TV Kitchen Remodelers Sued for Shoddy Work
December 04, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFTheir remodels may dazzle on television, but someone who hired Bunelleschi Construction, the company owned by “Kitchen Cousins” stars John Colaneri and Anthony Carrino, wasn’t quite so dazzled. And now Robert and Peng Avery are suing the two men and their company for a kitchen remodel gone awry. They claim that the company left their Tenafly, New Jersey home uninhabitable.
According to the couple, the Brunelleschi’s work included “numerous gaps in sheetrock” and improper installation of ductwork, plumbing, and doors. They also claim that Brunelleschi Construction falsely claimed the work had passed final building and electrical inspections. When the company stopped work, the couple was unable to obtain a certificate of occupancy.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Is Performance Bond Liable for Delay Damages?
October 20, 2016 —
David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThere is an argument that a performance bond is not liable for delay damages UNLESS the bond specifically allows for the recovery of such damages. Keep this in mind when requiring a performance bond so that the bond covers the associated risks (and damages) you contemplate when requiring the bond. This argument is supported by the Florida Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in American Home Assur. Co. v. Larkin General Hosp., Ltd., 593 So.2d 195, 198 (Fla. 1992):
The language in the performance bond, construed together with the purpose of the bond, clearly explains that the performance bond merely guaranteed the completion of the construction contract and nothing more. Upon default, the terms of the performance bond required American [performance bond surety] to step in and either complete construction or pay Larkin [obligee] the reasonable costs of completion. Because the terms of the performance bond control the liability of the surety, American’s liability will not be extended beyond the terms of the performance bond. Therefore, American cannot be held liable for delay damages.
However, the Eleventh Circuit in National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Fortune Const. Co., 320 F.3d 1260(11th Cir. 2003), also analyzing an issue relating to the recoverability of delay-type damages against a performance bond, did not narrowly interpret the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Larkin General Hospital.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Katz, Barron, Squitero, Faust, Friedberg, English & Allen, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@katzbarron.com
Small Airport to Grow with Tower
October 25, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe city Hammond, Louisiana is finding that their airport just keeps getting busier. Mayson Foster, the mayor of Hammond noted that the city now has “various types of aircraft ranging from blimps, regional jets, smaller private planes, helicopters and other aircraft using the airport.” Spartan Construction Company has made a successful $1.6 million bid to build the tower.
Funding will come from the sale of 17 acres of land near the airport. Air traffic at the Northshore Regional Airport is expected to increase after the tower becomes operational.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Drop in Civil Trials May Cause Problems for Construction Defect Cases
August 27, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFOver the last fifty years, the number of lawsuits that have been settled by trial have dropped sharply, according to Kenneth Childs, writing in the Idaho Business Review. Childs notes that in 1962, 11.5% of federal civil cases were resolved at trial, but in 2002, only 1.8 % percent went to trial. He makes the supposition that, due to their complexity, construction defect trials are even less likely to be resolved at trial.
Instead, they are being resolved in mandatory arbitration. Views on arbitration have changed over the years and the courts have gone from what he describes as “somewhat hostile to it” to embracing, encouraging, and even mandating it.
Childs notes there are some problems to this climate of arbitration. He notes that arbitrators can “operate by their own rules and according to their own standards.” The decisions made by arbitrators “are not subject to appellate review,” which allows arbitrators “to ignore the law entirely.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Negligent Misrepresentation Claim Does Not Allege Property Damage, Barring Coverage
December 20, 2017 —
Tred Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii The Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's determination that the seller's alleged negligent misrepresentation regarding the propensity of the property to flood was covered. Erie Ins. Exh. v. Maxwell, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 746 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2017).
The Chapmans purchased a residence from the Maxwells on March 7, 2014. Prior to the sale, the Maxwells completed a residential property disclosure in which they allegedly misrepresented the propensity of the property to flood. Five months after the purchase, the residence sustained damage as a result of two floods within three days. The Chapmans sued, alleging they relied on the Maxwells' representations regarding the propensity of the property to flood. The Chapmans further alleged that they sustained property damage as a result of the Maxwells' negligence and negligent misrepresentations.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Feds to Repair Damage From Halted Border Wall Work in Texas, California
May 31, 2021 —
Mary B. Powers - Engineering News-RecordWith hurricane season fast approaching, the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security has begun repair of large breaches in a 13-mile section of Rio Grande flood barriers in Texas caused by Trump administration border wall contractors building on them—after local officials feared "extensive problems" with their integrity and threatened to bring in their own crews.
Reprinted courtesy of
Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
AB 685 and COVID-19 Workplace Exposure: New California Notice and Reporting Requirements of COVID Exposure Starting January 1, 2021
February 01, 2021 —
Sewar K. Sunnaa & Nathan A. Cohen - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.SUMMARY
Effective January 1, 2021, a new California law requires employers to notify employees about possible or known exposure to COVID-19 at the workplace. The law requires actual notification to employees within one day.
In addition, the law requires notifications to local public health authorities of a COVID-19 outbreak. The law also gives Cal/OSHA a new emergency police power to issue Orders Prohibiting Use (“OPU”), permitting Cal/OSHA to close workplaces that constitute an imminent hazard to employees due to COVID-19.
ANALYSIS AND GUIDANCE
On January 1, 2021, a new California law took effect, which will enforce stringent new mandatory protocols governing notification of employees of COVID-19 exposures in the workplace. Until now, federal agencies such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) and state agencies such as the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“Cal/OSHA”) have released guidance to help employers navigate employee training, workplace surveillance and temperature-taking, among many other issues, that have arisen during the COVID-19 pandemic. Beginning January 1st, the new law places mandatory notice requirements of COVID-19 contact on all public and private employers under Labor Code Section 6409.6, with two exceptions: (1) health facilities, as defined in Section 1250 of the Health and Safety Code and (2) employees whose regular duties include COVID-19 testing or screening, or who provide patient care to individuals who are known or suspected to have COVID-19.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sewar K. Sunnaa, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Nathan A. Cohen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Ms. Sunnaa may be contacted at ssunnaa@pecklaw.com
Mr. Cohen may be contacted at ncohen@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THAT THE RIGHT TO REPAIR ACT (SB800) IS THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CLAIMS NOT INVOLVING PERSONAL INJURIES WHETHER OR NOT THE UNDERLYING DEFECTS GAVE RISE TO ANY PROPERTY DAMAGE in McMillin Albany LL
January 24, 2018 —
Chapman, Glucksman, Dean, Roeb, & BargerRICHARD H. GLUCKSMAN, ESQ.
GLENN T. BARGER, ESQ.
JON A. TURIGLIATTO, ESQ.
DAVID A. NAPPER, ESQ.
The Construction Industry finally has its answer. The California Supreme Court ruled that the Right to Repair Act (SB800) is the exclusive remedy for construction defect claims alleged to have resulted from economic loss, property damage, or both. Our office has closely tracked the matter since its infancy. The California Supreme Court’s holding resolves the split of authority presented by the Fifth Appellate District’s holding in
McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132, which outright rejected the Fourth Appellate District’s holding in
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98.
By way of background, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held in
Liberty Mutual that compliance with SB800’s pre-litigation procedures prior to initiating litigation is only required for defect claims involving violations of SB800’s building standards that have not yet resulted in actual property damage. Where damage has occurred, a homeowner may initiate litigation under common law causes of action without first complying with the pre-litigation procedures set forth in SB800. Two years later, the Fifth District Court of Appeal, in
McMillin Albany, held that the California Legislature intended that all claims arising out of defects in new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003 are subject to the standards and requirements of the Right to Repair Act, including specifically the requirement that notice be provided to the builder prior to filing a lawsuit. Thus, the Court of Appeal ruled that SB800 is the exclusive remedy for all defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003.
After extensive examination of the text and legislative history of the Right to Repair Act, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s ruling that SB800 preempts common law claims for property damage. The Complaint at issue alleged construction defects causing both property damage and economic loss. After filing the operative Complaint, the homeowners dismissed the SB800 cause of action and took the position that the Right to Repair Act was adopted to provide a remedy for construction defects causing only economic loss and therefore SB800 did not alter preexisting common law remedies in cases where actual property damage or personal injuries resulted. The builder maintained that SB800 and its pre-litigation procedures still applied in this case where actually property damages were alleged to have occurred.
The Supreme Court found that the text and legislative history reflect a clear and unequivocal intent to supplant common law negligence and strict product liability actions with a statutory claim under the Right to Repair Act. Specifically the text reveals “…an intent to create not merely
a remedy for construction defects but
the remedy.” Additionally certain clauses set forth in SB800 “…evinces a clear intent to displace, in whole or in part, existing remedies for construction defects.” Not surprisingly, the Court confirmed that personal injury damages are expressly not recoverable under SB800, which actually assisted the Court in analyzing the intent of the statutory scheme. The Right to Repair Act provides that construction defect claims not involving personal injury will be treated the same procedurally going forward whether or not the underlying defects gave rise to any property damage.
The Supreme Court further found that the legislative history of SB800 confirms that displacement of parts of the existing remedial scheme was “…no accident, but rather a considered choice to reform construction defect litigation.” Further emphasizing how the legislative history confirms what the statutory text reflects, the Supreme Court offered the following summary: “the Act was designed as a broad reform package that would substantially change existing law by displacing some common law claims and substituting in their stead a statutory cause of action with a mandatory pre-litigation process.” As a result, the Supreme Court ordered that the builder is entitled to a stay and the homeowners are required to comply with the pre-litigation procedures set forth in the Right to Repair Act before their lawsuit may proceed.
The seminal ruling by the California Supreme Court shows great deference to California Legislature and the “major stakeholders on all sides of construction defect litigation” who participated in developing SB800. A significant win for builders across the Golden State, homeowners unequivocally must proceed via SB800 for all construction defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003. We invite you to contact us should you have any questions.
Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys
Richard Glucksman,
Glenn Barger,
Jon Turigliatto and
David Napper
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Barger may be contacted at gbarger@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Turgliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
