Before Celebrating the Market Rebound, Builders Need to Read the Fine Print: New Changes in Construction Law Coming Out of the Recession
November 26, 2014 —
Alan H. Packer - Newmeyer & Dillion, LLPAs the homebuilding market continues to improve, many builders find themselves maneuvering familiar roads. That said, important new realities have taken hold since the market collapse. Navigating these changes requires extra thought for practical and legal reasons.
Using Old Designs “Off the Shelf”?
The adoption of the California Building Standards Code in 2010, with an updated schedule to go into effect January 1, may complicate the use of older designs. In addition, some builders are contemplating building on pads constructed five or more years ago, temporarily shelved until market conditions improved. Because of changes in both the applicable Code and due to possible changes in the underlying soils and drainage, these projects require additional scrutiny before starting construction.
Mechanic’s Lien Law Changes
Not too long ago, the California Legislature recently overhauled the entire mechanic’s lien law system in California. New forms, new statutory references, new rules and deadlines are all applicable to projects under construction now. Make sure your documents are up to date, as the use of older forms (particularly for liens, progress payments, and final payments) could create legal problems in the future.
Indemnity Law Changes
Since 2006, California lawmakers have passed four rounds of legislation aimed at limiting indemnity provisions in construction contracts. The laws are aimed at two aspects of indemnity law: “Type 1” indemnity provisions, and liability for the costs of defending a claim.
Type 1 Indemnity. California law previously permitted a builder to obtain “Type 1” indemnity from its subcontractors for all claims. Under a Type 1 provision, if a claim arose out of the trade’s work, the trade was fully responsible to defend and indemnify the builder – even if other trades or the Builder were partially at fault. Some cases even allowed, typically in a commercial context, the builder to obtain Type 1 indemnity even if the trade was not negligent, as long as the claim involved its work.
Defense Obligation. In 2008, California’s highest court issued an opinion in Crawford v. Weather Shield, evaluating an indemnity provision requiring trade (a window supplier/manufacturer) to defend the builder in claims involving allegations of damages arising out of the trade’s work. Because the trade had contractually agreed to defend the builder, the Court held it responsible for the builder’s defense costs -- even though, ultimately, the trade was found
not liable for the actual damages claimed.
Recent legislation after Crawford has dramatically shifted how indemnity provisions will be enforced. Builders may no longer obtain Type 1 indemnity for residential construction defect claims covered by SB800; instead, indemnity is limited to the extent a claim arises out of the trade’s work. Even more recent legislation applied these changes to claims arising out of commercial construction projects. The recent legislation allows the trades “options” on how to defend the builder, with an eye toward requiring that they pay only a “reasonably allocated” portion for the builder’s defense costs.
Smart builders are refining their contract documents to take into account these new limitations on indemnity provisions.
Insurance Market Changes
Due to uncertainties in subcontractor insurance and other factors, many builders have also converted their liability insurance from a “bring your own” model to “wrap-up” insurance, where the builder’s policy also covers their trades. Builders should carefully examine their subcontracts in light of this change as well.
Trade Partner Changes
On a practical level, many trade partners, particularly in the residential sector, have gone out of business or moved on to greener pastures. Builders need to find and negotiate contracts with new trade partners on the fly, and educate them on the builders’ procedures for payment and construction.
SB800 documentation
A decade ago, most builders updated their purchase documents and subcontracts for California’s “Right to Repair Law” (also known as SB800), which set forth functionality standards for construction defects in residential housing, and procedures for resolving claims prior to litigation. Builders ramping up to meet market demand should examine how they implemented SB800 changes in contract documents. Issues to consider:
- Whether to opt out of -- or back into -- statutory procedures.
- Whether to include arbitration or judicial reference provisions to control where claims are litigated after the SB800 process.
- Re-training personnel to preserve SB800 rights, including sign-offs on purchase documentation and recordation of key documents.
- Recent Court of Appeal decisions have complicated the SB800 landscape, potentially opening the door to “common law” tort claims in at least subrogation contexts. Strategic planning at the document stage may be a good way to mitigate this risk as the cases wind their way through the judicial process.
The continuing surge in building activity is a welcome sign for builders who have weathered the storm. Before taking too many steps, builders should consult with counsel, their designers, and their insurance advisors to take into account the new realities of this recovering housing market.
About the Author
Alan H. Packer is a partner in the expanding Walnut Creek, CA, office of the law firm of
Newmeyer & Dillion LLP whose specialties include real estate, insurance, and construction litigation. To reach Alan, call 925.988.3200 or email him at alan.packer@ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
General Contractors Have Expansive Common Law and Statutory Duties To Provide a Safe Workplace
February 18, 2020 —
Paul R. Cressman Jr. - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCOn November 21, 2019, the Washington Supreme Court handed down its decision in Vargas v. Inland Washington, LLC.[1]
At the time of the incident in May 2013, Mr. Vargas, the plaintiff, was helping pour the concrete walls for what would become a parking garage for an apartment building. He was employed by Hilltop Concrete Construction. Inland Washington was the general contractor, and subcontracted with Hilltop to pour concrete. Hilltop, in turn, entered into agreements with Ralph’s Concrete Pumping and Miles Sand & Gravel to provide a pump truck, certified pump operator, and supply concrete.
A rubber hose carrying concrete whipped Mr. Vargas in the head. It knocked him unconscious and caused a traumatic brain injury.
Vargas, through his guardian ad litem, along with his wife and children, sued Inland Washington, Ralph’s, and Miles.
The trial court initially dismissed on summary judgment Vargas’ claims that Inland Washington was vicariously liable for the acts of Hilltop, Ralph’s, and Miles. Later, the trial court also granted Inland Washington’s motion for summary judgment that it was not directly liable as a matter of law.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Paul R. Cressman Jr., Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Cressman may be contacted at
paul.cressman@acslawyers.com
'Perfect Storm' Caused Fractures at San Francisco Transit Hub
January 08, 2019 —
Nadine M. Post - Engineering News-RecordThe underlying causes of the trouble at San Francisco’s 4.5-block-long Salesforce Transit Center are coming into focus. A combination of low fracture toughness deep inside thick steel plates, cracks present as a consequence of normal steel fabrication and stress levels from loads, which are a function of design, apparently caused brittle fractures in the bottom flanges of the center's twin built-up plate girders that span 80 ft across Fremont Street.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nadine M. Post, ENRMs. Post may be contacted at
postn@enr.com
Conflicts of Laws, Deficiency Actions, and Statutes of Limitations – Oh My!
May 10, 2017 —
Ben Reeves - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogWhat law governs a deficiency action if the choice-of-law provisions in the note and deed of trust conflict? The Arizona Court of Appeals answered that very question in ZB, N.A. v. Hoeller, No. 1 CA-CV 16-0071 (Ct. App. April 15, 2017). It turns out, the note controls.
The Facts
In ZB, ZB, N.A. (ZB), a Utah bank, lent money to the Hoellers to purchase a commercial property in Missouri. The note included a choice-of-law provision stating that Utah law governed the debt. The deed of trust securing the commercial property, however, provided that Missouri law controlled “procedural matters related to the perfection and enforcement of [ZB’s] rights and remedies against the [p]roperty.” In 2012, the Hoellers defaulted, and the bank recovered the property through a trustee’s sale.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ben Reeves, Snell & WilmerMr. Reeves may be contacted at
breeves@swlaw.com
Project Delivery Methods: A Bird’s-Eye View
November 01, 2021 —
Levi W. Barrett, Nathan A. Cohen & Stewart Shurtleff - ConsensusDocsFor centuries the ability to construct sophisticated structures has been the yardstick for measuring civilizations. Naturally, as our knowledge and capacity to build has evolved and developed over the ages, the methods of project delivery have similarly progressed.
From Design-Bid-Build to CM-at-Risk and Design-Build to Integrated Project Delivery, each method developed to fit a very specific need—but each carries its own set of inherent risks and rewards. In this article we explore key aspects and differences among the various delivery methods that are commonly used in today’s construction industry, and provide guidance related to the obligations and risk profiles of the parties involved. Ideally, contractors and construction managers may refer to the advice provided herein when determining whether a proposed delivery method properly fits the requirements of the project under consideration.
Reprinted courtesy of
Levi W. Barrett, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.,
Nathan A. Cohen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Stewart Shurtleff, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Barrett may be contacted at lbarrett@pecklaw.com
Mr. Cohen may be contacted at ncohen@pecklaw.com
Mr. Shurtleff may be contacted at sshurtleff@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hawaii Supreme Court Finds Climate Change Lawsuit Barred by “Pollution Exclusion”
November 05, 2024 —
Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogOn October 7, 2024, the Hawaii Supreme Court answered the question of whether an “accident” includes an insured’s reckless conduct in emitting harmful greenhouse gases (“GHGs”) and whether such emissions are “pollutants” as defined in a general liability policy’s pollution exclusion. In Aloha Petro., Ltd. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pitt., PA, No., 2024 Haw. LEXIS 179 (Oct. 7, 2024), the Hawaii Supreme Court answered in the affirmative as to both certified questions from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, holding that an insured’s reckless conduct can be an “accident” and that GHGs are “pollutants” under the policies’ pollution exclusions.
In the underlying case, the County of Honolulu and the County of Maui (the “Counties”) sued Aloha Petroleum, Ltd. (“Aloha”) and several other fossil fuel companies for climate change-related harms. Namely, the Counties alleged that the fossil fuel industry knew that its products would cause catastrophic climate change, and rather than mitigating their emissions, defendants concealed such knowledge, promoted climate science denial, and increased their production of fossil fuels. Aloha was allegedly on notice that its products caused harmful climate change through its former parent company, Phillips 66, and its current parent company, Sunoco. Given this knowledge, the District Court determined that the Counties allegations constituted reckless conduct by Aloha.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Taylor, Traub LiebermanMr. Taylor may be contacted at
jtaylor@tlsslaw.com
Should CGL Insurer have Duty to Defend Insured During Chapter 558 Notice of Construction Defects Process???
September 01, 2016 —
David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal UpdatesDoes a CGL insurer have a duty to defend its insured-contractor during Florida Statutes Chapter 558 notice of construction defects pre-suit process? This answer is currently undecided and will be up to the Florida Supreme Court to decide. (It is on appeal stemming from a federal district court saying that an insurer does not have a duty to defend its insured-contractor in the 558 process based on the definition of the word “suit” in the CGL policy.)
Why is this an important issue?
The 558 pre-suit notice of construction defects process is designed to facilitate an avenue for construction defect lawsuits to get resolved without having to file a lawsuit or, at least, have issues narrowed before a lawsuit needs to be filed. (Check here for a summary of the 558 process.) It requires pre-suit notifications so that implicated parties can become aware of the defects and have an opportunity to inspect the defects / damage, test the defects / damage, and respond to the notice of construction defects; it provides an avenue for beneficial pre-suit discovery. Through participating in the 558 process, the contractor and/or design professional (and those downstream from them) can: (i) offer to remedy the defect, (ii) settle the defect, whether through money or a combination of money and repairs, (iii) dispute the defect, or (iv) advise that available insurance proceeds will be determined by its liability insurer. See Fla. Stat. s. 558.004.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David M. Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Indiana Federal Court Holds No Coverage for $50M Default Judgment for Lack of Timely Notice of Class Action
August 26, 2019 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia and Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLPIn Greene v. Kenneth R. Will, a CGL insurer recently prevailed in a declaratory judgment action arising from an underlying class action alleging pollution and nuisance claims against the insured, VIM Recycling LLC, an Indiana-based waste-recycling facility.[1] “[T]his case has some whiskers on it,” the Indiana federal district court recounted in its exhaustive decision granting the insurer relief. The court relieved the insurer of indemnifying a $50 million default judgment against the insured, which, the court observed, “proved to be a bad neighbor” and “nuisance in both the legal and colloquial sense.” The court held that the insured failed to provide timely notice of the class action.
“The judgment against the [insured] came about when a group of nearby homeowners decided that they had had enough of VIM’s polluting behavior and brought this class action to recover damages for environmental violations, nuisance and negligence based on the impact of the waste facility on their homes and property,” the court explained. Eventually, the court entered a default judgment against the insured for $50,568,750, plus an award of $273,339.85 in attorney’s fees. Because the insured was “judgment-proof,” the class action plaintiffs “aligned” with the insured “hoping to collect on their monumental judgment” from the insured’s CGL insurer. Within a few weeks’ time, the class action plaintiffs sued the insurer seeking a declaration of coverage for the default judgment against the insured.
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and
Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
