Colorado House Bill 1279 Stalls over 120-day Unit Owner Election Period
April 20, 2017 —
Luke Mecklenburg - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogWith the session more than halfway through, the Colorado Legislature’s 2017 attempts at meaningful construction defect reform may fail again. This year, the Legislature did not attempt a single-bill construction defect overhaul like those that have failed over the last half-decade. Rather, it has sought to enact reforms on a piecemeal basis, with several smaller bills addressing specific issues that have been affecting condominium construction along Colorado’s booming Front Range.
This new approach appears to be headed towards much the same outcome as the failed efforts of the past. House Bill 1169 would have given developers a statutory right to repair before being sued by homeowners, and Senate Bill 156 would mandate arbitration or mediation. Both have been assigned to the House State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee (often viewed as the “bill-kill committee”), and have little chance of being resuscitated this session.
This was also the fate of House Bill 1279, but bipartisan support had many believing that it still had a chance of passing—at least until last week. House Bill 1279 would require an executive board of a homeowners association to satisfy several prerequisites before suing a developer or builder, namely to (1) notify all unit owners and the developer or builder against whom the lawsuit is being considered; (2) call an association meeting where the builder or developer could present relevant facts and arguments; and (3) get approval from the majority of the unit owners after providing detailed disclosures about the lawsuit, including the potential costs and benefits thereof.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & WilmerMr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at
lmecklenburg@swlaw.com
Improper Means Exception and Tortious Interference Claims
August 14, 2023 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesLast week, I discussed a case (
here) that involved a federal district court (trial court) denying a motion to dismiss on a negligent supervision claim.
In this same case, the plaintiff, a subcontractor/fabricator, also sued the defendants–parent company of a prime contractor and two entities the prime contractor hired to inspect the subcontractor’s fabricated units–for tortious interference of the subcontractor’s contract with the prime contractor. The defendants moved to dismiss this tortious interference claim which gave rise to another interesting discussion by the trial court relating to the burden to plead and prove tortious interference claims. This discussion is worthy to remember the next time you not only want to plead a tortious interference claim, but want to be in a position to put on evidence to prove the claim at trial.
“Under Florida law, the elements of a tortious-interference-with-contract claim are: ‘(1) the existence of a contract, (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the contract, (3) the defendant’s intentional procurement of the contract’s breach, (4) absence of any justification or privilege, and (5) damages resulting from the breach.’” Bautech USA, Inc. v. Resolve Equipment, 2023 WL 4186395 (S.D.Fla. 2023) (citation omitted).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
CDJ’s #6 Topic of the Year: Does Colorado Need Construction Defect Legislation to Spur Affordable Home Development?
December 31, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe question involves whether a Colorado law passed in 2005 has made it too easy for homeowners to sue developers for construction defects, allegedly causing a decline in condominium building in the state. The Construction Defect Journal became a forum for this lively debate with two prominent, Colorado, construction defect attorneys providing their views on the subject:
Jesse Howard Witt, of the Witt Law Firm, published “Colorado Mayors Should Not Sacrifice Homeowners to Lure Condo Developers.”
Read the full story...
In response, James M. Mulligan of Snell & Wilmer, LLP presented his perspective in, “Are Construction Defect Laws Inhibiting the Development of Attached Ownership Housing in Colorado?”
Read the full story...
The city of Lakewood did not wait for the state, but instead passed its own ordinance, which “gives developers and builders a ‘right to repair’ defects before facing litigation and would require condominium association boards to get consent from a majority of homeowners — rather than just the majority of the board — before filing suit,” according to John Aguilar’s piece in The Denver Post.
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Court of Appeal Makes Short Work Trial Court Order Preventing Party From Supplementing Experts
August 06, 2019 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogYears ago I recommended to a client that we hire a construction defect expert in a case. The client, a thrifty fellow, responded, “But I thought you were the construction expert. Why do I need to hire another expert? A fair question and one that caught me flat footed.
Whether I’m an “expert” or not can be debated, but I explained to the client that while I was an attorney whose practice focused on construction law, I was not someone who he would want to take the stand and testify about the engineering design and seismic stability of pilings. For that, he needed an expert.
In construction litigation it’s not uncommon for parties and their attorneys to hire “experts.” There are even special rules set forth in the California Code of Civil Procedure for disclosing, supplementing and deposing experts, which basically provide as follows:
1. Demand for Exchange of Expert Information: After the court sets a trial date in a case, any party may demand that each party exchange information concerning the experts they intend to have testify at trial;
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
The ARC and The Covenants
May 30, 2018 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsFor this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Musings, we welcome back Mike Collignon. Mike is a co-founder of the Green Builder Coalition. The Green Builder® Coalition amplifies the voice of green builders and professionals to drive advocacy and education for more sustainable building practices.
As we start to see signs of a housing recovery, slow as it may be, I feel the industry is in a great position. All the effort put in by so many to improve our energy codes, green building programs & rating systems will finally be able to bear fruit. We can start to build homes that are much more environmentally responsible. Sure, we can have a lengthy debate about implementation and adoption rates, but you’ve got to walk before you can run. Unfortunately, I can see that progress getting shackled by an unexpected impediment: the architectural review committee (ARC; sometimes called “architectural committee” or “architectural control authority”) and the covenants of a homeowners’ association.
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
Developer’s Fraudulent Statements Are His Responsibility Alone in Construction Defect Case
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Texas Court of Appeals ruled on December 21 in the case of Helm v Kingston, a construction defect case. After purchasing what was described as “an extremely well-built” two-bedroom townhouse, Mr. Kingston made complaints of construction defects. Greenway Development did not repair the defects to Kingston’s satisfaction, and he filed notice of suit. In his suit, he claimed that GDI and its president, John Helm, had committed fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Kingston claimed that Helm “fraudulently induced Kingston to believe that the townhouse evidenced the highest quality of workmanship when in fact the quality of workmanship was atrocious.” Helms brought a counterclaim that Kingston’s suit was frivolous.
About four years after Kingston purchased the townhome, the suit proceeded to trial. The trial court determined that Helm was not “liable in his individual capacity,” but this was reversed at appeal.
A second trial was held ten years later on the question of whether Kingston’s unit was a townhome or an apartment. A jury found that Helm “engaged in a false, misleading or deceptive act or practice that Kingston relied on to his detriment.” Kingston was awarded $75,862.29 and an additional $95,000 in attorney fees by the jury. Helms made an unsuccessful appeal to the Appeals Court, after which Kingston was awarded an additional $10,000. Helms then made an unsuccessful appeal to the Texas Supreme Court, which lead to an additional $3,000 for Kingston. There was also a verdict of $48,770.09 in pre-judgment interest and “five percent post-judgment interest accruing from the date of the judgment until the time the judgment is paid. Helm appealed.
In his appeal, Helm raised seven issues, which the court reorganized into five Kingston raised one issue on cross-appeal.
Helms’ first claim was that Kingston “failed to satisfy the requirement of” Texas’s Residential Construction Liability Act and that by not filing under the RCLA, Kingston’s fraud and misrepresentation claims were preempted. Further Helms claimed that the RCLA limited Kingston’s damages. The court rejected this, as the RCLA deals with complaints made to a contractor and not only did Helm fail to “conclusively establish” his “status as a ‘contractor’ under the statutory definition,” Helm testified that he was “not a contactor” at the pre-trial hearing.
Helms’s second claim was that Kingston’s later claim of a misconstructed firewall should be barred, claiming that Kingston “‘had knowledge of a defect in the firewall’ as early as 1997 but did not assert them until 2007.” The court rejected this because Kingston’s claim was that “Helm ‘fraudulently induced Kingston to believe that the townhouse evidenced the highest quality of workmanship when in fact the quality of the workmanship was atrocious.’”
Helms also challenged whether his statements that the residence was of “good quality” constituted fraud and misrepresentation under Texas’s Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. The court concluded that Helm was in a position to make knowledgeable statements and further that “residential housing units are not artistic works for which quality is inherently a matter of subjective judgment.” Helm also claimed that Kingston could have avoided certain repair expenses through the “exercise of reasonable care.” Helms argued that the repairs could have been made for $6,400. The court disagreed, as these claims were cited only to invoke the DTPA, and that later petitions established additional defects.
Helms’s next claim was that he was not allowed to designate responsible third parties. The court rejected this because there GDI represented matters concerning the residence only through Helm’s statements. The court noted that “Helm is correct that?third parties may be liable for fraud if they ‘participated in the fraudulent transactions and reaped the benefits,’” but they note that “Helm never specifically alleged that GDI or CREIC participated in Helm’s alleged fraudulent transactions.
The final issue in the decision was about court costs, and here the court denied claims on both sides. Helm argued that the award of legal fees were excessive, as they exceeded the actual damages. The court noted that they “may not substitute our judgment for that of the jury,” and also that “the ratio between the actual damages awarded and the attorney’s fees is not a factor that determines the reasonableness of the fees.” But the court also rejected Kingston’s claim for post-judgment interest on $10,312.30 that Helm had deposited in the trial court’s registry. The court noted that the monies were to be paid out upon final judgment, but the mandate did not include any reference to interest.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
What to do about California’s Defect-Ridden Board of Equalization Building
October 01, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFJerry Brown recently signed into law a bill requiring the state of California “to assess its properties in the Sacramento area and develop long-term plans for renovating, replacing or selling the most troublesome buildings,” according to SF Gate. Some say the Board of Equalization building, which was built for $80 million and then repaired for $60 million has construction defects, is “jeopardizing the health and safety of public employees.”
Current problems include “[f]looding, mold, falling windows and free-falling elevators,” reported SF Gate. Furthermore, recently, “three employees filed a $75 million lawsuit against the state, alleging toxic mold in the building is causing extreme fatigue, skin rashes, persistent flu-like symptoms, respiratory illnesses, frequent headaches, memory lapses and fears of cancer.”
“This is a disaster,” Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, D-Sacramento, who authored the bill regarding assessing state capitol buildings, told SF Gate. “It endangers the health and safety of employees and the public alike. And it is costing state taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
No Coverage Based Upon Your Prior Work Exclusion
October 01, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's determination of no coverage for construction defects based upon the policy's prior work exclusion. Yu v. Landmark Am. Ins. Co., 2014 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5966 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2014).
Plaintiff was the owner and developer of a hotel. She contracted with ATMI Design Build to act as general contractor to construct the hotel. C&A Framing Company was a subcontractor to provide rough framing for the project. In May 2003, ATMI fired C&A before it had completed all the work required by the subcontract. After May 2003, C&A never returned to the construction site. Notice of Completion for the project was recorded April 15, 2004.
In September 2004, Landmark issued to C&A a CGL policy for the period September 18, 2004 to September 18, 2005. The policy was later cancelled, effective January 14, 2005. The policy contained an endorsement entitled, "Exclusion - Your Prior Work." The exclusion barred coverage for "'property damage' arising out of 'your work' prior to 9/18/04."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
