Time is Money. Unless You’re an Insurance Company
December 02, 2015 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogBenjamin Franklin may never have been President but he’s better known than most of them. Not least of all for his pithy quotes on a wide range of subjects:
On personal finance – “A penny saved is a penny earned.”
On education – “Tell me and I forget, teach me and I remember, involve me and I learn.”
On getting real – “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.”
On guests – “Guests, like fish, begin to smell after three days.”
On lawyers – “A countryman between two lawyers is like a fish between two cats.”
On beer – “In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is freedom, in water there is bacteria.”
But if you were to pick one theme that seems to recur the most in Franklin’s quotes, it would be productivity:
“Time is money.”
“By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.”
“Never leave that till tomorrow which you can do today.”
“Early to bed and early to rise, makes a man happy, wealthy and wise.”
But, as the next case, Grebow v. Mercury Insurance Company, Case No. B261172, California Court of Appeals for the Second District (October 21, 2015), illustrates, sometimes the most efficient way of doing things may not necessarily be the most financially prudent way of doing things.
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com
“Good Faith” May Not Be Good Enough: California Supreme Court to Decide When General Contractors Can Withhold Retention
March 22, 2018 — Erinn Contreras and Joy O. Siu – Construction & Infrastructure Law Blog
It is industry standard in California for owners of a construction project to make monthly payments to a contractor for work it has completed, less a certain percentage that is withheld as a guarantee of future satisfactory performance. This withholding is called a retention. Contractors generally pass these withholdings on to their subcontractors via a retention clause in the subcontract. Under such clause, if a subcontractor fails to complete its work or correct deficiencies in its work, the owner and the general contractor may use the retention to bring the subcontractor’s work into conformance with the requirements of the contract.
When and how retention payments must be released are governed by, among other statutes, Civil Code section 8800 et seq. Specifically, Civil Code section 8814, subdivision (a), states that a direct contractor must pay each subcontractor its share of a retention payment within ten days after the general contractor receives all or part of a retention payment. Failure to make payments in accordance with Section 8814 can subject an owner or a contractor to a (1) two percent penalty per a month on the amount wrongfully withheld, and (2) claim for attorney’s fees for any litigation required to collect the wrongfully withheld retention payments. (Civ. Code, § 8818.)
Reprinted courtesy of Erinn Contreras, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP and Joy Siu, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
Ms. Contreras may be contacted at econtreras@sheppardmullin.com
Ms. Siu may be contacted at jsiu@sheppardmullin.com
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Robots 2023
May 08, 2023 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
Here’s AEC Business’s catalog of construction robotics companies.
About Construction Robotics
Construction robots have been around since the 1960s. In the 1970s and 1980s, Japanese companies such as the Shimizu Corporation, Obayashi Corporation, and Takenaka Corporation created robots and remote-controlled machines for excavating, material handling, concrete placing, finishing, fireproofing, earthworks, rebar placing, and other construction tasks. However, the overall robotization of the industry has been slow.
The rapid development of artificial intelligence and machine learning has changed the robotic scene. Robotic hardware is also becoming affordable. Coupled with the poor availability of professional construction workers and the urge to industrialize construction, the use of robots will inevitably increase in the coming years. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi
Contractor Liable for Soils Settlement in Construction Defect Suit
February 10, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
The California Court of Appeals ruled on January 9 in Burrow v. JTL Dev. Corp., a construction defect case in which houses suffered damage due to improperly compacted soil, upholding the decision of the lower court.
Turf Construction entered into a deal with JTL to develop a parcel they acquired. A third firm, Griffin Homes, withdrew from the agreement “when a geotechnical and soils engineering firm reported significant problems with soil stability on 14 of the lots.” Turf Construction then took over compacting and grading the lots. Turf “had never compacted or graded a residential tract before.” Robert Taylor, the owner of Turf, “testified he knew there was a significant problem with unstable soils.”
After homes were built, the plaintiffs bought homes on the site. Shortly thereafter, the homes suffered damage from soil settlement “and the damage progressively worsened.” They separately filed complaints which the court consolidated.
During trial, the plaintiff’s expert said that there had been an inch and a half in both homes and three to five inches in the backyard and pool areas. “He also testified that there would be four to eight inches of future settlement in the next fifteen to twenty years.” The expert for Turf and JTL “testified that soil consolidation was complete and there would be no further settlement.”
Turf and JTL objected to projections made by the plaintiffs’ soil expert, William LaChappelle. Further, they called into question whether it was permissible for him to rely on work by a non-testifying expert, Mark Russell. The court upheld this noting that LaChappelle “said that they arrived at the opinion together, through a cycle of ‘back and forth’ and peer review, and that the opinion that the soil would settle four to eight inches in fifteen to twenty years was his own.”
Turf and JTL contended that the court relied on speculative damage. The appeals court disagreed, stating that the lower court based its award “on evidence of reasonably certain damage.”
Turf also that it was not strictly liable, since it did not own or sell the properties. The court wrote that they “disagree because Turf’s grading activities rendered it strictly liable as a manufacturer of the lots.” The court concluded that “Turf is strictly liable as a manufacturer of the lots.”
Judge Coffee upheld the decision of the lower court with Judges Yegan and Perren concurring.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Hawaii Supreme Court Finds Climate Change Lawsuit Barred by “Pollution Exclusion”
November 05, 2024 — Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
On October 7, 2024, the Hawaii Supreme Court answered the question of whether an “accident” includes an insured’s reckless conduct in emitting harmful greenhouse gases (“GHGs”) and whether such emissions are “pollutants” as defined in a general liability policy’s pollution exclusion. In Aloha Petro., Ltd. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pitt., PA, No., 2024 Haw. LEXIS 179 (Oct. 7, 2024), the Hawaii Supreme Court answered in the affirmative as to both certified questions from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, holding that an insured’s reckless conduct can be an “accident” and that GHGs are “pollutants” under the policies’ pollution exclusions.
In the underlying case, the County of Honolulu and the County of Maui (the “Counties”) sued Aloha Petroleum, Ltd. (“Aloha”) and several other fossil fuel companies for climate change-related harms. Namely, the Counties alleged that the fossil fuel industry knew that its products would cause catastrophic climate change, and rather than mitigating their emissions, defendants concealed such knowledge, promoted climate science denial, and increased their production of fossil fuels. Aloha was allegedly on notice that its products caused harmful climate change through its former parent company, Phillips 66, and its current parent company, Sunoco. Given this knowledge, the District Court determined that the Counties allegations constituted reckless conduct by Aloha. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com
Union THUGS Plead Guilty
October 15, 2014 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
Some time ago, I wrote about union THUGS (The Helpful Union Guys) that tormented merit shops to force contractors to use union labor on projects. The THUGS set fire to equipment, beat contractors with baseball bats, and picketed apartment complexes where contractors lived.
Recently two of the ten union members plead guilty to arson-related charges, including two counts of maliciously damaging property by means of fire, extortion, and RICO conspiracy charges.
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com
BHA Attending the Construction Law Conference in San Antonio, Texas
February 24, 2016 — CDJ STAFF
Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc. (BHA), will once again be joining with the State Bar of Texas, Construction Law Section as a sponsor and exhibit at the event on March 3 & 4, 2016, and is excited to announce that they will be sponsoring a raffle for a $100 Outdoor World gift card to be given away at the conference. Just stop by the BHA booth, and drop your card in the bowl for a chance to win.
With offices in San Antonio and Houston, BHA offers the experience of over 20 years of service to carriers, defense counsel, and insurance professionals as designated experts in over 5,500 cases. BHA’s staff encompasses a broad range of licensed and credentialed experts in the areas of general contracting and specialty trades, as well as architects, civil and structural engineers, and has provided services on behalf of developers, general contractors and subcontractors across the state of Texas.
BHA’s experience covers the full range of construction defect litigation, including single and multi-family residential properties (including high-rise), institutional buildings (schools, hospitals and government), commercial, and industrial claims. BHA also specializes in coverage, exposure, and delay claim analysis.
Download the seminar brochure and register... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Insurance Law Alert: Ambiguous Producer Agreement Makes Agent-Broker Status a Jury Question
September 10, 2014 — Valerie A. Moore & Christopher Kendrick - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Douglas v. Fidelity National Ins. (No. A137645; filed 8/29/14), a California appeals court held that it was a jury question whether a retail insurance service with limited binding authority should be deemed a broker or an agent for the purpose of determining if application misrepresentations would void coverage.
In Douglas, the homeowners needed insurance for a house they had used as a group home. They sought coverage from Cost-U-Less, which provided personal lines insurance from, among others, Fidelity National Insurance Company. According to the couple’s wife, she went to a Cost-U-Less office where she answered application questions from a person on the telephone, who was later identified as an employee of another company, InsZone.
InsZone had a producer contract with Fidelity. In practice, InsZone would be contacted by Cost-U-Less via telephone, at which point an InsZone employee would verbally solicit information from the client, with the information being entered into a computer by the InsZone employee and then transmitted electronically to Fidelity.
Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
