California Homeowners Can Release Future, Unknown Claims Against Builders
June 10, 2015 —
Edward A. Jaeger, Jr. and William L. Doerler – White and Williams LLPIn Belasco v. Wells, 183 Cal. Rptr.3d 840, 234 Cal. App. 4th 409 (2015), the California Court of Appeals for the Second District addressed the question of whether a homeowner, when settling an administrative complaint against a licensed homebuilder, can release future, unknown claims. Despite the presence of a California statute, Cal. Civ. Code § 1542, stating that a general release does not extend to claims that the releasor does not know about, the court held that the homeowner’s express release of future claims was enforceable. Thus, the homeowner’s release - signed as part of a 2006 settlement of the homeowner’s construction defect claims against the defendant, a homebuilder - barred the homeowner’s 2012 claims against the builder based on latent defects in the roof of the home that the homeowner discovered in 2011.
Background
The plaintiff, David Belasco, a patent attorney, bought a newly-constructed home from the defendant-builder, Gary Wells, in 2004. Wells holds a Class B General Building Contractor license issued by the Contractors State License Board (the Board). In 2006, Belasco filed a complaint against Wells with the Board based on alleged construction defects in the home.
As a result of Belasco’s complaint to the Board, the parties engaged in arbitration. At the arbitration, both parties were represented by counsel. Wells offered to settle the dispute for the sum of $25,000 and Belasco accepted Wells’ offer.
Reprinted courtesy of
Edward A. Jaeger, Jr., White and Williams LLP and
William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Jaeger may be contacted at jaegere@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Detect and Prevent Construction Fraud
August 28, 2018 —
Tiffany Couch - Construction ExecutiveWith construction ramping up in many markets, construction firms plan to hire more workers, indicating the industry's continued optimism about a healthy economy. It's news that is both exciting and perhaps a little daunting: hiring competent, qualified tradespeople is challenging under any conditions. No one wants to hire a poor employee—or worse, someone who turns out to be a thief.
While no industry is immune to occupational fraud, the construction industry is one of the harder hit. The average construction fraud scheme costs business owners $227,000 before it is detected. Worse, the fraudster is very often someone the employer implicitly trusts, making it even harder to believe the company has been the victim of insider theft. Fraud can hurt a business's reputation, cost thousands and betray trust. It may seem uncontrollable and unforeseeable unless employers know how to detect and deter fraudulent behavior.
Reprinted courtesy of
Tiffany Couch, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ms. Couch may be contacted at
tcouch@acuityforensics.com
Federal Judge Refuses to Limit Coverage and Moves Forward with Policyholder’s Claims Against Insurer and Broker
December 07, 2020 —
Michael S. Levine & Casey L. Coffey - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogOn November 10, 2020, a New York federal judge dismissed an insurer’s counterclaims seeking to cap its exposure under a $15 million sublimit and an order estopping the policyholder from pursuing any additional amounts.
In February 2017, Plaintiff Pilkington North America, Inc. (Pilkington), suffered between $60 and $100 million in damage from a tornado that struck its glass manufacturing factory in Illinois. Pilkington sought coverage for its loss under a commercial property and business interruption policy issued by Defendant Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Company (MSI). Pilkington also claimed its insurance broker, Aon Risk Services Central, Inc. (Aon), is liable for faulty advice provided while brokering the policy. Aon’s negligence allegedly gave way to MSI’s fraudulent revision of the insurance policy, which caused the losses from the tornado to not be fully compensable.
Pilkington’s fraud and faulty brokering claims stem from MSI’s revision of an endorsement contained in the policy. The revision changed the wording of a windstorm sublimit. Allegedly, Aon was informed by MSI of the changes and failed to inform Pilkington that the revision would substantially reduce coverage for windstorms, including tornados.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews KurthMr. Levine may be contacted at
mlevine@HuntonAK.com
HB24-1014: A Warning Bell for Colorado Businesses Amid Potential Consumer Protection Changes
February 26, 2024 —
Jennifer Brockel - Colorado Construction Litigation BlogHB24-1014 stands to eliminate the longstanding public impact requirement found within C.R.S. § 6-1-105(2) of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (“CCPA”). While this proposed change professes the noblest intentions of “public peace, health or safety,” its effect portends a large detriment to Colorado business and an astronomical payday for Colorado plaintiffs’ attorneys.
Brief History
For over 100 years, Colorado recognized the need to protect its citizens from deceptive trade practices through a mechanism akin to the Federal Trade Commission Act that preceded it. In 1915, Colorado passed legislation prohibiting “untrue, deceptive, or misleading” advertising. C.L. 1921 § 6942 evolved into the broader protections afforded in the more recent consumer protection law from 1969 that prohibited “deceptive trade practices, and included protections from unfair, unconscionable, and deceptive acts or practices.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jennifer Brockel, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMs. Brockel may be contacted at
brockel@hhmrlaw.com
OSHA Investigating Bridge Accident Resulting in Construction Worker Fatality
October 29, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFSI Live reported that “[t]he federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration has opened a probe into an early-morning truck accident at the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge that left a construction worker dead Wednesday.” The accident occurred in New York “when a truck laying asphalt backed into [the worker] and crushed him.”
Ted Fitzgerald, OSHA spokesman, stated, “OSHA did respond and has opened an inspection to determine whether or not there were violations of workplace safety standards in connection with this fatality,” as quoted by SI Live.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New California "Construction" Legislation
November 08, 2018 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq. & Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq. - Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & BargerGovernor Jerry Brown signed two potentially impactful Senate Bills relating to the construction of apartment buildings late last month. These Bills, discussed further below, were introduced, in part, in response to the Berkeley balcony collapse in June 2015, which was determined by the California Contractors State License Board to be caused by the failure of severely rotted structural support joists the repair of which were deferred by the property manager, despite indications of water damage.
SENATE BILL 721 ESTABLISHES HEIGHTENED “LOAD-BEARING” INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS
On August 21, 2018, the California State Senate passed SB 721, one of two bills by Senator Jerry Hill introduced this year seeking to address the safety of multifamily rental residences. Now that the Governor has signed the Bill, a new section will be added to the California Health and Safety Code, requiring that every 6 years, destructive testing be performed on at least 15% of each type of load-bearing, wood framed exterior elevated element (such as balconies, walkways, and stair landings) in apartment buildings with 3 or more units. Interestingly, prior to being passed by the State Senate, SB 721 was revised in June 2018, such that the inspection requirements do not apply to common interest developments (i.e., condominiums).
As set forth in the new Health and Safety Code Section 17973:
"the purpose of the inspection is to determine that exterior elevated elements and their associated waterproofing elements are in a generally safe condition, adequate working order, and free from any hazardous condition caused by fungus, deterioration, decay, or improper alteration to the extent that the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or the occupants is not endangered."
The inspection must be paid for by the building owner and performed by a licensed contractor, architect, or civil or structural engineer, or a certified building inspector or building official from a recognized state, national, or international association. Emergency repairs identified by the inspector must be made immediately. For non-emergency repairs, a permit must be applied for within 120 days and the repair completed within 120 days of the permit’s issuance. If repairs are not completed within 180 days, civil penalties of $100-$500 per day may be imposed.
The required inspection must be completed by January 1, 2025 and every 6 years thereafter, unless an equivalent inspection was performed during the 3 years prior to January 1, 2019, the effective date of the new law. For a building converted to condominiums that will be sold after January 1, 2019, the inspection required by Health and Safety Code Section 17973, must be performed prior to the first close of escrow.
SENATE BILL 1465 SETS CONTRACTOR REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The Governor also signed SB 1465, adding Sections 7071.20, 7071.21, and 7071.22 to the California Business and Professions Code. The new law requires that a contractor licensed with the Contractors’ State License Board "report to the registrar in writing within 90 days after the licensee has knowledge of any civil action resulting in a final judgment, executed settlement agreement, or final arbitration award in which the licensee is named as a defendant or crossdefendant, filed on or after January 1, 2019," that meets certain and specific criteria, including that it is over $1 million and arises out of an action for damages to a property or person allegedly caused by specified construction activities of the contractor on a multifamily rental residential structure.
Where more than one contractor was named as a defendant or cross-defendant, each of the contractors apportioned more than $15,000 in liability must report the action. Importantly, the new statute also imposes similar reporting requirements on insurers of contractors. SB 1465 also addresses an impacted party’s failure to comply with the reporting requirements.
COMMENT
Both SB 721 and SB 1465 are potentially significant and seek “legislative reform” to address construction issues by placing a greater burden on apartment owners as well as builders and subcontractors. How pragmatic and what impact they will have on the industry is obviously developing. If you are interested in receiving further detail concerning the Bills, please contact us. We are analyzing the new legislation and its intent and will be providing our ongoing comments.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
RICHARD H. GLUCKSMAN, ESQ. CHELSEA L. ZWART, ESQ., CGDRBChelsea L. Zwart may be contacted at
czwart@cgdrblaw.com
Wildfire Risk Harms California Home Values, San Francisco Fed Study Finds
August 26, 2024 —
Laura Curtis - BloombergCalifornia’s wildfires are weighing on home prices more than in the past, and insurance availability does little to help in areas considered to be at higher risk, according to a Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco study.
“Our results suggest that property values have been more adversely impacted in recent years by being close to past wildfires than was the case previously,” economists Leila Bengali, Fernanda Nechio and Stephanie Stewart wrote in a paper published Monday on the Fed bank’s website.
While the effect of the proximity may be relatively small now, the economists warned “this pattern may become stronger in years to come if residential construction continues to expand into areas with higher fire risk and if trends in wildfire severity continue,” the study cautioned.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Laura Curtis, Bloomberg
A Win for Policyholders: California Court of Appeals Applies Vertical Exhaustion for Continuous Injury Claims
August 24, 2020 —
Celia B. Waters - Saxe Doernberger & VitaFresh off the heels of the California Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Super. Ct. of L.A. Cty. (“Montrose III”),1 policyholders scored another victory as another California court rejected horizontal exhaustion in the context of continuous injury cases. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Four, in SantaFe Braun Inc. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., adopted a rule of vertical exhaustion, holding that “[absent an explicit policy provision to the contrary] the insured becomes entitled to the coverage it purchased from the excess carriers once the primary policies specified in the excess policy have been exhausted.”2
The dispute in SantaFe Braun began in 1992 when asbestos-related claims were first filed against Braun. In 1998, Braun’s three primary insurers agreed in writing to defend and settle the underlying claims against Braun while resolving allocation among themselves. In 2004, Braun filed the current suit against its excess insurers, seeking a declaration that the excess insurers were obligated to help cover the costs of the underlying asbestos-related lawsuits.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Celia B. Waters, Saxe Doernberger & VitaMs. Waters may be contacted at
cbw@sdvlaw.com
