Court Retained Jurisdiction to Enforce Settlement Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6 Despite Dismissal of Complaint
October 21, 2024 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogAttorneys will commonly add a Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provision in their settlement agreements to ensure that courts have continuing jurisdiction to enforce the terms of a settlement, as opposed to having to file a new complaint in the event of a breach of a settlement agreement.
Oral settlements before a trial court are also enforceable under Section 664.6, but as discussed in Eagle Fire and Water Restoration, Inc. v. City of Danuba, Case No. F086052 (May 30, 2024), in cases involving a complaint and multiple cross-complaints, questions can arise as to whether a trial court has in fact retained jurisdiction under Section 664.6 to enforce an oral settlement and even what the terms of the settlement were.
The Eagle Fire Case
Eagle Fire and Water Restoration, Inc. was hired by the City of Dinuba to reroof the City’s police station and courthouse building. The contract was for approximately $500,000. Before completion of the project, a rainstorm caused significant water damage to the interior of the building. The City incurred over $330,000 in clean-up and repair costs and withheld approximately $319,000 from Eagle as an offset.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Fifth Circuit Reverses Summary Judgment Award to Insurer on Hurricane Damage Claim
December 18, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the insurer on a property damage claim arising from Hurricane Harvey. Advanced Indicator and Manufacturing, Inc. v. Acadia Ins. Co., 50 F.4th 469 (2022).
After Hurricane Harvey struck southern Texas in 2017, Advanced submitted a claim to Acadia for damage to its building that it claimed was caused by the hurricane's winds. Acadia sent an adjuster, Nick Warren, as well as an engineer, Jason Watson. Watson determined that pre-existing conditions - including ongoing leaks from deterioration and poor workmanship - caused the damage, rather than winds from Hurricane Harvey. Warren adopted these conclusions in his recommendations to Acadia. Acadia denied Advanced's claim based on these reports.
Advanced sued Acadia, alleging breach of contract and bad faith. Advanced filed a motion to remand to state court which was denied. Acadia moved for summary judgment arguing that it did not breach the policy and that Advanced could not segregate any damages caused by hurricane from pre-existing damage. The district court granted Acadia's motion, finding that Acadia's denial of Advanced's claim was based on "extensive consideration of the evidence." Further, Advanced failed to carry its burden of showing that covered and non-covered damages could be segregated as required by Texas's concurrent causation doctrine. Finally, the bad faith claim was dismissed because there was no breach of contract.
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
10 Haight Lawyers Recognized in Best Lawyers in America© 2023 and The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch 2023
August 22, 2022 —
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPFour Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys were selected for Best Lawyers in America© 2023. Congratulations to:
- Bruce Cleeland – Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
- Peter Dubrawski – Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
- Denis Moriarty – Insurance law
- Ted Penny – Workers’ Compensation Law – Claimants
Six Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys were selected for Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch 2023. Congratulations to:
- Courtney Arbucci – Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
- Frances Brower – Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
- Kyle DiNicola – Transportation Law
- Arezoo Jamshidi – Appellate Practice; Transportation Law
- Kristian Moriarty – Transportation Law
- Bethsaida Obra-White – Construction Law; Insurance Law; Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Pass-Through Subcontractor Claims, Liquidating Agreements, and Avoiding a Two-Front War
April 26, 2021 —
Bradley Sands, Jones Walker LLP - ConsensusDocsSubcontractor claims happen. When those subcontractor claims are prompted by owner actions or responsibilities, the general contractor must always be vigilant to plan for and work to avoid a two-front war in which the general contractor is pushing the owner for recovery while at the same time disputing the subcontractor’s entitlement.
Cooperation between the general contractor and the subcontractor and avoiding that two-front war can be accomplished through pass-through claims and ideally liquidating agreements. A pass-through claim is a claim by the subcontractor who has suffered damages by the owner with whom it has no contract, presented by the general contractor. A liquidating agreement or subcontract “liquidating language” goes a step further than simply a pass-through claim by “liquidating” the general contractor’s liability for the subcontractor’s claim and limiting the general contractor’s liability to the value recovered against the owner. The distinction between pass-through claims generally and use of liquidating agreements or language is described in greater detail below.
Pass-through subcontractor claims are routine in construction and an important, common sense approach to deal with ever-present changes and the unexpected that can have cost and time implications. Despite the common sense basis for subcontractor pass-through claims, there are important legal considerations that must be addressed, and critical planning required, starting with the subcontract clauses.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bradley Sands, Jones Walker LLPMr. Sands may be contacted at
bsands@joneswalker.com
“Details Matter” is the Foundation in a Texas Construction Defect Suit
March 01, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Court of Appeals of Texas has ruled in the case of Barzoukas v. Foundation Design. Mr. Barzoukas contracted with Heights Development to build a house. He subsequently sued Heights Developments and “numerous other defendants who participated in the construction of his house.” Barzoukas eventually settled with all but two defendants, one who went bankrupt and Foundation Design, the defendant in this case. In the earlier phase, Barzoukas made claims of “negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, fraudulent inducement, conspiracy, and exemplary damages in connection with the foundation.”
Foundation Design had been hired to install 15-foot piers to support the foundation. The engineer of record, Larry Smith, sent a letter to Heights Development noting that they had encountered hard clay stone when drilling. Smith changed the specifications to 12-foot piers. Initially, the City of Houston called a halt to work on the home when an inspector concluded that the piers were too shallow. Heights Development later convinced the city to allow work to continue. Subsequently, experts concluded that the piers were too shallow.
Foundation Design filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted this, “without specifying the basis for its ruling.” Barzoukas contends the court was in error. Foundation Design contends that “Barzoukas failed to proffer competent evidence establishing that their conduct proximately caused damages.” Further, they did not feel that Smith’s letter gave “rise to viable claims for fraud and fraudulent inducement.”
One problem the court had was a lack of evidence. The court noted that “the purported subcontract is entirely missing” in the pleadings. The court has no contract between Bazourkas and Heights Development, nor one between Heights Development and either Foundation Design or Smith. The court underscored the importance of this, writing, “details matter.” They found that “the details are largely missing here.” Without the contract, the court found it impossible to determine if “Smith or an entity related to him agreed to indemnify Heights Development for damages arising from Smith’s negligent performance.”
As the material facts are in dispute, the appeals court found that there were no grounds for a summary judgment in the case. “Pointing to the existence of a contract between Heights Development and Barzoukas, or to the existence of a subcontract, is the beginning of the analysis ? not the end.”
Foundation Design and Smith also claimed that Barzoukas’s expert did not proffer competent evidence and that the expert’s opinions were conclusory. The trial court did not rule on these claims and the appeals court has rejected them.
Finally, Barzoukas made a claim that the trial court should not have rejected his argument of fraud and fraudulent inducement. Here, however, the appeals court upheld the decision of the lower court. “Barzoukas did not present evidence supporting an inference that Smith or Foundation Design made a purposeful misrepresentation.
The court remanded the case to the trial court for reconsideration. One member of the panel, Judge Charles Seymore, upheld the entire decision of the trial court. He dissented with the majority, finding that the economic loss rule foreclosed the claim of negligence.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ninth Circuit Holds that 1993 Budget Appropriations Language Does Not Compel the Corps of Engineers to use 1987 Wetlands Guidance Indefinitely
October 09, 2018 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelOn September 21, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided the case of Tin Cup, LLC v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals (although all members concurred in the result) held that legislative language in a 1993 appropriations act does not require the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to continue to use its 1987 Clean Water Act (CWA) wetlands guidance beyond 1993. The Ninth Circuit noted that it approaches the interpretation of budget bills somewhat differently.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
DoD Issues Guidance on Inflation Adjustments for Contractors
August 15, 2022 —
Jennifer Harris & Abby Salinas - ConsensusDocsThe Department of Defense (“DoD”) recently issued a memorandum to contracting officers (“COs”) guiding the use of economic price adjustment (“EPA”) clauses to address inflation-related cost increases. The memorandum, entitled Guidance on Inflation and Economic Price Adjustments, comes as the year-over-year inflation rate rose to 8.6% in May, and contractors with fixed-price contracts seek ways to recover their rising costs. EPA clauses allow the parties to mitigate cost risks that present themselves as a result of circumstances beyond the contractor’s control, e.g., inflation and supply chain price fluctuations. Generally, an EPA clause will dictate that the Government bear the cost risk up to a mutually agreed-upon ceiling. EPA clauses apply to the cost portion of a contract, but do not normally apply to the profit. DFARS PGI 216.203-4.
Memorandum: No CO Authority to Grant Contractual Relief Absent an EPA Clause
The memorandum states that absent an existing EPA clause, COs do not have the authority to provide contractual relief for unanticipated inflation under a firm-fixed-price contract.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jennifer Harris, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. (ConsensusDocs) and
Abby Salinas, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. (ConsensusDocs)
Ms. Harris may be contacted at jharris@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
In Hong Kong, You Can Find a Home Where the Buffalo Roam
September 17, 2014 —
Shai Oster – BloombergTo city dwellers worried about mice and rats, spare a thought for Hong Kongers confronting half-ton feral beasts.
A few miles from some of the most densely populated neighborhoods in the world, more than 1,000 cows and buffalo from abandoned farms roam the countryside. Development now is pushing them into harm’s way and onto roads.
Hong Kong represents an extreme example of the task many communities face of balancing conservation and growth. Wolves sniff near the suburbs of Paris, bears roam Lake Tahoe and moose stumble across the roads of Halifax. There’s a new word to describe how undomesticated animals adapt to man-made environments: synurbanization.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Shai Oster, BloombergShai Oster may be contacted at
soster@bloomberg.net
