What You Need to Know to Protect the Project Against Defect Claims
October 28, 2024 —
Scott L. Baker - Los Angeles Litigation BlogIf a property owner claims there is a construction defect, that not only brings the project’s integrity into question but also your business’s reputation. So, how can you take steps to prevent these claims from causing such damage?
Here are three things to know before beginning a project to effectively protect it and
manage construction defect claims.
1. Documentation is key
California and Los Angeles County require certain permits and documents in order for a construction project to move forward. Los Angeles County
will also conduct plan checks to ensure everything is up to code. Detailed documentation will be important while making your plans.
However, keeping notes throughout every step of the project will also be essential. Documenting all aspects of the project helps you:
- Stay updated and aware of the project’s progress
- Proactively catch and handle issues that could result in disputes
- Create a record of evidence that can help manage defect claims
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scott L. Baker, Baker & AssociatesMr. Baker may be contacted at
slb@bakerslaw.com
What Do I Do With This Stuff? Dealing With Abandoned Property After Foreclosure
October 20, 2016 —
Lyndsey Torp – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogYou’ve successfully foreclosed on a commercial building in California, and, thankfully, the borrower moved out after foreclosure or after a period of tenancy. But the borrower left behind all sorts of property – furniture, filing cabinets, records, and other assorted property. While you may be tempted to just toss it all in the dumpster, doing so may subject you to liability. There are several statutes that you should consider when determining how to handle the abandoned property.
Statutory Options for a Landlord
A landlord-tenant relationship may arise following foreclosure if, for example, the owner of the property accepts rent from the former owner. If the tenant subsequently turns over possession of the commercial property but leaves personal property at the premises,[1] California Civil Code provides a landlord with statutory options to deal with “lost” (Cal. Civ. Code § 2080) or “abandoned” property (Cal. Civ. Code §1993).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lyndsey Torp, Snell & WilmerMs. Torp may be contacted at
ltorp@swlaw.com
Three Construction Workers Injured at Former GM Plant
March 26, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFIn Linden, New Jersey, three construction workers were injured “when they were apparently struck by steel girders while working at the former General Motors site” police told NJ.com.
Mayor Richard Gerbounka stated that the “[s]ix struts that would support the deck or ceiling of a warehouse collapsed.” He also mentioned that the city “has been trying to redevelop the former General Motors site for years, but has run into several obstacles, including lawsuits from nearby businesses opposed to retail construction.”
Several construction vehicles were “nearly buried under” debris and “[a]t least one I-beam girder and several decking struts—all metal—remain across several heavy construction vehicles,” NJ.com reported. The owner of the vehicles stated “he was told that workers were standing around the vehicles preparing to start their day when high winds knocked down at least one I-beam and several metal decking struts.”
In another article published late afternoon on March 26th, NJ.com reported that “high winds” were the cause of the accident. “The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration is investigating the accident and all work at the site has been suspended pending the investigation,” according to the article. “Officials said OSHA inspectors had been at the scene once before, but declined to give details because of a continuing investigation.”
Read the full story, NJ.com AM...
Read the full story, NJ.com PM... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Design and Construction Defects Not a Breach of Contract
February 14, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe California Court of Appeals tossed out a breach of contract award in Altman v. John Mourier Construction. The decision, which was issued on January 10, 2013, sent the construction defect case back to a lower court to calculate damages based on the conclusions of the appeals court.
The case involved both design issues and construction issues. According to the plaintiffs’ expert, the design plans did not make the buildings sufficiently stiff to resist the wind, and that the framing was improperly constructed, further weakening the structures, and leading to the stucco cracking. Additionally, it was alleged that the roofs were improperly installed, leading to water intrusion. The contractor’s expert “agreed the roofs needed repair, but disputed what needed to be done to repair the roofs and the cost.”
The jury rejected the plaintiffs’ claims of product liability and breach of warranty, but found in their favor on the claims of breach of contract and negligence. The plaintiffs were awarded differing amounts based on the jury’s conclusions about their particular properties.
Both sides sought new trials. JMC, the contractor, claimed that the jury’s verdicts were “inconsistent in that the relieved JMC of liability for strict products liability and breach of warranty, but found JMC liable for breach of contract and negligence.” The plaintiffs “opposed the setoff motion on the ground that the jury heard evidence only of damages not covered by the settlements.” Both motions were denied. After this, the plaintiffs sought and received investigative costs as damages. JMC appealed this amended judgment.
The appeals court rejected JMC’s claims that evidence was improperly excluded. JMC sought to introduce evidence concerning errors made by the stucco subcontractor. Earlier in the trial, JMC had insisted that the plaintiffs not be allowed to present evidence concerning the stucco, as that had been separately settled. When they wished to introduce it themselves, they noted that the settlement only precluded the plaintiffs from introducing stucco evidence, but the trial court did not find this persuasive, and the appeals court upheld the actions of the trial court. Nor did the appeals court find grounds for reversal based on claims that the jury saw excluded evidence, as JMC did not establish that the evidence went into the jury room. Further, this did not reach, according to the court, a “miscarriage of justice.”
The court rejected two more of JMC’s arguments, concluding that the negligence award did not violate the economic loss rule. The court also noted that JMC failed to prove its contention that the plaintiffs were awarded damages for items that were covered in settlements with the subcontractors.
The appeals court did accept JMC’s argument that the award for breach of contract was not supported by evidence. As the ruling notes, “plaintiffs did not submit the contracts into evidence or justify their absence; nor did plaintiffs provide any evidence regarding contract terms allegedly breached.”
The court also did not allow the plaintiffs to claim the full amount of the investigative costs. Noting that the trial court had rational grounds for its decision, the appeals court noted that “the jury rejected most of the damages claimed by plaintiffs, and the trial court found that more than $86,000 of the costs itemized in plaintiffs’ invoices ‘appear questionable’ as ‘investigation’ costs/damages and appeared to the trial court to be litigation costs nonrecoverable under section 1033.5.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Assembly Bill 1701 Contemplates Broader Duty to Subcontractor’s Employees by General Contractor
August 17, 2017 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq. & Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq. – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & BargerAB 1701 recently passed the Assembly and is pending in the Senate’s Labor and
Industrial Relations and Judiciary Committees. The Bill, if signed by the Governor, would
create a new section in the California Labor Code (Section 218.7) making “direct contractors” –
defined as a contractor “making or taking a contract in the state for the erection, construction,
alteration, or repair of a building, structure, or other private work” – liable for wages a
subcontractor or sub-subcontractor fails to pay to its employee for work included in the general
contractor’s contract with the project owner.
Under the new law, direct contractors would be liable for up to one year from the date of
completion of the work for unpaid wages, fringe benefits, health and welfare benefits, and
pension fund contributions, including interest and state tax payments owed to a subcontractor’s
employee. The employee, however, would not be able to recover penalties or liquidated
damages from the general contractor.
AB 1701 would give the employee, Labor Commissioner, or a joint labor-management
cooperation committee the right to enforce the direct contractor’s liability through a civil action.
It would also extend to third parties who are owed fringe or other benefit payments or
contributions on the employee’s behalf. Pursuant to the proposed language of the new statute, a
prevailing plaintiff in such an action would be entitled to their reasonable attorneys’ fees and
costs, including expert witness fees.
Although Labor Code § 218.7 would impose certain obligations on the subcontractor to
provide the direct contractor with relevant project and payroll records, the subcontractor’s failure
to comply with those obligations does not relieve the direct contractor from liability.
Impact
AB 1701’s apparent purpose is to protect employees, an undeniably important legislative
goal. However, if passed, the bill could greatly increase general contractors’ exposure when
subcontracting work and their cost of doing business. Especially because the new law would not
impact existing laws requiring a direct contractor to timely pay a subcontractor.
As a result, many coalitions against AB 1701 stress the halting effect this could have on
the construction industry as a whole, particularly private construction, which is not as heavily
regulated as public works.
CGDRB will continue to monitor this Bill and provide updates as developments occur.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Chelsea L. Zwart, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
All Risk Policy Only Covers Repair to Portion of Dock That Sustains Damage
January 06, 2012 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiA portion of a dock on Lack Michigan operated by the Ports of Indiana suffered visible damage. See Ports of Indiana v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130979 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 14, 2011). Lexington Insurance Company insured the port. Lexington agreed that a portion of the dock was damaged and paid $1.2 million for repairs. A dispute arose, however, over whether additional sections of the dock were damaged and whether the damage was the result of more than one "occurrence."
An expert report opined that a significant drop creating record lows in the water level of Lake Michigan in 2007 caused damage to the dock. Lexington maintained that only 128 feet of the dock was damaged; other portions of the dock did not sustain "direct physical loss or damage."
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Report to Congress Calls for Framework to Cut Post-Quake Recovery Time
February 01, 2021 —
Bruce Buckley - Engineering News-RecordEngineers and government agencies along with model building code and standard developers should work together to create a national framework more focused on earthquake resilience and post-quake recovery time, according to a report delivered to Congress last week. While current seismic codes address life safety, the report says stakeholders should also consider re-occupancy and functional recovery time, taking into account the potential impacts to a community as a whole.
Reprinted courtesy of
Bruce Buckley, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Second Circuit Certifies Question Impacting "Bellefonte Rule"
December 15, 2016 —
Ellen Burrows – White and Williams LLPCalling into question the continued validity of the so-called “Bellefonte Rule,” on December 8, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified to the New York Court of Appeals the question whether a facultative reinsurance contract limit is presumptively all-inclusive and “caps” the reinsurer’s total exposure even where the reinsured policy pays defense costs in addition to the limit. Global Reinsurance Corporation v. Century Indemnity Company Docket No. 15-2164-cv (December 8, 2016).[1]
In Bellefonte Reinsurance Company v. Aetna 903 F.2d 910 (2d Cir. 1990), the court ruled that a reinsurer was not liable to pay defense costs above the stated reinsurance contract limit. Although litigants argued that this ruling was dependent on the fact that the reinsured policy limits were defense cost-inclusive, a later panel of the Second Circuit applied the “cap” ruling in Bellefonte to a situation where the reinsured policy limit was not cost-inclusive and where the insurer was obligated to pay defense costs in addition to the policy limit. Unigard Security Insurance Company v. North River Insurance Company 4 F.3d 1049 (2d Cir. 1993).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ellen Burrows, White and Williams LLPMs. Burrows may be contacted at
burrowse@whiteandwilliams.com
