Specific Source of Water Not Relevant in Construction Defect Claim
June 28, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Nebraska Court of Appeals has concluded that a lower court came to the correct conclusion in a construction defect case involving water intrusion. The Hiatts built a home in North Platte, Nebraska, in in 2004 which they sold to the Oettingers in May, 2006. Shortly thereafter, the Oettingers started experiencing problems with water intrusion and contacted the Hiatts. The Hiatts responded by replacing the septic lift. Subsequently, the Oettingers landscaped their yard, which they allege was done with the assistance of the Hiatts. The water problems continued and “the parties took substantial remedial measures, including excavating the sidewalk and inspecting the downspouts.” The water problems continued, getting worse and requiring increasingly aggressive responses.
The Oettingers then had a series of inspections, and they hired the last of these inspectors to actually fix the water intrusion problem. At that point, they filed a lawsuit against the Hiatts alleging that the Hiatts “breached their contact by constructing and selling a home that was not built according to reasonable construction standards,” and that they “were negligent in the repair of the home in 2009.”
During the trial, Irving Hiatt testified that they “tarred the outside of the basement and put plastic into the tar and another layer of plastic over the top of that.” He claimed that the problem was with the Oettingers’ landscaping. This was further claimed in testimony of his son, Vernon Hiatt, who said the landscaping lacked drainage.
The Oettingers had three experts testify, all of whom noted that the landscaping could not have been the problem. All three experts testified as to problems with the Hiatts’ construction. The court concluded that the Hiatts had breached an implied warranty, rejecting the claim that the water intrusion was due to the landscaping. The Hiatts appealed the decision of the county court to the district court. Here, the judgment of the lowest court was confirmed, with the district court again finding a breach of the implied warranty of workmanlike performance.
The Hiatts appealed again. They alleged that the district court should not have held a breach of implied warranty existed without proving the source of the water intrusion, and that damages should have been apportioned based on the degree to which the Oettingers’ landscaping and basement alterations were responsible. The appeals court dispensed with the second claim first, noting that “they do not argue this error in their brief nor do they explain how or why the trial court should have apportioned damages.” The court also noted that although the Oettingers made a negligence claim in their suit, the case had been decided on the basis of a breach of implied warranty.
The appeals court upheld the Oettingers’ claim of a breach of implied warranty. In order to do this, the court noted that the Oettingers had to show that an implied warranty existed, that the Haitts breached that warranty, damage was suffered as a result, and that no express warranty limited the implied warranty. That court noted that “the record is sufficient to prove that the Hiatts breached the implied warranty in the method in which they constructed the basement” and that “this breach was the cause of the Oettingers’ damages.”
The court concluded that the Oettingers “provided sufficient evidence that the Hiatts’ faulty construction allowed water, whatever its source, to infiltrate the basement.” The court rejected the Hiatts’ claim that the Oettingers’ repairs voided the warranty, as it was clear that the Hiatts were involved in carrying out these repairs. The court’s final conclusion was that “the evidence in the record supports the trial court’s factual finding that the Hiatts’ flawed construction caused water damage to the Oettingers’ basement.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
NLRB Hits Unions with One-Two Punch the Week Before Labor Day
November 18, 2019 —
John Baker & Robert Pettigrew - White and Williams LLPThe National Labor Relations Board (the Board) continues to modify the way employers, unions and employees view and relate to each other in the workplace. In two decisions right before Labor Day, the Board strengthened employer rights in their workplaces, while at the same time making life for their union counterparts more difficult.
On August 23, 2019, the Board revisited the issue of whether an employer must grant access to the off-duty employees of an onsite contractor so they can engage in Section 7 activities on the employer’s property. In general, Section 7 activities consist of employees acting together to improve their pay and working conditions, which constitute fundamental rights under the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). In Bexar County Performing Arts Center Foundation d/b/a Tobin Center, the San Antonio-based performing arts center, the Tobin Center, owned the Center as well as grounds that abutted the famed San Antonio River Walk. The Tobin Center housed three resident companies, one of which was the Ballet San Antonio with whom it had a licensor-licensee agreement.
In addition to plays, movies and other productions, the Tobin Center hosted the San Antonio Symphony (the Symphony) to perform for 22 weeks of the year. The Ballet San Antonio also occasionally utilized the Symphony for live musical performances at its ballets. When, however, the Ballet San Antonio decided to use recorded music for a particular production, off-duty employees of the Symphony protested by leafletting the public on the Tobin Center property. The leaflets advised the public of this decision and urged that they “DEMAND LIVE MUSIC!” Their protests were not directed at the property owner, who denied them access to its property.
Reprinted courtesy of
John Baker, White and Williams LLP and
Robert Pettigrew, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Baker may be contacted at bakerj@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Pettigrew may be contacted at pettigrewr@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Reports of the Death of SB800 are Greatly Exaggerated – The Court of Appeal Revives Mandatory SB800 Procedures
September 03, 2015 —
Steven M. Cvitanovic & David A. Harris – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn a 20 page opinion, the Court of Appeal for the Fifth District repudiated the holding of Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98 (“Liberty Mutual”), and held that plaintiffs in construction defect actions must comply with the statutory pre-litigation inspection and repair procedures mandated by SB800 (the “Act”) regardless of whether they plead a cause of action for violation of the Act. The Case, McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (Carl Van Tassell), (Ct. of Appeal F069370) breathes new life into the Act’s right to repair requirements, and reinforces the Act’s stated purpose of seeking to limit the number of court cases by allowing a builder to resolve construction defect claims by agreeing to repair the homeowners’ residence.
In McMillin, 37 homeowners filed a lawsuit against McMillin, the builder of their homes, alleging eight causes of action, including strict products liability, negligence, and breach of express and implied warranty. Plaintiffs’ third cause of action alleged violations of the Act. The plaintiffs did not follow the Act’s notification procedures and filed their lawsuit without providing McMillin with an opportunity to repair the alleged defects. Plaintiffs and McMillin attempted to negotiate a stay of the lawsuit to complete the Act’s prelitigation procedures. When talks broke down, plaintiffs dismissed the third cause of action and contended they were no longer required to follow the Act’s prelitigation procedures. McMillin filed a motion to stay with the trial court. The trial court denied McMillin’s motion concluding that under Liberty Mutual, “[plaintiffs] were entitled to plead common law causes of action in lieu of a cause of action for violation of the building standards set out in [the Act], and they were not required to submit to the prelitigation process of the Act when their complaint did not allege any cause of action for violation of the Act.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
David A. Harris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com
Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Filling Out the Contractor’s Final Payment Affidavit
February 03, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen preparing a contractor’s final payment affidavit, I always suggest for a contractor (or anyone in privity of contract with the owner) to identify the undisputed amounts their accounting reflects is owed to ALL subcontractors, etc., regardless of whether that entity preserved their lien rights. If the contractor provided a payment bond, I footnote this simply to support that none of the lower-tiered subcontractors have lien rights or are the traditional “lienor.” (Thus, there is no prejudice to the owner if an entity is inadvertently omitted from the affidavit.)
There are times, however, where a contractor does not identify a subcontractor that did not serve a notice to owner and, therefore, has no valid lien rights. Or, a contractor omits a lienor that actually did serve a notice to owner and preserve its lien rights; this happens.
There was an older First District Court of Appeals case that harshly (and, quite, unfairly) held that the contractor must identify everyone in the final payment affidavit regardless of whether that entity timely served a notice to owner or their lien is invalid. This case, however, predated, a 1998 statutory change to Florida’s Lien Law.
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
Bought a New Vacation Home? I’m So Sorry
August 13, 2014 —
Ben Steverman – BloombergSummer is a time to relax, kick back and make dumb financial decisions.
That's how financial advisers see it, when their clients get a hankering for a summer house after returning from an idyllic trip. Sales of vacation homes in the U.S. rose 30 percent last year to 717,000, the National Association of Realtors estimates, based on a survey. But owning a second home is often far more expensive and stressful than buyers, or dreamers, imagine.
Start with the dark side to beautiful weather. Sun, salt and wind are cruel to houses. One owner in Virginia Beach was shocked to learn he'd need new windows every six years. That alone wiped out an entire summer of rental income, says David O’Brien, his adviser. Storms take out roofs, docks and sea walls, replaceable only at exorbitant rates. "These properties are for family memories, not capital appreciation," O'Brien says sunnily.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ben Steverman, BloombergMr. Steverman may be contacted at
bsteverman@bloomberg.net
Are Modern Buildings Silently Killing Us?
May 16, 2022 —
Michael Rubino - Construction ExecutiveConstruction, in general, is a rapidly evolving industry as contractors, architects, and engineers are tasked with keeping up with government regulations, building practices and technological innovations. While growth and evolution are pivotal components of successful projects and businesses, it’s led to a few issues, one of which involves mold.
Like the construction industry, the world of mold is evolving as more research, understanding, and awareness develops, highlighting its prevalence in buildings and the effect it can have on the health of those exposed. What industry professionals are witnessing time and again is an increasing occurrence of individuals reaching out and asking for help after experiencing exposure that led to chronic illness. The reality is that modern buildings are contributing to this rise.
The Top of the Funnel
An issue aiding in mold’s prevalence in modern-day buildings is the way in which they are built. In an effort to achieve net-zero energy-efficient buildings, construction professionals have adopted the technique of sealing buildings as tightly as possible. While this transition reduces energy costs in the building, it also introduces a few new problems that aren't always addressed in modern construction. One such issue is how the lack of airflow between the indoor and outdoor environments can lead to a buildup of contaminant particles in the building.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Rubino, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nevada Governor Signs Construction Defect Reform Bill
February 26, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval “signed the first major Republican-backed reform bill of the 2015 session, a measure making changes to Nevada’s construction defect law.”
Sandoval stated, “During my State of the State address, I challenged the Legislature with passing meaningful construction defect reform. They have met that challenge with the Homeowner Protections Act, which discourages frivolous litigation and strengthens Nevada’s rebounding housing market,” as quoted in the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
The bill, which goes into effect immediately, “restricts the definition of what constitutes a home defect, repeals a provision allowing attorney fees and costs in a home defect judgment, and requires specific descriptions of defects.” It also reduces the statute of limitations from ten years to six years, and prohibits homeowner association boards from filing suits on behalf of homeowners.
Not all legislatures were in favor of the measure. For instance, Sen. Aaron Ford “called the measure the ‘homeowner rejection’ act rather than a homeowner protection act at a joint hearing on the bill,” according to the Las Vegas-Review Journal.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Colorado Defective Construction is Not Considered "Property Damage"
September 12, 2022 —
Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.In the July 5, 2022, case of Indian Harbor Ins. Co. v. Houston Casualty Co., the United States District Court for Colorado addressed the issue of whether damage to defectively installed balconies is considered “property damage” under Colorado law, requiring payment by a commercial general liability policy.
Facts of the Case
The case stems from a construction project where a subcontractor improperly installed balconies on an apartment complex. The owner of the project secured commercial general liability (CGL) coverage through an OCIP insured by Houston Casualty Company (HHC). The OCIP insured the general contractor and subcontractors. The general contractor also purchased a subcontractor default insurance policy insured by Indian Harbor.
All parties agreed that the subcontractor improperly installed portions of various balconies, including flashing, water-proof sealing, and water-resistant barriers, among other defects with the installation process. The parties also agreed that other portions of the balconies were properly installed. However, in order to repair the defects in the installations, every bit of each balcony had to be torn off and re-constructed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
