Prevailing Parties Entitled to Contractual Attorneys’ Fees Under California CCP §1717 Notwithstanding Declaration That Contract is Void Under California Government Code §1090
December 20, 2017 —
Zachary Price & Lawrence ZuckerIn California-American Water Co. v. Marina Coast Water District (Nos. A146166, 146405, filed 12/15/17), the First District Court of Appeal held that a prevailing party was entitled to an award of contractual attorneys’ fees under Code of Civil Procedure §1717 even though the underlying contracts were declared void under Government Code §1090.
Appellant Marina Coast Water District (“Marina”) and Respondent Monterey County Water Resources Agency (“Monterey”), both public water agencies, and Respondent California-American Water Company (“California-American”), a water utility, entered into several contracts to collaborate on a water desalination project. The parties agreed that the prevailing party of any action in any way arising from their agreements would be entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees.
Reprinted courtesy of
Zachary Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Lawrence Zucker, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Price may be contacted at zprice@hbblaw.com
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Consumer Protections for California Residential Solar Energy Systems
September 25, 2018 —
Robert A. James & Alexandra Brandt - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate BlogIt was already the case that in order to offer to install California residential solar energy systems, a contractor must be licensed by the California Contractors State License Board (CSLB) and must hold an appropriate specialty classification. Under AB 1070 enacted late last year (Chapter 662, Statutes of 2017), special consumer protections are being deployed for the benefit of homeowners. Those protections are steadily rolling out.
Step one is the requirement of new Business & Professions Code (B&P Code) Section 7169 that, as of January 1, 2019, a disclosure document must be provided to consumers prior to sale and included on page 1 of the sale contract. The initial version of this document, which was developed by the CSLB and endorsed on August 23, 2018 by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), is available here. The disclosure requirement doesn’t apply to systems included in new home construction.
Reprinted courtesy of
Robert A. James, Pillsbury and
Alexandra Brandt, Pillsbury
Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Brandt may be contacted at alexandra.brandt@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The “Unavailability Exception” is Unavailable to Policyholders, According to New York Court of Appeals
September 10, 2018 —
William S. Bennett & Warsame Y. Hassan - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.The New York Court of Appeals recently upheld a prior appellate division decision finding that policyholders facing environmental claims, spanning multiple years, cannot force their insurers partially on the risk to provide coverage for years where the insurers did not issue policies, even though pollution insurance was unavailable in the marketplace.
In Keyspan Gas E. Corp. v. Munich Reins. Am., Keyspan Gas East Corporation (“Keyspan”) argued other insurers should cover the period when pollution property insurance was unavailable in the marketplace, according to their pro-rata share of coverage. 31 N.Y.3d 51 (2018). In a unanimous decision, the Court emphasized the Appellate Division’s prior ruling that stated, “spreading risk should not by itself serve as a legal basis for providing free insurance to an insured.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Bennett may be contacted at
wsb@sdvlaw.com
Gillotti v. Stewart (2017) 2017 WL 1488711 Rejects Liberty Mutual, Holding Once Again that the Right to Repair Act is the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims
June 05, 2017 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq. & Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq. - Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger BulletinBackground
In Gillotti v. Stewart (April 26, 2017) 2017 WL 1488711, which was ordered to be published on May 18, 2017, the defendant grading subcontractor added soil over tree roots to level the driveway on the plaintiff homeowner’s sloped lot. The homeowner sued the grading subcontractor under the California Right to Repair Act (Civil Code §§ 895, et seq.) claiming that the subcontractor’s work damaged the trees.
After the jury found the subcontractor was not negligent, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the subcontractor. The homeowner appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly construed the Right to Repair Act as barring a common law negligence theory against the subcontractor and erred in failing to follow Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98. The Third District Court of Appeal disagreed and affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the subcontractor.
Impact
This is the second time the Third District Court of Appeal has held that Liberty Mutual (discussed below) was wrongly decided and held that the Right to Repair Act is the exclusive remedy for construction defect claims. The decision follows its holding in Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court (Hicks) (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 333, in which the Court of Appeal held that the Right to Repair Act’s pre-litigation procedures apply when homeowners plead construction defect claims based on common law causes of action, as opposed to violations of the building standards set forth in the Right to Repair Act. Elliott is currently on hold at the California Supreme Court, pending the decision in McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132, wherein Liberty Mutual was rejected for the first time by the Fifth District. CGDRB continues to follow developments regarding the much anticipated McMillin decision closely, as well as all related matters.
Discussion
The Right to Repair Act makes contractors and subcontractors not involved in home sales liable for construction defects only if the homeowner proves they negligently cause the violation in whole or part (Civil Code §§ 911(b), 936). As such, the trial court in Gillotti instructed the jury on negligence with respect to the grading subcontractor. The jury found that while the construction did violate some of the Right to Repair’s building standards alleged by the homeowner, the subcontractor was not negligent in anyway. After the jury verdict, the trial court found in favor of the grading subcontractor.
The homeowner moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial on the grounds that the trial court improperly barred a common law negligence theory against the grading subcontractor. The trial court denied the motions on the grounds that “[t]he Right to Repair Act specifically provides that no other causes of action are allowed. See Civil Code § 943.” The trial court specifically noted that its decision conflicted with Liberty Mutual, in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the Right to Repair Act does not eliminate common law rights and remedies where actual damage has occurred, stating that Liberty Mutual was wrongly decided and that the Liberty Mutual court was naïve in its assumptions regarding the legislative history of the Right to Repair Act.
In Gillotti, the Third District Court of Appeal stated that the Liberty Mutual court failed to analyze the language of Civil Code § 896, which “clearly and unequivocally expresses the legislative intent that the Act apply to all action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in, residential construction, except as specifically set forth in the Act. The Act does not specifically except actions arising from actual damages. To the contrary, it authorizes recovery of damages, e.g., for ‘the reasonable cost of repairing and rectifying any damages resulting from the failure of the home to meet the standards....’ ([Civil Code] § 944).”
The Court also disagreed with Liberty Mutual’s view that because Civil Code §§ 931 and 943 acknowledge exceptions to the Right to Repair Act’s statutory remedies, the Act does not preclude common law claims for damages due to defects identified in the Act. The Court stated: “Neither list of exceptions, in section 943 or in section 931, includes common law causes of action such as negligence. If the Legislature had intended to make such a wide-ranging exception to the restrictive language of the first sentence of section 943, we would have expected it to do so expressly.”
Additionally, the Court of Appeal rejected the argument that Civil Code § 897 preserves a common law negligence claims for violation of standards not listed in Civil Code § 986. It explained that the section of Civil Code § 897, which provides, “The standards set forth in this chapter are intended to address every function or component of a structure,” expresses the legislative intent that the Right to Repair Act be all-encompassing. Anything inadvertently omitted is actionable under the Act if it causes damage. Any exceptions to the Act are made expressly through Civil Code §§ 931 and 934. The Court concluded in no uncertain terms that the Right to Repair Act precludes common law claims in cases for damages covered by the Act.
The homeowner further argued that she was not precluded from bringing a common law claim because a tree is not a “structure,” and therefore the alleged tree damage did not fall within the realm of the Right to Repair. The Court of Appeal also rejected this argument, holding that while the tree damage itself was not expressly covered, the act of adding soil to make the driveway level (which caused the damage) implicated the standards covered by the Right to Repair Act. The Court explained that since under the Act a “structure” includes “improvement located upon a lot or within a common area” (Civil Code § 895(a)), as the driveway was an improvement upon the lot, the claim was within the purview of the Right to Repair Act. As the soil, a component of the driveway, caused damage (to the trees), it was actionable under the Act.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Chelsea L. Zwart, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- The Claim
January 12, 2015 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsA new year brings with it promise and challenges. The promise is a relatively clean slate and the thought that 2015 will be a great year for construction professionals and those that assist them. The challenges come from the almost inevitable issues that can arise on a construction site with its many moving parts and enough potential pitfalls to make even the most optimistic construction attorney, contractor, subcontractor or supplier think that Murphy was an optimist.
In order to assist with the potential challenges, this post will be the first in a series of “musings” on the best way to handle a payment dispute arising from a construction contract. This week’s post will discuss what the first steps should be once a payment dispute or claim arises. We’ll assume that you, as a construction contractor, have taken early advantage of the services of a construction lawyer and have carefully reviewed your contract for issues before signing that contract.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PCMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Contractual Warranty Agreements May Preclude Future Tort Recovery
January 11, 2022 —
Taylor Ostrowski - Colorado Construction Litigation BlogWhen a buyer purchases a product that is later discovered to be defective, the court offers a remedy to make the buyer whole. Such remedies can arise either out of a contract, including express and/or implied warranties, or under common law through a tort theory. However, what happens when a buyer has already received the remedy specified in the contractual warranty, only to discover the product manufacturer misrepresented the quality of its product by failing to disclose a defect? Can the buyer subsequently recover for the same product under a tort theory of recovery? The Colorado Court of Appeals analyzed such questions in its December 2021 decision in Dream Finders Homes, LLC v. Weyerhaeuser NR Co., 2021 COA 143.
In Dream Finders, the court examines the rights of sophisticated buyers who purchased defective products and received a warranty from the product manufacturer with purchase. The court specifically determines whether such buyers may recover under the tort theory product misrepresentation and failure to disclose when the buyers have already received the remedy specified and the warranty expressly excludes the type of damage the buyer now seeks.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Taylor Ostrowski, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMs. Ostrowski may be contacted at
ostrowski@hhmrlaw.com
Excess Insurer On The Hook For Cleanup Costs At Seven Industrial Sites
August 28, 2018 —
Lorelie S. Masters & Geoffrey B. Fehling - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogA New York district court has held that an insurer must provide coverage under three excess insurance policies issued in 1970 for defense and cleanup costs incurred by Olin Corporation in remediating environmental contamination at seven sites in Connecticut, Washington, Maryland, Illinois, New York, and Washington. Seven of the remaining sites at issue presented questions of fact for trial, with only one site being dismissed due to lack of coverage.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Quick Note: Attorney’s Fees on Attorney’s Fees
June 13, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn a recent
case, the appellate court held that the attorney’s fees provision in the contract was NOT broad enough to entitle the prevailing party to recover attorney’s fees for litigating the amount of attorney’s fees. This is known as “fees on fees” which is when you can recover your prevailing party attorney’s fees when you are fighting over the quantum that should be awarded to you as the prevailing party.
The attorney’s fees provision at-issue stated:
“In any lawsuit to enforce the Lease or under applicable law, the party in whose favor a judgment or decree has been rendered may recover its reasonable court costs including attorney’s fees from the non-prevailing party.”
Language similar to this language can be found in many contracts as a prevailing party attorney’s fees provision.
However, this provision was NOT broad enough to recover “fees on fees.” As explained in
this article, if this is a consideration, you can negotiate or include this provision into your construction contract by expanding the scope of the prevailing party attorney’s fees provision to clarify that it entitles the prevailing party to recover attorney’s fees in litigating the amount of attorney’s fees.
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
