Is Your Design Professional Construction Contract too Friendly? (Law Note)
July 09, 2014 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback – Construction Law North CarolinaMy husband often travels the back roads between Chapel Hill and Fuquay Varina to visit friends. En route (a circuitous route that goes past Sharon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, among other places), he passes by the “Friendly Grocery.”
[Sign]
No *Loitering*Littering*Alcoholic Beverages on Premises*Bike*Skateboard*
*10 minutes Parking Limit*Towing Enforced*
I’m not sure which is the “friendly” part of that sign. In fact, the sign seems to be the antithesis of friendly.
What does this have to do with your construction contracts? Sometimes, in an effort to please the client and/or secure the project, architects and engineers have the habit of being too friendly in their contract language. That is, you make promises or proposals that may promise too much of a good thing for the client. This can cause big problems. Bigger than being towed away from a rural grocery store in the middle of nowhere. You could be putting your insurance coverage at risk.
Have you ever promised to use “best efforts” in your design or plans? Promised to design to a specific LEED standard? Guaranteed 100% satisfaction? You might be putting your errors & omission coverage at issue. By warrantying or guaranteeing something, you are assuming a level of liability well beyond the standard of care required by law. By law, you only need to conform to the standard of care, and your insurance will only provide coverage up to that standard of care. In other words, if you make guarantees or promise “best efforts,” you are contracting to something that will *not* be insured. If something goes wrong, you will be without the benefit of your professional liability coverage.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North CarolinaMs. Brumback may be contacted at
mbrumback@rl-law.com
Design Professionals Owe a Duty of Care to Homeowners
July 09, 2014 —
Stephen A. Sunseri - Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLPToday, the California Supreme Court, in Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP (Jul. 3, 2014, S208173) __Cal.4th__ [2014 WL 2988058], held that architects owe a duty of care to future homeowners of residential buildings, particularly if they act as principal architects on a project, and are not subordinate to any other design professional. Until now, design professionals were rarely held liable, if at all, for third-party claims for design deficiencies.
In Beacon, architectural and engineering firms provided sole design services for The Beacon residential condominium project, a 595 unit project located in San Francisco. The condominiums were initially leased after construction, but were eventually sold to individual owners. The design firms claimed their role was limited to only providing design recommendations to the project's owner, who ultimately controlled and directed which design elements to construct. Not long after completion of the project, the homeowners' association sued the design firms (among others) for construction defects and damages related to alleged water infiltration, inadequate fire separations, structural cracks, and other purported safety hazards. The claims included allegations under SB 800 (the "Right to Repair Act," Civil Code §895, et seq.) and common law negligence theories.
The design firms demurred to the complaint, which the trial court sustained. On appeal, however, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's ruling, concluding that the design firms owed a duty of care to third parties. The Supreme Court affirmed.
Historically, liability for deficient goods and services hinged on whether there is a contractual relationship between a buyer and seller. However, the Supreme Court recognized that in certain circumstances a contractual relationship is not required. In its ruling, the Supreme Court relied on fifty year old precedent, Biankanja v. Irving (1958) 49 Cal.2d 647. In Biankanja, the California Supreme Court outlined several factors to determine whether a duty of care is owed to non-contracting third parties. Although Biankanja analyzes many factors, emphasis was placed placed on whether a purported harm was foreseeable by a defendant's conduct and how close of a connection there is between that conduct and an injury.
Here, the Court recognized that even though the design firms did not actually build the project, they did conduct weekly inspections, monitored contractor compliance, altered design elements when issues arose, and advised the owners of any nonconforming work. In applying the Biankanja factors to these circumstances, the Supreme Court determined the homeowners were intended beneficiaries of the design work and the design firms' primary role in the project bore a close connection to the alleged injuries. As a result, the Supreme Court held that the allegations in the complaint were sufficient and, if proven, establishes the defendants owed a duty of care to the homeowners' association.
Interestingly, the Supreme Court sidestepped the issue of whether SB 800 was intended to exclusively capture design defects in its scope, even though the Court indicated it may. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court's ruling is significant. The case will affect how design professionals allocate risk on future residential projects, perhaps by raising design prices or insuring around the liability exposure. The likely outcome, however, is that design professionals are now targets in construction defect lawsuits.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stephen A. Sunseri, Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLPMr. Sunseri may be contacted at
ssunseri@gdandb.com
Appeals Court Explains Punitive Damages Awards For Extreme Reprehensibility Or Unusually Small, Hard-To-Detect Or Hard-To-Measure Compensatory Damages
November 10, 2016 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Nickerson v. Stonebridge Life Ins. Co. (No. B234271A, filed 11/3/16), (“Nickerson II”) a California appeals court outlined the requirements for complying with the single-digit multiplier annunciated as a Constitutional limitation on punitive damages by the United States Supreme Court in State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell (2003) 538 U.S. 408, for awards of punitive damages against insurers in cases of extreme reprehensibility or unusually small, hard-to-detect or hard-to-measure compensatory damages.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Questions of Fact Regarding Collapse of Basement Walls Prevent Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment
December 19, 2018 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment on whether the policy covered the collapse of basement walls based upon factual issues presented. Sirois v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158508 (D. Conn. Sept. 18, 2018).
The insureds' purchased their home in 2010. In December 2015, a crack in the basement wall was noticed. It was not thought to be a serious problem. But in 2016, the insured read an article about defective concrete problems affecting homeowners in Connecticut. An inspector, Dean Soucy, was hired. He found faults and cracks in the foundation walls. Thereafter, a claim was submitted to USAA under homeowners' policies issued over the years to the insureds. USAA denied coverage.
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
Montana Court Finds Duty to Defend over Construction Defect Allegation
February 14, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe U.S. District Court for Montana recently ruled on a case with underlying construction defect issues. Brian Margolies discussed Lukes v. Mid-Continent on the blog run by his firm, Traub Lieverman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP. In the construction defect case, the homeowner “alleged that the siding warped and pulled away from the house, which allowed for water intrusion and resulting exterior and interior damage.” Further, there were claims that “the insured or its subcontractor failed to install proper flashing, which also allowed for water intrusion.”
The insured was Bernie Rubio, who had a general liability policy from Mid-Continent. Mid-Continent disclaimed coverage, citing sections of the business risk exclusions. The court did not find the clauses ambiguous, but concluded that they didn’t apply to the facts of the case.
While the court concluded that Mid-Continent had a duty to defend, they did not determine if there was a duty to indemnify.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Quick Note: Attorney’s Fees and the Significant Issues Test
November 03, 2016 —
David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal UpdatesAttorney’s fees become a component of damages that parties seek to recover whenever there is a contractual or statutory basis for them to recover their fees. Parties want to be able to recover all or substantially most of the attorney’s fees they incurred in pursuing their claim. (In my experience, recovering all of the fees incurred is very challenging.) But, to be entitled to attorney’s fees, a party has to be deemed the
prevailing party. There is the sentiment that as long as you recover a positive net judgment (even if it is for $100 when your claim was for $50,000) then you will be able to recover your attorney’s fees which will likely exceed the amount that was ever in dispute.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Katz, Barron, Squitero, Faust, Friedberg, English & Allen, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@katzbarron.com
Stop by BHA’s Booth at WCC and Support the Susan G. Komen Foundation
May 12, 2016 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFIf you’re attending the annual West Coast Casualty Seminar at the Disneyland Hotel today and tomorrow, be sure to stop by the Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc., booth and
Sink a Putt for Charity. This year, participant’s efforts
on the green will help benefit the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure. As in years past, sink a putt in the BHA golf challenge and win a $25 Best Buy gift card, and for every successful putt made, BHA will make a $25 cash donation in the golfer’s name to the Susan G. Komen Foundation.
New this year, BHA is hosting three
Championship Rounds and during those periods BHA will double their charitable contributions. For every ATTEMPTED (sink or miss), BHA will make a $50 donation to Susan G. Komen, and for every putt MADE (sunk), the golfer will also win a $50 Best Buy gift card.
Championship rounds are going on today between the times of 10:30am-10:45 am, 3:00pm-3:30pm, and 5:30pm-6:30pm. So be sure to get over to the BHA booth for your chance to support important cancer research as well as possibly taking home a nice gift card for yourself.
BHA also wishes to thank Dave Stern for all of his hard work for the construction defect community in putting together this
must go to seminar and for promoting such worthwhile charities each year.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
No Coverage for Construction Defects Under Arkansas Law
January 13, 2017 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii The federal district court found there was no coverage for the insured contractor under Arkansas law when sued for construction defects by two homeowners. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Hambuchen Constr., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160364 (W.D. Ark. Nov. 18, 2016).
In one case, the Pierces hired Hambuchen, the insured contractor for the construction of a new home, which was completed in 2006. Two years after moving in, the Pierces experienced water leaks at various locations inside the home and the basement flooded. Water damage rendered the back deck unstable. In 2010 and 2011, Hambuchen made repairs to stop leaks on the decks, but in 2012 the back deck again showed signs of water damage. The Pierces sued, and Auto-Owners provided a defense under a reservation of rights.
In the second case, the Lessmanns hired Hambuchen in 2005 as general contractor to construct their new home. Following completion of the home, the Lessmanns complained about scratched windows. The Lessmanns filed suit against Hambuchen for breach of the construction contract by failing to build their home in a workmanlike manner. The Lessmanns filed suit in May 2009. Auto-Owners was not aware of the suit until 2015 when it received notice that the Lessmanns had filed an amended complaint. The Lessmans' suit went to trial and Hambuchen prevailed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
