2018 —
Jeffrey Brower and Nathan Owens - Newmeyer & Dillion, LLPIn
McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App., Aug. 26, 2015) 2015 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9931 (“
McMillin”), the Fifth Appellate District Court of Appeal in California published a resounding win for builders, general contractors, and others entities seeking the protections of the Right to Repair Act, Civil Code sections 895, et seq. (“SB800”). The
McMillin Court firmly rejected the reasoning and outcome of both
Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98 (“
Liberty Mutual”) and
Burch v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1411 (“
Burch”), and held that:
the Legislature intended that all claims arising out of defects in residential construction, involving new residences sold on or after January 1, 2003 (§ 938), be subject to the standards and the requirements of the Act; the homeowner bringing such a claim must give notice to the builder and engage in the prelitigation procedures in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 4 of the Act prior to filing suit in court.
(
McMillin, Opinion, p. 15.) The
McMillin Court further held that even if the claimant’s counsel intentionally pleads around SB800 by asserting only tort causes of action, SB800 still applies to all defect claims and a stay of the action to require SB800 compliance is appropriate.
Newmeyer & Dillion has strongly supported builders’ efforts to enforce the Right to Repair Act since its inception. The firm filed an amicus brief in
McMillin on behalf of Leading Builders of America (“LBA”), an association of the leading residential homebuilders in the United States. For years, LBA members developed their warranty and dispute resolution procedures according to the Right to Repair Act and performed prelitigation repairs to the satisfaction of thousands of homeowners.
Liberty Mutual and
Burch undermined the Right to Repair Act by allowing plaintiffs’ attorneys to circumvent the prelitigation procedures to the detriment of homeowners and builders, resulting in confusion and increased litigation. The
McMillin decision breathes new life into the Right to Repair Act and sets the stage for future review by the California Supreme Court.
The
McMillin Court focused on the express language of the Right to Repair Act to arrive at its conclusion that Civil Code sections 896, 897, 943 and 944 demonstrate a clear Legislative intent to occupy the field of construction defect litigation – a belief held by nearly all in the construction industry and the California Superior Courts before
Liberty Mutual. The
McMillin Court found further support for SB800’s comprehensive nature in the Legislative history, which consistently described the Act as “groundbreaking reform” and a “major change” in construction defect litigation, designed to “significantly reduce the cost of construction defect litigation and make housing more affordable.” (
McMillin, Opinion, pp. 18-19.) The
McMillin Court found it inescapable that the Right to Repair Act exclusively governs construction defect litigation involving homes sold on or after January 1, 2003.
The
McMillin, decision will have a significant impact on construction litigation moving forward in two respects. First,
McMillin, is the only appellate decision to date to address whether a builder has the right to enforce SB800 when the claimant’s counsel deliberately attempts to plead around SB800 by asserting only tort claims. Second, the decision provides trial courts with the authority and precedent to ensure compliance with the Right to Repair Act. Trial courts may also find it necessary to revisit prior rulings against builders that relied on
Liberty Mutual.
Newmeyer & Dillion will continue to advocate in support of builders and general contractors by working vigorously to gain further support for the
McMillin, decision and setting the stage for review by the California Supreme Court.
Jeffrey R. Brower is an associate at the Newport Beach office of Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP. His practice focuses on business and construction litigation. Jeffrey can be reached at jeffrey.brower@ndlf.com.
Nathan Owens is the managing partner of the Las Vegas office for Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP. He represents businesses and individuals operating in a wide array of economic sectors including real estate, construction, insurance and health care in all stages of litigation in state and federal court. Nathan can be reached at nathan.owens@ndlf.com.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit
www.ndlf.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Defect Headaches Can Be Avoided
February 21, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFConstruction defect claims can be an avoidable headache, if builders apply some forethought. Mark J. Peschel of Johnson & Lindberg, a Bloomington, Minnesota law firm, points out that simply says that windows should be weatherproofed by appropriate flashing, without any guidance on accomplishing that. He notes that “builders tend not to know the weatherproofing code provisions as well as they should.” Another lawyer, Eric S. Hayes of Brown and Carlson in St. Louis Park extends this, “it’s not just the building codes that need to be followed, but also the standards in the industry.”
Hayes notes that another way builders can avoid headaches is by being proactive. “I often hear, once things have gone sour and moved toward litigation, that the homeowner contacted the contractor a dozen times about a leaking basement and nothing was done, so they were forced to sue.” His advice for builders: “Don’t let it fester.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Imposes New Disabled Access Obligations on Commercial Property Owners
October 07, 2016 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogThe following article was written by my colleague
David Goldman on the new ADA accessibility legislation which was signed into law this past month by Governor Brown.
Since July 1, 2013, California Civil Code section 1938 has required commercial property owners to disclose in every commercial lease whether the property being leased has been inspected by a Certified Access Specialist (“CASp”). A CASp is an individual certified by the State of California as qualified and knowledgeable of construction-related access to public accommodations by persons with disabilities. In addition to disclosing whether or not the property being leased has been CASp inspected, if a CASp inspection has occurred, the commercial lessor must disclose in the lease whether the premises has or has not met all the applicable construction-related accessibility standards established by law. These lease requirements, along with other disability access obligations, were discussed in an
earlier article written in 2012.
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
Loan Modifications Due to COVID-19 Pandemic: FDIC Answers CARES Act FAQs
May 11, 2020 —
Nancy Sabol Frantz, Marissa Levy, Timothy E. Davis & Kristen E. Andreoli - White and WilliamsIn support of financial institutions and borrowers during the COVID-19 pandemic, the newly enacted Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) includes a number of provisions permitting lenders to suspend, during a covered period, requirements under U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) with respect to categorizing certain loan modifications as a troubled debt restructuring (TDR) due to COVID-19. In light of the CARES Act, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) issued a series of answers to FAQs for financial institutions with respect to loan modifications. The FAQs help guide lenders as well as borrowers as they address pending defaults under existing credit facilities. The FAQs encourage financial institutions to work with borrowers who may be unable to meet their payment obligations due to COVID-19 in several ways:
Payment Accommodations
Short-term accommodations which modify, extend, suspend or defer repayment terms should be intended to facilitate the borrower’s ability to work through the immediate impact of the virus. According to the FAQs, all loan accommodation programs should ultimately be targeted towards repayment. To that end, the FDIC recommends that financial institutions address deferred or skipped payments by either extending the original maturity date or by making those payments due in a balloon payment at the maturity date of the loan.
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams attorneys
Nancy Sabol Frantz,
Marissa Levy,
Timothy E. Davis and
Kristen E. Andreoli
Ms. Frantz may be contacted at frantzn@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Levy may be contacted at levymp@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Davis may be contacted at davist@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Andreoli may be contacted at andreolik@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
South Carolina Court of Appeals Diverges from Damico Opinion, Sending Recent Construction Defects Cases to Arbitration
October 24, 2023 —
Laura Paris Paton - Gordon Rees Construction Law BlogCould the latest opinion from the South Carolina Court of Appeals be the distant ringing of a death knell for runaway construction defects verdicts? On the heels of the Damico ruling earlier this year, the courts have issued several opinions distinguishing various arbitration agreements from the one analyzed in Damico and have sent subsequent cases to arbitration.
This summer, the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals compelled arbitration in Cleo Sanders v. Savannah Highway Automotive Company, et al. Appellate Case No. 2021-000137 / Opinion No. 28168 (petition for rehearing pending) and Joseph Abruzzo v. Bravo Media Productions, et al. Appellate Case No. 2020-001095 / Opinion 6004. Now, in the matter of Jonathan Mart, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Respondent, v. Great Southern Homes, Inc., Appellant, Appellate Case No. 2018-001598, the Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court’s order denying a homebuilder’s motion to dismiss and compelled arbitration in this action, which was brought by the homeowner, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated homeowners.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Laura Paris Paton, Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniMs. Paton may be contacted at
lpaton@grsm.com
Be Careful With Construction Fraud Allegations
April 06, 2016 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsHere at Construction Law Musings we have discussed the intersection of contracts, construction and fraud on several occasions. We’ve even discussed how such fraud can bleed over from the civil to the criminal.
Recently, the Virginia Supreme Court weighed in again on the question of construction fraud and criminal allegations. In O’Connor v. Tice, the Court discussed a malicious prosecution action brought by a contractor against owners of a commercial building. In O’Connor, the owners and the contractor got into a disagreement over alleged damage to the roof of the owners’ building and who was responsible. In response to this disagreement, the owners contacted the local sheriff’s office, accusing the contractor of construction fraud, and then wrote a “15 day letter” to the contractor outlining the criminal consequences should he fail to pay the damages sought in the owners civil lawsuit. Subsequently, a criminal warrant was issued against the contractor based solely upon the word of the owners. This last occurred at the insistence of the owners (who did not inform the sheriff’s deputy or the Commonwealth Attorney that they’d had this conversation or that the contractor had partially performed) after they discussed the matter with the contractor’s attorney and were informed that any claim that they may have had was civil in nature.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, Construction Law MusingsMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Supreme Court Rejects “Wholly Groundless” Exception to Question of Arbitrability
February 06, 2019 —
Justin Fortescue - White and Williams LLPIn newly appointed Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s first opinion, the United States Supreme Court held that the “wholly groundless” exception to arbitrability, which some federal courts had relied on as justification to decide questions of arbitrability over the express terms of a contract, was inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent. Based on this decision, where a contract delegates the question of arbitrability to an arbitrator, courts must respect the parties’ contract and refer the question to the arbitrator. Schein v. Archer & White, 586 U.S. __ (2019).
In Schein, Archer & White brought a lawsuit against Henry Schein alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws and seeking both monetary damages and injunctive relief. The relevant contract between the parties contained an arbitration provision that provided:
“Any dispute arising under or related to this Agreement (except for actions seeking injunctive relief . . .) shall be resolved by binding arbitration in accordance with the arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Justin Fortescue, White and Williams LLPMr. Fortescue may be contacted at
fortescuej@whiteandwilliams.com
Arizona Supreme Court Holds a Credit Bid at a Trustee’s Sale Should Not be Credited to a Title Insurer Under a Standard Lender’s Title Policy To the Extent the Bid Exceeds the Collateral’s Fair Market Value
March 01, 2017 —
Richard H. Herold - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogThe Arizona Supreme Court recently addressed what impact, if any, a lender’s credit bid at an Arizona trustee’s sale has on an insurer’s liability under Sections 2, 7 and 9 of the standard’s lender’s title policy (“Policy”), holding in Equity Income Partners, LP v. Chicago Title Insurance Company, 241 Ariz. 334, 387 P.3d 1263 (February 7, 2017) as follows:
1. Section 2 of the Policy, entitled “Continuation of Insurance,” not Section 9, entitled “Reduction of Insurance; Reduction or Termination of Liability,” applies when a lender acquires property at a trustee sale by “either a full- or partial-credit bid” since Section 2 directly addresses the existence and amount of coverage in such circumstances. Id. at 1267.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Herold, Snell & WilmerMr. Herold may be contacted at
rherold@swlaw.com
