Uniwest Rides Again (or, Are Architects Subject to Va. Code Section 11-4.1?)
October 16, 2018 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIn 2010, the Virginia Supreme Court held in Uniwest Const., Inc. v. Amtech Elevator Servs., Inc., that Va. Code Sec. 11-4.1 renders completely void and unenforceable any indemnification provision in a construction contract between a contractor and subcontractor that seeks to indemnify the indemnified party from its own negligent acts. In short, the Virginia Supreme Court stated that such overly broad provisions violate Section 11-4.1.
A recent case out of the Eastern District of Virginia Federal District Court examined a provision in a contract between a designer/architect and a contractor or owner on a project. In Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn. v. Lessard Design Inc. the Court examined the application of Section 11-4.1 to the following provision of a design contract where Lessard, the indemnitor, agreed to:
[i]ndemnify, defend and hold the Owner, Owner’s Developer, and Owner’s and Owner’s Developer’s wholly owned affiliates and the agents, employees and officers of any of them harmless from and against any and all losses, liabilities, expenses, claims, fines and penalties, costs and expenses, including, but not limited to reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs relating to the services performed by the Architect hereunder . . .
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Construction Law Alert: Concrete Supplier Botches Concrete Mix, Gets Thrashed By Court of Appeal for Trying to Blame Third Party
January 21, 2015 —
Steven M. Cvitanovic and Whitney L. Stefko – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPOn January 8, 2015, the Second Appellate district affirmed judgment of the lower court in State Ready Mix Inc. v. Moffatt & Nichol, and barred a concrete supplier from blaming a third party consultant for the concrete supplier's failure to deliver concrete that met project specifications.
In 2012, Major Engineering Marine, Inc. was hired by a project manager to construct a harbor pier in the Channel Islands Harbor. Major hired State Ready Mix, Inc. to supply the concrete for the project. State wrote and submitted a concrete mix design and, at the request of Major, civil engineer Moffatt & Nichol reviewed and approved State's mix design at no charge.
Reprinted courtesy of
Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Whitney L. Stefko, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com; Ms. Stefko may be contacted at wstefko@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Checking the Status of your Contractor License During Contract Work is a Necessity: The Expanded “Substantial Compliance” under B&P 7031 is Here
June 05, 2017 —
Ivo G. Daniele – Newmeyer & Dillion LLP News AlertIt is paramount that a contractor diligently maintains its license prior to and during the performance of any contract work. Failure to do so could result in barring a contractor from receiving payment and/or disgorgement of profits received under the construction contract.
California Business and Professions Code section 7031 is part of the Contractors State License Law (Business & Prof. section 700 et seq.), and is both feared and loathed by all contractors performing work in the state of California. This draconian statute is known as the “Shield” and was enacted over 70 years ago for the singular purpose to bar all actions by contractors seeking compensation for unlicensed contract work – even precluding a contractor from enforcing his or her mechanic’s lien rights. However, a contractor could potentially avoid the harshness of B&P 7031 by establishing that he or she had substantially complied with the appropriate licensing requirements.
SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH LICENSE REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO 2017 AMENDMENT
The substantial compliance exception is found in section B&P 7031(e), which authorizes the court to determine that there has been substantial compliance with licensure requirements, if the contractor has shown at an evidentiary hearing that he or she engaged in the unlicensed work had:
- Been duly licensed as a contractor in this state prior to the performance of the act or contract;
- Acted reasonably and in good faith to maintain the license;
- Did not know or reasonably should not have known that he or she was not licensed when he or she performed the work; and
- Acted promptly and in good faith to reinstate the license once it learned the license had lapsed.
Although not impossible, satisfying all four requirements of the exception was challenging for the contractor, specifically, requirement # (3) – the lack of knowledge that he or she was unlicensed during performance of work.
SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE POST 2017
Fortunately, Governor Brown heard the collective cry for relief and signed Assembly Bill 1793 (“AB 1793”) into law. The new bill revises the criteria for the court to determine if a contractor is in substantial compliance with the licensing requirements by deleting requirement # (3) in its entirety and modestly amending requirement # (4) to require the contractor to act promptly and in good faith to remedy the failure to comply with the licensure requirements upon learning of the failure.
As a result, the substantial compliance exception under B&P 7031(e) reads as follows:
(e) The judicial doctrine of substantial compliance shall not apply under this section where the person who engaged in the business or acted in the capacity of a contractor has never been a duly licensed contractor in this state. However, notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section 143, the court may determine that there has been substantial compliance with licensure requirements under this section if it is shown at an evidentiary hearing that the person who engaged in the business or acted in the capacity of a contractor
(1) had been duly licensed as a contractor in this state prior to the performance of the act or contract, (2) acted reasonably and in good faith to maintain proper licensure, and (3) acted promptly and in good faith to remedy the failure to comply with the licensure requirements upon learning of the failure.
This new legislation has tempered the burden of proof born by the contractor in establishing substantial compliance, although be it minor in its modification, the fact of the matter remains the same – be diligent in maintaining your license during all phases of contract work.
Ivo Daniele is a seasoned associate in the Walnut Creek office focusing his practice on commercial transactions and business and construction litigation. For questions regarding California Business and Professions Code section 7031, please feel free to contact Ivo Daniele at (925) 988-3222 or ivo.daniele@ndlf.com.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Subsequent Owners of Homes Again Have Right to Sue Builders for Construction Defects
October 07, 2016 —
Mark L. Parisi – White and Williams LLPOwners of homes with damage from construction defects have long had the standing to sue the builders of their homes using the legal theories of 1) breach of contract, 2) breach of implied warranty, and 3) breach of Pennsylvania’s consumer fraud statute, the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL).
Before the 2014 decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Conway v. Cutler, even owners who were not the original purchasers of their homes, so-called subsequent owners, had a right to sue the builder of their homes using implied warranty as the legal theory. But the Supreme Court in Conway said in 2014 that even though an implied warranty theory is not based on a written contract, it is a quasi contract theory and because subsequent owners never had a contractual relationship with the builder of their home, the implied warranty cause of action was not available. Subsequent purchasers were thus left without a remedy for damage from defective construction in their homes and builders had a second safe harbor from claims regarding homes they built. The first safe harbor is Pennsylvania’s Statute of Repose. If the home was completed more than 12 years before a lawsuit was filed, the Statute of Repose bars the claim. But after Conway, if the home was sold, this also cut off a builder’s potential liability for construction defects in the home.
ENTER THE UTPCPL
On July 26, 2016 the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the case of Adams v. Hellings Builders issued a non-published (and therefore non-precedential) decision in a stucco construction defect case that held that subsequent purchasers could sue their home’s builder under the UTPCPL because the Act had no requirement that the purchaser of a product, or home, be the original purchaser. The decision cites several other appellate cases not involving construction defect claims that held that the UTPCPL was a valid legal theory for claims regarding products purchased second hand by the plaintiffs in those other cases. The court in Adams held that there was no reason that a suit regarding construction defects in a home should be treated any differently.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mark L. Parisi, White and Williams LLPMr. Parisi may be contacted at
parisim@whiteandwilliams.com
President Trump Repeals Contractor “Blacklisting” Rule
March 29, 2017 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogFormer President Obama’s so-called “Blacklisting” rule was short-lived.
On Monday, President Trump signed a joint resolution eliminating the rule, which had required bidders on federal projects with a value in excess of $500K to report state and federal labor and safety violations within the past three years. The Blacklisting rule, also known as the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order 13673, only went into effect in October 2016.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
Client Alert: California’s Unfair Competition Law (B&P §17200) Preempted by Federal Workplace Safety Law
September 24, 2014 —
R. Bryan Martin, Yvette Davis, & Kristian Moriarty - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Solus Industrial Innovations LLC v. Superior Court (No. G047661, filed 9/22/2014) (“Solus”) the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, held California’s Unfair Competition Law (Business & Professions Code §17200) is preempted by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (“Fed/OSHA”) because the Unfair Competition law, as approved by the United States Secretary of Labor, does not include any provision for civil enforcement of workplace safety standards by a state prosecutor through a complaint for penalties.
Solus Industrial Innovations, LLC (“Solus”) is a plastics manufacturer. In 2007, Solus installed a residential water heater at its commercial facility in Orange County. The water heater exploded in March 2009, killing two workers. California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (“Cal/OSHA”) investigated and determined the explosion was caused by a failed safety valve and lack of any proper safety feature on the water heater. Cal/OSHA charged Solus with five violations of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations. Because deaths were involved, Cal/OSHA forwarded the results of its investigation to the Orange County District Attorney.
In March 2012, the Orange County District Attorney filed criminal charges against Solus’ plant manager and maintenance supervisor. The District Attorney also filed a civil action against Solus, including two causes of action for violation of California Business & Professions Code §17200 – the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”). The action sought civil penalties under the UCL in the amount of $2,500 per day, per employee, from November 29, 2007 through March 19, 2009.
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys
R. Bryan Martin,
Yvette Davis and
Kristian Moriarty
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com
Ms. Davis may be contacted at ydavis@hbblaw.com
Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
NYC’s First Five-Star Hotel in Decade Seen at One57 Tower
July 02, 2014 —
Heather Perlberg – BloombergHyatt Hotels Corp. (H) is seeking to make its Park Hyatt New York, opening next month at the base of the ultra-luxury One57 condominium tower, Manhattan’s first new five-star hotel in more than a decade.
The 25-floor property is making its debut on West 57th Street in the area known as Billionaires Row for its residential skyscrapers with apartments costing tens of millions of dollars. Plans for the Park Hyatt call for 210 guest rooms starting at $795 a night, spa-treatment suites with private balconies, and amenities such as an indoor pool with underwater speakers that pipe in music from neighboring Carnegie Hall.
Hyatt is seeking a competitive edge in Manhattan, where it already operates seven properties, none rated five stars, said Steve Haggerty, global head of real estate and capital strategy for the Chicago-based company. The new Park Hyatt would be the city’s first hotel with the coveted distinction since 2003, when the Mandarin Oriental opened in the nearby Time Warner Center. Since then, most growth in the city’s lodging market has been in the select-service category, hotels that offer few amenities and cost less to operate.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Heather Perlberg, BloombergMs. Perlberg may be contacted at
hperlberg@bloomberg.net
Home Sales Going to Investors in Daytona Beach Area
December 11, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFHouses are selling quickly in the Daytona Beach, Florida area, but many of the buyers are investors who are buying up homes in hopes of selling them several years later. Maryke Guild, a real estate agent said that “in three, four years’ time, when the market has been resaturated, those guys are going to sell at a profit, there’s no doubt.” But while the housing market is good news for investors, it’s actually bad news for homebuilders.
“Flips are not what’s going to sustain the market,” said John Adams the general manager of the Adams, Cameron & Co., a Daytona-area real estate firm. Contractors are building new homes in the Daytona area, but the number of homes built in Volusia County in 2013 is a little more than a fifth of what was built in 2005. In adjacent Flagler County, homebuilding is at less than a tenth of what it was in 2004.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
