2024 Construction Law Update
December 23, 2023 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogWe would like to wish you and yours a happy holiday season as we approach 2024.
The first half of the 2023-2024 legislative session saw the introduction of 3,028 bills, which, according to legislative observers, are the most bills introduced in a session in more than a decade, perhaps reflecting the fact that California has a record number of new legislators with over a quarter taking the oath of office for the first time. Of these bills, Governor Newsom signed nearly 400 into law including several impacting the construction industry related to climate change and housing affordability.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Will a Notice of Non-Responsibility Prevent Enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien?
March 05, 2015 —
William L. Porter – Porter Law Group, Inc.The “Notice of Non-Responsibility” is one of the most misunderstood and ineffectively used of all the legal tools available to property owners in California construction law. As a result, in most cases the answer to the above question is “No”, the posting and recording of a Notice of Completion will not prevent enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien.
The mechanics lien is a tool used by a claimant who has not been paid for performing work or supplying materials to a construction project. It provides the claimant the right to encumber the property where the work was performed and thereafter sell the property in order to obtain payment for the work or materials, even though the claimant had no contract directly with the property owner. When properly used, a Notice of Non-Responsibility will render a mechanics lien unenforceable against the property where the construction work was performed. By derailing the mechanics lien the owner protects his property from a mechanics lien foreclosure sale. Unfortunately, owners often misunderstand when they can and cannot effectively use a Notice of Non-Responsibility. As a result, the Notice of Non-Responsibility is usually ineffective in protecting the owner and his property.
The rules for the use of the Notice of Non-Responsibility are found in California Civil Code section 8444. Deceptively simple, the rules essentially state that an owner “that did not contract for the work of improvement”, within 10 days after the owner first “has knowledge of the work of improvement”, may fill out the necessary legal form for a Notice of Non-Responsibility and post that form at the worksite and record it with the local County Recorder in order to prevent enforcement of a later mechanics lien on the property.
What commonly occurs however is that early in the process the owner authorizes or even requires its tenant to perform beneficial tenant improvements on the property. This authorization is often set forth in a tenant lease or other written document. The dispositive factor for determining whether the Notice of Non-Responsibility will be enforceable though is that the owner knows that these improvements will be made to the property and intends that they be made, usually long before the work begins. Indeed, the owner has usually negotiated these very terms into the lease contract. The owner then mistakenly believes that once work on the property commences it has 10 days to post and record a Notice of Non-Responsibility and thereby protect itself from a mechanics lien.
The usual error is two-fold. First, the statute states that the Notice is available when the owner “did not contract for the work of improvement”. The fact though is that the owner did contract for the work of improvement. It did so through the lease contract. This is true even though the owner’s contract was not with the contractor or supplier directly. Secondly, the 10 day period to post and record the Notice begins when the owner first “has knowledge” of the work of improvement. This knowledge was of course gained when the lease was negotiated and signed, providing knowledge typically many days before the work has begun. Thus, the 10 day period can also seldom be met. The Notice of Non-Responsibility will therefore fail both rules because the owner has in fact contracted for the improvement and because he does not act within 10 days of gaining this knowledge.
The next event in the typical scenario occurs when the tenant does not pay its contractor. The contractor then has nothing to pay its subcontractors. Material suppliers also go unpaid. Mechanics liens are then recorded by the unpaid claimants, followed by foreclosure actions within ninety days thereafter. Owners will typically point to the Notice of Non-Responsibility they posted and recorded, claiming its protection. Claimants then in turn point to the lease or other evidence that the owner knew of the pending improvements and contracted in some way that the improvements be performed, often also more than 10 days before they posted the Notice. Judges generally agree with the unpaid mechanics lien claimants and the Notice of Non-Responsibility is deemed ineffective.
The fact that the Court does not enforce the Notice of Non-Responsibility under these circumstances is not an unfair result. Since the owner authorized the work to be performed and it received a substantial benefit in the form of those improvements, it is not unfair that the owner should pay for those benefits. It would be inequitable for the owner to obtain the benefit of the improvements which it authorized but for which it did not pay, while allowing those who provided the benefit to go unpaid. Moreover, without such a system in place the door would be open to owners setting up sham “tenants” who would enter into contracts to have work performed, only to disappear when the work is completed, leaving the contractor without a source of payment. The system in place as described above prevents such duplicity. Owners would do well to arm themselves with proper knowledge of when the Notice of Non-Responsibility will and will not protect them and then responsibly use the Notice of Non-Responsibility.
For the legal eagles among you, the following cases illustrate the view of the courts, consistent with the above: Baker v. Hubbard (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 226; Ott Hardware v. Yost (1945) 69 Cal. App.2d 593 (lease terms); Los Banos Gravel Co. v. Freeman (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 785 (common interest); Howard S. Wright Construction Co. v. Superior Court (2003); 106 Cal.App.4th 314 (participating owner).
William L. Porter of
Porter Law Group, Inc. located in Sacramento, California may be contacted at (916) 381-7868 or bporter@porterlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Appellate Team Secures Victory in North Carolina Governmental Immunity Personal Injury Matter
January 23, 2023 —
Sam Friedman & Christopher Meeks - Lewis BrisboisAtlanta, Ga. (January 12, 2023) - Atlanta Appellate Partners Seth M. Friedman and Christopher Meeks obtained a significant appellate win on behalf of a city in North Carolina when the North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of the city’s motion for summary judgment.
In the underlying case, Lewis Brisbois’ client was sued for injuries that occurred during the construction of a dog park. The city moved for summary judgment on the grounds that it was immune from suit under the doctrine of governmental immunity. The trial court denied the motion and held that the city waived its governmental immunity through the purchase of a liability insurance policy. Lewis Brisbois was subsequently retained to handle the appeal.
Before the North Carolina Court of Appeals, Lewis Brisbois argued, on behalf of its client, that well-established North Carolina law, along with a particular provision in the city’s insurance policy, rendered the city immune from the plaintiff’s claims. The appellate court agreed, holding that the city was immune from all liability and entitled to summary judgment on all of the plaintiff’s claims. The court's full opinion can be read
here.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sam Friedman, Lewis Brisbois and
Christopher Meeks, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Friedman may be contacted at Seth.Friedman@lewisbrisbois.com
Mr. Meeks may be contacted at Christopher.Meeks@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Fewer NYC Construction Deaths as Safety Law Awaits Governor's Signature
July 25, 2022 —
Richard Korman - Engineering News-RecordThe hoped-for progress in New York City construction safety is coming too late for laborer Jose Fortina Armenta Hernandez. At 8:37 a.m. on May 27, 2021, while jackhammering a roof section on a Brooklyn building, the section on which Armenta stood gave way and he fell 60 ft. When last year his family sent his body from New York City to Mexico to be buried, they used a GoFundMe page to raise money for the laborer's funeral.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurance for Large Construction Equipment Such as a Crane
July 30, 2018 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMany, many projects require the use of a crane. The skyline is oftentimes filled with the sight of cranes—one after the other. Most of the time, the cranes are leased from an equipment supplier. What happens if the crane (or any large, leased equipment) gets damaged?
I wrote an article regarding a builder’s risk carrier NOT covering damage to a crane from a storm based on a common exclusion. Another case, Ajax Bldg. Corp. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 358 F.3d 795 (11th Cir. 2004), had a similar result.
In this case, a prime contractor leased a crane from an equipment supplier. The crane was used by the structural concrete subcontractor. The crane collapsed during the subcontractor’s work. The supplier sued both the contractor and subcontractor. The prime contractor was defended under a contractor’s equipment liability policy and the subcontractor was defended under a general liability policy it procured for its work on the project. Ultimately, a settlement was reached where the subcontractor’s liability insurer paid a bulk of the damage.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
It Has Started: Supply-Chain, Warehouse and Retail Workers of Essential Businesses Are Filing Suit
June 22, 2020 —
Robert G. Devine, James Burger & Douglas Weck - White and Williams LLPSupply-chain businesses that are appropriately characterized as “essential” have remained open for the delivery of critical supplies while everyone else has been told to close up shop and stay home. Now essential-business employees are contracting COVID-19 and filing suit. Following up on our earlier piece — “Is a Violation of a COVID-19 Order the Basis For Civil Liability?” — it is important to recognize that government directives, oftentimes couched as “recommendations,” can come to define what it means to provide a reasonably safe workplace that protects employees from COVID-19. While common law negligence defenses consider the reasonableness of conduct, these directives will likely become the standard.
The cases that have been filed are overwhelmingly premised upon the timeless negligence construct. The negligence construct, simply put, imposes a duty to act as a reasonable person would under the circumstances. Nonetheless, while the negligence construct lives in the ordinary world of “reasonableness,” infection-control guidance lives in the rapidly developing world of the science of COVID-19. Guidance on seemingly basic questions, such as the methods of transmission (e.g., personal contact, mucus membrane only, airborne transmission) or even the virus’s shelf life on different surfaces, of particular interest packaging and material handling equipment, can change by the day. All of this provides challenges for the supply-side business looking to protect its workforce.
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys
James Burger,
Robert Devine and
Douglas Weck
Mr. Burger may be contacted at burgerj@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Devine may be contacted at deviner@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Weck may be contacted at weckd@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wage Theft Investigations and Citations in the Construction Industry
October 11, 2017 —
Evelin Y. Bailey - California Construction Law BlogThis month we share some cautionary tales for employers in the construction industry. During the past several months the California Labor Commissioner has cited or filed suit against several construction companies. In one investigation, a general contractor was held equally responsible for wages owed by a subcontractor to its employees. The lesson learned from these stories is that now more than ever it is important to have in place proper wage and hour practices and to conduct periodic audits of those practices, including those of your lower tiered contractors, preferably by experienced legal counsel.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Evelin Y. Bailey, California Construction Law Blog
Trial Court’s Grant of Summary Judgment On Ground Not Asserted By Moving Party Upheld
December 17, 2015 —
Laura C. Williams & R. Bryan Martin – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Marlton Recovery Partners, LLC v. County of Los Angeles, et al. (filed 11/20/15), the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants County of Los Angeles, the County Treasurer-Tax Collector and Board of Supervisors (collectively the “County”) despite the fact summary judgment was granted on grounds not raised by the County. The Court of Appeal determined that because the plaintiff could not have shown a triable issue of material fact on the ground of law relied upon by the trial court, summary judgment was proper.
In the underlying case, plaintiff sought cancellation of penalties on delinquent property taxes for 26 parcels under Revenue and Taxation Code §4985.2, which allows the tax collector to cancel such penalties under certain circumstances. The County denied the request prompting plaintiff to challenge the denial on a petition for peremptory writ of mandate to the trial court.
Reprinted courtesy of
Laura C. Williams, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Williams may be contacted at lwilliams@hbblaw.com
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
