Ten-Year Statute Of Repose To Sue For Latent Construction Defects
November 12, 2019 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIf you are dealing with latent construction defects, it is imperative that you consult with counsel to understand your rights. This not only includes claims for property damage stemming from latent construction defects, but also personal injury stemming from such defects. There is a ten-year statute of repose to sue for latent construction defects. See Fla.Stat. s. 95.11(3)(c). After the expiration of this statute of repose you are out of luck, meaning you can no longer sue.
Now, I probably will not be the first to tell you that the statute of repose is not written so clear that you know the precise date it ends (or the last date you can sue for a latent defect). For this reason, you really want to operate conservatively, meaning it is always better to sue early if you think you could be running on the end of the statute of repose period. It is always advisable to avoid any legitimate argument that you filed your construction defect lawsuit too late.
In Harrell v. The Ryland Group, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D2054b (Fla. 1st DCA 2019), a subsequent owner of a house sued the original homebuilder in negligence for a construction defect causing a personal injury. The subsequent owner claimed the homebuilder defectively installed an attic ladder (that provided access to the attic for the original construction) which collapsed as he was using it. The homebuilder filed a motion for summary judgment that the statute of repose expired so the owner’s claim was time-barred. The First District agreed.
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
Facts about Chinese Drywall in Construction
September 10, 2014 —
William M. Kaufman – Construction Lawyers BlogMost of us have heard that there are problems with Chinese drywall, but do not really know what specifically is wrong with it when it comes to construction in the United States.
Let’s begin with a brief overview about why Chinese drywall came to be used in the United States in the first place. Chinese drywall was first imported into the United States beginning in 2001. Most of the homes that have Chinese drywall were built between 2001 and 2008. During the construction boom, Chinese drywall was being imported into the U.S. partly due to the shortage of American-made drywall as a result of several hurricanes that devastated Florida in 2004-2005, and the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina. Hundreds of millions of pounds of Chinese drywall were imported into the United States during that time period. While this is only a fraction of the percentage of drywall used in American homes, the problem has been concentrated in certain regions of the country, mostly the South.
So what is the problem with Chinese Drywall? To understand it, we must first explore what constitutes drywall. Drywall is a building material made of a gypsum-based sheet of plaster covered with heavy paper on both sides. Drywall is also referred to as plasterboard or sheetrock. Testing of Chinese drywall has found unusually high instances of pyrite. There is speculation that the pyrite oxidation results in sulfur compounds being released by the drywall during periods of high heat and humidity. The combination of high temperatures and humidity is ripe for bringing out problems associated with Chinese drywall. That is why most cases associated with Chinese drywall are found in the Southeastern United States. Reports show that homeowners typically complain of corroding copper in their homes, and a rotten egg odor emanating from copper surfaces that, in turn, turn black and exhibit a powdery ash type substance. Experts opine that this is a result of a reaction of the copper with hydrogen sulfide. Much of wiring or piping found in homes is made of copper. Exposure to Chinese drywall can result in nose bleeds, headaches, coughs, upper respiratory or sinus problems, rashes, and difficulty breathing. There have also been cases reported of pets dying due to exposure to Chinese drywall.
Reprinted courtesy of
William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP
Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Mechanics’ Lien Case Treads Both Old and New Ground
July 27, 2020 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogPeople do the darnedest things. The next case, Carmel Development Company v. Anderson, Case No. H041005, 6th District Court of Appeals (April 30, 2020), involving a 10-plus year oral design and construction contract, inconsistent accounting practices, two mechanics liens, and side-agreements, takes us down some well traveled paths but also covers some new ground.
Carmel Development Company v. Anderson
Carmel Development Company, Inc. provided design and construction services at a luxury subdivision known as Monterra Ranch located in Monterey under an oral contract with developer Monterra LLC which spanned over more than a decade.
Between 1996 and 2008, Carmel was involved in the infrastructure design and construction of the subdivision including lot design and layout, the location of building envelopes on each lot, water and sewage system layout and design, and roadway design, construction and repair. When roughly half of the lots were developed and sold Monterra ran out of money and Carmel sued.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
What You Should Know About Liquidated Damages and Liability Caps for Delay and Performance Liquidated Damages
May 06, 2024 —
Chris Cazenave - ConsensusDocsLiquidated damage clauses are omnipresent in today’s construction contracts—often considered in early negotiations to provide a degree of certainty and limit financial liability.
There are two principal types of LDs appearing in construction contracts—(i.) damages for delay when a contractor fails to deliver a project by a certain milestone; and (ii.) performance damages when a contractor fails to meet specific performance requirements. Differentiating between LDs for delay and LDs for performance—especially when both LD types are combined in the same contract—is key to risk awareness and allocation during contract negotiations and throughout performance.
This article briefly outlines what you should know about LDs for delay and LDs for failing to meet certain performance requirements. The article also covers how contractors can allocate and cap risks based on risks each party can either manage, insure, or otherwise limit.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Chris Cazenave, Jones Walker LLPMr. Cazenave may be contacted at
ccazenave@joneswalker.com
Industry News: New Partner at Burdman Law Group
March 30, 2016 —
Burdman Law GroupBurdman Law Group, a boutique civil litigation law firm with offices in California, Nevada, and Arizona, is pleased to announce that
Pieter M. O’Leary, was named a Partner in January 2016.
Mr. O’Leary is an experienced litigator who has represented individuals and businesses in both state and federal court in actions involving breach of contract, negligence, construction, fraud, product defect, and business torts.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Los Angeles Is Burning. But California’s Insurance Industry Is Not About to Collapse.
January 14, 2025 —
Jerry Theodorou - R StreetFive fires are
raging in the Los Angeles outskirts currently – the Palisades Fire, the Eaton Fire, the Lidia Fire, the Sunset Fire, and the Hurst Fire. They have been stoked by a trifecta of 100 mph wind gusts, elevated heat, and bone-dry grass and shrubs serving as tinder. The severity of the fires has raised questions about the role of climate change in the conflagrations and insurers’ claims-paying capacity. But while we recognize the immensity of the hardship and tragedy to many Angelenos from the fires, we also must recognize that California’s insurance industry is not about to collapse.
Many have ignored or missed
recent reforms to California insurance regulation that are poised to make the private market more sustainable, and help stem an exodus of insurers from the Golden State.
Whether the intensity of wildfires is exacerbated by climate change is an open question. An R Street
study found that natural catastrophes have increased in severity, but not in frequency. And the main reason catastrophe severity has risen is an increase in the built environment – there is simply more stuff now to be destroyed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jerry Theodorou, R StreetMr. Theodorou may be contacted at
jtheodorou@rstreet.org
OH Supreme Court Rules Against General Contractor in Construction Defect Coverage Dispute
October 30, 2018 —
Theresa A. Guertin - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.On October 9, 2018, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a decision in Ohio Northern University v. Charles Construction Services, Inc., Slip Op. 2018-Ohio-4057, finding that a general contractor was not entitled to defense or indemnity from its CGL insurer in a construction defect suit brought by a project owner post-project completion. With this decision, Ohio has solidified its place amongst a diminishing number of states, including Pennsylvania and Kentucky, which hold that there is no coverage for defective construction claims because those losses do not present the level of fortuity required to trigger CGL coverage. This places Ohio amongst the worst in the country on this issue at a time when numerous states have abandoned old precedent and moved towards a policyholder friendly analysis.
Ohio Northern University (“ONU”) hired Charles Construction Services, Inc. (“CCS”) to construct the University Inn and Conference Center, a new hotel and conference center on their campus in Ada, Ohio. CCS purchased CGL insurance from Cincinnati Insurance Company (“CIC”) insuring the project. Following completion of the project, ONU sued CCS alleging defects in the construction of the completed project, including allegations that windows improperly installed by one subcontractor led to damage to walls built by another subcontractor. CIC agreed to defend CCS under a reservation of rights but intervened in the action between ONU and CCS to pursue a declaratory judgment that it had no obligation to defend or indemnify its insured for the alleged losses.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Guertin may be contacted at
tag@sdvlaw.com
Texas Supreme Court Rules on Contractual Liability Exclusion in Construction Cases
January 22, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe Texas Supreme Court ruled on Ewing v. Amerisure Ins. Co. on January 17th, a “much-anticipated” decision according to Carl A. Salisbury of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP. “Construction projects are always the subject of contracts among owners and contractors” Salisbury stated in his article on Lexology.com. The recent decision demonstrates that “an exclusion in the standard Comprehensive Liability Insurance policy that precludes coverage for ‘liabilities assumed under contract’” does not usually “apply to construction contracts.”
In 2008, Ewing Construction Company built a set of tennis courts in Corpus Christi, according to Salisbury. “Shortly after construction was complete, according to the school district, ‘the courts started flaking, crumbling, and cracking, rendering them unusable for their intended purpose of hosting competitive tennis events.’” After the school district sued Ewing in state court, Ewing “turned the suit over to Amerisure, its CGL insurer, seeking a defense and indemnity. Amerisure denied all coverage, citing the contractual liability exclusion in its policy. This inspired Ewing to sue the carrier in federal district court for the Southern District of Texas.”
After several rulings and appeals, the case eventually reached the Texas Supreme Court: “According to the Ewing court, the contract claims that Ewing failed to perform in a good and workmanlike manner ‘are substantively the same as its claims that Ewing negligently performed under the contract because they contain the same factual allegations and alleged misconduct.’ Failure to perform in a ‘good and workmanlike manner’ is functionally and substantively the same as performing negligently. ‘Accordingly,’ the Ewing court said, ‘we conclude that a general contractor who agrees to perform its construction work in a good and workmanlike manner, without more, does not enlarge its duty to exercise ordinary care in fulfilling its contract, thus it does not ‘assume liability’ for damages arising out of its defective work so as to trigger the Contractual Liability Exclusion.’”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
