New York Court Rules on Architect's Duty Under Contract and Tort Principles
November 05, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP's blog, in a recent case, "which involved a five story expansion/conversion of an existing one story commercial building located in Brooklyn, New York," the architect was retained with obligations among five construction phases. Later, the condominium board alleged that construction defects existed and filed suit against contractors, engineers, and the architect.
The Court granted the Architect's motion to dismiss the complaint, holding "that the allegations of negligence under the circumstances were based on construction defects and 'as such, sound in breach of contract rather than tort.' This was so, even though plaintiff alleged 'breach of a duty of care,' a traditional tort liability concept. The Court dismissed the breach of contract claim as well, holding that a 'successor in interest' argument should not be permitted to erode the firmly established privity requirement for an architect’s contract-based liability."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Demonstrating A Fraudulent Inducement Claim Or Defense
May 18, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn a recent case, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court’s denial of a motion for a temporary injunction sought by an employer due to an independent contractor’s violation of a non-compete and non-solicitation provision in an employment / independent contractor agreement (“employment agreement”). You can find more on this case and the enforcement of the non-compete and non-solicitation clause
here.
A worthy discussion in this case centers on the independent contractor’s fraudulent inducement defense. Specifically, the independent contractor, as a defense to the injunction, claimed that he was fraudulently induced into entering into the employment agreement because the employer promised he would make a certain amount of money and he would work predominantly in one geographic location. The employment agreement contained NO such representations. Instead, the employment agreement contained a fee and services schedule and the independent contractor would be compensated based on that schedule. It stated nothing as to the independent contractor only having to work, or predominantly working, in one geographic location, or that the independent contractor would be guaranteed “X” amount of money working in that location. Why is this important?
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
First Circuit Rejects Insurer’s “Insupportable” Duty-to-Cooperate Defense in Arson Coverage Suit
October 24, 2023 —
Geoffrey B. Fehling & Yaniel Abreu - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogIn
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. v. BAS Holding Corp., the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit rejected an insurer’s “insupportable” defense that the insured company had breached its duty to cooperate by refusing the insurer’s request for an examination under oath of the company’s president. The decision is a reminder that, while examinations under oath can be effective tools to allow the insurer to properly investigate a claim, an insured’s duty to cooperate is not boundless and does not demand attendance at examinations that are not reasonably requested.
Background
BAS Holding involves the destruction of a landmark building in Boston by an arsonist. The owner, BAS Holding Corporation, submitted an insurance claim to its property insurer to recover insurance proceeds for the damage to the building. The insurer investigated the claim to determine whether the damage to the building was covered and issued a reservation of rights letter suggesting that the policy may not provide coverage for the fire. As part of its investigation, the insurer requested an examination under oath as a condition to coverage under the policy, which led to BAS presenting the property’s operations coordinator for an interview. Shortly after examining the operations coordinator, the insurer sought another examination of BAS’s president and owner, as well as five other employees. In response, BAS questioned whether the additional examinations were “reasonably required” and said that it would consider the requests if the insurer could explain why they were necessary.
Reprinted courtesy of
Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Yaniel Abreu, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Abreu may be contacted at yabreu@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dump Site Provider Has Valid Little Miller Act Claim
October 19, 2020 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsYou may have thought that a Virginia “Little Miller Act” bond claim, like a mechanic’s lien, could only be brought by those that provide materials and labor incorporated into the construction project. If you did, you aren’t alone.
In fact, Safeco Insurance Co. of America, a surety, made exactly the above argument in Yard Works LLC v. GroundDown Constructors LLC. In that case, a debris hauling company failed to pay Yard Works, the company that provided the dumping site for the debris. Yard Works sued pursuant to the Little Miller Act to get paid. In response, the surety sought to have the claim against the payment bond dismissed and argued that because Yard Works did not actually improve the property or provide improvements and that Yard Works only passively provided a dump site, Yard Works could not claim under the payment bond.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Insurers Need only Prove that Other Coverage Exists for Construction Defect Claims
August 27, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFWriting on the Sheppard Mullin web site, Scott Hennigh looks at the implications of the 2012 California case Axis Surplus Insurance. A condominium complex was covered by two insurance policies, covering different time periods. During a construction defect claim, one insurer argued that the claim was not covered. The other insurer settled and sued that both needed to contribute to the settlement. The court held that when multiple insurers are in conflict, the burden to prove that coverage does not exist lies solely on the party claiming it.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Want More Transit (and Federal Funding)? Build Housing That Supports It
January 08, 2024 —
M. Nolan Gray - BloombergAfter
decades of planning (and $2.1 billion spent), Los Angeles’ newest light rail line opened in October 2022. Joined by geeky rail obsessives and chaperoned children, I rode the K Line on opening day. A blend of underground, elevated and at-grade track, it’s a route only a politician could love. Stations were lavished with public art, and when the train wasn’t stuck in traffic, it glided through the sprawl.
Yet one year later, it is Los Angeles’ least-used line, averaging
just over 2,000 riders on an average weekday this fall.
It isn’t hard to see why: The line begins at a vacant patch in Crenshaw and ends in a low-slung industrial park about six miles away, lined by strip malls the entire way. Walk one block east or west from any given station, and you’ll find yourself amid single-story postwar bungalows on 7,500-square-foot lots — all illegal to redevelop into apartments, thanks to local zoning. The Hyde Park Station deposits riders into a cluster of gas stations and drive-thru fast-food joints.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
M. Nolan Gray, Bloomberg
Specific Source of Water Not Relevant in Construction Defect Claim
June 28, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Nebraska Court of Appeals has concluded that a lower court came to the correct conclusion in a construction defect case involving water intrusion. The Hiatts built a home in North Platte, Nebraska, in in 2004 which they sold to the Oettingers in May, 2006. Shortly thereafter, the Oettingers started experiencing problems with water intrusion and contacted the Hiatts. The Hiatts responded by replacing the septic lift. Subsequently, the Oettingers landscaped their yard, which they allege was done with the assistance of the Hiatts. The water problems continued and “the parties took substantial remedial measures, including excavating the sidewalk and inspecting the downspouts.” The water problems continued, getting worse and requiring increasingly aggressive responses.
The Oettingers then had a series of inspections, and they hired the last of these inspectors to actually fix the water intrusion problem. At that point, they filed a lawsuit against the Hiatts alleging that the Hiatts “breached their contact by constructing and selling a home that was not built according to reasonable construction standards,” and that they “were negligent in the repair of the home in 2009.”
During the trial, Irving Hiatt testified that they “tarred the outside of the basement and put plastic into the tar and another layer of plastic over the top of that.” He claimed that the problem was with the Oettingers’ landscaping. This was further claimed in testimony of his son, Vernon Hiatt, who said the landscaping lacked drainage.
The Oettingers had three experts testify, all of whom noted that the landscaping could not have been the problem. All three experts testified as to problems with the Hiatts’ construction. The court concluded that the Hiatts had breached an implied warranty, rejecting the claim that the water intrusion was due to the landscaping. The Hiatts appealed the decision of the county court to the district court. Here, the judgment of the lowest court was confirmed, with the district court again finding a breach of the implied warranty of workmanlike performance.
The Hiatts appealed again. They alleged that the district court should not have held a breach of implied warranty existed without proving the source of the water intrusion, and that damages should have been apportioned based on the degree to which the Oettingers’ landscaping and basement alterations were responsible. The appeals court dispensed with the second claim first, noting that “they do not argue this error in their brief nor do they explain how or why the trial court should have apportioned damages.” The court also noted that although the Oettingers made a negligence claim in their suit, the case had been decided on the basis of a breach of implied warranty.
The appeals court upheld the Oettingers’ claim of a breach of implied warranty. In order to do this, the court noted that the Oettingers had to show that an implied warranty existed, that the Haitts breached that warranty, damage was suffered as a result, and that no express warranty limited the implied warranty. That court noted that “the record is sufficient to prove that the Hiatts breached the implied warranty in the method in which they constructed the basement” and that “this breach was the cause of the Oettingers’ damages.”
The court concluded that the Oettingers “provided sufficient evidence that the Hiatts’ faulty construction allowed water, whatever its source, to infiltrate the basement.” The court rejected the Hiatts’ claim that the Oettingers’ repairs voided the warranty, as it was clear that the Hiatts were involved in carrying out these repairs. The court’s final conclusion was that “the evidence in the record supports the trial court’s factual finding that the Hiatts’ flawed construction caused water damage to the Oettingers’ basement.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Maryland Court Affirms Condo Association’s Right to Sue for Construction Defects
November 27, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Maryland Court of Appeals, that state’s highest court, recently reaffirmed that condominium association have broad discretion in suing for construction defects in when they are representing at least two unit owners. Nicholas D. Cowie of the Baltimore-based construction defect legal firm Cowie & Mott, gives his summary of the case on his firm’s web site.
Mr. Cowie notes that the Council of Unit Owners of Bentley Place Condominium sued the developer and builder for construction defects in both common areas and within units, representing itself and “two or more” unit owners. A jury awarded $6.6 million; the builder and developer appealed.
The court ruled on the appeal that the Council of Unit Owners had a right to pursue these claims, and could recover full damage to common elements, even if some owners are time-barred due to their date of purchase. Mr. Cowie represented the Council of Unit Owners during the lawsuit.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
