Brown and Caldwell Team with AECOM for Landmark Pure Water Southern California Program
May 15, 2023 —
Brown and CaldwellLOS ANGELES, May 09, 2023 — A joint venture of AECOM and Brown and Caldwell (AECOM-BC Team) has been chosen to provide program and project management support and engineering design services for the
Pure Water Southern California program, one of the largest water reuse programs in the world.
The innovative program, being developed by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) in partnership with the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (Sanitation Districts), will produce up to 150 million gallons of high-quality, purified water per day for up to 15 million people.
Anticipated for water delivery by 2032 and potentially earlier, the program will reuse the largest untapped wastewater source in the region that currently flows to the ocean to increase water resiliency, enhance water quality, and fuel economic growth. It will lower Southern California’s reliance on imported water supplies from the Colorado River and Sierra Nevada and replenish groundwater basins while leveraging cutting-edge research and development to increase regional water reuse.
About Brown and Caldwell
Headquartered in Walnut Creek, California, Brown and Caldwell is a full-service environmental engineering and construction services firm with 52 offices and over 1,900 professionals across North America and the Pacific. For more than 75 years, our creative solutions have helped municipalities, private industry, and government agencies successfully overcome their most challenging water and environmental obstacles. As an employee-owned company, Brown and Caldwell is passionate about exceeding our clients’ expectations and making a difference for our employees, our communities, and our environment. For more information, visit www.brownandcaldwell.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lis Pendens – Recordation and Dissolution
July 28, 2016 —
David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen you file a construction lien foreclosure lawsuit, you must also record a lis pendens in the official (public) records against the property. This lis pendens serves as written notice that there is a lawsuit concerning the real property, and more specifically, title relating to that real property. If the property is then sold or rented, the buyer or tenant will ultimately be bound by a final determination relating to the lawsuit concerning title to the property. This is the value in recording a lis pendens and why it is a MUST in any foreclosure lawsuit. (This is the same value in any mortgage foreclosure lawsuit and why lis pendens are recorded in these lawsuits too.) A lis pendens will show up in a title report. In most instances, title companies will not issue a title policy if there is a lis pendens or may require a certain amount of money escrowed as a result of the lis pendens and pending action in order to issue a title policy. Also, a buyer, in particular, and a tenant are not going to want to invest in property where the title to that property is at-issue in a lawsuit. Hence, the lis pendens impacts the sale and potential re-financing of the property.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Renters Who Bought Cannot Sue for Construction Defects
October 08, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFA Wisconsin couple that leased then bought a home cannot sue the couple that built the home for construction defects. The court rejected the claims made by Niksa and Kelly Ivancevic that the sellers, Ronald and Debra Reagan, had breached contract or that the contract represented a mutual mistake.
The Ivancevics initially leased the home, with an agreement that said the house would be “delivered in clean condition and good repair, free of mold and toxic substances, suitable for habitation in compliance with all laws.” Before the purchase, no defects were found. After the purchase, the Ivancevics had problems with the air conditioning, leading to water leaks on the second floor.
The court found that the actual sales contract did not guarantee a defect-free residence. Therefore the Ivancevic’s claim of a mutual mistake, in which “both parties of a contact are unaware of the existence of a past or present fact material to their agreement” did not apply, since the presence of construction defects was not “material to their agreement.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Limiting Plaintiffs’ Claims to a Cause of Action for Violation of SB-800
November 18, 2011 —
Samir R. Patel, Esq., Lorber, Greenfield, & Polito, LLPThere has been a fair share of publicity about the SB-800 amendments to the Civil Code (Civil Code section 896, et seq.) that codified construction defect litigation in 2002. Most of the publicity is geared toward the pre-litigation standards allowing a builder the right to repair before litigation is commenced by a homeowner. Less focus and attention has been given to the fact that violation of the SB-800 performance standards is being used by plaintiff’s counsel as an additional tool in the plaintiff’s pleading tool box against builders. Closer scrutiny to SB-800 reveals that those provisions should in fact act as a limitation to the pleading tools available to plaintiffs and an additional tool for builders in the defense of cases governed by SB-800.
The typical construction defect complaint contains the boiler plate versions of numerous causes of action. These causes of action include Strict Liability, Negligence, Negligence Per Se, Breach of Contract, Breach of Contract – Third-Party Beneficiary, Breach of Express Warranties, Breach of Implied Warranties, among others. The wide array of causes of action leave a defendant “pinned to the wall” because they require a complex defense on a multitude of contract and tort related causes of action. Furthermore, the statutes of limitations as to these claims widely differ depending upon if the particular defect is considered latent or patent. The truth of the matter remains, no matter what the circumstances, if a construction defect matter ultimately goes to trial, it is inevitable that plaintiffs will obtain a judgment on at least one of these causes of action.
On its own, the Strict Liability cause of action can be a thorn in a defendant’s side. A builder is obviously placing a product into the stream of commerce and strict liability is a tough standard to defend against, particularly when it concerns intricate homes comprised of multiple components that originally sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars. A Negligence cause of action can also be difficult to defend because the duty of care for a builder is what a “reasonable” builder would have done under the circumstances. An interpretation of this duty of care can easily sway a jury that will almost always consist of sympathetic homeowners. A Negligence Per Se cause of action can also leave a defendant vulnerable to accusations that a builder violated the Uniform Building Code or a multitude of other obscure municipal construction-related code provisions during the construction of the home. Lastly, the Breach of Contract cause of action leaves a builder relying on dense and intricate purchase and sale agreements with dozens of addenda which leave the skeptical jurors turned off by what they view as one-side, boilerplate provisions. Ultimately, when a matter is about to go to trial, the complexity of these complaints can benefit a plaintiff and increase a plaintiff’s bargaining power against a defendant who is attempting to avoid a potentially large judgment.
Enter the SB-800 statutes. The SB-800 statutes apply to all homes sold after January 1, 2003. Civil Code section 938 specifically states that “[t]his title applies only to new residential units where the purchase agreements with the buyer was signed by the seller on or after January 1, 2003.” (Civil Code §, 938.) As time progresses, more residential construction defect cases will exclusively fall under the purview of SB-800. Slowly but surely more SB-800 governed litigation is being filed, and its exclusive application is looming on the horizon.
On its surface, this “right to repair” regime has left builders with a lot to be desired despite the fact that it is supposed to allow the builder the opportunity to cure any deficiencies in their product before litigation can be filed by potential plaintiffs. However, the application of the time line for repair has shown to be impractical for anything but the most minor problems involving only small numbers of residential units. Moreover, the fact that the fruits of the builder’s investigation into the claimed defects in the pre-litigation context can freely be used as evidence against it in litigation makes builders proceed with trepidation in responding with a repair. For these reasons, more SB-800 litigation can be expected to result due to the shortcomings of the pre-litigation procedures, and savvy defense counsel should anticipate the issues to be dealt with in presenting the defense of such cases at trial.
This fact should not necessarily be met with fear or disdain. Within the SB-800 statutes, the legislature made it clear that they were creating a new cause of action for construction defect claims, but it further made it clear that this cause of action is a plaintiff’s exclusive remedy. The legislature giveth, but at the same time, the legislature taketh away. Throughout numerous provisions within the SB-800 statutes, the Civil Code states that claims for construction defects as to residential construction are exclusively governed by the Civil Code, and that the Civil Code governs any and all litigation arising under breaches of these provisions. Civil Code section 896 specifically states:
In any action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in, the residential construction … the claimant’s claims or causes of action shall be limited to violation of, the following standards, except as specifically set forth in this title. (Civil Code §, 896.)
Civil Code section 896 then provides approximately fifty-plus standards by which a construction defect claim is assessed under that provision. Civil Code section 896 covers everything from plumbing to windows, and from foundations to decks, and in several instances expressly dictates statutes of limitations as to specific areas of construction that severely truncate the 10-year latent damage limitations period. As for any construction deficiencies that are not enumerated within Civil Code section 896, Civil Code section 897 explicitly defines the intent of the standards and provides a method to assess deficiencies that are not addressed in Civil Code section 896. Civil Code section 897 states:
Intent of Standards
The standards set forth in this chapter are intended to address every function or component of a structure. To the extent that a function or component of a structure is not addressed by these standards, it shall be actionable if it causes damage. (Civil Code §, 897.)
Therefore, Civil Code section 897 acts as a catch-all by which defects that are not covered within Civil Code section 896 can be evaluated on a damage standard mirroring the Aas case (damages must be present and actual). The result of sections 896 and 897 being read in combination is a comprehensive, all-inclusive set of performance standards by which any defect raised by Plaintiffs can be evaluated and resolved under a single SB-800 based cause of action.
Civil Code section 943 makes clear that a cause of action for violation of SB-800 performance standards is a plaintiff’s sole remedy for a residential construction defect action. Specifically, Civil Code section 943 states:
Except as provided in this title, no other cause of action for a claim covered by this title or for damages recoverable under 944 is allowed. In addition to the rights under this title, this title does not apply to any action by a claimant to enforce a contract or express contractual provision, or any action for fraud, personal injury, or violation of a statute. (Civil Code §, 943.)
Civil Code section 944 provides the method for computing damages within a construction defect action, as follows:
If a claim for damages is made under this title, the homeowner is only entitled to damages for the reasonable value of repairing any violation of the standards set forth in this title, [and] the reasonable cost of repairing any damages caused by the repair efforts… . (Civil Code §, 944.)
A cursory review of these statutes yields the conclusion that the legislature was attempting to create an exclusive cause of action that trumps all other causes of action where SB-800 applies. The remedy available to plaintiffs is limited to that allowed by the Civil Code. As noted above, “[n]o other cause of action for a claim covered by this title…is allowed.” (Civil Code §, 943.) Therefore, Civil Code sections 896, 897, 943, and 944 specifically prohibit the contract-based and tort-based causes of action typically pled by plaintiffs.
Plaintiff’s counsel has seized upon the language of section 943 to advance the argument that SB-800 still allows a plaintiff to advance typical contract and tort based causes of action. On the surface, this argument may seem compelling, but a minimum of scrutiny of the express language of section 943 dispels this notion. Section 943 says that it provides rights “[i]n addition” to those under the SB-800 Civil Code provisions. Clearly, the language in section 943 is intended to expressly underscore the fact that a plaintiff is not precluded from seeking relief in addition to that allowed under SB-800 for damages not arising from a breach of the SB-800 standards or for damages in addition to those recoverable under Section 944. This language does not provide an unfettered license to bring a Strict Liability, Negligence or other cause of action against a builder where SB-800 applies.
In fact, this language only keeps the door open for plaintiffs to pursue such causes of action not arising from a breach of the SB-800 standards should there be such supporting allegations. For example, if a plaintiff alleges that a builder breached an “express contractual provision” related to the timing of the completion of the home and close of escrow, and the contract specifies damages in this regard, a plaintiff may have a viable separate cause of action for Breach of Contract for recovery of those damages precisely because that is not an issue expressly dealt with in SB-800 in the performance standards under sections 896 and 897, or in the damage recovery terms under 944. As it stands, the vast majority of complaints are seeking redress for violation of the same primary right; that is, defects specifically outlined in Section 896 and 897 or which result in damages as stated in Section 944.
So, how does a builder defend against a complaint that contains multiple causes of action regarding construction defects for a home sold after January 1, 2003? There are numerous ways to approach this. First and foremost, these superfluous and improper causes of action can be attacked by demurrer seeking dismissal of all causes of action other than the cause of action alleging violation of SB-800. If the the time period within which to file a demurrer has passed already, a motion for judgment on the pleadings can be utilized to attack the improper causes of action in the same way as a demurrer can be used for this purpose.
The limitation to a demurrer or motion for judgment on the pleadings is that the judge is restricted to viewing only the four corners of the pleading when making a ruling. It is typical for plaintiffs’ counsel to cleverly (or one might even say, disingenuously) leave the complaint purposely vague to avoid a successful defense attack on the pleadings by not including the original date the residence was sold. In that instance, a motion for summary adjudication can be used to attack a plaintiff’s complaint. By simply providing evidence that the homes were originally sold after January 1, 2003, the improper causes of action should be subject to dismissal by summary adjudication. If the plaintiff is a subsequent purchaser, the builder still has recourse to enforce the pleading limitations under SB-800. Civil Code section 945 states that “[t]he provisions, standards, rights, and obligations set forth in this title are binding upon all original purchasers and their successors-in-interest.” (Civil Code §, 945.)
Attacking a plaintiff’s complaint to eliminate multiple causes of action can have numerous benefits. The practical result is that a plaintiff will only have one viable cause of action. The advantage is that the SB-800 performance standards include the defined performance standards and shortened statutes of limitations periods with regard to specific issues. Furthermore, as to defects which are not specifically provided for in Civil Code section 896, Civil Code section 897 requires a proof of actual damages. Therefore, a plaintiff must provide evidence of current damages and not simply conditions that may potentially cause damage in the future.
The Appellate Courts have yet to directly address and interpret these SB-800 provisions. The time for that is undoubtedly drawing near. For now, however, plaintiffs will have to find ways to accurately plead construction defect claims within the confines of one cause of action for breach of the performance standards enumerated within the Civil Code.
Printed courtesy of Lorber, Greenfield & Polito, LLP. Mr. Patel can be contacted at spatel@lorberlaw.com and Mr. Verbick at tverbick@lorberlaw.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mitsubishi Estate to Rebuild Apartments After Defects Found
March 19, 2014 —
Kathleen Chu and Takahiko Hyuga – BloombergMitsubishi Estate Co. (8802), Japan’s biggest developer by market value, will rebuild a Tokyo residential complex where it stopped selling apartments that went for as much as 350 million yen ($3.4 million) after finding defects.
The reconstruction will take about three to four years to complete, and builder Kajima Corp. will be in charge of the project and cover the cost, said Masayuki Watanabe, a spokesman at Tokyo-based Mitsubishi Estate. The building was constructed by Kajima along with Kandenko (1942) Co., according to the developer.
Mitsubishi Estate stopped selling apartments in the building in central Tokyo’s upscale Aoyama neighborhood after finding it needed repairs, including to some of the pipes, the developer said in an e-mail on Feb. 3. Eighty-three out of 86 units were under contract and were expected to be handed over to the owners on March 20, the company said last month.
Ms. Chu may be contacted at kchu2@bloomberg.net; Mr. Hyuga may be contacted at thyuga@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kathleen Chu and Takahiko Hyuga, Bloomberg
Hennigh Law Corporation Wins Award Against Viracon, Inc In Defective Gray PIB Case
July 11, 2022 —
Scott Hennigh - Hennigh Law CorporationLOS ANGELES, July 08, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Hennigh Law Corporation has announced that, after an over four-year battle in and out of court, a three arbitrator panel issued a 93-page interim award in finding Viracon, Inc., liable for $13,682,840 in direct damages for defrauding the owner of the premier office building in Burbank, California, The Pointe. The matter now enters the second phase, where the arbitration panel will rule on the amount of punitive damages to assess, as well as attorney fees and interest.
Scott Hennigh, trial attorney, states, "The California construction industry is very robust with high standards. The arbitration panel appears to have recognized that California law does not tolerate large out-of-state companies misleading customers. They appear poised to send a message to Viracon about its lack of corporate responsibility."
The premier Class-A office building in Burbank, California, The Pointe, serves high-end tenants in entertainment industries such as Warner Brothers. Constructed in 2009, the 13 exterior curtain wall of the 13-story building is encased in seamless glass panels.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scott Hennigh, Hennigh Law CorporationMr. Hennigh may be contacted at
Scott.hennigh@hennighlaw.com
EEOC Chair Issues New Report “Building for the Future: Advancing Equal Employment Opportunity in the Construction Industry”
June 05, 2023 —
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionWASHINGTON – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Chair Charlotte A. Burrows issued a report today titled, “
Building For The Future: Advancing Equal Employment Opportunity in the Construction Industry.” The report provides findings and next steps based on the agency’s enforcement experience, witness testimony presented at the EEOC’s
May 2022 hearing on discrimination and harassment in construction and other Commission hearings, and academic research.
“The recent historic federal infrastructure investments provide a once-in-a-generation opportunity to break down barriers and expand opportunity in the construction industry,” said EEOC Chair Charlotte A. Burrows. “While discrimination has long been an issue in the industry, we can decide the future. I look forward to working with industry leaders, employers, and unions to help ensure safe and inclusive workplaces for all workers.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Denver Condo Development Increasing, with Caution
January 21, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to Aldo Svaldi of The Denver Post, condo development has increased in the Denver metro area, though builders stated they are carefully documenting each step of construction as well as vetting contractors and materials.
"We are being ultra-careful about everything," Roy Kline, a managing director at Western Development Group, told the Denver Post. Western Development is behind the 250 Columbine development. Svaldi reported that Western Development Group has been “photographing or filming every step of construction.”
Brian Levitt and Trevor Hines of NAVA Real Estate Development “have spent the past year crafting a detailed three-page, 18-point action plan to deal with any contingency they could think of arising from the state's constructions-defects law.” Levitt told Svaldi that he “estimates all the safeguards being put in place will add 5 percent to 10 percent to the costs of the units at NAVA Sloan Lake, whose final price points are being determined.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
