Watch Your Step – Playing Golf on an Outdoor Course Necessarily Encompasses Risk of Encountering Irregularities in the Ground Surface
May 08, 2023 —
Kaitlyn A. Jensen & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPOn April 27, 2023, the First District Court of Appeal issued an opinion in Walter Wellsfry, et al. v. Ocean Colony Partners, LLC (A165175, April 27, 2023) affirming summary judgment for a golf course owner on the grounds that the injured golfer’s lawsuit was barred by the primary assumption of risk doctrine. In doing so, the Court of Appeal found that outdoor golfers assume the risks associated with the topographical features of the course, including the risk of stepping on an inconspicuous tree root.
Recreational golfer Walter Wellsfry was walking from a tee box back to his golf cart when he allegedly stepped on a small tree root concealed by grass, causing him to fall into his golf cart in immediate pain. The ground consisted of mixed terrain, including a combination of grass, dirt, and sand. The tree root was estimated to be approximately 1.5 inches high by 1.5 inches wide. Believing he may have only sprained an ankle, Wellsfry continued the course and reported the incident to management. He later sued the golf course owner Ocean Colony Partners for negligence, claiming that the tree root was a “hidden obstruction” creating an unreasonable risk of harm to anyone who traversed the area.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kaitlyn A. Jensen, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Jensen may be contacted at kjensen@hbblaw.com
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Professionals Could Face More Liability Exposure Following California Appellate Ruling
December 17, 2024 —
Jamison Rayfield & Brian Slome - Lewis BrisboisSan Diego/San Francisco, Calif. - The California Court of Appeal
recently reversed a summary judgment ruling in favor of a geotechnical engineering firm that had conducted a brief inspection of a residential construction project's footing trench for $360. The case arose when homeowner Cheryl Lynch experienced significant property damage after her home's foundation failed and the structure began subsiding into a slope. Lynch sued Peter & Associates for professional negligence and nuisance, despite having no direct contractual relationship with the firm, which had been hired by her contractor to perform the geotechnical inspection.
The court distinguished this case from Bily v. Arthur Young & Co. (1992) 3 Cal.4th 370, which had limited auditors' professional duty to third parties, noting that Bily dealt with purely economic damages, whereas Lynch involved physical property damage, making Bily's policy concerns about unlimited liability inapplicable. The court emphasized that construction professional negligence cases, particularly those involving residential property damage, warrant a different analysis than cases involving economic loss.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jamison Rayfield, Lewis Brisbois and
Brian Slome, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Rayfield may be contacted at Jamison.Rayfield@lewisbrisbois.com
Mr. Slome may be contacted at Brian.Slome@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Difference Between Routine Document Destruction and Spoliation
October 18, 2021 —
Steven A. Neeley - Construction ExecutiveIn today’s world, there is a tendency to believe that everything must be preserved forever. The common belief is that documents, emails, text messages, etc. cannot be deleted because doing so may be viewed as spoliation (i.e., intentionally destroying relevant evidence). A party guilty of spoliation can be sanctioned, which can include an adverse inference that the lost information would have helped the other side. But that does not mean that contractors have to preserve every conceivable piece of information or data under all circumstances. There are key differences between routine document destruction (when done before receiving notice of potential claims or litigation) and spoliation.
The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals decision in Appeal of Sungjee Constr. Co., Ltd., ASBCA Nos. 62002 and 62170 (Mar. 23, 2021) provides a good reminder. There, Sungjee challenged its default termination under a construction contract at Osan Air Base in South Korea. Sungjee argued that the government denied it access to the site for 352 days (out of a 450-day performance period) by refusing to issue passes that were needed to access the base. The government argued that it had issued the passes, but it could not produce them to Sungjee in discovery because they had been destroyed as part of a routine document destruction policy. The base security force issued hard copy passes and entered the information in a biometric system. The government was able to produce the biometric system data but not the hard copy passes because they were destroyed each year.
Sungjee argued the government was guilty of spoliation and moved for sanctions. It asked the Board to draw an adverse inference that the passes would have shown that the government had not issued proper passes on a timely basis, which delayed Sungjee’s performance. The Board denied Sungjee’s motion for several reasons.
Reprinted courtesy of
Steven A. Neeley, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Neeley may be contacted at
steve.neeley@huschblackwell.com
Miller Act Claim for Unsigned Change Orders
June 30, 2016 —
David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal UpdatesContracts and subcontracts often contain language that requires
change orders to be in writing and that no change order work shall be performed unless agreed to in advance in a signed change order. Oftentimes change order work is performed but the parties have not complied with the strict requirements of the contract by having this work signed off by the parties in a change order prior to the commencement of the work. Well, can such requirements be
waived? If so, can such change orders form the basis of a
Miller Act claim? The answer is generally yes provided the party arguing waiver can support the waiver with evidence (that the other party voluntarily relinquished the requirements through its course of conduct / actions).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David M. Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
City of Aspen v. Burlingame Ranch II Condominium Owners Association: Clarifying the Application of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act
June 17, 2024 —
David McLain - Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCOn June 17, 2024, the Colorado Supreme Court delivered a significant opinion in the case of City of Aspen v. Burlingame Ranch II Condominium Owners Association (Case No. 22SC293). This decision provides crucial guidance on the interplay between the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (“CGIA”) and the economic loss rule in the context of construction defect claims.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a construction defect dispute between the City of Aspen, which served as the developer and declarant for the affordable housing condominiums at issue, and the Burlingame Ranch II Condominium Owners Association, the HOA created by Aspen to manage the association after the period of declarant control. The Association alleged that Aspen breached various warranties related to the construction of affordable housing units, leading to structural deficiencies. Aspen argued that the CGIA barred these claims because they could lie in tort.
The Lower Court’s Decision
The district court initially agreed with Aspen, holding that the Association’s claims sounded in tort and were therefore barred by the CGIA. The court relied on the principle that governmental immunity protects public entities from liability for claims that ‘lie in tort or could lie in tort,’ as established by the CGIA.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Contract Should Have Clear and Definite Terms to Avoid a Patent Ambiguity
December 11, 2023 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIf you need more of a reason to have contracts with clear and definite terms, this case is it. This case exemplifies what can happen if the contract, not only does not have clear and definite terms, but contains a patent ambiguity. The contract will be deemed unenforceable which will make one of the contracting parties very unhappy!
In Bowein v. Sherman, 48 Fla.L.Weekly D2208a (Fla. 6th DCA 2023), the buyer and seller entered into a real estate transaction. The transaction was for $2 Million. The purchase-and-sale agreement included the address and legal description of a parcel to be sold. However, there was a section in the agreement called “Other Terms and Conditions” which identified that the offer was actually for four properties that were being sold by the seller. When it came to closing time, the seller refused to close because the seller disputed that the $2 Million purchase price was for all four of his properties. The buyer sued the seller for specific performance to force the sale which the trial court agreed in favor of the buyer. However, the appellate court did not.
First, the appellate court held that “[t]he equitable remedy of specific performance may be granted only where the parties have actually entered into a definite and certain agreement.” Bowein, supra (quotation and citation omitted).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Supreme Court Holds Arbitrator can Fully Decide Threshold Arbitrability Issue
March 18, 2019 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThe United States Supreme Court recently decided parties to a contract can agree, under the Federal Arbitration Act, an arbitrator, rather than a court, can fully resolve the initial arbitrability question. Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer and White Sales, Inc., 2019 WL 122164 (2019). The arbitrability question is whether the dispute itself is subject to arbitration under an arbitration provision. Parties that do not want to arbitrate try to circumvent this process by filing a lawsuit and asking the court to determine the threshold arbitrability question.
In Henry Schein, Inc., the contract at-issue provided:
This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of North Carolina. Any dispute arising under or related to this Agreement (except for actions seeking injunctive relief and disputes related to trademarks, trade secrets, or other intellectual property) shall be resolved by binding arbitration in accordance with the arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association. The place of arbitration shall be in Charlotte, North Carolina.
The plaintiff in this case asserted a claim for injunctive relief (among other claims) and argued that, therefore, the dispute is not subject to arbitration based on the exception in the provision. The initial, threshold issue became whether the dispute was subject to arbitration and, importantly, who decides this issue. The Court further looked at whether a trial court can resolve this issue under the “wholly groundless” exception, i.e.,the court can decide the issue if the argument for arbitration is wholly groundless.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Venue for Suing Public Payment Bond
June 15, 2017 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesPublic payment bonds (excluding FDOT payment bonds) are governed under Florida statute s. 255.05. As it pertains to venue—the location to sue a public payment bond–the statute provides in relevant portion:
(5) In addition to the provisions of chapter 47, any action authorized under this section may be brought in the county in which the public building or public work is being construction or repaired.
***
(1)(e) Any provision in a payment bond…which restricts venue of any proceeding relating to such bond…is unenforceable.
Now, what happens if a subcontractor sues only a payment bond but its subcontract with the general contractor contains a mandatory venue provision? For example, what if the general contractor is located in Lee County and the subcontract contains a venue provision for Lee County, the project is located in Collier County, the subcontractor is located in Miami-Dade County, and the surety issues bonds in Miami-Dade County? Does venue have to be in Lee County per the mandatory venue provision?
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
Dadelstein@gmail.com
