Mortgage Bonds Stare Down End of Fed Easing as Gains Persist
October 29, 2014 —
Jody Shenn – BloombergThe end of the Federal Reserve’s third round of bond purchases is proving to be a non-event for mortgage-backed debt.
That’s partly because even though the U.S. central bank won’t be adding more home-loan securities to its balance sheet, policy makers will still be buying enough to prevent its holdings from shrinking. Those purchases are having a greater impact as the pace of net issuance slows to a quarter of the amount last year amid a weaker property market.
The $5.4 trillion market for government-backed mortgage bonds is defying predictions for a slump tied to the wind-down of the Fed stimulus program, whose completion economists predict will be announced today. Yields on benchmark Fannie Mae (FNMA) notes have shrunk 0.14 percentage point this year relative to government debt, narrowing to within 1.09 percentage points of an average of five- and 10-year Treasury rates.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jody Shenn, BloombergMs. Shenn may be contacted at
jshenn@bloomberg.net
Meet the Forum's In-House Counsel: ERIN CANNON-WELLS
June 26, 2023 —
Jessica Knox - The Dispute ResolverCompany: Keller North America, Inc.
Email: ecannon@keller-na.com
Website: https://www.keller-na.com/
Under Grad: University of Delaware (Bachelor of Civil Engineering 2000)
Grad School: The University of Texas (Master of Civil Engineering 2002)
Law School: Howard University (JD 2008)
States Where Company Operates/Does Business: Throughout the US and Canada
Q: Describe your background and the path you took to becoming in-house counsel.
A: I studied civil engineering in undergrad and finally found my "calling" when I took a construction course, prompting me to pursue a master's in construction engineering. I started my career at Turner, holding various engineering positions, the last of which introduced me to the "contracting" side of construction. I was inspired to go to law school (in hopes of becoming an in-house lawyer there). After law school, I joined BigLaw, but maintained my desire to practice construction law. I then jumped to a small construction practice group at a mid-size firm, and the mentoring and experience there was everything I could hope for (but for the looming business development and billable hour requirements). From there, I became the sole in-house counsel for a large cement manufacturer and was a true construction generalist. Now I am part of a great legal team for a leading geotechnical specialty contractor. My moves were strategic, and I'm pleased to say that this is the very career I went to law school to have.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jessica Knox, Stinson LLPMs. Knox may be contacted at
jessica.knox@stinson.com
The Privette Doctrine and Its Exceptions: Court of Appeal Grapples With the Easy and Not So Easy
November 18, 2024 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIn
CBRE v. Superior Court, 102 Cal.App.5th 639 (2024), the 4th District Court of Appeal grappled with a thorny and not-so-thorny issue involving injured parties under the Privette doctrine. The less thorny issue was whether application of the Privette doctrine depends on whether a written contract exists between the parties. Spoiler: It does not. The thorny issue was whether the Hooker exception to the Privette doctrine – which applies when a landowner exercises control over a project – should apply where a landowner directs a contractor to perform work that is at odds with legal requirements.
The CBRE Case
Property Reserve, Inc. owns an office building managed by CBRE in San Diego, California. On April 9, 2019, PRI entered into a lease agreement with a new tenant for a suite in the building. The lease required that PRI perform certain tenant improvements.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
New York Court Rules on Architect's Duty Under Contract and Tort Principles
November 05, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP's blog, in a recent case, "which involved a five story expansion/conversion of an existing one story commercial building located in Brooklyn, New York," the architect was retained with obligations among five construction phases. Later, the condominium board alleged that construction defects existed and filed suit against contractors, engineers, and the architect.
The Court granted the Architect's motion to dismiss the complaint, holding "that the allegations of negligence under the circumstances were based on construction defects and 'as such, sound in breach of contract rather than tort.' This was so, even though plaintiff alleged 'breach of a duty of care,' a traditional tort liability concept. The Court dismissed the breach of contract claim as well, holding that a 'successor in interest' argument should not be permitted to erode the firmly established privity requirement for an architect’s contract-based liability."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THAT THE RIGHT TO REPAIR ACT (SB800) IS THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CLAIMS NOT INVOLVING PERSONAL INJURIES WHETHER OR NOT THE UNDERLYING DEFECTS GAVE RISE TO ANY PROPERTY DAMAGE in McMillin Albany LL
January 24, 2018 —
Chapman, Glucksman, Dean, Roeb, & BargerRICHARD H. GLUCKSMAN, ESQ.
GLENN T. BARGER, ESQ.
JON A. TURIGLIATTO, ESQ.
DAVID A. NAPPER, ESQ.
The Construction Industry finally has its answer. The California Supreme Court ruled that the Right to Repair Act (SB800) is the exclusive remedy for construction defect claims alleged to have resulted from economic loss, property damage, or both. Our office has closely tracked the matter since its infancy. The California Supreme Court’s holding resolves the split of authority presented by the Fifth Appellate District’s holding in
McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132, which outright rejected the Fourth Appellate District’s holding in
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98.
By way of background, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held in
Liberty Mutual that compliance with SB800’s pre-litigation procedures prior to initiating litigation is only required for defect claims involving violations of SB800’s building standards that have not yet resulted in actual property damage. Where damage has occurred, a homeowner may initiate litigation under common law causes of action without first complying with the pre-litigation procedures set forth in SB800. Two years later, the Fifth District Court of Appeal, in
McMillin Albany, held that the California Legislature intended that all claims arising out of defects in new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003 are subject to the standards and requirements of the Right to Repair Act, including specifically the requirement that notice be provided to the builder prior to filing a lawsuit. Thus, the Court of Appeal ruled that SB800 is the exclusive remedy for all defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003.
After extensive examination of the text and legislative history of the Right to Repair Act, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s ruling that SB800 preempts common law claims for property damage. The Complaint at issue alleged construction defects causing both property damage and economic loss. After filing the operative Complaint, the homeowners dismissed the SB800 cause of action and took the position that the Right to Repair Act was adopted to provide a remedy for construction defects causing only economic loss and therefore SB800 did not alter preexisting common law remedies in cases where actual property damage or personal injuries resulted. The builder maintained that SB800 and its pre-litigation procedures still applied in this case where actually property damages were alleged to have occurred.
The Supreme Court found that the text and legislative history reflect a clear and unequivocal intent to supplant common law negligence and strict product liability actions with a statutory claim under the Right to Repair Act. Specifically the text reveals “…an intent to create not merely
a remedy for construction defects but
the remedy.” Additionally certain clauses set forth in SB800 “…evinces a clear intent to displace, in whole or in part, existing remedies for construction defects.” Not surprisingly, the Court confirmed that personal injury damages are expressly not recoverable under SB800, which actually assisted the Court in analyzing the intent of the statutory scheme. The Right to Repair Act provides that construction defect claims not involving personal injury will be treated the same procedurally going forward whether or not the underlying defects gave rise to any property damage.
The Supreme Court further found that the legislative history of SB800 confirms that displacement of parts of the existing remedial scheme was “…no accident, but rather a considered choice to reform construction defect litigation.” Further emphasizing how the legislative history confirms what the statutory text reflects, the Supreme Court offered the following summary: “the Act was designed as a broad reform package that would substantially change existing law by displacing some common law claims and substituting in their stead a statutory cause of action with a mandatory pre-litigation process.” As a result, the Supreme Court ordered that the builder is entitled to a stay and the homeowners are required to comply with the pre-litigation procedures set forth in the Right to Repair Act before their lawsuit may proceed.
The seminal ruling by the California Supreme Court shows great deference to California Legislature and the “major stakeholders on all sides of construction defect litigation” who participated in developing SB800. A significant win for builders across the Golden State, homeowners unequivocally must proceed via SB800 for all construction defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003. We invite you to contact us should you have any questions.
Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys
Richard Glucksman,
Glenn Barger,
Jon Turigliatto and
David Napper
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Barger may be contacted at gbarger@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Turgliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Beth Cook Expands Insurance Litigation Team at Payne & Fears
September 30, 2024 —
Beth A. Cook - Payne & FearsBeth Cook has joined Payne & Fears LLP as Counsel in the firm’s Insurance Litigation Group. With 18 years of legal experience, Beth brings a wealth of knowledge to her practice, focusing on insurance coverage and litigation.
“We are excited to welcome Beth to P&F! She brings a great deal of experience to our Insurance Litigation Group as we continue to grow the practice group,” said Sarah Odia, the group’s co-chair. “We look forward to working with Beth and welcome her fresh perspectives.”
Get to Know Beth
What activities do you enjoy outside of work?
Travel, sporting events, movies, craft breweries, and wineries.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Beth A. Cook, Payne & FearsMs. Cook may be contacted at
bac@paynefears.com
Illinois Court of Appeals Addresses What It Means to “Reside” in Property for Purposes of Coverage
July 16, 2023 —
James M. Eastham - Traub LiebermanIn Dardar v. Farmers Auto. Ins. Ass'n, 2023 IL App ( 5th ) 220357-U, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals addressed an insured’s suit against her property insurer after the carrier denied coverage for a fire loss. The property in question was inherited by the Plaintiff from her brother and was in the process of being renovated at the time of the fire loss. After the fire, the Plaintiff’s homeowners carrier denied the claim on the grounds that the Plaintiff was not occupying the property at the time of the fire and was therefore not covered under the terms of the policy. It was undisputed that the Plaintiffs never lived in or physically occupied the home. Correspondingly, the carrier denied the claim on the basis that the policy only covered the Plaintiff’s "residence premises," which was defined as: (1) the one-family dwelling where you reside; (2) the two, three, or four-family dwelling where you reside in at least one of the units; or (3) that part of any other building in which you reside. The carrier determined that the Plaintiff did not “reside” at the property and therefore were not covered under the policy terms.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James M. Eastham, Traub LiebermanMr. Eastham may be contacted at
jeastham@tlsslaw.com
Fifth Circuit Finds Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case
March 14, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiReversing the judgment of the district court, the Fifth Circuit found the insurer owed a defense in a construction defect case. Siplast, Inc. v. Emplrs Mut. Cas. Co., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 795 (5th Cir. Jan. 11, 2022).
The Archdiocese of New York sued various parties for a roofing project at a high school in the Bronx. Siplast, the roofing manufacturer, was included as a defendant. The underlying lawsuit arose from the Archdiocese purchase of a roof membrane system from Siplast. Siplast guaranteed that the roof membrane system would remain "in a watertight condition for a period of 20 years . . . or Siplast will repair the Roof Membrane System at its own expense."
After installation of the roof, school officials noticed water damage in the ceiling tiles throughout the school after a rain storm. Siplast attempted to repair the damage, but was unsuccessful. Siplast later informed the Archdiocese that the guarantee would not be honored regarding any permanent improvements of the roof. The Archdiocese filed suit against Siplast and the installing contractor. The cause of action against Siplast was for breach of the guarantee.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
