Colorado House Bill 1279 Stalls over 120-day Unit Owner Election Period
April 20, 2017 —
Luke Mecklenburg - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogWith the session more than halfway through, the Colorado Legislature’s 2017 attempts at meaningful construction defect reform may fail again. This year, the Legislature did not attempt a single-bill construction defect overhaul like those that have failed over the last half-decade. Rather, it has sought to enact reforms on a piecemeal basis, with several smaller bills addressing specific issues that have been affecting condominium construction along Colorado’s booming Front Range.
This new approach appears to be headed towards much the same outcome as the failed efforts of the past. House Bill 1169 would have given developers a statutory right to repair before being sued by homeowners, and Senate Bill 156 would mandate arbitration or mediation. Both have been assigned to the House State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee (often viewed as the “bill-kill committee”), and have little chance of being resuscitated this session.
This was also the fate of House Bill 1279, but bipartisan support had many believing that it still had a chance of passing—at least until last week. House Bill 1279 would require an executive board of a homeowners association to satisfy several prerequisites before suing a developer or builder, namely to (1) notify all unit owners and the developer or builder against whom the lawsuit is being considered; (2) call an association meeting where the builder or developer could present relevant facts and arguments; and (3) get approval from the majority of the unit owners after providing detailed disclosures about the lawsuit, including the potential costs and benefits thereof.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & WilmerMr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at
lmecklenburg@swlaw.com
Duty to Defend Requires Payments Under Policy's Supplemental Payments Provision
February 16, 2017 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe California Court of Appeal determined there was no duty to indemnify and the insured had to reimburse the insurer's contribution to a settlement. Nevertheless, there was a duty to defend, meaning the insured did not have to reimburse amounts it was entitled to under the supplemental payments provision. Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. v. Moorefield Constr., 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 1132 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2016).
Moorefield was the general contractor for a shopping center project to be developed by DBO Development No. 28 (DBO). The project included the construction of a 30,055-square-foot building to by used as a Best Buy store. In January 2002, DBO entered a 15-year lease with Best Buy.
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 Jersey’s Independent Contractor Rule
January 07, 2015 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsFor this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Musings, we welcome back Bennet Susser. Bennet is a founding member and shareholder of the New Jersey law firm, Jardim, Meisner & Susser, P.C. He has over 25 years’ experience in representing clients in all types of complex (and not so complex) litigation, including those involving construction actions. His Construction Law Practice Group has deep experience in the representation of property owners, developers, homeowners, design professionals, materials manufacturers, contractors and subcontractors in connection with construction of high-rise and other residential developments, condominium conversions of older rental properties, commercial property, mixed-use projects, and governmental buildings. Issues handled include: construction defects and deficiencies related to residential and commercial construction, including roofing defects, water intrusion, and structural life safety; construction delays; liens; hurricane recovery and rebuilding; insurance coverage disputes, including negotiation and resolution of insurance claims related to rebuilding; mold and mildew claims; and construction contracts and related documents, including loan documentation.
Construction litigation often seeks to foist the culpable conduct of contractors and subcontractors upon an owner or developer of commercial or residential real property. Sometimes, such conduct is warranted, especially when the owner/developer has a significant role in the manner in which the construction project work is to be conducted. However, there are times when the general contractor is the party calling the shots. Why should an owner/developer be charged with the conduct of other independent contractors over whom no control was exercised? Under certain circumstances, such party may be insulated from liability based on the “independent contractor rule.” Put another way, general contractors’ and subcontractors’ status as independent contractors do not impute liability to an owner/developer for their alleged wrongful conduct under the principles of respondeat superior and vicarious liability.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PCMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Home Sales and Stock Price Up for D. R. Horton
February 04, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThey call themselves "America's Builder," and in the last three months of 2013, D. R. Horton exceeded the market's predictions of how many of the homes they built would translate into sales. At the end of 2011, they had $27.7 million in earnings. At the end of last year, they saw $66.3 million in earnings. The 2011 earnings work out to 9 cents per share. Analysts were expecting 14 cents per share, but D. R. Horton delivered 20 cents per share.
The stock market responded with a 3.7% increase in the home builder's stock price, upping it by 79 cents to $22.10.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Another Law Will Increase Construction Costs in New York
May 29, 2023 —
Bill Wilson - Construction Law ZoneNew York recently enacted legislation known as Carlos’ Law, which increases penalties for corporate liability for the death of, or serious injury to, an employee. The bill, S.621B / A.4947B, was named after Carlos Moncayo, a construction worker killed in a trench collapse on a New York City construction project. Moncayo’s employer repeatedly flouted safety rules and ignored warnings of dangerous conditions on its construction site before failing to properly support the trench that collapsed and killed Moncayo. Moncayo’s employer was convicted for his death, but the penalty was light. The company was sentenced to pay only $10,000, the maximum penalty at the time for any company convicted of a felony in New York State. The legislature responded with Carlos’ Law, which increases accountability for “employers,” and expands the scope of “employees” covered.
The corporate criminal law, NY Penal § 20.20(2)(c)(iv), imposes liability on an employer when “the conduct constituting the offense is engaged in by an agent of the corporation while acting within the scope of his employment and on behalf of the corporation, and the offense is . . . in relation to a crime involving the death or serious physical injury of an employee where the corporation acted negligently, recklessly, intentionally, or knowingly.” An “agent” of an employer is any “director, officer or employee of a corporation, or any other person who is authorized to act on behalf of the corporation.” § 20.20(a). An “employee” now includes any person providing labor or services for remuneration for a private entity or business within New York State without regard to an individual’s immigration status, and includes part-time workers, independent contractors, apprentices, day laborers and other workers. § 10.00 (22). The penalties for criminal corporate liability for the death or serious injury of an employee now include maximums of $500,000 when centered on a felony, and $300,000 when centered on a misdemeanor. § 80.10(1)(a) and (b).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLPMr. Wilson may be contacted at
wwilson@rc.com
Seller Cannot Compel Arbitration for Its Role in Construction Defect Case<
March 01, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe buyer of a leaky home in Venice, California cannot be compelled to arbitration with the seller in a construction defect lawsuit, according to a decision in Lindemann v. Hume, which was heard in the California Court of Appeals. Lindemann was the trustee of the Schlei Trust which bought the home and then sued the seller and the builder for construction defects.
The initial owner was the Hancock Park Trust, a real estate trust for Nicholas Cage. Richard Hume was the trustee. In 2002, Cage agreed to buy the home which was being built by the Lee Group. Cage transferred the agreement to the Hancock Park Trust. Hancock had Richard Nazarin, a general contractor, conduct a pre-closing walk through. They also engaged an inspector. Before escrow closed, the Lee Group agreed to provide a ten-year warranty “to remedy and repair any and all damage resulting from water infiltration, intrusion, or flooding due to the fact that the door on the second and third floors of the residence at the Property were not originally installed at least one-half inch (1/2”) to one inch (1”) above the adjacent outside patio tile/floor on each of the second and third floors.”
Cage moved in and experienced water intrusion and flooding. The Lee Group was unable to fix the problems. Hume listed the home for sale. The Kamienowiczs went as far as escrow before backing out of the purchase over concerns about water, after the seller’s agent disclosed “a problem with the drainage system that is currently being addressed by the Lee Group.”
The house was subsequently bought by the Schlei Trust. The purchase agreement included an arbitration clause which included an agreement that “any dispute or claim in Law or equity arising between them out of this Agreement or any resulting transaction, which is not settled through mediation, shall be decided by neutral, binding arbitration.” The warranty the Lee Group had given to Hancock was transferred to the Schlei trust and Mr. Schlei moved into the home in May 2003.
Lindemann enquired as to whether the work done would prevent future flooding. Nazarin sent Schlei a letter that said that measures had been taken “to prevent that situation from recurring.” In February, 2004, there was flooding and water intrusion. Lindemann filed a lawsuit against the Lee Group and then added the Hancock Park defendants.
The Hancock Park defendants invoked the arbitration clause, arguing that Lindemann’s claims “were only tangentially related to her construction defect causes of action against the Lee Group.” On June 9, 2010, the trial court rejected this claim, ruling that there was a possibility of conflicting rulings on common issues of law. “With respect to both the developer defendants and the seller defendants, the threshold issue is whether there was a problem with the construction of the property in the first instance. If there was no problem with the construction of the property, then there was nothing to fail to disclose.” Later in the ruling, the trial court noted that “the jury could find there was no construction defect on the property, while the arbitration finds there was a construction defect, the sellers knew about it, and the sellers failed to disclose it.” The appeals court noted that while Hancock Park had disclosed the drainage problems to the Kamienowiczs, no such disclosure was made to Sclei.
The appeals court described Hancock Park’s argument that there is no risk of inconsistent rulings as “without merit.” The appeals court said that the issue “is not whether inconsistent rulings are inevitable but whether they are possible if arbitration is ordered.” Further, the court noted that “the Hancock Park defendants and the Lee Group have filed cross-complaints for indemnification against each other, further increasing the risk of inconsistent rulings.”
The court found for Lindemann, awarding her costs.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Illinois Town’s Bond Sale Halted Over Fraudulent Hotel Deals
June 26, 2014 —
William Selway and Elizabeth Campbell – BloombergA city outside Chicago was blocked from selling bonds after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission accused it of defrauding investors and steering secret fees to a municipal official.
The case against Harvey, Illinois, a struggling city of 25,000 battered by poverty and crime, involves about $14 million in bonds sold from 2008 to 2010 that were to pay for development of a Holiday Inn hotel and conference venue.
The SEC said that the city hoodwinked investors by using $1.7 million to pay payroll and other operating expenses, while the hotel stands in disrepair with holes in its facade, exposed studs and a gutted interior. The SEC said Comptroller Joseph Letke, 55, also profited by receiving $269,000 in undisclosed payments while advising the developer of the ill-fated project.
Mr. Selway may be contacted at wselway@bloomberg.net; Ms. Campbell may be contacted at ecampbell14@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William Selway and Elizabeth Campbell, Bloomberg
Assert a Party’s Noncompliance of Conditions Precedent with Particularity
July 26, 2017 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesConstruction contracts oftentimes and should contain conditions precedent to payment. Conditions precedent apply to both progress payments and final payment. The conditions precedent operate such that payment is NOT due until the conditions are satisfied. The satisfaction of the conditions precedent triggers the payor’s obligation to pay.
If a dispute arises due to the payee’s noncompliance with conditions precedent to payment, the noncompliance should be asserted with particularity in the answer and affirmative defenses. For example, if a subcontractor was required to provide lien waivers and releases as a condition precedent to payment, then this should be asserted with particularity as an affirmative defense. If the contractor’s receipt of payment from the owner was a condition precedent to payment to the subcontractor (pay-when-paid), then this should be asserted with particularity as an affirmative defense. Any noncompliance with a condition precedent should be identified as an affirmative defense.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
Dadelstein@gmail.com
