Construction Law Client Alert: Hirer Beware - When Exercising Control Over a Job Site’s Safety Conditions, You May be Held Directly Liable for an Independent Contractor’s Injury
April 06, 2011 —
Mark VonderHaar and Yvette DavisOn February 24, 2011, the California Court of Appeal held in Jeffrey Tverberg, et al v. Fillner Construction, Inc. that the imposition of direct liability on a hirer turns on whether the hirer exercised retained control of worksite safety in such a manner that affirmatively contributed to the independent contractor’s injury. Twice, Tverberg, an independent contractor hired by a general contractor's subcontractor, asked the general contractor to make the job site safe by covering up open holes created by another unrelated subcontractor while Tverberg was working at the site. After Tverberg was injured at the site by falling in a hole, he sued both the general contractor and the subcontractor which had hired him.
The Court of Appeal reasoned that when the general contractor instructed another subcontractor to create a condition that was potentially dangerous (i.e., creating open and uncovered bollard holes), and simultaneously required Tverberg to perform unrelated work near the open holes, the general contractor s conduct may have constituted a negligent exercise of its retained control which affirmatively contributed to Tverberg’s injury. The Court also reasoned that the general contractor affirmatively assumed responsibility for the safety of the workers near the holes by only requiring stakes and safety ribbon, and negligently discharged that responsibility which resulted in injury.
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mark VonderHaar and Yvette Davis of Haight Brown & Bonesteel. Mr. VonderHaar can be contacted at mvonderhaar@hbblaw.com and Ms. Davis at ydavis@hbblaw.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
How California’s Construction Industry has dealt with the New Indemnity Law
October 22, 2014 —
Mark S. Himmelstein, Esq. - Newmeyer & DillionIt has been almost two years since the California legislature enacted changes to the state’s indemnity law affecting commercial construction contracts. Although we do not yet have any court opinions analyzing the new statutes, the attorneys at
Newmeyer & Dillion now have real world experience in negotiating such indemnity provisions. It is time to evaluate how the construction community has reacted to the changes. In this article, we examine the practical applications of the new law to various construction agreements.
Enacted on January 1, 2013, the new legislation was the latest in a series of efforts by subcontractors and their insurers to eliminate “Type I” indemnity clauses. Under a Type I provision, a subcontractor has a duty to indemnify the developer or general contractor for the negligence of the developer or general contractor or other subcontractors, in addition to the negligence of the subcontractor itself. In 2006, the law was changed to preclude Type I provisions regarding “For Sale” residential construction defect claims. At that time, there was no such restriction enacted for commercial construction contracts. However, since then, commercial subcontractors have been seeking similar legislation. Their efforts culminated in the 2013 revisions regarding commercial contracts.
Commercial Subcontracts
Pursuant to the new indemnity statute — Civil Code section 2782.05 — we have revised our clients’ commercial subcontracts to:
(a) Eliminate the requirement that the subcontractor indemnify the general contractor for the general contractor’s “active negligence;” and
(b) Include the subcontractor’s options for defending claims for which they have an indemnity obligation.
Many subcontractors have responded: “Hey, wait a minute, the new legislation eliminated Type I indemnity so you (general contractor) cannot still require any indemnification for the general contractor’s negligence”. Well, that might be the rumor in subcontractor circles, but the new statute does not eliminate indemnity for the general contractor’s passive fault. In addition, the Civil Code lists 13 instances where the new indemnity restrictions do not apply.
Residential Subcontracts
The legislature did not make anyone’s job easier by drafting a different indemnity provision for commercial subcontracts than for residential subcontracts. In fact, the residential and commercial statutes are different in several critical respects. First, the restrictions on indemnity in the residential statute apply only to construction defect claims in newly constructed “For Sale” houses. The statute does not preclude Type I indemnity provisions for any other claims arising out of residential subcontracts. In contrast, the indemnity restrictions in the commercial statute apply to all claims arising out of commercial subcontracts. In addition, the commercial statute allows indemnity for the general contractor’s passive fault. Since some subcontractors on “residential” projects perform off-site “commercial” work as well, we have amended even residential subcontracts to address the subcontractors’ various indemnity obligations for different parts of their work (e.g., residential work versus commercial work).
Owner-Contractor Agreements
The January 1, 2013 new indemnity provisions apply not only to subcontracts, but also to owner-contractor agreements. Civil Code section 2782(c)(1) precludes indemnity for an owner’s active negligence. Interestingly, the exclusions contained in Civil Code section 2782.05 for subcontracts do not apply, and the statute does not provide contractors with the option of defending claims set forth in the sections concerning subcontracts. Therefore, we have revised the indemnity provisions in owner-contractor agreements to exclude indemnity for the owner’s active negligence.
Design Professional Agreements
The 2007 revisions with respect to “For Sale” residential contracts (discussed above), and the 2013 revisions for commercial contracts do not apply to design professionals. The new indemnity statute concerning commercial subcontracts specifically excludes design professionals from the “anti-indemnity” benefits provided to subcontractors. Therefore, Type I indemnity provisions are fair game and can still be included in design professional contracts.
Conclusion
In sum, Civil Code sections 2782 et seq. now contain an increasingly complex framework for indemnity rules in construction contracts. For example, there is one set of rules for “For Sale” residential construction defect claims (no indemnity for the developer’s active or passive negligence), another for any other claims arising out of residential construction (Type I indemnity is permitted), another for commercial subcontracts (no indemnity for the general contractor’s active negligence, but indemnity for the general contractor’s passive negligence unless any of the exceptions apply, in which case Type I indemnity is permitted), and yet another for commercial owner contractor agreements (no indemnity for the owner’s active negligence, but indemnity for the owner’s passive negligence with no exceptions).
California’s indemnity laws are complex, and rumors as to the impact of the new legislation have made it even more difficult to negotiate these provisions. It is imperative that indemnity clauses in construction contracts clearly delineate the obligations for the specific type or types of work contemplated by the contract. The legislature’s attempt to simplify indemnity obligations has actually made such provisions lengthier and more cumbersome. As experienced construction attorneys, our task is to draft indemnity provisions that comply with the laws, address potential claims, and are understandable.
Mr. Himmelstein is a partner in the Newport Beach office of Newmeyer & Dillion and practices in the areas of construction, real estate, business and insurance litigation. He also specializes in drafting and negotiating construction and real estate contracts. Mark can be reached at mark.himmelstein@ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Reasonableness of Denial of Requests for Admission Based Upon Expert’s Opinions Depends On Factors Within Party’s Understanding
February 27, 2019 —
Stephen M. Tye & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Orange County Water District v. The Arnold Engineering Company (D070763), the Fourth Appellate District examined the criteria for evaluating the reasonableness of a parties’ denial of requests for admission (RFA’s) based upon their expert’s opinions and the proof required to recover costs for unreasonable denials.
In Orange County Water District, the Orange County Water District (the District) sued several current and former owners and operators of industrial sites, including The Arnold Engineering Company (Arnold), to recover expenses associated with groundwater cleanup efforts intended to address groundwater contamination caused by volatile organic compounds (VOC’s) and other chemicals. Over six years, the parties conducted extensive discovery, including document productions, depositions, and soil sampling and monitoring.
Reprinted courtesy of
Stephen M. Tye, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Tye may be contacted at stye@hbblaw.com
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Citigroup Pays Record $697 Million for Hong Kong Office Tower
June 18, 2014 —
Michelle Yun – BloombergCitigroup Inc. (C) paid a record HK$5.4 billion ($697 million) to a unit of Wheelock & Co. for a Hong Kong office tower that will bring most of its 5,000 employees under one roof.
The price for the 512,000 square-foot property in Kowloon is the largest ever office transaction in Hong Kong, the New York-based bank said in a statement yesterday. The tower, scheduled for completion by the end of 2015, will be used to house staff currently spread out across offices in the city, said Weber Lo, the bank’s chief executive officer for Hong Kong and Macau.
Citigroup joins banks and insurers in buying buildings in the city as falling vacancies pose a challenge for companies looking for large office spaces, realtor CBRE Group Inc., which advised the deal, said in a first-quarter review report.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michelle Yun, BloombergMs. Yun may be contacted at
myun11@bloomberg.net
Ninth Circuit Reverses Grant of Summary Judgment to Insurer For Fortuitous Loss
July 01, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's issuance of summary judgment regarding coverage for damages when the insured's plant had to be shut down due to an accident. Ingenco Holdings, LLC v. Ace American Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10946 (9th Cir. April 15, 2019).
Ingenco operated a gas purification plant which converted raw landfill gas into usable natural gas. The final step in the purification process involved the removal of excess nitrogen from the landfill gas. The gas was directed through adsorbent beads, to which nitrogen adhered, contained within pressure vessels.The beads could not withstand the direct pressure of the landfill gas inflow. which, if untreated, could grind the beads down into dust. To reduce the force of the gas flow on the beads, a "diffuser basket" was suspended from the top of each bead-filled pressure vessel. The diffuser basket acted as a shield that prevented the full force of the incoming landfill gas from striking the beads directly.
In 2010, metal brackets securing a diffiuser basket broke. This resulted in damage to other components and an eventual shutdown of the entire facility. The plant remained idle for several months as Ingenco investigated alternative nitrogen filtration options and undertook repairs.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Brenda Radmacher to Speak at Construction Super Conference 2024
November 05, 2024 —
Brenda Radmacher - The Construction SeytBrenda Radmacher, partner in Seyfarth’s Construction group, will present and moderate panels at the 38thAnnual Construction Super Conference 2024 on December 9-11. The conference is recognized as the preeminent construction conference developed for mid to senior-level professionals working in legal and commercial construction markets.
Panel – Looking Around Corners: Emerging Trends and Proactive Solutions
Brenda will co-present a panel on innovative ways to engage experts in construction disputes, focusing on early expert involvement to aid in risk management, issue analysis, mitigation, and documentation for potential litigation.
Panel – Top 10 Issues to Address in Your ADR Process for a Better Solution in Construction Disputes
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brenda Radmacher, SeyfarthMs. Radmacher may be contacted at
bradmacher@seyfarth.com
How to Remove a Mechanics Lien from Your Property
March 21, 2022 —
Hannah Kreuser - Porter Law GroupIt sometimes happens that a contractor or material supplier records a mechanics lien on your property that becomes expired. Other times, the mechanics lien may be wrong, invalid and unenforceable for some reason, serving no legitimate purpose. The contractor or material supplier may be reasonable and release the mechanics lien once these issues are brought to its attention, but the contractor or material supplier may very well refuse to release the mechanics lien when requested. When this happens, what are your options?
In California, there are various ways to bring this type of mechanics lien to a court’s attention in the hopes that the court will cause it to be released. Three of the more common methods are: (1) a petition under California Civil Code (“CCC”) § 8480; (2) a petition under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) § 765.010; or (3) a Lambert motion. This article will briefly discuss each of these methods.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hannah Kreuser, Porter Law GroupMs. Kreuser may be contacted at
hkreuser@porterlaw.com
Despite Misapplying California Law, Federal Court Acknowledges Virus May Cause Physical Alteration to Property
October 26, 2020 —
Scott P. DeVries, Michael S. Levine & Michael L. Huggins - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogOn August 28, Judge Stephen V. Wilson of the Central District of California, entered the latest ruling in the ongoing saga of the COVID-19 business interruption coverage dispute between celebrity plaintiff’s attorney Mark Geragos and Insurer Travelers.
The case, 10E, LLC v. The Travelers Indemnity Co. of Connecticut, was filed in state court. Travelers removed to federal court, where Geragos sought remand and Travelers moved to dismiss. Judge Wilson denied remand and granted the Motion to Dismiss, finding plaintiff did not satisfactorily allege the actual presence of COVID-19 on insured property or physical damage to its property. This holding is inconsistent with long standing principles of California insurance law and appears to improperly enhance the minimal pleading threshold under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint need only allege a claim “that is plausible on its face.”).
After rejecting Geragos’ attempt to have the case remanded based on a finding that Geragos had fraudulently joined a defendant to avoid removal, the Judge proceeded to the Motion to Dismiss which raised three issues: (1) the effect of the Virus Exclusion in the Travelers’ Policy, (2) whether plaintiff failed to allege that the governmental orders prohibited access to its property, and (3) whether plaintiff could “‘plausibly allege that it suffered ‘direct physical loss or damage to property’ as required for civil authority coverage.’” Rather than address the effect of the exclusion, which would be the narrowest issue (this exclusion is not present in all policies), the Court proceeded directly to the third issue, which has the broadest potential application.
Reprinted courtesy of
Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth,
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Michael L. Huggins, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Huggins may be contacted at mhuggins@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
