Client Alert: Disclosure of Plaintiff’s Status as Undocumented Alien to Prospective Jury Panel Grounds for Mistrial
February 05, 2015 —
R. Bryan Martin, Lawrence S. Zucker II, and Kristian B. Moriarty – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Velasquez v. Centrome, Inc. (No. B247080, filed 1/30/2015) the Court of Appeal, Second District, held that a trial judge’s disclosure to the panel of prospective jurors of plaintiff’s status as an undocumented alien was prejudicial and grounds for a new trial.
Plaintiff, Wilfredo Velasquez, brought suit against defendant, Centrome, Inc., alleging personal injuries related to on-the-job exposure to diacetyl, which was purportedly distributed by Centrome.
Prior to trial, numerous motions in limine were filed with the trial court including a motion brought by Plaintiff to preclude Centrome from referring to or making any comments about Mr. Velasquez’s citizenship or immigration status. Plaintiff contended the information was not relevant (as no loss of earnings claim was asserted), and was substantially more prejudicial than probative. Defendant opposed the Motion arguing the information was relevant for the limited purpose of allowing expert testimony about Mr. Velasquez’s inability as an undocumented alien to participate in a lung transplant he claimed was needed. The Court deferred ruling on the motion.
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys
R. Bryan Martin,
Lawrence S. Zucker II and
Kristian B. Moriarty
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com;
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com;
and Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Case Cannot Be Overturned While Facts Are Still in Contention in Related Cases
September 09, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Alabama Court of Civil Appeals has dismissed an appeal of a summary judgment in the case Bella Investments, Inc. v. Multi Family Services, Inc. MFS was hired by Bella to be the general contractor for a hotel in Gardendale, Alabama. MFS hired various subcontractors, including the architect for the project. After completion of the hotel in April, 2006, Bella made requests for MFS to repair cracked floor tiles.
In August, 2008, Bella sued MFS, the architect, and various fictitiously named defendants. Subsequently, Bella amended its complaint, naming some of the fictitiously named defendants.
MFS in turn claimed that Bella’s claims were void under the statute of limitations and that Bella was in beach of contact by failing to pay MFS the full amount owed. MFS moved for summary judgment under the statute of limitations, which was granted by the court.
Bella requested that the court “alter, amend, or vacate its summary judgment order.” When this was denied, Bella appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court, which transferred the appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals. The Court of Appeals refused to vacate the summary judgment as claims that form part of the case against MFS are also part of Bella’s claims against the other defendants. For this reason, the court upheld the summary judgment.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (1/30/24) – Life Science Construction to Increase, Overall Homeownership Is Majority Female, and Senators Urge Fed Chair to Lower Interest Rates
February 26, 2024 —
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogIn our latest roundup, hospitality and real estate companies create living options, SEC questions some financial institutions on exposure to risks from CRE, renting shows signs of overtaking buying in the housing market, and more!
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team
Crane Firm Pulled Off NYC Projects Following Multiple Incidents
October 07, 2019 —
Jeff Rubenstone - Engineering News-RecordFollowing a partial crane collapse at a site on Manhattan’s Lower East Side and a fatality in April on a jobsite in lower Manhattan, the New York City Dept. of Buildings announced on Aug. 12 that it is suspending United Crane & Rigging’s work on 21 construction sites across the city.
Jeff Rubenstone, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Rubenstone may be contacted at rubenstonej@enr.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
More Hensel Phelps Ripples in the Statute of Limitations Pond?
February 03, 2020 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsAs is always the case when I attend the Virginia State Bar’s annual construction law seminar, I come away from it with a few posts on recent cases and their implications. The first of these is not a construction case, but has implications relating to the state project related statute of limitations and indemnification issues for construction contracts brought out in stark relief in the now infamous Hensel Phelps case.
In Radiance Capital Receivables Fourteen, LLC v. Foster the Court considered a waiver of the statute of limitations found in a loan contract. The operative facts are that the waiver was found in a Continuing Guaranty contract and that the default happened more than 5 years prior to the date that Radiance filed suit to enforce its rights. When the defendants filed a plea in bar stating that the statute of limitations had run and therefore the claim was barred, Radiance of course argued that the defendants had waived their right to bring such a defense. The defendants responded that the waiver was invalid in that it violated the terms of Va. Code 8.01-232 that states among other things:
an unwritten promise not to plead the statute shall be void, and a written promise not to plead such statute shall be valid when (i) it is made to avoid or defer litigation pending settlement of any case, (ii) it is not made contemporaneously with any other contract, and (iii) it is made for an additional term not longer than the applicable limitations period.
The Circuit Court and ultimately the Supreme Court agreed with the defendants. In doing so, the Virginia Supreme Court rejected arguments of estoppel and an argument that a “waiver” is not a “promise not to plead.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Pinnacle Controls in Verano
February 21, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe California Court of Appeals has applied the California Supreme Court’s recent Pinnacle decision to a new case, Verano Condominium Association v. La Cima Development. As in Pinnacle, La Cima sought to compel arbitration of construction defect claims with a homeowners association. The trial court denied La Cima’s attempt to compel arbitration on the grounds that the arbitration agreement was made with the individual homeowners and not the homeowners association. Further, it was determined that the CC&Rs “were unenforceable due to unconscionability.”
La Cima appealed, and the appeals court affirmed in part and reversed in part. After Pinnacle, La Cima sought a review. The Supreme Court of California directed the appeals court to vacate their earlier decision and reconsider, based on Pinnacle.
The Fourth Circuit Court has concluded that this conflicted with the ruling in Pinnacle. There, as in Verano, homeowners signed agreements that disputes with the developer would be settled through binding arbitration. The appeals court had found for the community association, but on review, the California Supreme Court reversed this decision.
The California Court of Appeals had two issue to consider in this review: whether the arbitration provisions applied to the homeowners association, and whether these provisions were unconscionable. The court concluded that “in light of Pinnacle it is clear the arbitration provisions set forth in the Verano CC&Rs constitute a valid agreement to arbitrate.” On the second question, the Verano CC&Rs were described by the court as “materially indistinguishable” from those in the earlier case. As the state Supreme Court found that those were not unconscionable, clearly neither were these.
The case was remanded for further proceedings and La Cima is entitled to recover the costs of the appeal.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
How California’s Construction Industry has dealt with the New Indemnity Law
October 22, 2014 —
Mark S. Himmelstein, Esq. - Newmeyer & DillionIt has been almost two years since the California legislature enacted changes to the state’s indemnity law affecting commercial construction contracts. Although we do not yet have any court opinions analyzing the new statutes, the attorneys at
Newmeyer & Dillion now have real world experience in negotiating such indemnity provisions. It is time to evaluate how the construction community has reacted to the changes. In this article, we examine the practical applications of the new law to various construction agreements.
Enacted on January 1, 2013, the new legislation was the latest in a series of efforts by subcontractors and their insurers to eliminate “Type I” indemnity clauses. Under a Type I provision, a subcontractor has a duty to indemnify the developer or general contractor for the negligence of the developer or general contractor or other subcontractors, in addition to the negligence of the subcontractor itself. In 2006, the law was changed to preclude Type I provisions regarding “For Sale” residential construction defect claims. At that time, there was no such restriction enacted for commercial construction contracts. However, since then, commercial subcontractors have been seeking similar legislation. Their efforts culminated in the 2013 revisions regarding commercial contracts.
Commercial Subcontracts
Pursuant to the new indemnity statute — Civil Code section 2782.05 — we have revised our clients’ commercial subcontracts to:
(a) Eliminate the requirement that the subcontractor indemnify the general contractor for the general contractor’s “active negligence;” and
(b) Include the subcontractor’s options for defending claims for which they have an indemnity obligation.
Many subcontractors have responded: “Hey, wait a minute, the new legislation eliminated Type I indemnity so you (general contractor) cannot still require any indemnification for the general contractor’s negligence”. Well, that might be the rumor in subcontractor circles, but the new statute does not eliminate indemnity for the general contractor’s passive fault. In addition, the Civil Code lists 13 instances where the new indemnity restrictions do not apply.
Residential Subcontracts
The legislature did not make anyone’s job easier by drafting a different indemnity provision for commercial subcontracts than for residential subcontracts. In fact, the residential and commercial statutes are different in several critical respects. First, the restrictions on indemnity in the residential statute apply only to construction defect claims in newly constructed “For Sale” houses. The statute does not preclude Type I indemnity provisions for any other claims arising out of residential subcontracts. In contrast, the indemnity restrictions in the commercial statute apply to all claims arising out of commercial subcontracts. In addition, the commercial statute allows indemnity for the general contractor’s passive fault. Since some subcontractors on “residential” projects perform off-site “commercial” work as well, we have amended even residential subcontracts to address the subcontractors’ various indemnity obligations for different parts of their work (e.g., residential work versus commercial work).
Owner-Contractor Agreements
The January 1, 2013 new indemnity provisions apply not only to subcontracts, but also to owner-contractor agreements. Civil Code section 2782(c)(1) precludes indemnity for an owner’s active negligence. Interestingly, the exclusions contained in Civil Code section 2782.05 for subcontracts do not apply, and the statute does not provide contractors with the option of defending claims set forth in the sections concerning subcontracts. Therefore, we have revised the indemnity provisions in owner-contractor agreements to exclude indemnity for the owner’s active negligence.
Design Professional Agreements
The 2007 revisions with respect to “For Sale” residential contracts (discussed above), and the 2013 revisions for commercial contracts do not apply to design professionals. The new indemnity statute concerning commercial subcontracts specifically excludes design professionals from the “anti-indemnity” benefits provided to subcontractors. Therefore, Type I indemnity provisions are fair game and can still be included in design professional contracts.
Conclusion
In sum, Civil Code sections 2782 et seq. now contain an increasingly complex framework for indemnity rules in construction contracts. For example, there is one set of rules for “For Sale” residential construction defect claims (no indemnity for the developer’s active or passive negligence), another for any other claims arising out of residential construction (Type I indemnity is permitted), another for commercial subcontracts (no indemnity for the general contractor’s active negligence, but indemnity for the general contractor’s passive negligence unless any of the exceptions apply, in which case Type I indemnity is permitted), and yet another for commercial owner contractor agreements (no indemnity for the owner’s active negligence, but indemnity for the owner’s passive negligence with no exceptions).
California’s indemnity laws are complex, and rumors as to the impact of the new legislation have made it even more difficult to negotiate these provisions. It is imperative that indemnity clauses in construction contracts clearly delineate the obligations for the specific type or types of work contemplated by the contract. The legislature’s attempt to simplify indemnity obligations has actually made such provisions lengthier and more cumbersome. As experienced construction attorneys, our task is to draft indemnity provisions that comply with the laws, address potential claims, and are understandable.
Mr. Himmelstein is a partner in the Newport Beach office of Newmeyer & Dillion and practices in the areas of construction, real estate, business and insurance litigation. He also specializes in drafting and negotiating construction and real estate contracts. Mark can be reached at mark.himmelstein@ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Contract Change # 10: Differing Site Conditions (law note)
March 28, 2018 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North CarolinaPreviously, the A201 required a Contractor to provide notice to the Owner and Architect within 21 days after discovery of unforeseen site conditions. This notification is required prior to the conditions being disturbed, so as to allow the Design Team the ability to evaluate the site and determine the compensability of any such differing conditions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina
