One Colorado Court Allows Negligence Claim by General Contractor Against Subcontractor
December 20, 2012 —
HEATHER ANDERSON , HIGGINS, HOPKINS, MCLAIN & ROSWELLJudge Paul King of the Douglas County District Court recently confirmed that subcontractors in residential construction owe an independent duty, separate and apart from any contractual duties, to act without negligence in the construction of a home in Colorado. See Order, dated September 7, 2010,
Sunoo v. Hickory Homes, Inc. et al., Case No. 2007CV1866; see also
Cosmopolitan Homes, Inc. v. Weller, 663 P.2d 1041 (Colo. 1983);
A.C. Excavating v. Yacht Club II Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 114 P.3d 862 (Colo. 2005). He also verified that the holding in the
B.R.W. Inc. v. Dufficy & Sons, Inc., 99 P.3d 66 (Colo. 2004)[1] case does not prohibit general contractors, such as Hickory Homes, from enforcing a subcontractor’s independent duty to act without negligence in the construction of a home.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Heather Anderson, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC.Ms. Anderson can be contacted at
anderson@hhmrlaw.com
Sales of New U.S. Homes Fell in February to Five-Month Low
March 26, 2014 —
Shobhana Chandra – BloombergPurchases of new homes in the U.S. fell in February to the lowest level in five months, a sign the industry may take time to pick up after inclement weather damped demand earlier in the year.
Sales declined 3.3 percent to a 440,000 annualized pace, following a 455,000 rate in the prior month that was the strongest in a year, figures from the Commerce Department showed today in Washington. The median forecast of 77 economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for 445,000.
Unusually frigid temperatures added to restraints including rising mortgage rates, higher property values, and a lack of supply that kept prospective buyers away from the market for new and existing properties. Bigger gains in employment and consumer sentiment would help spur the recovery in homebuilding, sustaining its contribution to economic growth and boosting earnings at companies such as Lennar Corp. and KB Home.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Shobhana Chandra, BloombergMs. Chandra may be contacted at
schandra1@bloomberg.net
“For What It’s Worth”
October 21, 2024 —
Daniel Lund III - LexologyThe legal doctrine of quantum meruit is essentially referring to recovering “for what it’s worth,” incorporating the Latin phrase for “as much as one has deserved.”
Quantum meruit recovery occurs when there is no contract between parties for the particular item for which recovery is sought. Hence, quantum meruit recovery is generally a means of last resort to endeavor to make oneself whole.
So, it was for a subcontractor seeking nearly $14,000,000 for work it performed on a construction project in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. The subcontractor sued on contract as well as quantum meruit/unjust enrichment. The court initially dismissed the quantum meruit/unjust enrichment claims – because there was a contract claim – whereupon the contract claim was dismissed on summary judgment: the subcontractor failed to timely submit change proposals and, consequently, “lost contract remedies available to recover amounts it sought in the change proposals.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
New York Assembly Reconsiders ‘Bad Faith’ Bill
May 31, 2021 —
Copernicus T. Gaza, Robert S. Nobel, Craig Rokuson, Eric D. Suben - Traub LiebermanThe New York State Assembly is considering A07285, which creates a private right of action for bad faith “if the insurer unreasonably refuses to pay or unreasonably delays payment without substantial justification.” The bill was first introduced in 2013 but was reintroduced on May 3, 2021 and has received some recent attention. According to the bill, an insurer acts unreasonably when it (among other things):
- Fails to provide the claimant with accurate information regarding policy provisions relating to the coverage at issue; or
- Fails to effectuate in good faith a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement of a claim or portion of a claim and where the insurer failed to reasonably accord at least equal or more favorable consideration to its insured's interests as it did to its own interests, and thereby exposed the insured to a judgment in excess of the policy limits or caused other damage to a claimant; or
- Fails to provide a timely written denial of a claimant's claim, or portion thereof, with a full and complete explanation of such denial, including references to specific policy provisions wherever possible; or
- Fails to act in good faith by compelling such claimant to initiate a lawsuit to recover under the policy by offering substantially less than the amounts ultimately recovered in such suit; or
- Fails to timely provide, on request of the policy holder or the policy holder's representative, all reports or other documentation arising from the investigation of a claim; or
- Refuses to pay a claim without conducting a reasonable investigation prior to such refusal.
Reprinted courtesy of
Copernicus T. Gaza, Traub Lieberman,
Robert S. Nobel, Traub Lieberman,
Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman and
Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Gaza may be contacted at cgaza@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Nobel may be contacted at rnobel@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Suben may be contacted at esuben@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Fall 2024 Legislative Update:
October 28, 2024 —
Joshua Lane - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCReview of (a) RCW 60.30.010-020, (b) RCW 49.17.530, (c) RCW 19.95.020, (d) RCW 39.116.005, et seq., (e) RCW 36.70B.080, and (f) RCW 39.12.010 and .13
While much of the focus on the recent legislative updates has been on RCW 39.04.360, a number of other legislative changes may also have significant impacts on Washington’s construction industry. Six of these changes are summarized below.
A. RCW 60.30.010 and .020 (SSB 6108) – Concerning Retainage on Private Construction, Effective June 6, 2024
Last year, ESSB 5528 imposed restrictions and obligations related to retainage and timing of final payment on private (non-public works) projects. It capped retainage at 5%, required prompt payment on final payments, and required owners to accept a retainage bond on private construction projects, excluding single-family residential construction less than 12 units.
This year, SSB 6108 adds suppliers to the statutes (RCW 60.30.010 and 0.020) pertaining to retainage on private construction projects.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Joshua Lane, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Lane may be contacted at
joshua.lane@acslawyers.com
Texas Court of Appeals Conditionally Grant Petition for Writ of Mandamus to Anderson
April 25, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFThe Texas Court of Appeals conditionally grant mandamus relief to Anderson Construction Company and Ronnie Anderson (collectively “Anderson”)… from the trial court in a construction defect lawsuit filed by Brent L. Mainwaring and Tatayana Mainwaring. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.001-.007 (West 2000 & Supp. 2010). Relators contend the trial court abused its discretion by compelling discovery while the case was abated by operation of law.
The Court of Appeals opinion describes what led up to the proceedings: “The Mainwarings’ original petition identified certain defects in their Anderson-constructed home. Those defects concerned the roof trusses and framing, air conditioning, mortar and masonry, exterior doors and windows, and weep holes. With respect to the five areas of defects identified in their original petition, the Mainwarings gave Anderson the statutorily required notice on January 13, 2010. After implementing agreed extensions, Anderson made an offer of settlement for the defects the Mainwarings identified in their notice. Almost eight months later, the Mainwarings filed an amended petition adding defects they had not included in their original petition and notice. The additional defects the Mainwarings included in their amended petition had not been addressed by Anderson’s offer of settlement.”
Following these events, Anderson claimed the Mainwarings did not respond in writing to their settlement offer. “Anderson filed a verified plea in abatement on December 2, 2010. In the trial court, Anderson claimed that the Mainwarings failed to respond in writing to Anderson’s settlement offer, as required by Section 27.004(b) of the RCLA. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(b)(1). The Mainwarings moved to compel discovery responses from Anderson. The Mainwarings alleged that they rejected Anderson’s settlement offer, and that if their response was insufficient, they contend that Anderson’s offer was rejected by operation of law on the twenty-fifth day after the Mainwarings received it. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(i). The Mainwarings’ motion to compel was not supported by affidavit. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(d)(2). On January 13, 2011, Anderson filed a verified supplemental plea in abatement. Anderson alleged that the Mainwarings failed to provide written notice concerning the newly alleged defects and complained the Mainwarings were attempting to circumvent the inspection and resolution procedure of the RCLA. Over Anderson’s objection that the lawsuit had been abated, the trial court granted the Mainwarings’ motion to compel discovery.”
After listening to both sides, the Court of Appeals offered this reasoning for their opinion: “The parties do not dispute that Anderson inspected the property before the Mainwarings alleged the existence of additional defects in their amended pleading, nor do the Mainwarings claim that Anderson has been given an opportunity to inspect the additional defects the Mainwarings identified in their amended pleadings. We conclude the trial court did not have the discretion to deny or lift the abatement until the Mainwarings established their compliance with the statute. In other words, the Mainwarings are required to provide Anderson a reasonable opportunity to inspect the additional defects identified by their amended pleading, which will allow Anderson the opportunity to cure or settle with respect to the newly identified defects.”
The Court of Appeals spoke directly on the issue of mandamus relief: “The Mainwarings contend that mandamus relief is not available because the trial court’s ruling does not prevent Anderson from making settlement offers during the discovery process. ‘An appellate remedy is “adequate” when any benefits to mandamus review are outweighed by the detriments.’ In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004). The failure to abate a case is typically not subject to mandamus. See In re Allstate Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co., 85 S.W.3d 193, 196 (Tex. 2002) (citing Abor v. Black, 695 S.W.2d 564, 567 (Tex. 1985)). In this case, however, the case was abated by operation of law. By ignoring the statutory abatement, the trial court interfered with the statutory procedure for developing and resolving construction defect claims. See In re Kimball Hill Homes Tex., Inc., 969 S.W.2d 522, 525 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, orig. proceeding) (An appeal provides an inadequate remedy for the trial court’s failure to observe automatic abatement pursuant to the RCLA.). The benefits of mandamus review are not outweighed by the detriments of mandamus review in this case.“
In conclusion, “The trial court had no discretion to compel discovery while the case was abated, and Anderson, who has been compelled to respond to discovery during a period the case was under an automatic abatement, has no adequate remedy on appeal. Accordingly, we conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus. The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to vacate its order of February 3, 2011, and fails to refrain from proceeding with the case until a motion to reinstate is filed that establishes compliance with the notice and inspection requirements of the Residential Construction Liability Act.”
Read the trial court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Contracts Need Amending Post COVID-19 Shutdowns
October 19, 2020 —
Richard P. Higgins - Construction ExecutiveNo one could have expected the coronavirus pandemic in the beginning of 2020. True, there were rumblings about a sickness in China that was highly contagious and infecting many people. Death tolls began rising as the world watched in disbelieve. After all, this is 2020. This is not supposed to happen. We should have been able to control the spread of the virus, but we could not. COVID-19 quickly spread throughout the world causing havoc and economic despair.
While some sectors of the construction industry are not as impacted as others, contractors industry-wide need to consider how COVID-19 will impact their contractual obligations. Depending on what happens and what the government decides to do to stop the spread of the coronavirus, project delays, supply chain distributions, lost productivity and work stoppages may continue for months. All of this will impact the contracts that contractors have with owners. Contractors may not be able to preform according to the terms of the contract through no fault of their own. Owners may no longer qualify for the financing needed to pay for the project.
FORCE MAJEURE
According to Investopedia, “force majeure refers to a clause that is included in contracts to remove liability for natural and unavoidable catastrophes that interrupt the expected course of events and prevent participants from fulfilling obligations.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard P. Higgins, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Higgins may be contacted at
Richard.Higgins@MCC-CPAs.com
U.S. Stocks Fall as Small Shares Tumble Amid Home Sales
September 24, 2014 —
Joseph Ciolli and Callie Bost – BloombergU.S. stocks fell, led by a plunge among small companies, as sales of existing homes unexpectedly dropped and China’s finance minister damped stimulus hopes.
The Russell 2000 Index of small-cap stocks sank 1.6 percent, the most since July. Yahoo! Inc. (YHOO) dropped 2.3 percent to lead the Dow Jones Internet Composite Index to a one-month low. Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. slid 2.1 percent after surging in its trading debut Sept. 19.
The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index dropped 0.7 percent to 1,997.37 at 11:24 a.m. in New York, after closing at a record Sept. 18. The benchmark gauge hasn’t had a four-day slide this year and hasn’t fallen 10 percent in three years. The Dow Jones Industrial Average slid 58.40 points, or 0.3 percent, to 17,221.34.
Mr. Ciolli may be contacted at jciolli@bloomberg.net; Ms. Bost may be contacted at cbost2@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Joseph Ciolli and Callie Bost, Bloomberg
