Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

In Supreme Court Showdown, California Appeals Courts Choose Sides Regarding Whether Right to Repair Act is Exclusive Remedy for Homeowners

August 10, 2017 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Earlier, we wrote about an appellate court split concerning the Right to Repair Act (Civil Code sections 895 et seq.) which applies to construction defects in newly constructed residential properties including single-family homes and condominiums (but not condominium conversions) sold after January 1, 2003. The California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District, in Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98, held that the Right to Repair Act does not provide the exclusive remedy when pursing claims for construction defects involving “actual” property damage (e.g., a defectively constructed roof causing actual physical damage due to water intrusion as opposed to a defectively constructed roof that while constructed improperly does not cause actual physical damage). However, the California Court of Appeals for the Fifth District, in McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132, which is currently pending before the California Supreme Court, held that the Right to Repair Act does in fact provide the exclusive remedy when pursuing claims for construction defects whether they involve “actual” property damage or merely “economic” damages. For homeowners, they would prefer the option of pursuing remedies under either or both the Right to Repair Act (which includes detailed pre-litigation procedures and statutory construction standards) or under common law claims such as negligence (which do not include pre-litigation procedures and have more flexible standards of care). The California Court of Appeals for the Third District has now thrown its hat into the ring . . . on the side of McMillan. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Ensuring Arbitration in Construction Defect Claims

February 04, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Jared E. Berg and John W. Mill of Sherman & Howard note that developers and general contractors would prefer that construction defect claims against them go to arbitration, instead of ending up in front of a jury. They say “there is a way to do this.” For the developer and general contractor, arbitration is “typically less costly and time consuming than litigation.” On the other side, home owner associations “tend to prefer litigation because the up-front costs of arbitration are greater and they would rather have their cases tried to a jury than a panel of arbitrators in the belief juries offer greater potential for high damage awards. In order to avoid arbitration, “HOAs have taken advantage of their statutory rights to amend declarations by instructing their members to approve amendments removing arbitration clauses. However, in a recent Colorado case, the developer had taken a precaution of including in the arbitration clauses that “they could not be removed from the declarations by amendment with the developer’s and general contractor’s consent.” The homeowners association had voted to remove these clauses, but the judge found that they could not do so. Berg and Mill give the advice to “include in the declaration’s arbitration clause a provision making your consent required to amend or nullify the arbitration provision,” adding that “courts will enforce this kind of consent provision.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Hawaiian Electric Finalizes $2 Billion Maui Fire Settlement

November 18, 2024 — Mark Chediak - Bloomberg
Hawaiian Electric Industries formalized a $2 billion agreement to settle damage claims from a wildfire that razed the historic town of Lahaina and killed more than 100 people. The utility-owner had reached a tentative agreement in August in which it, along with other defendants including the state of Hawaii, Maui County and landowners, would pay $4 billion to resolve hundreds of lawsuits stemming from last year’s wildfire, according to a filing Tuesday. The settlements don’t resolve claims with insurers that are part of separate lawsuits. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mark Chediak, Bloomberg

California Supreme Court Confirms the Right to Repair Act as the Exclusive Remedy for Seeking Relief for Defects in New Residential Construction

February 22, 2018 — Brenda Radmacher – Construction Law Blog

The California Supreme Court recently issued its decision on a critical issue in the residential construction industry – the claims for construction defects that a California homeowner can bring against a builder or seller of new residential properties in California.

Holding

In McMillin Albany v. The Superior Court of Kern County, the Court held that California’s Right to Repair Act (California Civil Code, sections 895, et seq.) (the “Act”) is the exclusive remedy for homeowners claiming defective construction of new residences in California.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brenda Radmacher, Gordon & Rees
Ms. Radmacher may be contacted at bradmacher@grsm.com

CDJ’s #3 Topic of the Year: Burch v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 223 Cal.App.4th 1411 (2014)

December 31, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In 2013, the case Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC received a great deal of attention for its possible ramifications to how California’s Right to Repair Act (also known as SB 800) could be applied. However, 2014 had its share of SB 800 policy trends, most notably caused by the ruling in Burch. In their article, “Construction Law Client Alert: California’s Right to Repair Act (SB 800) Takes Another Hit, Then Fights Back,” authors Steven M. Cvitanovic and Whitney L. Stefco, of Haight Brown & Bonesteel, analyzed Burch as well as KB Home Greater Los Angeles v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, et al., both cases that had ramifications on how California’s Right to Repair Act is applied. Read the full story... Karen L. Moore of Low, Ball & Lynch discussed the Liberty Mutual and Burch cases in her article, “California’s Right to Repair Act is Not a Homeowner’s Exclusive Remedy when Construction Defects cause Actual Property Damage.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Be Careful How You Terminate: Terminating for Convenience May Limit Your Future Rights

January 19, 2017 — Brett M. Hill - Ahlers & Cressman, PLLC Blog
Many construction contracts contain a termination clause that allows a contractor to be terminated either for convenience or for cause. Termination for convenience and termination for cause clauses have been discussed previously on the blog here, here and here. The distinction between a termination for convenience or for cause is an important one. If a contractor is terminated for convenience, the rights of the party who has terminated the contractor for convenience could be limited in the future. This is specifically true as to any defects in the terminated contractor’s work that are discovered after the termination for convenience. This issue was addressed in an Oregon Court of Appeals case where a general contractor attempted to recover costs incurred in correcting a terminated subcontractor’s work after the subcontractor was terminated for convenience. Shelter Prods. v. Steel Wood Constr., Inc., 257 Or. App 382 (2013). In that case, the subcontractor sued the general contractor for its termination expenses. The general contractor asserted an offset/backcharge claim for damages incurred by the general contractor in correcting the subcontractor’s defective work. The general contractor had incurred the costs after it had terminated the subcontractor. The general contractor did not notify the subcontractor that its work was defective and did not give the subcontractor an opportunity to cure before the repairs were completed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brett M. Hill, Ahlers & Cressman, PLLC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at bhill@ac-lawyers.com

Construction Contract Basics: No Damages for Delay

May 06, 2024 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
After WAY too long a hiatus, I am back with another in my series of “Construction Contract Basics” posts. In past posts, I’ve covered venue provisions, attorney fee provisions, and indemnity clauses. In this post, I’ll share a few thoughts (or “musings”) on the topic of so-called “no damages for delay” clauses. These clauses essentially state that a subcontractor’s only remedy for a delay caused by any factor beyond its control (including the fault of the general contractor), after proper notice to the owner or general contractor, is an extension of time to complete the work. These types of clauses generally make it impossible for a subcontractor (if found in a Subcontract) or Contractor (if found in a Prime Contract) that is delayed through no fault of its own to recover any damages relating to the expenses that are inevitably caused by such delays. Such expenses/damages could include additional supervisory time (including more high-dollar superintendent payments), acceleration costs, demobilization/mobilization costs, and other related expenses. These can add up to real money. Couple that with the inevitable liquidated damages or delay damages that will occur should a contractor or subcontractor cause any delay, and this becomes a very one-sided proposition. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

PSA: Virginia DOLI Amends COVID Workplace Standard

October 18, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
As the governmental response to COVID-19 evolves, so do the various standards that apply to employers. Effective September 8, 2021, the Virginia Department of Labor and Industry superseded its earlier permanent workplace standard with a new standard. In many ways, the new standard simplifies compliance because it gets rid of what I believed to be overly confusing workplace classifications into risk levels and simply applies the new standard to all workplaces regardless of how they would have been classified. Some key points to keep in mind regarding the new standard are the following (with the recommendation that all employers read and understand the text of the standard):

Masks: All unvaccinated employees must wear masks in all public, common, or shared workspaces with certain exceptions. These exceptions include when an employee is alone in a room/office, when eating, certain medical conditions, and where it is important that the mouth can be seen (such as communication with the deaf). Vaccinated employees need not mask up unless working in a high or substantially transmission area per the CDC Data Tracker.
Vaccination Requirement: As of now, the DOLI does not require employee vaccinations. However, employers will need to have a way to determine vaccination status to comply with other parts of the standard.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES