Construction Law Alert: Builder’s Alternative Pre-litigation Procedures Upheld Over Strong Opposition
April 01, 2014 —
Steven M. Cvitanovic and Whitney L. Stefko - Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLPLast week, the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, was tasked with evaluating the enforceability of provisions in home purchase contracts containing alternative pre-litigation procedures which differ from the standard Right to Repair Act procedures. The Court of Appeal, in McCaffrey v. Superior Court of Fresno, et al. ultimately upheld the contractual provisions, and in overturning the trial court's decision, preserved the rights of builders to contract around certain requirements set forth in the Right to Repair Act.
The McCaffrey Group, Inc. constructed single-family homes in a Fresno development. Plaintiffs consisted of 24 homeowners within the development who brought suit against McCaffrey for construction defects in their homes. The homeowners were comprised of three categories: (1) the original purchasers who bought their homes from McCaffrey before January 1, 2003 and had a 2001 version of McCaffrey's contract; (2) the original purchasers who bought their homes from McCaffrey on or after January 1, 2003 and signed a 2003 version of McCaffrey's contract; and (3) the subsequent purchasers who did not buy their homes directly from McCaffrey, but purchased their homes subject to either the 2001 or 2003 version of McCaffrey's home purchase agreement.
Reprinted courtesy of
Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Whitney L. Stefko, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com; Ms. Stefko may be contacted at wstefko@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
My Employees Could Have COVID-19. What Now?
March 23, 2020 —
Amy R. Patton, Leila S. Narvid, Matthew C. Lewis, Robert Tadashi Matsuishi & Sarah J. Odia - Payne & FearsUpdated Guidance as of March 19, 2020.
You are concerned about potentially sick employees in the workplace. One employee is off work sick for a couple of days, and then wants to return to work. Another plans to return to work after a week of travel. Another appears to be sick at work. They are coughing, sneezing, and appear to be short of breath. You are concerned they may have COVID-19. What can you do? You're not the only one concerned -- your other employees are, too.
Your public-facing employees want to wear masks to protect themselves. One employee tells you he doesn’t want to touch anything that others in the office have touched. What are your obligations to these employees?
Below, we address questions relating to keeping employees safe from COVID-19 in the workplace without violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or employee privacy laws.
Can I require an employee returning from days away from work due to illness to report the symptoms the employee was experiencing that kept him/her out of work?
Short answer: yes, so long as the questions are limited to whether the employee has had flu-like symptoms. Though the ADA prohibits asking employees questions related to an employee disability, COVID-19 (like the seasonal flu) likely does not rise to the level of a disability, so asking an employee about flu-like (or COVID-19-like) symptoms is unlikely to elicit information related to a disability. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has taken the position that an employer may ask if an employee is experiencing flu-like symptoms if the employee reports being ill during a pandemic.
Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears attorneys
Amy R. Patton,
Leila S. Narvid,
Matthew C. Lewis,
Robert Tadashi Matsuishi and
Sarah J. Odia
Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com
Ms. Narvid may be contacted at ln@paynefears.com
Mr. Matthew may be contacted at mcl@paynefears.com
Mr. Robert may be contacted at rtm@paynefears.com
Ms. Odia may be contacted at sjo@paynefears.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Payment Bond Claim Notice Requires More than Mailing
June 18, 2019 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIt’s been a while since I posted something new relating to Virginia’s “Little Miller Act” and its various notice requirements for a subcontractor to make a payment bond claim.
I have posted on the basics of a Virginia payment bond claim previously here at Musings. One of these basics is the 90 day notice requirement for suppliers or second tier subcontractors with no direct contractual relationship to the general contractor. A recent case from the Norfolk, Virginia Circuit Court examined when notice is “given” under the Little Miller Act.
In R T Atkinson Building Corp v Archer Western Construction, LLC the Court looked at the question of whether mailing of the notice of claim is enough to constitute notice being “given” in a manner that would satisfy the statutory requirements. In that case, the supplier mailed the notice within the 90 day window, but the defendant argued on summary judgment that it did not receive the notice until 2 days after the 90 day window had closed. In support of this contention, the defendant provided tracking information showing delivery by the USPS on the non-compliant date.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
California Insurance Commissioner Lacks Authority to Regulate Formula for Estimating Replacement Cost Value
April 15, 2015 —
Valerie A. Moore and Christopher Kendrick – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Assn. of Cal. Insurance Companies v. Jones ( No. B248622, filed 4/8/15), a California appeals court held that California’s Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones lacked the authority to promulgate California Code of Regulations, title 10, section 2695.183, which set out specific requirements for estimating replacement cost as part of any application or renewal for homeowners insurance.
The regulation was promulgated in 2010 in response to complaints from homeowners who lost their homes in the wildfires in Southern California in 2003, 2007, and 2008, and who discovered that they did not have enough insurance to cover the full cost of repairing or rebuilding their homes because the insurers’ estimates of replacement value were too low when they purchased the insurance.
Reprinted courtesy of
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Missouri Construction Company Sues Carpenter Union for Threatening Behavior
February 10, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to KMOV News, Raineri Construction Company in Missouri filed suit against the Local Carpenters’ District Council claiming employees had been “stalked and threatened” by the union. However, the Carpenters Union “denies the allegations” and said “it has the right to protest against a company that doesn’t always meet the union standards for pay and benefits.”
Tony Raineri, one of the construction company’s executives, said to KMOV News: “For me it wasn’t such a big deal until they started making threats of bodily harm, started following me and my wife to our home, started following my employees to their homes.”
KMOV News reported that a “union representative told News 4’s Craig Cheatham that no one acting on behalf of the Carpenters Union ever threatened, harassed or stalked Raineri, his employees or their clients.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Distinguishing Hawaii Law, New Jersey Finds Anti-Assignment Clause Ineffective
March 22, 2017 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe New Jersey Supreme Court found that an anti-assignment provision could not be applied to bar a post-loss claim assignment. Givaudan Fragrances Corp. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 2017 N.J. LEXIS 121 (N.J. Feb. 1, 2017). In reaching its decision, the court distinguished a decision from the Hawaii Supreme Court enforcing consent-to-assignment clauses and failing to recognize any post-loss exception to such clauses. See Del Monte Fresh Produce (Hawaii), Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 183 P.3d 734 (Haw. 2007).
Plaintiff Givaudan Fragrances Corporation (Fragrances) was sued for environmental contamination at a manufacturing site. A related corporate entity had operated the facility from the 1960s to 1990. Fragrances sought coverage under policies issued to its predecessor. The predecessor attempted to assign to Fragrances post-loss rights under the policies. The insurers resisted, claiming the predecessor was the named insured, not Fragrances, and that the insurers did not consent to an assignment of the predecessor's policies.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Judgment for Insurer Reversed Due to Failure to Establish Depreciation
August 01, 2023 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe trial court erred in placing the burden on the policyholder to establish depreciation in determining the actual cash value of the loss. SFR Serv., LLC v. Tower Hill Prime Ins. Co., 2023 Fla. App. LEXIS 3570 (Fla. Ct. App. May 26, 2023).
The insureds' roof was damaged by Hurricane Irma. They submitted their claim to their insurer, Tower Hill. The cost of repair was assessed at $7,726.94, below the amount of the deductible. Therefore, there was no recovery under the policy. The insureds assigned their claim to SFR Services, LLC, their roofing contractor. SFR submitted a claim to Tower Hill for $162,083.84. Tower Hill refused to pay and SFR sued.
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
Fourth Circuit Finds Insurer Reservation of Rights Letters Inadequate to Preserve Coverage Defenses Under South Carolina Law
January 17, 2023 —
Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogIn Stoneledge at Lake Keowee Owners Ass'n v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 34292 (D.S.C. Dec. 13, 2022), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the adequacy of reservation of rights letters issued by Builders Mutual Insurance Company (“Builders Mutual”) and Cincinnati Insurance Company (“Cincinnati”) to their insureds, Marick Home Builders, LLC (“Marick”) and Rick Thoennes (“Thoennes”), Marick’s managing member, for an underlying construction defect lawsuit. In short, the Fourth Circuit found that the reservation letters were inadequate to preserve the insurers’ coverage defenses because they did not sufficiently explain the basis of the carriers’ position.
Stoneledge, a homeowners association, managed a community of 80 townhomes on South Carolina’s Lake Keowee. In 2009, Stoneledge brought suit against Marick and Thoennes, among other defendants, alleging construction defects in the townhomes that resulted in water intrusion and other physical damage. Marick and Thoennes held commercial general-liability policies through Cincinnati and Builders Mutual covering, in relevant part, “property damage” as defined by the policies. Builders Mutual issued policies covering the period from January 2004 to October 2007, and Cincinnati issued policies covering the period from April 2008 to April 2012. After Marick notified the insurers of the underlying action, Builders Mutual sent Marick two reservation of rights letters, one in May 2009 and one in July 2009. Cincinnati sent Marick one reservation of rights letter in March 2010.
In March 2014, Stoneledge brought a declaratory-judgment action against Cincinnati seeking coverage for a judgment entered in the underlying action. The insurers removed the case to federal court, and in September 2016, Stoneledge amended its complaint, adding Builders Mutual as a defendant and seeking coverage for additional damages pursuant to a settlement agreement entered into by Stoneledge, Marick, Thoennes. The district court granted Stoneledge's motion for summary judgment, primarily on the ground that the insurers failed to reserve the right to contest coverage. The insurers appealed to the Fourth Circuit, which affirmed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Taylor, Traub LiebermanMr. Taylor may be contacted at
jtaylor@tlsslaw.com
