Court of Appeal Confirms Privette Doctrine as Applied to Passive Conduct of Property Owner
March 22, 2018 —
Bruce Cleeland and Frances Ma – Publications & InsightsIn
Delgadillo v. Television Center, Inc., 2018 No. B270985, the California Court of Appeal examined and refined the
Privette doctrine.
Mr. Delgadillo worked as a supervisor/window cleaner for a company named Chamberlin Building Services (CBS). Television Center, Inc. (TCI) purchased an existing building and thereafter contracted with CM Cleaning Solutions, Inc. (CMC) to provide cleaning and janitorial services. CMC, on behalf of TCI, solicited a proposal from CBS to wash the building’s windows. CBS and its employees made all decisions about how the window washing would be accomplished. The window washing equipment used on the job was owned, inspected and maintained by CBS. In violation of CBS’ policy, Mr. Delgadillo, attached a safety line to a single connector which was not an acceptable anchor point. The bracket failed and Mr. Delgadillo fell 50 feet to his death.
Survivors of Mr. Delgadillo filed suit against TCI for negligence and negligence per se, alleging that Mr. Delgadillo was fatally injured because TCI failed to install structural roof anchors, as required by several statutes.
Reprinted courtesy of
Bruce Cleeland, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Frances Ma, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Cleeland may be contacted at bcleeland@hbblaw.com
Ms. Ma may be contacted at fma@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Retroactive Application of a Construction Subcontract Containing a Merger Clause? Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal Answers in the Affirmative
September 07, 2017 —
Sanjo S. Shatley - Florida Construction Law NewsFlorida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal recently addressed the issue of retroactive application of a construction subcontract on the basis of a merger clause in Don Facciobene, Inc. v. Hough Roofing, Inc.[1]
In the case, in late 2010, Don Facciobene, Inc. (“DFI”), a licensed general contractor, contracted with Digiacinto Holdings, LLC, an owner of a home built in 1905 in Melbourne, Florida, known as the Nannie Lee House or the Strawberry Mansion, to perform various renovations in preparation for a restaurant to be opened on the premises. One of the renovations included a new roof. DFI subcontracted the roofing work to Hough Roofing, Inc. (“HRI”), a licensed roofing subcontractor. In mid-March 2011, HRI submitted an estimate and proposed statement of work to DFI. DFI’s project manager signed HRI’s proposal on April 5, 2011, as well as an additional expanded proposal six days later. According to the proposals, payment was due on completion. HRI began work on the roof on April 15, 2011, without a signed subcontract. However, DFI and HRI ultimately executed a subcontract on June 8, 2011, even though HRI had mostly finished its work by the end of May.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sanjo S. Shatley, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.Mr. Shatley may be contacted at
sanjo.shatley@csklegal.com
A General Contractors Guide to Bond Thresholds by State
June 13, 2018 —
Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions Author: Eric Weisbrot is the Chief Marketing Officer of JW Surety Bonds. With years of experience in the surety industry under several different roles within the company, he is also a contributing author to the surety bond blog.
For general contractors in construction, there are many facets of business management that must be considered and then accomplished over time. Operating a successful general contractor business regardless of size or niche requires an understanding of bookkeeping, personnel management, regulatory compliance, as well as revenue potential for each project. However, one often overlooked aspect of being a general contractor – having the appropriate contractor license and minimum surety bond – correlates to each of these required fragments of the business from the start.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLCMr. Zimolong may be contacted at
wally@zimolonglaw.com
Airbnb Declares End to Party!
January 27, 2020 —
Patrick J. Paul - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogAs municipalities around the country evaluate changes to their respective codes in an effort to exert greater control over bad actors in the vacation rental market, Airbnb announced on November 2nd that it is banning party houses. The move comes in response to the shooting deaths of five people at a Halloween party hosted at an Airbnb rental house in Orinda, CA. CEO Brian Chesky announced on Twitter that starting November 2, Airbnb would ban “party houses” and redouble the company’s efforts to “combat unauthorized parties and get rid of abusive host and guest conduct.” twitter.com/bchesky
The four-bedroom rental reportedly had been rented on Airbnb by a woman who advised the owner her family members had asthma and needed to escape smoke from a wildfire burning in Sonoma County about 60 miles north of Orinda earlier in the week. Nevertheless, the homeowner was suspicious of a one-night rental on Halloween and reminded the renter that no parties were allowed. Having received complaints from neighbors and witnessing some party activity via his camera doorbell, the homeowner called police who were en route to the home, but arrived after the shooting. The Halloween party apparently was advertised on social media as an “Airbnb Mansion Party,” with an admission fee of $10 per person.
Independently owned vacation rentals are currently growing at a faster rate than hotels or motels, and in some instances are owned by out-of-state investors seeking not only a real estate return on investment, but also a return on investment associated with revenue streams generated by “pay to play” parties promoted on social media.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick J. Paul, Snell & WilmerMr. Paul may be contacted at
ppaul@swlaw.com
Legislative Update – The CSLB’s Study Under SB465
March 22, 2018 —
John Castro - Construction Law BlogFollowing the tragic Berkeley balcony collapse in 2015, the Legislature enacted California Senate Bill 465 which commissioned the Contractors State License Board (“CSLB” or “Board”) to perform a study regarding the efficacy of having contractors report settlements to the Board. In December 2017 the CSLB released their findings in a report. The ultimate conclusion of the report is to recommend to the Legislature that the ability of the CSLB to protect the public “would be enhanced by regulations requiring licensees to report judgments, arbitration awards, or settlement payments of construction defect claims for rental residential units.” Senator Jerry Hill authored SB465, and his office is presently now drafting legislation on settlement reporting based in part on this study.
The most troubling concern about the study is transparency. The report references nine exhibits, all of which have been withheld from publication under purposes of confidentiality. Therefore, much of the CSLB’s study must be taken at face value because much of the data they rely on to formulate their conclusions cannot be independently verified.
One of the factors that the CSLB undertook in its study was to determine criteria for when a settlement was “nuisance value,” and therefore less important for reporting purposes. The CSLB acknowledged there was no industry-wide definition for “nuisance value,” whether it be in the insurance industry, construction industry, or otherwise. Insurer survey respondents reached a general consensus on
aspects of what can constitute a “nuisance value” settlement, including the amount of the settlement and the size of the case. However, the response rate to the insurer survey was only 3.3 percent. In general, the concern with using settlement amount and size of the case as indicative factors is the fact that a large settlement size, for instance, may still constitute a “nuisance value” settlement. One example would be a large settlement figure in a case involving hundreds of homes in multiple subdivisions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John Castro, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLPMr. Castro may be contacted at
jcastro@grsm.com
Bond Principal Necessary on a Mechanic’s Lien Claim
September 07, 2020 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsAs anyone that reads this construction law blog knows, mechanic’s liens are a big part of the Virginia landscape for a construction attorney like me.
One option for dealing with a mechanic’s lien here in Virginia that we have not discussed but so often is the ability to “bond off” a lien. In short, the Virginia statute allows a party to essentially substitute a bond valued at a court set multiple of the principal amount of the mechanic’s lien for the memorandum. In exchange, the lien is released of record. Any enforcement action can still proceed with security for the claimant and the property owner feeling better about things because there will be no lien on the title to the land.
In many ways this process provides an easier path to resolution for both owner and claimant. First of all, the claimant does not have to deal with a bank or other interest holders in the property (though a recent case discussed below reminds us that certain other parties are necessary). Second of all, the owner does not have the cloud on the title of a mechanic’s lien that may have been filed by a subcontractor over which he has no control.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Avoiding Construction Defect “Nightmares” in Florida
November 27, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFDescribing it as a “nightmare,” Larry Tolchinsky writes about construction defects at the Willowbrook condominium complex in Florida. Writing on the website of his firm, Sackrin & Tolchinsky, Mr. Tolchinsky gives the history of the Willowbrook condo case, in which condo owners suffered problems with water intrusion and subsequent damage to their units. The builder has agreed to make repairs, though they are still suing owners who put up a website critical of the company.
Mr. Tolchinsky notes that this is not “the usual way things happen in construction defect lawsuits,” and he gives the usual process. Under Florida law, homeowners must first notify those responsible of a “problem and its need for repair.” After this notice, the homeowner “will know within about 6 weeks’ time after sending that formal notice what the contractor’s position is going to be on things.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Does a Landlord’s Violation of the Arizona Residential Landlord-Tenant Act Constitute Negligence Per Se?
September 21, 2020 —
Kevin J. Parker - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogIn a recent Arizona Court of Appeals case, Ibarra v. Gastelum, 2020 WL 4218020 (7/23/20), the Court of Appeals addressed the question whether – in a tenant’s personal injury claim against the landlord – a landlord’s violation of the Arizona Landlord-Tenant Act constituted negligence per se. The tenant alleged he was injured by stubbing his toe on a crack in the floor. The tenant alleged that he had made repeated demands that the landlord repair the crack. The statute required the landlord to make all repairs and do whatever is necessary to put and keep the premises in a fit and habitable condition. The tenant argued that a violation of the statute constituted negligence per se, meaning that the violation of the statute satisfied (as a matter of law) the first two elements of a negligence claim – duty and breach of duty. The tenant requested a negligence per se jury instruction. The trial court declined that request and refused to give the requested instruction. The tenant lost the jury trial and appealed.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kevin J. Parker, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Parker may be contacted at kparker@swlaw.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
