Contractor Haunted by “Demonized” Flooring
December 14, 2020 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogThe most un-Halloween of Halloweens has come and gone. If you ask me though, between COVID, protests, fires, hurricanes, the passing of a Supreme Court Justice, and one of the most hotly contested elections in U.S. history, we’ve had enough scares this year to make up for it and then some.
In the next case, Sieg v. Registrar of Contractors, Case No. A156089 (September 28, 2020), 1st District Court of Appeal, one contractor, haunted by “demonized” flooring, and who couldn’t catch a break even with the talisman of a release of liability signed by the homeowner, can add one more to his list of reasons why 2020 needs to be relegated to the history books.
The Sieg Case
In January 2012, homeowners Dennis and Ana Torchia purchased wood flooring for their home in Windsor, California. Specifically, they selected Brazilian Ebony, an exotic species of unusually hard wood, for its appearance and durability.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Tenth Circuit Finds Insurer Must Defend Unintentional Faulty Workmanship
December 09, 2011 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiApplying Colorado law, the Tenth Circuit found a duty to defend construction defect claims where the faulty workmanship was unintentional. Greystone Const. Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22053 (10th Cir. Nov. 1, 2011). A prior post [here] discussed the Tenth Circuit’s certified question to the Colorado Supreme Court in this matter, a request that was rejected by the Colorado court.
In two underlying cases, Greystone was sued by the homeowner for damage caused to the foundation by soil expansion. In both cases, the actual construction was performed by subcontractors. Further, in neither case was the damage intended or anticipated. Nevertheless, National Union refused to defend, contending property damage resulting from faulty construction was not an occurrence.
Relying on a Colorado Court of Appeals case, General Security Indemn. Co. of Arizona v. Mountain States Mut. Cas. Co., 205 P.3d 529 (Colo. App. 2009), the district court granted summary judgment to National Union.
On appeal, the Tenth Circuit first considered whether Colorado legislation enacted to overturn General Security could be applied retroactively. The statute, section 13-20-808, provided courts "shall presume that the work of a construction professional that results in property damage, including damage to the work itself or other work, is an accident unless the property damage is intended and expected by the insured."
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Contractor’s Burden When It Comes to Delay
October 26, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen a contractor is challenging the assessment of liquidated damages, or arguing that it is entitled to extended general conditions, the contractor bears a burden of proof to establish there were excusable delays that impacted the critical path and, in certain scenarios, the delays were not concurrent with contractor-caused delay:
When delays are excusable, a contractor is entitled to a time extension, such that the government may not assess liquidated damages for those delays. The government bears the initial burden of proving that the contractor failed to meet the contract completion date, and that the period of time for which the government assessed liquidated damages was correct. If the government makes such a showing, the burden shifts to the contractor to show that its failure to timely complete the work was excusable. To show an excusable delay, a contractor must show that the delay resulted from “unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Contractor.” “In addition, the unforeseeable cause must delay the overall contract completion; i.e., it must affect the critical path of performance.” Further, the contractor must show that there was no concurrent delay.
Ken Laster Co., ASBCA No. 61292, 2020 WL 5270322 (ASBCA 2020) (internal citations 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
Sensors for Smarter Construction – Interview with Laura Kassovic of MbientLab
November 17, 2016 —
Aarni Heiskanen – AEC BusinessI had the pleasure of interviewing Laura Kassovic, CEO and Co-founder at MbientLab Inc. We discuss how wearable technology and smart sensors can help on the construction site.
MbientLab is a technology company headquartered in San Francisco, California. It was started about four years ago by a team of engineers who are experts in sensors and machine learning. MbientLab develops wearable technology and also does manufacturing in the USA and Asia.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aarni@aepartners.fi
Homeowners Sued for Failing to Disclose Defects
December 30, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Madison-St. Clair Record reports that a Wisconsin homeowner has sued the former owners of her home, alleging that they failed to disclose a defect. According to the lawsuit, David and Doris Stephens informed Jennifer Davies that a basement window well had previously leaked, but that the problem had been fixed and not recurred in three years. Ms. Davies had problems with the leaks after she moved in.
And while the window was the only defect the Stepehenses reported, Ms. Davies found problems with the home’s heating and air conditioning as well. Though she paid only $112,000 for the home, Ms. Davies is suing for $400,000 for the repairs, loss of property value, and the court fees.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
SB 939 Proposes Moratorium On Unlawful Detainer Actions For Commercial Tenants And Allows Tenants Who Can't Renegotiate Their Lease In Good Faith To Terminate Their Lease Without Liability
June 01, 2020 —
Rhonda Kreger – Newmeyer DillionSB 939 is currently working its way through the Senate Judiciary Committee. The legislation would impose new obligations on landlords, and provide protections for commercial tenants who meet specified criteria. SB 939 would impose a moratorium on eviction of those qualified commercial tenants while emergency COVID-19 orders are in effect. Any eviction actions commenced after the date of the emergency COVID-19 order, but before the adoption of SB 939, would be void and unenforceable. The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing for SB 939 on May 22, 2020, at 9:00 a.m.
Who qualifies as a commercial tenant under SB 939?
To qualify under this legislation, a commercial tenant must be a business that operates primarily in California. The commercial tenant must be a small business, nonprofit, an eating or drinking establishment, place of entertainment, or performance venue. Publicly traded companies or any company owned by, or affiliated with a publicly traded company, do not qualify. The commercial tenant must have experienced a decline of at least 40 percent monthly revenue, either as compared to two months before the emergency COVID-19 order, or other local government shelter-in-place orders took effect, or as compared to the same month in 2019. If the commercial tenant is an eating or drinking establishment, place of entertainment, or performance venue, the commercial tenant must also show a decline of 25 percent or more in capacity due to social or physical distancing orders or safety concerns, and show that it is subject to regulations to prevent the spread of COVID-19 that will financially impair the business when compared to the period before the emergency COVID-19 order or other local shelter-in-place orders took effect.
What eviction actions are prohibited while emergency COVID-19 orders are in effect?
If adopted, SB 939 would add Section 1951.9 to the Civil Code. This section would make it unlawful to terminate a tenancy, serve notice to terminate a tenancy, use lockout or utility shutoff actions to terminate a tenancy or otherwise evict a tenant of commercial real property, including a business or nonprofit, during the pendency of the COVID-19 emergency order proclaimed by Governor Newsome on March 4, 2020. Exceptions apply if a tenant poses a threat to the property, other tenants or a person, business or other entity. Any violations of this eviction prohibition would be against public policy and unenforceable.
Any eviction started after proclamation of the state of emergency but before the effective date is deemed void, against public policy and is unenforceable.
Does SB 939 impose new penalties or remedies?
Any landlord who harasses, mistreats or retaliates against a commercial tenant to force the tenant to abrogate the lease would be subject to a fine of $2,000 for each violation. Further, any such violation would be an unlawful business practice and an act of unfair competition under Section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code and would be subject to all available remedies or penalties for those actions under state law.
When is a commercial tenant required to pay unpaid rent due to COVID-19?
If a commercial tenant fails to pay rent during the emergency COVID-19 order, the sum total of the past due rent must be paid within 12 months following the date of the end of the emergency proclamation, unless the commercial tenant has successfully negotiated an agreement with its landlord to pay the outstanding rent at a later date. Nonpayment of rent during the state of emergency cannot be used as grounds for eviction. Notwithstanding lease terms to the contrary, landlords may not impose late charges for rent that became due during the state of emergency.
Are landlords required to provide notice of protections adopted under SB 939?
Landlords would be required to provide notice to commercial tenants of the protections offered under SB 939 within 30 days of the effective date. SB 939 does not preempt local legislation or ordinances restricting the same or similar conduct which impose a more severe penalty for the same conduct. Local legislation or ordinances may impose additional notice requirements.
Does SB 939 impose new protections for commercial tenants when negotiating lease modifications?
If enacted, SB 939 would permit commercial tenants to open negotiations for new lease terms, and provide commercial tenants the ability to terminate the lease if those negotiations fail. A commercial tenant who wishes to modify its commercial lease, may engage in good faith negotiations with its landlord to modify any rent or economic requirement regardless of the term remaining on the lease. The commercial tenant must serve a notice on the landlord certifying that it meets the required criteria, along with the desired modifications.
If the commercial tenant and landlord do not reach a mutually satisfactory agreement within 30 days, then within 10 days, the commercial tenant may terminate the lease without any liability for future rent, fees, or costs that otherwise may have been due under the lease by providing a written termination notice to the landlord. The commercial tenant would be required to pay previously due rent, in an amount no greater than the sum of the following: (1) the actual rent due during the emergency COVID-19 order, or a maximum of three months of the past due rent during that period, and (2) all rent incurred and unpaid during a time unrelated to the emergency COVID-19 order through the date of the termination notice. The payment is due within 12 months from date of the termination notice. The commercial tenant would be required to vacate the premises within 14 days of the landlord's receipt of the termination notice. Upon service of the notice, any lease, and any third party guaranties of the lease would terminate. If the landlord and commercial tenant reach an agreement to modify the lease, the commercial tenant would not have the option to later terminate the lease under this provision.
When is the next Senate Judiciary Committee Meeting for SB 939?
The Senate Judiciary Committee set a hearing for SB 939 on May 22, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. The Senate will livestream the hearing on its website at www.sen.ca.gov. Public comments or testimony may be submitted in writing to the Judiciary Committee by emailing Erica.porter@sen.ca.gov. Alternatively, the public may participate via telephone during the public comment period. Any changes to the Judicial Committee schedule may be found at: https://www.senate.ca.gov/calendar.
Newmeyer Dillion continues to follow COVID-19 and its impact on your business and our communities. Feel free to reach out to us at NDcovid19response@ndlf.com or visit us at www.newmeyerdillion.com/covid-19-multidisciplinary-task-force/.
Rhonda Kreger is Senior Counsel on Newmeyer Dillion's transactional team at our Newport Beach office. Her practice focuses on all aspects of commercial real estate law, with a particular emphasis on the representation of residential developers, merchant builders and institutional investors. You can reach Rhonda at rhonda.kreger@ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Does Stricter Decertification Mean More “Leedigation?”
August 04, 2015 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsRecently, my friend and fellow construction attorney/consultant, Chris Cheatham (@chrischeatham) posted the news that USGBC will be more stringent on the de-certification front. This statement relates to the continued energy performance of LEED certified buildings and increases the likelihood that energy performance (as opposed to mere reporting) could lead to de-certification.
I have discussed on several occasions the potential legal risks relating to green building. One of the big potential sources for such litigation (or “leedigation” as coined by Mr. Cheatham) is the possible de-certification of a previously certified building. With this latest statement by USGBC the specter of such de-certification seems even stronger.
Couple this potential with the fact that anyone can challenge the certification of a building at any time and contractors, subcontractors and other construction professionals face potential liability for the performance of a building in ways well beyond their control.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PCMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Class Action Certification by Association for “Matters of Common Interest”
August 24, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesAssociations have authority to pursue as a class, on behalf of all of their respective members, lawsuits “concerning members of common interest to the members.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.221. This includes, but is not limited to, the common property or the areas in which the association is responsible. But, what about matters or elements for which the association is not responsible or does not own? For example, issues or damages relative to a specific unit or owner that are prevalent throughout?
The Third District Court of Appeal addressed this question in Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. Latitude on the River Condominium Association, Inc., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D1518a (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) when in affirmed a class certification by a condominium association relating to the removal and replacement of the condominium building’s defective fire sprinkler system. In affirming the class certification by the condominium association, the Third District maintained:
Rule 1.221 expressly authorizes condominium associations to “institute, maintain, settle, or appeal actions or hearings in its name on behalf of all association members concerning matters of common interest to the members.” “[A]s to controversies affecting the matters of common interest . . ., the condominium association, without more, should be construed to represent the class composed of its members as a matter of law.” “[T]he common interest provision of the rule has been interpreted to permit a class action by the association for a construction defect located physically within a unit, rather than in the common elements, if the defect is prevalent throughout the building.” We, therefore, cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in finding that damages resulting from the replacement of the fire-sprinkler system throughout the building were a matter of common interest for purposes of certification at this stage of the litigation.
Allied Tube and Conduit Corp, supra (internal citations 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
