Texas Shortens Its Statute of Repose To 6 Years, With Limitations
October 02, 2023 —
Jason Daniel Feld & Roni Most - Kahana FeldEffective June 9, 2023, Texas has shortened its statute of repose from the existing 10-year statute for builders of new homes to 6-years under specific conditions. The significantly shorter statute of repose bars suits against construction contractors of detached one-and two-family homes and townhomes, filed six years after the substantial completion of such homes, where the contractor also furnished a written warranty in compliance with the statute. Notably, projects including apartments, mixed-use, and hotels are not covered by the new law. It is also noted that a grey area in the law exists as to whether condominiums will be covered by the statute. The statute of repose strictly bars the filing of any action, claim or arbitration demand regardless of when the injury was actually discovered (latent defects) and is separate and distinct from any applicable statute of limitations.
The New Texas Statute of Repose Law
Under the
Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 16.009, persons who construct or repair improvements to real property cannot be sued for defective or unsafe conditions of the property or deficiencies in the construction or repair of the improvement later than 10 years after substantial completion of the improvement, except in certain narrow circumstances. This statute is known as the “statute of repose.” The statute applies not only to suits for construction defects, but also personal injury, wrongful death, contribution, and indemnity.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Daniel Feld, Kahana Feld and
Roni Most, Kahana Feld
Mr. Feld may be contacted at jfeld@kahanafeld.com
Mr. Most may be contacted at rmost@kahanafeld.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Is it the End of the Lease-Leaseback Shootouts? Maybe.
September 07, 2020 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIt’s the case that has turned into a modern day Hatfield versus McCoy – McGee v. Torrance Unified School District, Case No. 8298122, 2nd District Court of Appeals (May 29, 2020) – a series of cases challenging the validity of certain lease-leaseback construction contracts in California.
In shootout number one, James McGee sued the Torrance Unified School District challenging the validity of lease-leaseback contracts the District had entered into with general contractor Balfour Beatty Construction, LLC. Under California’s lease-leaseback statute, a school district can lease property it owns to a developer, who in turns builds a school facility on the property and leases the facility back to the school district. The primary benefit of the lease-leaseback method of project delivery is that a school district does not need to come up with money to build the facility because the district pays for the facility over time through lease payments to the developer. In shootout number one, McGee argued that Torrance Unified School District was required to competitively bid the lease-leasebacks projects. The 2nd District Court of Appeals disagreed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Mandatory Attorneys’ Fee Award for Actions Brought Under the Underground Utility Damage Prevention Act
September 22, 2016 —
Lindsay K. Taft – Ahlers & Cressman PLLCIn Washington, RCW 19.122 (the Underground Utility Damage Prevention Act or “Call Before You Dig” statute) provides for the protection of underground utilities. The statute was recently updated in 2013 and provides that homeowners and contractors must call “811” to schedule a “utility locate” prior to commencing any excavation. Failure to do so can result in steep penalties, as well as a mandatory fee award for the prevailing party.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lindsay K. Taft, Ahlers & Cressman PLLCMs. Taft may be contacted at
ltaft@ac-lawyers.com
History of Defects Leads to Punitive Damages for Bankrupt Developer
March 01, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe South Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled that evidence of construction defects at a developer’s other projects were admissible in a construction defect lawsuit. They issued their ruling on Magnolia North Property Owners’ Association v. Heritage Communities, Inc. on February 15, 2012.
Magnolia North is a condominium complex in South Carolina. The initial builder, Heritage Communities, had not completed construction when they filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11. The remaining four buildings were completed by another contractor. The Property Owners’ Association subsequently sued Heritage Communities, Inc. (HCI) alleging defects. The POA also sued Heritage Magnolia North, and the general contractor, BuildStar.
The trial court ruled that all three entities were in fact one. On appeal, the defendants claimed that the trial court improperly amalgamated the defendants. The appeals court noted, however, that “all these corporations share officers, directors, office space, and a phone number with HCI.” Until Heritage Communities turned over control of the POA to the actual homeowners, all of the POA’s officers were officers of HCI. The appeals court concluded that “the trial court’s ruling that Appellants’ entities were amalgamated is supported by the law and the evidence.”
Heritage also claimed that the trial court should not have allowed the plaintiffs to produce evidence of construction defects at other Heritage properties. Heritage argued that the evidence was a violation of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence. The court cited a South Carolina Supreme Court case which made an exception for “facts showing the other acts were substantially similar to the event at issue.” The court noted that the defects introduced by the plaintiffs were “virtually identical across all developments.” This included identical use of the same products from project to project. Further, these were used to demonstrate that “HCI was aware of water issues in the other projects as early as 1998, before construction on Magnolia North had begun.”
The trial case ended with a directed verdict. Heritage charged that the jury should have determined whether the alleged defects existed. The appeals court noted that there was “overwhelming evidence” that Heritage failed “to meet the industry standard of care.” Heritage did not dispute the existence of the damages during the trial, they “merely contested the extent.”
Further, Heritage claimed in its appeal that the case should have been rejected due to the three-year statute of limitations. They note that the first meeting of the POA was on March 8, 2000, yet the suit was not filed until May 28, 2003, just over three years. The court noted that here the statute of limitation must be tolled, as Heritage controlled the POA until September 9, 2002. The owner-controlled POA filed suit “approximately eight months after assuming control.”
The court also applied equitable estoppel to the statute of limitations. During the time in which Heritage controlled the board, Heritage “assured the unit owners the construction defects would be repaired, and, as a result, the owners were justified in relying on those assurances.” Since “a reasonable owner could have believed that it would be counter-productive to file suit,” the court found that also prevented Heritage from invoking the statute of limitations. In the end, the appeals court concluded that the even apart from equitable tolling and equitable estoppel, the statute of limitations could not have started until the unit owners took control of the board in September, 2002.
Heritage also contested the jury’s awarding of damages, asserting that “the POA failed to establish its damages as to any of its claims.” Noting that damages are determined “with reasonable certainty or accuracy,” and that “proof with mathematical certainty of the amount of loss or damage is not required,” the appeals court found a “sufficiently reasonable basis of computation of damages to support the trial court’s submission of damages to the jury.” Heritage also claimed that the POA did not show that the damage existed at the time of the transfer of control. The court rejected this claim as well.
Finally, Heritage argued that punitive damages were improperly applied for two reasons: that “the award of punitive damages has no deterrent effect because Appellants went out of business prior to the commencement of the litigation” and that Heritages has “no ability to pay punitive damages.” The punitive damages were upheld, as the relevant earlier decision includes “defendant’s degree of culpability,” “defendants awareness or concealment,” “existence of similar past conduct,” and “likelihood of deterring the defendant or others from similar conduct.”
The appeals court rejected all of the claims made by Heritage, fully upholding the decision of the trial court.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New York State Legislature Passes Legislation Expanding Wrongful Death Litigation
July 18, 2022 —
Lisa M. Rolle & Justyn Verzillo - Traub LiebermanIn early June, New York State Legislature passed legislation, often referred to as “The Grieving Families Act” (A.6770/S.74-A), which expands New York’s Wrongful Death Statute. This legislation is pending approval from Governor Kathy Hochul and has the ability to drastically impact wrongful death litigation by expanding how parties can bring an action, as well as expanding on recoverable compensation.
Pursuant to the existing statute (EPTL §5-4.1), the statute of limitations requires commencement of an action within two years after the decedent’s death. The proposed Grieving Families Act expands the statute of limitations for a wrongful death action to three years and six months after the decedent’s death.
Further, under the existing statute (EPTL §11-3.3), recovery in a wrongful death action is restricted to distributees (the intended beneficiaries under the will). The proposed legislation expands the parties permitted to bring a wrongful death action, replacing the term distributees with surviving close family members. These may include, but are not limited to, spouse or domestic partner, issue, parents, grandparents, step-parents, and siblings, leaving it to the finder of fact to determine which persons are close family members of the decedent based upon the specific circumstances relating to the person’s relationship with decedent. It remains to be seen what the burden of proof will be for the surviving close family members, as well as what process will be instituted with respect to the finder of fact. Presumably, the finder of fact will be a Judge.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman and
Justyn Verzillo, Traub Lieberman
Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Verzillo may be contacted at jverzillo@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
North Dakota Universities Crumble as Oil Cash Pours In
August 27, 2014 —
Jennifer Oldham – BloombergNorth Dakota is struggling to finance deteriorating public universities even as it experiences the biggest energy boom in its history, raising concern that less prosperous states will face more serious funding challenges.
Students returning this week will attend classes in buildings without adequate ventilation or fire detection systems and in historic landmarks with buckling foundations. A space crunch is making it difficult for researchers to obtain grants and putting the accreditation of several programs at risk, administrators say.
“It’s embarrassing,” said North Dakota state Representative Kathy Hawken, a Republican from Fargo who sits on the higher education funding and budget committees. “We have a divided legislature on higher ed: Some think we put too much money into it and some think we don’t put enough. Buildings aren’t people, so we don’t put dollars there.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jennifer Oldham, BloombergMs. Oldham may be contacted at
joldham1@bloomberg.net
California Indemnity and Defense Construction Law Changes for 2013
April 03, 2013 —
William L. Porter, Esq. - Porter Law GroupDeath of “Type 1” Indemnity in California Construction
For many years the prevalence of the “Type 1” indemnity clause has been the subject of fierce debate within the construction industry. Subcontractors have complained that they are saddled with indemnity obligations that require them to indemnify contractors from construction-related claims for which these subcontractors are truly not responsible. In defense, contractors have argued that they must be entitled to the freedom to set contractual terms to best protect themselves and they point out that subcontractors are certainly free to negotiate better terms or turn down work.
After many years of debate and small legislative inroads in prohibiting Type 1 indemnity in residential projects and where it concerns the “sole negligence”, “willful misconduct” or the “design defects” of others, the California legislature has finally spoken broadly and definitively on the issue of Type 1 indemnity clauses in construction contracts. Under new Civil Code section 2782, beginning with contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2013, broad “Type 1” indemnity clauses shall be void and unenforceable in the context of both private and public construction projects in California. Civil Code section 2782 now makes it clear that subcontractors can no longer be required to indemnify against another’s active negligence in connection with construction contracts, whether public or private.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Porter, Esq.William L. Porter, Esq. can be contacted at
bporter@porterlaw.com
Duty to Defend Sorted Between Two Insurers Based Upon Lease and Policies
November 02, 2017 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiTwo insurers disagreed on which was responsible for defense costs in the underlying personal injury suit against the insured. Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Westfield Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158480 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 27, 2017).
Knerr Group, Inc. lease property to Podcon, Inc. pursuant to a written lease. A man named Anthony Postell suffered an injury in an accident on the premises during the term of the lease. Postell filed a personal injury action against Knerr and Podcon, among others. Nautilus provided a defense to Knerr in the Postell case pursuant to a policy Nautilus issued to Knerr. Podcon was insured by Westfield.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
