Tort Claims Against an Alter Ego May Be Considered an Action “On a Contract” for the Purposes of an Attorneys’ Fees Award under California Civil Code section 1717
April 12, 2021 —
Tony Carucci - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogCalifornia Civil Code section 1717 entitles the prevailing party to attorneys’ fees “[i]n any action on a contract,” where the contract provides for an award of attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party, regardless of whether the prevailing party is the party specified in the contract or not. But what about an action that alleges tort causes of action against an alter ego of a contracting party but that does not include a breach of contract claim against the alter ego? This was the question facing the California Court of Appeal in 347 Group, Inc. v. Philip Hawkins Architect, Inc. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 209.
In that case, the plaintiff 347 Group sued and obtained a default judgment for breach of contract against defendant Philip Hawkins Architect, Inc. Id. at 211–12. 347 Group had also sued Philip Hawkins individually as well as Design-Build, Inc., the company Hawkins founded after putting Philip Hawkins Architect, Inc. into bankruptcy. Id. at 212. 347 Group originally alleged claims for breach of contract, fraudulent conveyance, and conspiracy against Hawkins and Design-Build, seeking to establish that Hawkins and Design-Build were the alter egos of the contracting party, Philip Hawkins Architect, Inc., but later dismissed the breach of contract claim. Id. Hawkins and Design-Build eventually prevailed on the tort causes of action, and moved for attorneys’ fees. Id.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tony Carucci, Snell & WilmerMr. Carucci may be contacted at
acarucci@swlaw.com
General Contractor’s Professional Malpractice/Negligence Claim Against Design Professional
November 30, 2017 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent case supports a professional malpractice (negligence) claim by a general contractor against a design professional by reversing a trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the design professional and finding a question of fact remained as to an architect’s role in the renovation of a public construction project. By the appellate court finding that a question of fact remained, the appellate court was finding that it was a triable issue, which is exactly what the general contractor wanted in this case. Getting this issue and the facts to the jury is the leverage the general contractor presumably wanted.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
Housing Stocks Rally at End of November
December 04, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe homebuilding industry had something to be thankful for this year. In a report on stocks issued just before the Thanksgiving holiday, Standard Pacific Group and Toll Brothers where outperforming the S&P 500 (Gafisa S.A., a Brazilian firm that trades on the New York Stock Exchange also outperformed the index). Both of the U.S. firms traded about their 50-day moving averages. A third U.S. home builder, The Ryland Group, traded above its 50-day moving average, but did not outperform the S&P 500.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Significant Victory for the Building Industry: Liberty Mutual is Rejected Once Again, This Time by the Third Appellate District in Holding SB800 is the Exclusive Remedy
December 15, 2016 —
Richard H. Glucksman & Ravi R. Mehta – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Bulletin I. Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court (Certified for Publication, Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016
The California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District recently elaborated on the scope of the Right to Repair Act, commonly known as SB-800 (“Act”). In
Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (Kevin Hicks, et al.) (certified for publication, Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016), the Court considered whether the Act (and specifically the Act’s pre-litigation procedure) applies, when homeowners plead construction defect claims based only on common law causes of action, as opposed to violations of the building standards set forth in the Act (
Civil Code §896). The Court answered this question affirmatively.
The homeowners of seventeen (17) single-family homes filed a Complaint against the builder of their homes, Elliott Homes, Inc. (“Elliott”), alleging common law causes of action for construction defects. Elliott filed a motion to stay the litigation on the ground that the homeowners failed to comply with the pre-litigation procedure set forth in the Act. The trial court denied the motion, agreeing with the homeowners that this pre-litigation procedure did not apply because the homeowners had not alleged a statutory violation of the Act. Elliott appealed. The Court of Appeal purely considered the question of whether the Act, including its pre-litigation procedure, applies when a homeowner pleads construction defect claims based on common law causes of action, and not on statutory violations of the Act’s building standards.
To answer this question, the Court analyzed a recent case decided by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District:
Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98. In this subrogation case, a builder’s insurer asserted common law causes of action (but not statutory building standard violations) alleging construction defects against the builder to recover amounts paid to the homeowner after a sprinkler system failure caused extensive damage to the subject property. The trial court sustained the builder’s demurrer to the Complaint on the ground that it was time-barred under the Act. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order, holding that common law construction defect claims arising from actual damages are not covered by the Act because “the Act does not provide the exclusive remedy in cases where actual damage has occurred.” (
Liberty Mutual, 219 Cal.App.4th 98, 109).
The
Elliott Court declined to follow
Liberty Mutual, finding that that Court failed to properly analyze the language of the Act. The
Elliott Court analyzed both the statutory scheme and the legislative history of the Act to arrive at the conclusion that common law causes of action for construction defects do indeed fall within the purview of the Act.
According to the
Elliott Court, the Act “broadly applies to
any action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in…residential construction and in such an action, a homeowner’s claims or causes of action shall be limited to violation of the standards set forth in the Act, except as specified.” Further, the Act expressly provides that “no other cause of action for a claim covered by this title or for damages recoverable under Section 944 is allowed.”
Civil Code §943(a). In turn,
Civil Code §944 allows for a recovery for the cost of repairing a building standard violation, or for the cost of repairing any damage caused by such a violation, among other things.
The limited exceptions to the Act’s applicability concern the enforcement of a contract, or any action for fraud, personal injury, or violation of a statute. Civil Code §943(a). Additionally, the Act does not apply to condominium conversions. Civil Code §896.
The Elliott Court explains that apart from these exceptions, the Legislature intended the Act to apply to all construction defect claims (regardless of damage) relating to the construction of residential properties whose sales contracts are signed after January 1, 2003. There is no exception in the Act, express or implied, for common law causes of action.
Next, the Court turns to the Act’s legislative history to buttress this conclusion. This history makes clear that the Act is a legislative response to the California Supreme Court’s holding in
Aas v. Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal.4th 627, that construction defects in residential properties are only actionable in tort when actual property damage manifests. Senate Judiciary Committee hearings indicate that the Act was the product of protracted negotiations between varying interested parties, including construction industry trade groups and consumer protection groups. The Legislature intended (1) to promulgate building standards, violations of which would be actionable, even without damage, and (2) to allow homeowners to recover for actual damage caused by construction defects not covered by the building standards. In other words, the Act was intended to provide homeowners redress regardless of whether damage had manifested.
Therefore, the Court concluded that common law causes of action for construction defects, regardless of damage, are subject to the pre-litigation procedure set forth in the Act. The Court issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its earlier order, and to enter a new order granting Elliott’s motion to stay the litigation until the homeowners (and Elliott) have satisfied the pre-litigation procedure of the Act.
II. McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132
Similar to the Third Appellate District Court’s ruling in
Elliott, the Fifth Appellate District Court also rejected the holding of
Liberty Mutual in a matter now pending before the California Supreme Court:
McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132 (review granted and opinion superseded sub nom.
Albany v. Superior Court 360 P.3d 1022). Also similar to
Elliott, in
McMillin a group of homeowners filed common law construction defect claims against the builder of their homes. The builder,
McMillin, moved to stay the litigation pending compliance with the Act’s pre-litigation procedure. The trial court denied the motion, holding that the Act does not apply because the homeowners have not asserted statutory building standard violations contained within the Act.
In reasoning substantially similar to that of
Elliott, the
McMillin Court rejected Liberty Mutual’s holding that the Act is not the exclusive remedy for pursuing construction defect claims, with or without damage. Thus, the
McMillin Court issued a writ of mandate to vacate the trial court’s earlier order and to enter a new order granting McMillin’s motion to stay.
On November 24, 2015, the California Supreme Court granted the homeowners’ petition for review. In August of 2016, briefing was completed and the matter is now awaiting the scheduling of arguments. CGDRB will continue to closely monitor the pending appeal of this matter to the California Supreme Court, as well as all related developments.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Ravi R. Mehta, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Mehta may be contacted at rmehta@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Editorial: Qatar Is Champion of Safety Hypocrisy in Migrant Worker Deaths
December 26, 2022 —
ENR Editorial Board - Engineering News-RecordOnce the World Cup soccer tournament concludes, decency dictates that someone should put a wrecking ball to Qatar’s Al Bayt and Lusail stadiums, where the opening ceremonies and matches were held. There’s no polite way to say it: bulldozing the World Cup sports facilities is the only way to amplify to the world the cost in migrant construction workers lives in all that was constructed.
Reprinted courtesy of
ENR Editorial Board, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Alabama Supreme Court States Faulty Workmanship can be an Occurrence
July 16, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFCarl A. Salisbury of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP in his Lexology article, stated that “it is now official and final: Alabama is no longer one of the outlier jurisdictions on the issue of coverage for faulty workmanship.”
In the case Owners v. Jim Carr Homebuilders, in September 2013 the Alabama Supreme Court had “sided with insurers in holding that construction defects can never be accidental and, therefore, can never be covered by Commercial General Liability insurance.” However, in March “the Court withdrew that decision and reversed course,” holding “that faulty workmanship can, in fact, constitute a covered ‘occurrence,’ which CGL policies define as ‘an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to the same generally harmful conditions.’”
“This is obviously good news for construction contractors that do work in the state of Alabama,” Salisbury stated. “It is also good news for policyholders in general as it continues the strong trend among state high courts that have been finding in favor of coverage in this important area of insurance law.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Firm Settles Suit Over 2012 Calif. Wildfire
January 15, 2019 —
Associated Press - Engineering News-RecordSACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Officials say a construction company and a logging firm have collectively agreed to pay $9 million for damages resulting from a 2012 wildfire that burned more than 1,600 acres of national forest land in Northern California.
The U.S. Attorney's office in Sacramento says Monday that the agreement settles a lawsuit brought by the federal government against Kernen Construction and Bundy & Sons Logging.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Engineering News-RecordENR may be contacted at
ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Ruling Finds Builder and Owners at Fault in Construction Defect Case
December 30, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFA Minnesota home owners association has been found 30liable for some of the damage to their homes in a jury trial. The Interlachen Propertyowners Association made a claim of construction defects against Keupers Architects and Builders who had constructed the 24-unit town home complex. According to the association’s lawyer, the half-log siding was improperly installed, leading to water intrusion and rot.
The jury did find for the homeowners on the construction defect claim, but found on a claim of negligent repairs that the association was 30% at fault, due to insufficient maintenance of the building. “We don’t think any amount of maintenance would have saved these buildings,” said Jason Tarasek, the lawyer for the association. The association is likely to appeal.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
