2021 2Q Cost Report: Industry Execs Believe Recovery Is in Full Swing
August 04, 2021 —
Jonathan Keller - Engineering News-RecordThe first six months of 2021 have seen big materials cost hikes, increasing labor shortages and uncertainty over federal action on a major infrastructure package. Despite the headwinds, ENR’s Construction Industry Confidence Index has surged up 17 points to a rating of 68—the highest single jump between quarters since the index was started in 2009. The previous record was 16 points between Q4 of 2011 and Q1 of 2012.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jonathan Keller, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Keller may be contacted at kellerj@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brown Paint Doesn’t Cover Up Construction Defects
April 25, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFIn a decision that describes the case as illustrating “the perils that real estate brokers and their agents assume when acting as a dual listing agent to both the buyers and sellers of the same house,” the California Court of Appeals has issued a decision in William L. Lyon & Associates v. The Superior Court of Placer County. Lyon & Associates sought summary judgment to dismiss the claims of the Henleys who bought a home in a transaction where a Lyon agent represented both sides.
The prior owners of the home, the Costas, had used a Lyon agent in purchasing their home. When they later sought to sell it, that agent “became aware of some of the house’s defects and problems.” In response, the Costas sought the help of another agent, Connie Gidal, also of Lyons & Associates. Photos taken in the presence of Ms. Gidal show defects of the paint and stucco. The Costas also took the step of painting the house dark brown. During the sale process, “rain caused many of the painted-over defects to reappear.” The Costas “purchased more dark brown paint and covered up the newly visible damage prior to inspection by the Henleys.”
With the damage concealed, the Henleys bought the home in May 2006. The agreement with Lyons & Associates noted that “a dual agent is obligated to disclose known facts materially affecting the value or desirability of the property to both parties.” Escrow closed on May 9, 2006. The contract with the broker included a two-year limit on the time to bring legal action.
The Henleys moved in during June 2006, and “began to discover construction defects that had been concealed by the Costas.” In addition to the painted-over stucco problems, the Henleys found that the Costas had “installed quartzite stone overlays on the backyard steps in a manner that caused water intrusion on the house’s stucco walls.”
In May 2009, the Henleys sued the Costas, Ron McKim Construction, Lyons & Associates, and Ms. Gidal. Their complaint alleged that Lyons & Associates had committed breach of contact, negligence, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent nondisclosure in connection with the construction defects. The Costas named Lyons in a cross complaint. Lyons moved for summary judgments on the grounds that the two-year statute of limitations had expired before the complaint and cross-complaint were filed. Both the Henleys and the Costas opposed this claim. The court denied the motion and Lyons appealed.
The appeals court upheld the denial, noting that the both California Supreme Court decision and later action by the legislature compels real estate brokers and salespersons “to conduct a reasonably competent and diligent visual inspection of the property offered for sale.” The court noted that under California law, brokers have responsibilities to both sellers and buyers. The section of law cited by Lyons applies to seller’s agents. The court rejected the contention by Lyons that they were “cooperating brokers.” The Henleys were “not constrained by the two-year statute of limitations.”
Lyons contended that even if California’s statute did not apply, there was a contractual limit of two years. The court also rejected this, agreeing with the Henleys that “the two-year limitation period must be extended by the discovery rule.”
The court noted that “Lyon & Associates may not reap the benefit of a shortened contractual limitation period when its own alleged malfeasance contributed to the delay in the discovery of the buyer’s injury.” The court found that the Henleys could proceed with their breach of contract claim, because, “when a breach of contract is committed in secret, such as the intentional nondisclosure of a real estate broker regarding a previously visible construction defect, the contractual limitations period is properly held subject to the discovery rule.” The court felt that the interpretation favored by the California Association of Realtors would “halve the applicable statute of limitations period.”
In addition to rejecting Lyon request for summary judgment on the claims made by the Henleys, the court also rejected the request of summary judgment on the claims made by the Costas, concluding that neither claim is time-barred. Costs were awarded to both the Henleys and Costas.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Partner Yvette Davis Elected to ALFA International’s Board of Directors
November 15, 2021 —
Yvette Davis - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPCongratulations to Haight Partner Yvette Davis who was elected by her peers to serve a three-year term on ALFA International’s 15 Member Board of Directors. The announcement was made during ALFA International’s Annual Business Meeting which took place in San Diego, California on October 20-22, 2021.
About ALFA International
ALFA International is the premier network of independent law firms. Founded in 1980, ALFA International was the first and continues to be one of the largest and strongest legal networks. We have 150 member firms throughout the world. Our 80 U.S. firms maintain offices in 95 of the 100 largest metropolitan areas. Our 70 international firms are located throughout Europe, Asia, Australia/New Zealand, Africa, Canada, Mexico and South America.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Yvette Davis, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPMs. Davis may be contacted at
ydavis@hbblaw.com
Florida Courts Say that Developers Are Responsible for Flooding
July 31, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Florida Supreme Court recently handed down a decision that developers can be held responsible if problems with infrastructure lead to damage to homes. Aaron Kase, writing on Lawyers.com, reviews the case, noting that the court said that “habitability of a home is impacted by stagnant standing water and the erosion of soil upon which the home is constructed. One need not wait until floodwaters inundate the home or the erosion swallows the residential structure to find protection.”
Kase notes that a trial court “sided with the developers’ argument that because the water infrastructure didn’t immediately support the houses, implied warranties of fitness and habitability shouldn’t apply and they shouldn’t be liable.” This was overturned at the district court, with the Supreme Court upholding the district court decision. Lisa Wilcox of Wilcox Law notes that “the Supreme Court determined that the warranty of habitability should be applied to protect home buyers from defects in the construction of these essential services even though they are not part of a home’s completed structure.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Defect Case Not Over, Despite Summary Judgment
November 07, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Supreme Court of Oregon has concluded in an en banc decision that a motion to reconsider a summary judgment is not a motion for a new trial. In coming to their conclusion the court overturned an earlier Oregon Supreme Court case, Carter v. U.S. National Bank. Although the decision does not bear on construction defects, the underlying case did. Due to the decision, these claims can now be evaluated in a trial.
The case, Association of Unit Owners of Timbercrest Condominiums v. Warren, came about after an apartment complex was converted into condominium units. The developers hired Big Al’s Construction for some of the remodeling work. The condominium association later sued the developer and the contractor over claims of construction defects. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted.
But that wasn’t the end of things. The plaintiff soon filed a “motion to reconsider,” noting that the summary judgment seemed to be in conflict with both law and other recent rulings, and additionally, the grounds for the decision were not in the order. The judge then notified the parties that the court had “pulled the trigger too quickly” and had seven questions for the parties to answer.
The court dismissed all claims against the defendants. The defendants filed their responses, objecting that that “‘there is no such thing’ as a motion for reconsideration.” Further, while “the rules do allow for post-judgment review of pre-judgment rulings through a motion for a new trial,” the plaintiffs had not filed for a new trial. But did they need one? They did file an appeal.
The judge in the case admitted that there was no such thing as a motion to reconsider, and felt bad about prematurely signing the judgment. The case was sent to the Court of Appeals to determine if the motion to reconsider was a request for a new trial. The Court of Appeals concurred.
In reviewing the decision, the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that there were a maximum of three questions to address. Was the motion for reconsideration a motion for a new trial? If so, was the later notice of appeal premature? And if so, was the plaintiff required to file a new appeal? The court determined that the answer to the first question was no.
Prior decisions pointed to the conclusion “that a motion for reconsideration of a summary judgment amounts to a motion for a new trial,” but here the court concluded that “our prior cases erred,” and turned to the summary judgment rule for clarification. The court noted that “the rule contemplates that summary judgment and trial are separate and distinct events.” With this conclusion, the Oregon Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Landlord Duties of Repair and Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment
February 10, 2020 —
Lawrence S. Glosser - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCA recent case from Division I Washington Court of Appeals addressed both a landlord’s duties of repair and maintenance and the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment in commercial leases. Votiv, Inc. v. Bay Vista Owner LLC, No. 78289-4-I, 2019 WL 4419446 (Wash. Ct. App., Sept. 16, 2019).
The Plaintiff in that case leased an office space in a mixed-use residential/office/commercial building in Seattle. Although the ownership groups of the various portions of the building were each separate, the entire building was managed by defendant Bay Vista Owner LLC (“BVO”), that was also the Plaintiff’s landlord.
There was a need to replace a deteriorating roof membrane to repair water intrusion into the building. The work involved significant demolition on the roof surface over the premises that Votiv, Inc. (“Votiv”), a music/media company, leased on the top floor. The repair work was done primarily during business hours causing significant disturbance to Votiv’s business operations.
Votiv sued BVO and other defendants for, among other things, nuisance, breach of lease, constructive eviction, and breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. The trial court denied Votiv’s claim for injunctive relief and granted summary judgment to the Defendants.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lawrence S. Glosser, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Glosser may be contacted at
larry.glosser@acslawyers.com
Fundamental Fairness Trumps Contract Language
September 24, 2014 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorThe Texas Supreme Court recently ruled that a “no-damages-for-delay” clause would not be enforced where the delay was caused by the owner. The court’s ruling flies squarely in the face of the contract language that attempted to insulate the owner from any delay claims, even those it caused.
In the case of Zachary Construction v. Port of Houston underlying contract, proposed by the Port of Houston, was heavy handed, to say the least. The contract provided:
“[Contractor] shall receive no financial compensation for delay or hindrance to the Work. In no event shall the Port Authority be liable to [Contractor] … for any damages arising out of or associated with any delay or hindrance to the Work, regardless of the source of the delay or hindrance, including events of Force Majeure, AND EVEN IF SUCH DELAY OR HINDRANCE RESULTS FROM, ARISES OUT OF OR IS DUE IN WHOLE OR IN PART, TO THE NEGLIGENCE, BREACH OF CONTRACT OR OTHER FAULT OF THE PORT AUTHORITY. [Contractor’s] sole remedy in any such case shall be an extension of time.”
Wow, that’s some one-sided language. If the contract was enforced, the contractor could not get any damages for delay, even those damages caused by the active interference of the Port of Houston.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
Insurance Coverage Litigation Section to Present at Hawaii State Bar Convention
October 15, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Hawaii State Bar convention will be on October 24, 2014, at the Hawaiian Hilton. The Insurance Coverage Litigation Section will make a presentation from 8:30 a.m. to 11:45 a.m.
Three presentations will be made. First, Richard C. Mosher (Anderson Kill), Kathy Dang (Marsh), and Beau Monday (Hawaiian Telcom) will discuss cyber-liability claims and insurance options.
Next, David R. Harada-Stone (Tom Petrus & Miller) and I (Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert) will address "occurrences," i.e., deciding on and the impact of determining the number of occurrences in particular factual settings.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
