How the Jury Divided $112M in Seattle Crane Collapse Damages
April 04, 2022 —
Richard Korman - Engineering News-RecordThe jury verdict in a wrongful death lawsuit against companies involved in a 2019 Seattle crane collapse that killed four people split damages among three different companies—and also blamed a fourth firm that wasn't a defendant—but not in a way that matched the state safety fines proposed against the firms.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brad Pitt’s Foundation Sues New Orleans Architect for Construction Defects
September 25, 2018 —
David Suggs – Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.Brad Pitt’s foundation has sued its architect of New Orleans projects alleging “defective design work led to leaks and other flaws in homes built for residents of an area that was among the hardest hit by Hurricane Katrina,” reported Insurance Journal.
The Make It Right Foundation claims damages of more than $15 million caused by architect John C. Williams. According to Insurance Journal, “The foundation paid Williams’ firm millions of dollars to produce architectural drawings for more than 100 homes under the program, which was supposed to provide Lower 9th Ward residents with sustainable and affordable new homes.”
This lawsuit against the architect is apparently in response to a class-action lawsuit by New Orleans attorney Ron Austin against Pitt’s Make It Right Foundation. Austin’s lawsuit “accused the charity of building substandard homes that are deteriorating at a rapid pace,” Insurance Journal reported.
The 39 homes involved in a previous suit regarding the manufacturer of TimberSIL are excluded from the lawsuit against Williams.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Putting for a Cure: Don’t Forget to Visit BHA’s Booth at WCC to Support Charity
April 28, 2016 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFBert L. Howe & Associates, Inc., (BHA) is excited to announce the return of their very popular
Sink a Putt for Charity at the 2016
West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar. 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 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.
But it doesn’t stop there. Breast cancer touches so many lives, with wives, mothers, sisters, aunts, cousins and daughters all affected by this insidious disease. To further assist in their noble fight, BHA is doubling down. During three Championship Rounds on Thursday morning, afternoon, and evening, BHA will up the ante. For every putt ATTEMPTED (sink or miss), BHA will make a $50 donation to Susan G. Komen, and for every putt MADE, the golfer will also win a $50 gift card.
These Championship Rounds will occur during the Thursday morning break, the afternoon break, and during the first hour of the Thursday evening cocktail party. Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc., strongly supports the goals and principles of the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure, and is honored to assist in fulfilling its mission of supporting research, community health, global outreach and public policy initiatives.
While at the booth, don’t forget to test out BHA’s industry leading data collection and inspection analysis systems. BHA has recently added video overviews to their data collection process, as well as next-day viewing of inspection data via their secured BHA Client Access Portal. Discover meaningful cost improvements that translate to reduced billing while providing superior accuracy and credibility.
Attendees can also enter to win Dodger baseball tickets or one of three new iPad Pros! Other BHA giveaways include USB charging blocks, pocket tape measures, multi-tools, laser pointers, foam stress balls, and Callaway golf balls.
For more information on the Susan G. Komen Foundation, please visit their
website.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
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
Insured Cannot Sue to Challenge Binding Appraisal Decision
December 16, 2023 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court dismissed the insured condominium association's challenge to an appraisal award. The Courtyards at Prairie Fields Condominium Association v. West Band Mut. Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169458 (N. D. Ill. Sept. 22, 2023).
In July 2020, the insured filed a claim with West Bend for damage to the property's roof and other building components as a result of wind and hail. West Bend inspected and estimated the replacement cost for the damage was $60,989.54. This amount was paid to the insured minus the $10,000 deductible. The insured believed the damage was so severe that the roofs need to be replaced, which the insured estimated would cost $1,389,600. The insured demanded an appraisal.
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
Colorado Supreme Court Grants the Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes
June 22, 2016 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction LitigationWe have previously reported on the Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes case, in which the Colorado Court of Appeals upheld a provision in an association's declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions, which required declarant consent before an arbitration provision could be amended out of the document. To read the past articles on the case, please review
Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes: The Colorado Court of Appeals' Decision Protecting a Declarant’s Right to Arbitration in Construction Defect Cases and
The Vallagio HOA Appeals the Decision from the Colorado Court of Appeals.
Today, the Colorado Supreme Court granted the association's petition for writ of certiorari, en banc, on the following reframed issues:
Whether the court of appeals erred by holding as a matter of first impression that Colorado’s Common Interest Ownership Act (“CCIOA”) permits a developer-declarant to reserve the power to veto unit owner votes to amend common interest community declarations.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David M. McClain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McClain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Federal Judge Issues Preliminary Injunction Blocking State's Enforcement of New Law Banning Mandatory Employee Arbitration Agreements
February 24, 2020 —
Amy R. Patton, Jeffrey K. Brown & Tyler B. Runge - Payne & FearsOn January 31, 2020, Judge Kimberly Mueller issued a preliminary injunction "in full" preventing the State of California from enforcing AB 51, the state's new law effectively banning mandatory employee arbitration agreements.
As we previously reported, AB 51 adds section 432.6 to the Labor Code and section 12953 to the Government Code, which together prohibit employers from requiring an employee, as a condition of employment, continued employment, or receipt of employment-related benefits, to waive any right, forum, or procedure to pursue a claim under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act or the Labor Code. In other words, AB 51 bans mandatory employment arbitration agreements for employment-related claims.
In early December 2019, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a coalition of business organizations sued the state of California in federal court in a bid to have AB 51 declared preempted --- and therefore unenforceable --- by the Federal Arbitration Act. The case is Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Becerra, Case No. 2:19-cv-2456 KJM DB (E.D. Cal.).
On December 30, 2019, Judge Mueller issued a temporary restraining order preventing the state from enforcing AB 51 pending the resolution of plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. You can read our report
here.
Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears attorneys
Amy R. Patton,
Jeffrey K. Brown and
Tyler B. Runge
Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com
Mr. Brown may be contacted at kb@paynefears.com
Mr. Runge may be contacted at tbr@paynefears.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The G2G Year in Review: 2020
January 18, 2021 —
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogAs we say goodbye to 2020, we wanted to share our top five most-read articles of 2020 from Gravel2Gavel. The most-read blog posts covered real estate and construction industry trends ranging from proptech trends like blockchain tokenization to COVID-specific rent carveouts and management disclosures to trends and market updates. Our posts provided deep industry insight and summarized hot topics that addressed the legal implications and disruptions that affected the market. Our 2020 roundup:
- Blockchain-Based Tokenization of Commercial Real Estate by Josh Morton and Matt Olhausen. Josh and Matt discuss the increasing interest in technology applications for real estate assets, or “Proptech,” and tokenization’s potential.
- Real Estate Trends: Looking Ahead to 2021 by Adam Weaver. Adam discussed the pandemic’s influence and future trends for the real estate market.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team
