California Senator Proposes Bill to Require Contractors to Report Construction Defect Cases
January 04, 2018 —
David Suggs - Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.According to Renne Schiavone’s of Patch.com in her article “Sen. Hill Wants Contractors to Report Construction Defect Cases”, Senator Jerry Hill of San Mateo County proposed a bill on December 21st, 2017 requiring construction defect settlements to be reported by contractors to the licensing board. This proposal comes after the tragic incident that took place back on June 16, 2015 during which a balcony on the fifth floor of a Berkeley apartment complex collapsed. This resulted in the death of six students and serious injuries for an additional seven individuals.
An investigation revealed that three years prior to the balcony collapse, Segue Construction, who built the apartment complex, had paid $26.5 million in construction defect lawsuit settlements. Since the law doesn’t require these settlements to be reported by contractors, the Contractors State License Board (CSLB) wasn’t aware of the case.
"Working together we can take even stronger steps to protect the public by ensuring that this critically important data is accessible to the Contractors State License Board," said Senator Hill. Senate Bill 465 will aim to protect consumers with more regulation and transparency. Senator Hill is also working on Senate Bill 721 which would require periodic condo and apartment building inspections of exterior elevated walking surfaces, stairwells, and balconies.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
4 Lessons Contractors Can Learn From The COVID-19 Crisis
May 25, 2020 —
Patrick Hogan - Handle.comAt the start of 2020, the industry outlook in construction was positive. Many contractors were optimistic about what the year had in store for construction businesses in terms of profit, expansion of operations, and even payment issues. That was until the COVID-19 pandemic put a wrench in everyone’s business plans.
There’s no question about how huge the impact of the novel coronavirus crisis is on business operations. With the federal and state governments implementing strict measures to slow down the spread of COVID-19, construction businesses are experiencing significant delays and disruptions in their operations. Because of the lockdowns and stay-at-home orders, many construction projects are forced to postpone operations or, worse, cancel them altogether.
Nevertheless, there are lessons in the COVID-19 pandemic that contractors can learn. Here are some of them.
1. Contractors need to be proactive in meeting preliminary notice requirements
Cash is tight in times of crisis. As the economy comes to a standstill, construction businesses will need to deal with decreasing profits. They may even have to dip into their own cash reserves to cover fixed expenses and their employees’ salaries.
In times like this, it is crucial that contractors perform due diligence in protecting their right to get paid. The first step in doing so is to prepare
preliminary notices. These notices are an important step in the mechanics lien process and without them, chances contractors will not be able to recover the unpaid compensation for the materials they furnished and services they rendered.
2. Force majeure provisions are crucial parts of a contract
The novel coronavirus pandemic has highlighted the importance of force majeure provisions in construction contracts. Before the COVID-19 crisis hit business operations, force majeure provisions were typically considered as simple boilerplate clauses. This means they were just there as a standard part of contracts.
However, the same force majeure clauses, as well as impossibility of performance provisions, have become crucial in the current crisis. As many construction businesses experience difficulties with their operations, they may not be able to fulfill their contractual responsibilities. The said clauses can give contractors a much-needed reprieve.
As the current crisis continues, contractors should review contracts as these provisions can give them more time to finish the job. And in the hopefully near future when the crisis ends, business owners should review the contract creation process and ensure that these clauses included in contracts will be able to address the impact of situations similar to COVID-19.
3. Having solid internal communication is crucial
There’s a lot of uncertainty with the COVID-19 situation. With work operations temporarily stopping, the circumstances can be quite stressful for employees. There will be doubts and fears within your workforce on whether work will be back to normal as soon as possible or not.
Keeping your workforce well-informed and trusting of your organization is crucial, especially in this time of uncertainty. That is why it is paramount that you have a solid internal communication infrastructure to disseminate information about the current work situation and the next steps that the business will take. In addition, only through proper employee communication can the implementation of social distancing and hygiene measures be effective.
4. Contractors can benefit from flexible work arrangements
As the coronavirus crisis has made it necessary for everyone to stay at home, construction businesses should look for ways to continue operations. Expanded work arrangements such as work-from-home setups may just be the solution.
Of course, most of the physical work that is needed to be done on-site will be impossible to do at home, but office-based functions such as sales, client relations, design, and administrative roles can still continue. This can even have additional benefits to productivity and health. And when the crisis is over, business owners should consider incorporating these work arrangements into their operations permanently.
The COVID-19 crisis is not showing any sign of stopping soon, and even when it ends, it will take quite a long time before we can be back to business as usual. As the crisis continues, however, business owners should take the situation as a learning experience.
Once the COVID-19 crisis is over, it will take a long time for things to go back to normal. In fact, things may not end up going back to the way they were before and businesses will need to adapt to the new normal. However the situation evolves, business owners should take this opportunity to learn new things and maintain resilience in trying times.
About the Author:
Patrick Hogan is the CEO of Handle.com, where they build software that helps contractors, subcontractors, and material suppliers with late payments. Handle.com also provides funding for construction businesses in the form of invoice factoring, material supply trade credit, and mechanics lien purchasing.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
When Can a General Contractor’s Knowledge be Imputed to a Developer?
August 06, 2014 —
Zach McLeroy – Colorado Construction LitigationThe Colorado Court of Appeals recently handed down an opinion clarifying when the knowledge of a general contractor can be imputed to a developer. In the case of Jehly v. Brown, 327 P.3d (Colo. App. 2013), the Court of Appeals held that a developer cannot be held liable for fraudulent concealment when the developer has no actual knowledge of the fact or facts allegedly being concealed even if the general contractor had knowledge.
In this case, Brown, the developer, owned real property in Teller County and hired a general contractor to build a single-family house. Sometime before or during the construction, the general contractor became aware that part of the home site was located in a designated floodplain. Although the general contractor was aware that part of the home site was located in a floodplain, he continued to build the home without informing Brown of the floodplain designation.
Once the home was complete, Brown sold the property to the Jehlys. Brown completed a Seller’s Property Disclosure Form regarding the condition of the house and property, but failed to identify that the home site was located in a governmentally designated floodplain.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Zack McLeroy, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McLeroy may be contacted at
McLeroy@hhmrlaw.com
Illinois Supreme Court Holds that Constructions Defects May Constitute “Property Damage” Caused By An “Occurrence” Under Standard CGL Policy, Overruling Prior Appellate Court Precedent
January 08, 2024 —
Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogOn November 30, 2023, the Illinois Supreme Court issued an opinion that overturned precedent in Illinois regarding whether faulty workmanship that only caused damage to the insured’s own work constituted “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under Illinois law. In Acuity v. M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC, 2023 IL 129087, the Illinois Supreme Court considered whether Acuity, a mutual insurance company, had a duty to defend its additional insured, M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC (M/I Homes), under a subcontractor’s commercial general liability (CGL) policy in connection with an underlying lawsuit brought by a townhome owners’ association for breach of contract and breach of an implied warranty of habitability. The Cook County Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of Acuity finding no duty to defend because the underlying complaint did not allege “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under the initial grant of coverage of the insurance policy. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that Acuity owed M/I Homes a duty to defend. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, in part, holding construction defects to the general contractor’s own work may constitute “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under the standard CGL Policy. This is significant as it overrules prior Illinois precedent finding that repair or replacement of the insured’s defective work does not satisfy the initial grant of coverage of a CGL Policy.
By way of background, the underlying litigation stems from alleged construction defects in a residential townhome development in the village of Hanover Park, Illinois. The townhome owners’ association, through its board of directors (the Association) subsequently filed an action on behalf of the townhome owners for breach of contract and breach of the implied warranty of habitability against M/I Homes as the general contractor and successor developer/seller of the townhomes. The Association alleged that M/I Homes’ subcontractors caused construction defects by using defective materials, conducting faulty workmanship, and failing to comply with applicable building codes. As a result, “[t]he [d]efects caused physical injury to the [t]ownhomes (i.e. altered the exterior’s appearance, shape, color or other material dimension) after construction of the [t]ownhome[ ] was completed from repeated exposure to substantially the same general conditions.” The defects included “leakage and/or uncontrolled water and/or moisture in locations in the buildings where it was not intended or expected.” The Association alleged that the “[d]efects have caused substantial damage to the [t]ownhomes and damage to other property.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Taylor, Traub LiebermanMr. Taylor may be contacted at
jtaylor@tlsslaw.com
Manhattan Bargain: Condos for Less Than $3 Million
February 05, 2015 —
Oshrat Carmiel and Heather Perlberg – BloombergWhen Related Cos. began selling condominiums at one of its former rental buildings last month, 50 people showed up in the first two days for an only-in-Manhattan bargain: almost all the homes cost less than $3 million.
Carnegie Park, a 1980s-era rental property, was renovated as a condo building where one-bedroom apartments with 690 square feet (64 square meters) start at $765,000. The average price for all units is about $1,300 per square foot -- roughly 30 percent less than the average for a newly built Manhattan condo sold in the fourth quarter, according to appraiser Miller Samuel Inc.
Reprinted courtesy of
Oshrat Carmiel, Bloomberg LLP and
Heather Perlberg, Bloomberg LLP Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
SB 939 Proposes Moratorium On Unlawful Detainer Actions For Commercial Tenants And Allows Tenants Who Can't Renegotiate Their Lease In Good Faith To Terminate Their Lease Without Liability
June 01, 2020 —
Rhonda Kreger – Newmeyer DillionSB 939 is currently working its way through the Senate Judiciary Committee. The legislation would impose new obligations on landlords, and provide protections for commercial tenants who meet specified criteria. SB 939 would impose a moratorium on eviction of those qualified commercial tenants while emergency COVID-19 orders are in effect. Any eviction actions commenced after the date of the emergency COVID-19 order, but before the adoption of SB 939, would be void and unenforceable. The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing for SB 939 on May 22, 2020, at 9:00 a.m.
Who qualifies as a commercial tenant under SB 939?
To qualify under this legislation, a commercial tenant must be a business that operates primarily in California. The commercial tenant must be a small business, nonprofit, an eating or drinking establishment, place of entertainment, or performance venue. Publicly traded companies or any company owned by, or affiliated with a publicly traded company, do not qualify. The commercial tenant must have experienced a decline of at least 40 percent monthly revenue, either as compared to two months before the emergency COVID-19 order, or other local government shelter-in-place orders took effect, or as compared to the same month in 2019. If the commercial tenant is an eating or drinking establishment, place of entertainment, or performance venue, the commercial tenant must also show a decline of 25 percent or more in capacity due to social or physical distancing orders or safety concerns, and show that it is subject to regulations to prevent the spread of COVID-19 that will financially impair the business when compared to the period before the emergency COVID-19 order or other local shelter-in-place orders took effect.
What eviction actions are prohibited while emergency COVID-19 orders are in effect?
If adopted, SB 939 would add Section 1951.9 to the Civil Code. This section would make it unlawful to terminate a tenancy, serve notice to terminate a tenancy, use lockout or utility shutoff actions to terminate a tenancy or otherwise evict a tenant of commercial real property, including a business or nonprofit, during the pendency of the COVID-19 emergency order proclaimed by Governor Newsome on March 4, 2020. Exceptions apply if a tenant poses a threat to the property, other tenants or a person, business or other entity. Any violations of this eviction prohibition would be against public policy and unenforceable.
Any eviction started after proclamation of the state of emergency but before the effective date is deemed void, against public policy and is unenforceable.
Does SB 939 impose new penalties or remedies?
Any landlord who harasses, mistreats or retaliates against a commercial tenant to force the tenant to abrogate the lease would be subject to a fine of $2,000 for each violation. Further, any such violation would be an unlawful business practice and an act of unfair competition under Section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code and would be subject to all available remedies or penalties for those actions under state law.
When is a commercial tenant required to pay unpaid rent due to COVID-19?
If a commercial tenant fails to pay rent during the emergency COVID-19 order, the sum total of the past due rent must be paid within 12 months following the date of the end of the emergency proclamation, unless the commercial tenant has successfully negotiated an agreement with its landlord to pay the outstanding rent at a later date. Nonpayment of rent during the state of emergency cannot be used as grounds for eviction. Notwithstanding lease terms to the contrary, landlords may not impose late charges for rent that became due during the state of emergency.
Are landlords required to provide notice of protections adopted under SB 939?
Landlords would be required to provide notice to commercial tenants of the protections offered under SB 939 within 30 days of the effective date. SB 939 does not preempt local legislation or ordinances restricting the same or similar conduct which impose a more severe penalty for the same conduct. Local legislation or ordinances may impose additional notice requirements.
Does SB 939 impose new protections for commercial tenants when negotiating lease modifications?
If enacted, SB 939 would permit commercial tenants to open negotiations for new lease terms, and provide commercial tenants the ability to terminate the lease if those negotiations fail. A commercial tenant who wishes to modify its commercial lease, may engage in good faith negotiations with its landlord to modify any rent or economic requirement regardless of the term remaining on the lease. The commercial tenant must serve a notice on the landlord certifying that it meets the required criteria, along with the desired modifications.
If the commercial tenant and landlord do not reach a mutually satisfactory agreement within 30 days, then within 10 days, the commercial tenant may terminate the lease without any liability for future rent, fees, or costs that otherwise may have been due under the lease by providing a written termination notice to the landlord. The commercial tenant would be required to pay previously due rent, in an amount no greater than the sum of the following: (1) the actual rent due during the emergency COVID-19 order, or a maximum of three months of the past due rent during that period, and (2) all rent incurred and unpaid during a time unrelated to the emergency COVID-19 order through the date of the termination notice. The payment is due within 12 months from date of the termination notice. The commercial tenant would be required to vacate the premises within 14 days of the landlord's receipt of the termination notice. Upon service of the notice, any lease, and any third party guaranties of the lease would terminate. If the landlord and commercial tenant reach an agreement to modify the lease, the commercial tenant would not have the option to later terminate the lease under this provision.
When is the next Senate Judiciary Committee Meeting for SB 939?
The Senate Judiciary Committee set a hearing for SB 939 on May 22, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. The Senate will livestream the hearing on its website at www.sen.ca.gov. Public comments or testimony may be submitted in writing to the Judiciary Committee by emailing Erica.porter@sen.ca.gov. Alternatively, the public may participate via telephone during the public comment period. Any changes to the Judicial Committee schedule may be found at: https://www.senate.ca.gov/calendar.
Newmeyer Dillion continues to follow COVID-19 and its impact on your business and our communities. Feel free to reach out to us at NDcovid19response@ndlf.com or visit us at www.newmeyerdillion.com/covid-19-multidisciplinary-task-force/.
Rhonda Kreger is Senior Counsel on Newmeyer Dillion's transactional team at our Newport Beach office. Her practice focuses on all aspects of commercial real estate law, with a particular emphasis on the representation of residential developers, merchant builders and institutional investors. You can reach Rhonda at rhonda.kreger@ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sarah P. Long Expands Insurance Coverage Team at Payne & Fears
March 19, 2024 —
Payne & Fears LLPSarah P. Long has joined Payne & Fears LLP as a Partner in the firm’s Insurance Coverage and Litigation Group. Sarah has represented clients in all aspects of insurance coverage and litigation and also focus on construction defect claims and litigation.
Before joining Payne & Fears, Sarah was a partner at Koeller, Nebeker, Carlson, Haluck, LLP, where she represented many of the nation’s builders in construction defect actions and bad faith insurance coverage disputes for 17 years.
Known for her dependability, efficiency, and creative problem-solving, Sarah always strives to secure the best results for her clients in the most efficient manner.
“We are excited to welcome Sarah to P&F as we continue to expand and add depth to our Insurance Litigation Group. I have known Sarah in a professional and personal capacity for more than 16 years. She is well respected by clients and peers in the legal profession. She is a bright, efficient, and innovative attorney and a wonderful person,” said Sarah Odia, the group’s co-chair.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Payne & Fears LLP
COVID-19 Win for Policyholders! Court Approves "Direct Physical Loss" Argument
October 12, 2020 —
Gregory D. Podolak & Christine Baptiste-Perez - Saxe Doernberger & VitaLate last week, a Missouri federal district court provided a significant victory for insurance policyholders for COVID-19 losses. In Studio 417, Inc. v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company 6:20-cv-03127-SRB (W.D. MO, So. Div., Aug. 12, 2020), the Court was called upon to decide whether allegations involving the presence of COVID-19 in and around physical structures qualify as “direct physical loss or damage” to covered property. For those actively monitoring the COVID-19 insurance coverage litigation landscape, this has been a central question – and hotly contested debate – in virtually all first-party property and business interruption claims. Through a detailed and well-reasoned discussion, the Court answered the question with an emphatic “Yes.”
The Plaintiffs – a proposed class of hair salons and restaurants - purchased “all-risk” property insurance policies (the “Policies”) from Cincinnati. The Policies provide that Cincinnati would pay for “direct ‘loss’ unless the ‘loss’ is excluded or limited.” They also defined a “Covered Cause of Loss” as “accidental [direct] physical loss or accidental [direct] physical damage.” The Policies did not contain a virus exclusion. Anecdotally, Cincinnati has been vocal about the general lack of virus exclusions on its standard forms, having recently publicized that the company considers such exclusions “unnecessary” because, in its view, “a virus does not produce direct physical damage or loss to property.” From Cincinnati’s perspective, the insuring agreement is not triggered by these events, so there’s no need to analyze exclusions. Cincinnati relied heavily on that analysis in this case.
Reprinted courtesy of
Gregory D. Podolak, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Christine Baptiste-Perez, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Podolak may be contacted at gdp@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Baptiste-Perez may be contacted at cbp@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
