Nevada Assembly Sends Construction Defect Bill to Senate
June 06, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFIn a 26 to 16 vote, the Nevada Assembly has passed Assembly Bill 401, which extends the time limit for legal action over home construction defects. According to the Las Vegas Sun, Assembly member Marcus Conklin, Democrat of Las Vegas, said the bill was about “keeping the consumer whole.” However, Ira Hansen, Republican of Sparks, told the sun that suits are happening before contractors can make repairs. The bill would allow attorney fees even if repairs are made.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
COVID-19 Damages and Time Recovery: Contract Checklist and Analysis
April 27, 2020 —
Patrick J. Greene, Jr. - Peckar & AbramsonThis Alert explores the contract provisions and related rights that are likely to govern time and compensation adjustments for COVID-19 impacts. As parties begin analyzing such rights, this is intended to serve as a useful guide and checklist.
Analysis of relevant contract provisions should start with careful consideration of the specific impacts that have been experienced and the causes of those impacts. The nature of the impact (delay, extra work, disruption, etc.) and the causes of such impacts (owner direction, government order, etc.) will generally govern the analysis and resulting course of action. Listing or creating a matrix of impacts and their causes may be an effective working tool.
Essentially, there are five primary impacts that will likely require critical analysis under the relevant contract provisions, and notably, more than one impact may be present:
a) complete or partial suspension of work,
b) additional work or requirements,
c) added cost,
d) delay, and
e) disruption.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick J. Greene, Jr., Peckar & AbramsonMr. Greene may be contacted at
pgreene@pecklaw.com
The Privette Doctrine, the Hooker Exception, and an Attack at a Construction Site
July 05, 2023 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogYou don’t often hear about workers being attacked by ne’er-do-wells on a construction project. But, as they say, shite happens . . .
Construction contracts often address health and safety issues, as well as site security to protect the improvement, materials, equipment and tools, as well as to protect the public from getting hit by say a large crane with a demolition ball, but site security to protect the workers from thugs, not so much.
This is exactly what happened to a construction worker in Degala v. John Stewart Company (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 158 who was jumped and injured by three hoodlums who attacked him while he was working at a job site. The injured worker, an employee of a subcontractor, was covered by workers’ compensation insurance, but also brought claims against the general contractor and project owner for negligence and premises liability and they, in turn, argued they were immune from liability under the Privette doctrine.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Gillotti v. Stewart (2017) 2017 WL 1488711 Rejects Liberty Mutual, Holding Once Again that the Right to Repair Act is the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims
June 05, 2017 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq. & Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq. - Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger BulletinBackground
In Gillotti v. Stewart (April 26, 2017) 2017 WL 1488711, which was ordered to be published on May 18, 2017, the defendant grading subcontractor added soil over tree roots to level the driveway on the plaintiff homeowner’s sloped lot. The homeowner sued the grading subcontractor under the California Right to Repair Act (Civil Code §§ 895, et seq.) claiming that the subcontractor’s work damaged the trees.
After the jury found the subcontractor was not negligent, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the subcontractor. The homeowner appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly construed the Right to Repair Act as barring a common law negligence theory against the subcontractor and erred in failing to follow Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98. The Third District Court of Appeal disagreed and affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the subcontractor.
Impact
This is the second time the Third District Court of Appeal has held that Liberty Mutual (discussed below) was wrongly decided and held that the Right to Repair Act is the exclusive remedy for construction defect claims. The decision follows its holding in Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court (Hicks) (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 333, in which the Court of Appeal held that the Right to Repair Act’s pre-litigation procedures apply when homeowners plead construction defect claims based on common law causes of action, as opposed to violations of the building standards set forth in the Right to Repair Act. Elliott is currently on hold at the California Supreme Court, pending the decision in McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132, wherein Liberty Mutual was rejected for the first time by the Fifth District. CGDRB continues to follow developments regarding the much anticipated McMillin decision closely, as well as all related matters.
Discussion
The Right to Repair Act makes contractors and subcontractors not involved in home sales liable for construction defects only if the homeowner proves they negligently cause the violation in whole or part (Civil Code §§ 911(b), 936). As such, the trial court in Gillotti instructed the jury on negligence with respect to the grading subcontractor. The jury found that while the construction did violate some of the Right to Repair’s building standards alleged by the homeowner, the subcontractor was not negligent in anyway. After the jury verdict, the trial court found in favor of the grading subcontractor.
The homeowner moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial on the grounds that the trial court improperly barred a common law negligence theory against the grading subcontractor. The trial court denied the motions on the grounds that “[t]he Right to Repair Act specifically provides that no other causes of action are allowed. See Civil Code § 943.” The trial court specifically noted that its decision conflicted with Liberty Mutual, in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the Right to Repair Act does not eliminate common law rights and remedies where actual damage has occurred, stating that Liberty Mutual was wrongly decided and that the Liberty Mutual court was naïve in its assumptions regarding the legislative history of the Right to Repair Act.
In Gillotti, the Third District Court of Appeal stated that the Liberty Mutual court failed to analyze the language of Civil Code § 896, which “clearly and unequivocally expresses the legislative intent that the Act apply to all action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in, residential construction, except as specifically set forth in the Act. The Act does not specifically except actions arising from actual damages. To the contrary, it authorizes recovery of damages, e.g., for ‘the reasonable cost of repairing and rectifying any damages resulting from the failure of the home to meet the standards....’ ([Civil Code] § 944).”
The Court also disagreed with Liberty Mutual’s view that because Civil Code §§ 931 and 943 acknowledge exceptions to the Right to Repair Act’s statutory remedies, the Act does not preclude common law claims for damages due to defects identified in the Act. The Court stated: “Neither list of exceptions, in section 943 or in section 931, includes common law causes of action such as negligence. If the Legislature had intended to make such a wide-ranging exception to the restrictive language of the first sentence of section 943, we would have expected it to do so expressly.”
Additionally, the Court of Appeal rejected the argument that Civil Code § 897 preserves a common law negligence claims for violation of standards not listed in Civil Code § 986. It explained that the section of Civil Code § 897, which provides, “The standards set forth in this chapter are intended to address every function or component of a structure,” expresses the legislative intent that the Right to Repair Act be all-encompassing. Anything inadvertently omitted is actionable under the Act if it causes damage. Any exceptions to the Act are made expressly through Civil Code §§ 931 and 934. The Court concluded in no uncertain terms that the Right to Repair Act precludes common law claims in cases for damages covered by the Act.
The homeowner further argued that she was not precluded from bringing a common law claim because a tree is not a “structure,” and therefore the alleged tree damage did not fall within the realm of the Right to Repair. The Court of Appeal also rejected this argument, holding that while the tree damage itself was not expressly covered, the act of adding soil to make the driveway level (which caused the damage) implicated the standards covered by the Right to Repair Act. The Court explained that since under the Act a “structure” includes “improvement located upon a lot or within a common area” (Civil Code § 895(a)), as the driveway was an improvement upon the lot, the claim was within the purview of the Right to Repair Act. As the soil, a component of the driveway, caused damage (to the trees), it was actionable under the Act.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Chelsea L. Zwart, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Will The New U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Deal Calm Industry Jitters?
January 13, 2020 —
Bruce Buckley - Engineering News-RecordNews that House Democrats and the Trump administration have come to an agreement on the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) provided a bit of calm in the storm over trade policies that have roiled the construction market since 2017.
Bruce Buckley, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Four White and Williams Lawyers Recognized as "Lawyer of the Year" by Best Lawyers®
September 19, 2022 —
White and Williams LLPWhite and Williams is proud to announce that Chuck Eppolito, Michael Kassak, Anthony Miscioscia and Christian Singewald have been recognized by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® as a “Lawyer of the Year” in their respective practices. "Lawyer of the Year" recognitions are awarded to individual lawyers with the highest overall peer-feedback for a specific practice area and geographic location.
Chuck Eppolito was named in the area of Litigation - Heath Care in Philadelphia, PA. His practice consists primarily of medical malpractice defense as well as other insurance-related defense, including general negligence, electrical engineering and product liability issues in utilities cases. Chuck's clients include hospitals and physicians throughout Pennsylvania, utility companies and insurance carriers, including primary, excess and reinsurance, throughout the nation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams LLP
Negligence Claim Not Barred by Gist of the Action Doctrine
February 18, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the insureds' negligence claim survived because it was not based upon breach of a duty created by the policy, but upon the alleged breach of a duty imposed by tort law. Bruno v. Erie Ins. Co,, 2014 Pa. LEXIS 3319 (Dec. 15, 2014).
After purchasing their home, the insureds obtained a homeowner's policy from Erie. A separate endorsement covered loss to the property caused by "fungi," which was included as any form of mold. The endorsement obligated Erie to pay up to $5,000 for loss caused by mold. The policy required Erie to pay the cost of testing the air to confirm the absence or presence of mold. If mold was present, Erie was to pay for the cost of removal, including the cost of tearing out any part of the property needed to gain access to the mold.
While renovating the basement, the insureds discovered two areas of black mold in close proximity to leaking water pipes. Erie was notified and sent an adjuster to view the mold. The adjuster took no action, but returned a couple of days later with an engineer. The adjuster and engineer informed the insureds that the mold was harmless and that health problems associated with mold were a media frenzy and overblown.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
New ConsensusDocs 242 Design Professional Change Order Form Helps Facilitate Compensation for Changes in Design Services
November 05, 2024 —
Brian Perlberg - ConsensusDocsConsensusDocs is publishing a new ConsensusDocs 242 Change in Services and Compensation, a change order for design services by a design professional. In the design and construction industry, one thing is certain – change. The work scope included in basic design services an architect or engineer provides occurs somewhat regularly. Previously, ConsensusDocs did not have a standard contract document for changing design professionals’ prices. As a result of user feedback, the ConsensusDocs Contract Content Advisory Council (CCAC) drafted this new architect/engineer change order. The CCAC unanimously approved the new contract document and publication is set for October 14, 2024. The document will be available for most ConsensusDocs subscribers. The full, owner, design-professional, and short-form subscription packages will include the document. A subscription package can be purchased through ConsensusDocs here.
The design professional change order helps owners of construction projects keep track of additional services their design professionals perform. The design professional must provide itemized labor breakdowns for each invoice. The new ConsensusDocs 242 has options for compensation to be actual hours at the billing rate or a lump sum. The new contract document form also has a table for the remaining project deliverables and their respective due dates.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brian Perlberg, ConsensusDocs CoalitionMr. Perlberg may be contacted at
bperlberg@ConsensusDocs.org
