Recent Florida Legislative Changes Shorten Both Statute of Limitation ("SOL") and Statute of Repose ("SOR") for Construction Defect Claims
March 19, 2024 —
Holly A. Rice - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.The Florida Legislature and Governor DeSantis passed Senate Bill 360, effective April 13, 2023, which imposes significant changes to Florida’s statute of limitation (“SOL”) and statute of repose (“SOR”) periods prescribed in Florida Statute § 95.11. In short, the SOL and SOR periods will commence earlier and run earlier, which in effect shortens the time to bring a construction defect claim on both ends of the timeline.1
These changes will have positive impacts for general contractors who may save on insurance premiums with shorter completed operations tails. In other words, the timeframe within which contractors are at risk of being sued for construction-related errors is significantly reduced under the new version of the statute. Owners and developers, on the other hand, may feel that the increased pressure of uncovered construction defects necessitates the filing of lawsuits sooner than they might have otherwise filed. Collectively, all parties involved will certainly have to consider when and how to place their carriers on notice of claims or potential claims and, coupled with Florida’s sweeping changes to fee shifting statutes, insured parties may see more coverage denials which, in turn, could lead to more coverage actions.2
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Holly A. Rice, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Rice may be contacted at
HRice@sdvlaw.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
Texas Public Procurements: What Changed on September 1, 2017? a/k/a: When is the Use of E-Verify Required?
October 11, 2017 —
Timothy D. Matheny – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Every contractor that does business with the federal government is familiar with the requirement to use of E-Verify in order to document the employability of a contractor’s employees. But, when is a contractor required to use E-Verify in Texas? And, does this requirement to use E-Verify extend to the contractor’s subcontractors? All contractors and each of their subcontractors will be required to use E-Verify for a variety of goods and services contracts with state agencies. Failure to understand these requirements could lead to your company losing out on the award of the next Texas public procurement contract.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Timothy D. Matheny, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Mr. Matheny may be contacted at
tmatheny@pecklaw.com
Lawsuit Decries Environmental Assessment for Buffalo, NY, Expressway Cap Project
July 08, 2024 —
Justin Rice - Engineering News-RecordThe New York Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit against the New York State Dept. of Transportation for redeveloping Buffalo’s Kensington Expressway with a “limited and flawed” environmental assessment.
Reprinted courtesy of
Justin Rice, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Rice may be contacted at ricej@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New York City Construction: Boom Times Again?
October 22, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFConstruction spending in New York City is expected to reach $31.5 billion this year, which would be the first time has exceeded $30 billion since 2006. Further , construction spending is projected to grow to $37 billion in 2015. During that same period, construction jobs are expected to grow from 120,000 to 130,000.
Richard Anderson, the president of the New York Building Congress noted that “just five years after the worst downturn since the Great Depression, the city’s construction industry finds itself on the brink of yet another building boom.” Much of the increase is due to new residential construction.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court of Appeal Holds Only “Named Insureds” May Sue for Bad Faith Under California FAIR Plan Policy
May 10, 2021 —
Valerie A. Moore & Kathleen E.M. Moriarty - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Wexler v. California Fair Plan Association (No. 303100, filed 4/14/21), Brooke Wexler’s parents insured their residence, which was located in a mountainous high-fire risk area, with a California FAIR Plan Association owner-occupied dwelling policy. The policy only listed Wexler’s parents and did not name Wexler, their adult child, under the policy’s “Insured Name” section. The FAIR Plan expressly disclaimed coverage for “unnamed people,” referred to by the court as the “no-coverage-for-unnamed-persons clause.”
FAIR Plan was created by the Legislature in 1968 and is a joint reinsurance association created to give homeowners in high risk areas access to basic property insurance and is a self-described “insurer of last resort.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Kathleen E.M. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moriarty may be contacted at kemoriarty@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Missouri Legislature Passes Bill to Drastically Change Missouri’s “Consent Judgment” Statute
August 10, 2021 —
Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogOn June 29, 2021, Missouri Governor Mike Parson signed SB-HB 345 into law, which will drastically change Section 537.065 of the Missouri Revised Statutes. Section 537.065 provides an insured who has been denied insurance coverage a statutory mechanism to settle certain tort claims through an agreement akin to a consent judgment. Typically referred to as a “065 Agreement,” the statute allows a plaintiff and insured-tortfeasor to settle a claim for damages and specify which assets are available to satisfy the claim, typically the tortfeasor’s available insurance policy. In the past, such agreements were often accomplished without the insurer’s participation or even its knowledge. Under such agreements, the insured-tortfeasor assigns all rights to the insurance policy to the plaintiff and agrees not to contest the issues of liability or damages. In exchange the plaintiff agrees not to execute any judgment against the insured. The parties conduct what amounts to an uncontested and often “sham” trial resulting in a judgment far in excess of any actual damages or applicable policy limits had the case been contested. In a subsequent proceeding to collect on the judgment, the tortfeasor’s insurer is bound by the determinations of liability and damages made in the underlying action.
This statutory framework presented plenty of opportunities for abuse. In 2017, the statute was amended in order to address some of those issues, including a requirement that the insured provide notice of a settlement demand under Section 065 and providing insurers a limited right to intervene in the tort action before liability and damages have been determined. Ostensibly, the intent of the 2017 amendments was to reduce the number of large and uncontested judgments and allow the insurance carrier an opportunity to continue litigating the injured party’s claim where the insured has no incentive or is contractually prohibited from doing so. Yet, creative plaintiff’s attorneys found several “loopholes” around these changes, most prominently, by moving their disputes from state court to binding arbitration and dispensing with notice to the insurer altogether, or at least until after the arbitration has concluded.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Taylor, Traub LiebermanMr. Taylor may be contacted at
jtaylor@tlsslaw.com
Marlena Ellis Makes The Lawyers of Color Hot List of 2022
January 17, 2023 —
Marlena Ellis - White and Williams LLPIn just her first year of practice, Marlena Ellis, Associate, is included in the Lawyers of Color Hot List of 2022.
Marlena joined the firm in 2021 as a full-time associate practicing both Commercial Litigation, Insurance Coverage, and Bad Faith Practice. She advises a variety of clients including corporations, commercial entities and insurance companies in complex disputes and breach of fiduciary duty matters.
The Lawyers of Color Hot List of 2022 honors junior and mid-level attorneys of color who exemplify integrity, leadership, and a passion for diversity in their roles. The selection committee spent months reviewing nominations to identify the right candidates for the list, and Marlena was one of the few chosen for this year.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Marlena Ellis, White and Williams LLPMs. Ellis may be contacted at
ellism@whiteandwilliams.com
