Statutory Time Limits for Construction Defects in Massachusetts
November 27, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFConstruction defect claims are governed by a section of the Massachusetts laws and allow for three years after the work was completed, unless the defect is “inherently unknowable,” according to a post by John Shaffer on the web site of his firm, Marcus, Errico, Emmer & Brooks, a New England law firm that specializes in condominium law. Those “inherently unknowable” defects fall into the six-year statute of repose.
If, for example, a roof doesn’t show “significant water leakage” until after the end of the statutory period, “the association is out of luck and the responsible parties are off the hook,” writes Mr. Shaffer. “Even if the association could prove conclusively that the roof was improperly constructed and caused significant damage, the association’s claim will be barred.”
One problem condominium associations can face is that defects in the earliest phases of building can sometimes become apparent while the developer still controls the board. “While a developer in control of a board has the same fiduciary obligation as owner-elected trustees to protect the association’s interests, it is probably safe to assume that few developers will be inclined to sue themselves.” Here, Mr. Shaffer notes that owners can join together and either “hasten the transition to owner control of the association” or “convince them to correct the identified deficiencies.”
Mr. Shaffer notes that some questions concerning the statute of repose haven’t been answered by the Massachusetts courts. He does assure readers that “developers will no doubt argue that the statute of limitations has expired on defects because the association discovered or ‘should have discovered’ their existence more than three years before the lawsuit was started.” He advises condominium associations to calculate “their filing deadlines as conservatively as possible.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Parking Reform Takes Off on the West Coast
January 23, 2023 —
Allan Van Vliet - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogStarting January 1, 2023, real estate developers in Oregon and California will no longer be required to build off-street parking facilities for certain projects located near public transit. Both states enacted new rules during the course of 2022 which are effective as of the beginning of 2023, and which seek to reduce the costs of building at least some new projects in major population centers.
In California, A.B. 2097 was signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in September, and prohibits city governments throughout the state (including in charter cities) from enforcing any local land use provisions which would require the developer to build parking spaces as part of their project if the project is located within one half-mile of a major public transit stop. The law applies to both residential and commercial projects. Cities can continue mandating parking for individual projects if they find that doing so is important to support the development of affordable housing—this exception was added to allay concerns that the bill would undermine “density bonus” programs which have become an important tool for the promotion of new affordable housing development around the state.
In Oregon, following a 2020 executive order by Governor Kate Brown, the state Land Conservation and Development Commission (the body responsible for land use and planning regulation in Oregon) embarked on a two-year rulemaking process which culminated in July of 2022 with the approval of a set of “Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities Rules.” Like the California legislation, these rules (in part) limit the ability of Oregon’s most populous cities to enforce parking minimums for new development projects. Unlike the California law, the Oregon rules encourage cities simply to repeal their parking mandates entirely. Cities subject the new rules which choose not to repeal their parking mandates in full must, as an alternative, adopt new local policies to reduce the amount of land dedicated to parking in certain geographies or in connection with certain uses.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Allan Van Vliet, PillsburyMr. Van Vliet may be contacted at
allan.vanvliet@pillsburylaw.com
Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment in Landis v. Fannin Builders
April 20, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFThe Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in Landis v. William Fannin Builders. Landis contracted Fannin Builders to build their home. The case involved staining problems on the T1-11 siding chosen by the plaintiffs.
After a year and a half of discussion on how to resolve the problem of uneven staining on the siding, Landis filed suit “against Fannin Builders, alleging claims for breach of contract, breach of the express limited warranty, and violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (“OCSPA”). Fannin Builders, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against 84 Lumber, alleging claims for breach of contract and indemnification. With the trial court’s leave, Fannin Builders also later amended its answer to add a counterclaim against appellees for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. In the counterclaim, Fannin Builders alleged that appellees still owed it $3,908.98 for the construction of appellees’ home.”
“In its decision, the trial court found in appellees’ favor on their breach of contract claim and against appellees on their claims for breach of the express limited warranty and violation of the OCSPA. Additionally, the trial court found in Fannin Builders’ favor on its counterclaim for breach of contract and against Fannin Builders on its third-party claims for breach of contract and indemnity. The trial court determined that appellees’ damages amounted to $66,906.24, and after setting off the $3,908.98 that appellees owed Fannin Builders under the construction contract, the trial court awarded appellees $62,997.26. The trial court reduced its decision to judgment on May 18, 2010.”
Fannin Builders appealed this judgment and assigned the following errors:
[1.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant Breached its Contract with Appellees when it provided a Semi-Transparent Oil-Based Stain that Simply did not Meet their Approval.
[a.] The Contract does not Contain a Satisfaction Clause.
[b.] Even if the Court Implies a Satisfaction Clause, the Court Should Apply an Objective Standard.
[2.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Failing to Consider Appellant’s Right to Cure.
[3.] The Trial Court committed Reversible Error by not Assessing Damages Using “Diminished Value Standard,” and by Creating a Remedy that Constitutes Economic Waste.
[4.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant is Barred from Seeking Indemnification When 84 [Lumber] Never Fulfilled its Obligations Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement Entered on August 2, 2005.
In response to the first assigned error, the Court of Appeals stated: “Because the failure to provide siding of a uniform color, not appellees’ displeasure, breached the contract, we reject Fannin Builders’ contention that the trial court implied a satisfaction clause into the contract and found a breach of that clause. Accordingly, we overrule Fannin Builders’ first assignment of error.”
The Court of Appeals overruled the second assignment of error and provided the following reasoning: “Although Fannin Builders depends upon a term of the limited warranty for its right to cure, the trial court concluded that no breach of the limited warranty occurred. Fannin Builders breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIA’s Quality Standards. Consequently, the limited warranty does not apply to this case, and thus, it does not prevent appellees’ recovery of damages.”
The Appeals Court found “the trial court’s award of damages” was “both reasonable and supported by competent, credible evidence,” and therefore concluded “that the trial court did not err in setting appellees’ damages at $62,997.26.” The Fannin Builders third assignment of error was overruled.
The fourth and final assignment of error was also overruled by the Court of Appeals. “While Fannin Builders correctly asserts that 84 Lumber never installed the replacement siding, it ignores the fact that it ordered 84 Lumber to remove the replacement siding from appellees’ property. Thus, Fannin Builders precluded 84 Lumber from completely performing under the August 2, 2005 letter agreement. […] Consequently, Fannin Builders cannot now claim that the letter agreement is unenforceable or that it is entitled to indemnification from 84 Lumber. Because Fannin Builders assumed all liability for the defective siding in the letter agreement, it is responsible for appellees’ damages.”
James A. Zitesman, Columbus, Ohio Business Attorney, compared the case to Jones v. Centex (Ohio App. 2010), which had a different verdict:
“The common thread is the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the Jones case, the Court found that the buyers had in fact waived all implied warranties, including the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the contract between Jones and Centex, the builder stated that it “…would not sell the property to Purchasers without this waiver.” Probably should have been a sign to the buyers.
In the Landis case, the Court stated, “Contracts for the future construction of a residence include a duty, implied by law, that the builder must perform its work in a workmanlike manner.” The Court gave significant weight to the concept of the implied warranty of good workmanship. The builder relied upon the BIA Warranty which limits builders’ liability and exposure to legal issues. The trial court concluded there was no breach of the limited warranty, rather the builder “breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIAs Quality Standards.”
The Supreme Court of Ohio has accepted the Jones v. Centex Homes case for review.
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Not to Miss at This Year’s Archtober Festival
October 15, 2014 —
Carrie Hojnicki – BloombergNew York architecture fanatics everywhere can rejoice: Archtober has arrived. In its fourth annual iteration, the monthlong festival throws a spotlight on the importance of architecture and design in the five boroughs, calling special attention to the city’s rich built history and exciting future. In addition to a lineup of lectures, openings, and workshops, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) New York Chapter–sponsored initiative highlights a “Building of the Day,” with on-site tours led by the architects themselves.
Here are five events not to miss this Archtober.
1. AIA’s New York chapter puts its own spin on the architecture tour: a boat ride. Guides from the AIA will share their wisdom as the cruise circles the tip of Manhattan, passing architectural marvels aplenty. October 3, 10 am and 1:30 pm, Classic Harbor Line
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Carrie Hojnicki, Bloomberg
Green Buildings Could Lead to Liabilities
March 28, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFAttempts to build “green,” reducing energy costs and increasing the use of sustainable building materials, may lead to more lawsuits, according to a report issued by the British Columbia Construction Association. The report warned those who were going to build green look into the implications. The report looked at the result of green building practices and requirements adopted in the United States.
The report warns that “the use of novel, less harmful building material or new construction techniques may give rise to liability due to: contractor inexperience with installation; lack of long-term evaluation of green materials; lack of understanding of how new building materials may impact existing traditional building systems; or warranties provided unintentionally about the durability or effectiveness of unproven materials or techniques.”
Manley McLachlan, president of the BCAA noted that they are aware of “legal action around the performance of the buildings,” noting that while fast-growing trees help toward LEED certification, their wood is more prone to mold. He also felt that low-VOC paints needed more testing to prove their durability as exterior finishes.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Solar Energy Isn’t Always Green
August 27, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFIEEE Spectrum reported that photovoltaics, used in Solar Energy, “varies substantially by technology and geography” and some emit chemical pollution. However, IEE Spectrum stated that “the industry could readily eliminate many of the damaging side effects that do exist.”
One challenge is that “nearly half the world’s photovoltaics are manufactured in China” who, according to IEEE Spectrum, “typically [does] the worst job of protecting the environment and their workers.”
It is also difficult for consumers to make choices based upon photovoltaic manufacturer practices, since solar energy doesn’t have a formal ecolabel like Energy Star, IEEE Spectrum reported.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Montana Federal District Court Finds for Insurer in Pollution Coverage Dispute
October 24, 2021 —
Melanie A. McDonald - Saxe Doernberger & VitaApplying Louisiana law, a recent federal court decision exemplifies why policyholders should thoroughly read claims-made policies to understand when notice is due to insurers and truthfully complete policy applications. In Admiral Insurance Company v. Dual Trucking, Inc.,1 the Court determined the insurer, Admiral Insurance Company (“AIC”), owed no duty to defend or indemnify Dual Trucking and Transport, LLC (“DTT”), Dual Trucking of Montana, LLC (“DTM”), and Dual Trucking, Inc. (“DTI”) (collectively, the “Dual Entities”) under two Environmental Impairment Liability Policies (“EIL Policies”) and four Contractor Pollution Liability Policies (“CPL Policies”). The Court justified its decision because the Dual Entities: 1) did not give notice during the 2012-2013 EIL Policy period; 2) had discovered or knew of, but did not disclose, potential pollution conditions before the inception of the 2013-2014 EIL Policy and before the expiration of the extended reporting period of the 2012-2013 EIL Policy; 3) failed to provide AIC with notice during the extended reporting period of the 2013-2014 EIL Policy of claims for which the Dual Entities were seeking coverage; and 4) materially misrepresented known facts on the CPL Policy applications.
I. Factual Background.
The Dual Entities were Louisiana-based companies that provided oilfield equipment rental services. In 2011, the Dual Entities leased land in Montana under three leases, collectively referred to as “the Bainville site.” Shortly afterward, the Dual Entities applied for, and AIC issued, an EIL Policy and two CPL Policies with a policy period of October 1, 2012, to October 1, 2013. AIC renewed all three policies for the October 1, 2013, to October 1, 2014, policy period.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melanie A. McDonald, Saxe Doernberger & VitaMs. McDonald may be contacted at
MMcDonald@sdvlaw.com
99-Year-Old Transmission Tower Seen as Possible Cause of Devastating Calif. Wildfire
December 11, 2018 —
Contra Costa Times - Engineering News-RecordDec. 08 --PULGA -- With winds gusting around 50 mph in the morning hours of Nov. 8 , portions of a PG&E steel lattice transmission tower -- exposed to the elements high on a ridgetop and originally built when Woodrow Wilson was president -- failed.
As high-voltage lines got loose and whipped around, striking the metal tower, molten aluminum and metal sprayed across tinder dry vegetation, igniting the brush. Arriving firefighters could only watch as the blaze underneath the power lines quickly spread to wild timber and brush.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Engineering News-RecordENR may be contacted at
ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
