$24 Million Verdict Against Material Supplier Overturned Where Plaintiff Failed To Prove Supplier’s Negligence Or Breach Of Contract Caused A SB800 Violation
June 05, 2017 —
Jon A. Turigliatto & Chelsea L. Zwart - CGDRB News & PublicationsThe Fourth District California Court of Appeal published its decision, Acqua Vista Homeowners Assoc. v. MWI, Inc. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 1129, holding that claims against a material supplier under SB800 (Civil Code §895, et. seq.) require proof that the SB800 violation was caused by the supplier’s negligence or breach of contract.
In this case, Acqua Vista Homeowners Association (“the HOA”) sued MWI, a supplier of Chinese pipe used in the construction of the Acqua Vista condominium development. The HOA’s complaint asserted a single cause of action for violation of SB800 standards, and alleged that defective cast iron pipe was used throughout the building. At trial, the HOA presented evidence that the pipes supplied by MWI contained manufacturing defects, that they leaked, and that the leaks had caused damage to various parts of the condominium development. The jury returned a special verdict against MWI, and the trial court entered a judgment against MWI in the amount of $23,955,796.28, reflecting the jury’s finding that MWI was 92% responsible for the HOA’s damages.
MWI filed a motion for a directed verdict prior to the jury’s verdict and motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict following the entry of judgment, both on the grounds that the HOA had failed to present any evidence that MWI had caused a SB800 violation as a result of its negligence or breach of contract, and had therefore failed to prove negligence and causation as required by SB800. MWI relied on the Fourth District’s prior decision in Greystone Homes, Inc. v. Midtec, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1194, and its interpretation therein of Civil Code §936, which states, in relevant part, that the statute applies “to general contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, individual product manufacturers, and design professionals to the extent that the general contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, individual product manufacturers, and design professionals caused, in whole or in part, a violation of a particular standard as the result of a negligent act or omission or a breach of contract….” (emphasis added.) However, the trial court denied both motions, relying on the last sentence of Civil Code §936, which states in part, “[T]he negligence standard in this section does not apply to any…material supplier…with respect to claims for which strict liability would apply.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Jon A. Turigliatto, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Chelsea L. Zwart, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com
Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Jersey Law Firm Announces $4 Million Settlement from Construction Site Accident
November 11, 2024 —
Greenberg Minasian, LLCWEST ORANGE, N.J., Nov. 07, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Greenberg Minasian, LLC, a personal injury law firm located in Essex County, New Jersey, has announced a $4 million settlement stemming from a roofer who suffered serious injuries after a construction site fall. Veteran trial attorney Mitchell Goldstein represented the injured client, who suffered multiple fractures and injuries, permanently affecting his ability to work.
In 2018, Robert Smith, who was 61 at the time, fell backward through or over a temporary guard rail at the American Dream Mall in East Rutherford, NJ. The 30-foot fall caused him to suffer serious injuries to his pubis, sacrum, clavicle, and humerus, leading to multiple surgeries and a hip replacement.
On behalf of his client, Mr. Goldstein brought suit against the mall developer and construction company, successfully arguing that the temporary guardrails were improperly constructed and insufficiently elevated according to Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines. The case was settled just two days before trial, marking a significant victory for the plaintiff and his family.
Despite the defense's attempt to argue that Mr. Smith was responsible for his fall, Goldstein was able to refute their claims, asserting that the temporary guardrail's improper construction directly led to the accident.
About Greenberg Minasian LLC
Based in West Orange, Greenberg Minasian represents clients who have been seriously injured as the result of negligence by others. The firm handles cases anywhere in New Jersey including West Orange, Jersey City, Newark, Essex County and all surrounding areas. The firm continues to achieve the highest awards for its clients and families.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
From the Ground Up
March 06, 2022 —
Maggie Murphy - Construction ExecutiveAs a veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps, Mari Borrero knows a thing or two about stepping up to a challenge. She describes her time in the military as “one of those milestones that changes your life,” and credits the experience with turning her from a self-described “entitled teenager” into the woman she is today: fearless, bold and relentless in pursuit of her dreams.
A career in the construction industry was never on the table for Borrero, who, after being honorably discharged from the Marine Corps, worked as a hospice-care coordinator and then a teacher in support of her then-third-grade son. The common thread in all these occupations? A genuine desire to put the needs of others before her own. Today, Borrero says she can’t imagine doing anything other than what she now calls work—owning and operating a construction business, Auburn, Washington–based American Abatement & Demo.
Easing Transitions
Born in Bayamón, Puerto Rico, Borrero was five when her mother moved the family to Dallas to seek life-saving treatment at Children’s Medical Center Dallas for her brother, who had a rare kidney disease. A local church supported the family, providing housing, food and clothing until they were able to transition into their own space.
Reprinted courtesy of
Maggie Murphy, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Heat Exposure Safety and Risk Factors
July 04, 2023 —
The Hartford Staff - The Hartford InsightsSummer is here and being outside in the heat can take a toll on your body if you’re not properly prepared. It’s important to regulate your body temperature by both hydrating and gradually acclimating your body to withstand the increasingly hot conditions. Your body has “heat control mechanisms” which get overworked in hot, humid and poorly ventilated areas. When you’re exercising or doing physical labor, your muscles generate heat as a metabolic by-product.
Sweating can dissipate heat when the air is dry or a breeze is blowing. But when humidity rises and the air becomes denser, sweat doesn’t evaporate from the skin as readily. When this occurs, your core body temperature becomes too high and you can suffer from heat cramps, heat exhaustion or heat stroke. This heat stress can occur suddenly and be very dangerous, that’s why it’s important to be able to recognize the warning signals. This chart will help you identify your body’s heat stress signals and apply the appropriate action to prevent heat-related problems.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Hartford Staff, The Hartford Insights
Leveraging the 50-State Initiative, Connecticut and Maine Team Secure Full Dismissal of Coverage Claim for Catastrophic Property Loss
March 23, 2020 —
Regen O'Malley - Gordon & Rees Insurance Coverage Law BlogOn behalf of Gordon & Rees’ surplus lines insurer client, Hartford insurance coverage attorneys Dennis Brown, Joseph Blyskal, and Regen O’Malley, with the assistance of associates Kelcie Reid, Alexandria McFarlane, and Justyn Stokely, and Maine counsel Lauren Thomas, secured a full dismissal of a $15 million commercial property loss claim before the Maine Business and Consumer Court on January 23, 2020. The insured, a wood pellet manufacturer, sustained catastrophic fire loss to its plant in 2018 – just one day after its surplus lines policy expired.
Following the insurer’s declination of coverage for the loss, the wood pellet manufacturer brought suit against both its agent, claiming it had failed to timely secure property coverage, as well as the insurer, alleging that it had had failed to comply with Maine’s statutory notice requirements. The surplus lines insurer agreed to extend the prior policy several times by endorsement, but declined to do so again. Notably, the insured alleged that the agent received written notice of the non-renewal prior to the policy’s expiration 13 days before the policy’s expiration. However, the insured (as well as the agent by way of a cross-claim) asserted that the policy remained effective at the time of the loss as the insured did not receive direct notice of the decision not to renew coverage and notice to the agent was not timely. Although Maine’s Attorney General and Superintendent intervened in support of the insured’s and agent’s argument that the statute’s notice provision applied such that coverage would still be owed under the expired policy, Gordon & Rees convinced the Court otherwise.
At issue, specifically, was whether the alleged violation of the 14-day notice provision in Section 2009-A of the Surplus Lines Law (24-A M.R.S. § 2009-A), which governs the “cancellation and nonrenewal” of surplus lines policies, required coverage notwithstanding the expiration of the policy. The insured, the agent, and the State of Maine intervenors argued that “cancellation or nonrenewal” was sufficient to trigger the statute’s notice requirement, and thus Section 2009-A required the insurer to notify the insured directly of nonrenewal. In its motion to dismiss, Gordon & Rees argued on behalf of its client that Section 2009-A requires both “cancellation and nonrenewal” in order for the statute to apply. Since there was no cancellation in this case – only nonrenewal – Gordon & Rees argued that Section 2009-A is inapt and that the insurer is not obligated to provide the manufacturer with notice of nonrenewal. Alternatively, it argued that the statute is unconstitutionally vague and unenforceable.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Regen O'Malley, Gordon & ReesMs. O'Malley may be contacted at
romalley@grsm.com
Colorado’s Federal District Court Finds Carriers Have Joint and Several Defense Duties
July 31, 2013 —
Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiAn issue that has plagued builders in Colorado construction defect litigation is the difficulty of getting additional insured carriers to fully participate in the builder’s defense, oftentimes leaving the builder to fund its own defense during the course of the litigation.
Many additional insurers offer a variety of positions regarding why they will not pay for fees and costs during the course of a lawsuit. Some insurers argue that, until after trial, it is impossible to determine its proper share of the defense, and therefore cannot make any payments until the liability is determined as to all of the potentially contributing policies. (This is often referred to as the “defense follows indemnity” approach.) Others may make an opening contribution to defense fees and costs, but fall silent as fees and costs accumulate. In such an event, the builder may be forced to fund all or part of its own defense, while the uncooperative additional insured carrier waits for the end of the lawsuit or is faced with other legal action before it makes other contributions.
Recent orders in two, currently ongoing, U.S. District Court cases provide clarity on the duty to defend in Colorado, holding that multiple insurers’ duty to defend is joint and several. The insured does not have to go without a defense while the various insurers argue amongst themselves as to which insurer pays what share.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred EyerlyTred Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Be Careful With Construction Fraud Allegations
April 06, 2016 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsHere at Construction Law Musings we have discussed the intersection of contracts, construction and fraud on several occasions. We’ve even discussed how such fraud can bleed over from the civil to the criminal.
Recently, the Virginia Supreme Court weighed in again on the question of construction fraud and criminal allegations. In O’Connor v. Tice, the Court discussed a malicious prosecution action brought by a contractor against owners of a commercial building. In O’Connor, the owners and the contractor got into a disagreement over alleged damage to the roof of the owners’ building and who was responsible. In response to this disagreement, the owners contacted the local sheriff’s office, accusing the contractor of construction fraud, and then wrote a “15 day letter” to the contractor outlining the criminal consequences should he fail to pay the damages sought in the owners civil lawsuit. Subsequently, a criminal warrant was issued against the contractor based solely upon the word of the owners. This last occurred at the insistence of the owners (who did not inform the sheriff’s deputy or the Commonwealth Attorney that they’d had this conversation or that the contractor had partially performed) after they discussed the matter with the contractor’s attorney and were informed that any claim that they may have had was civil in nature.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, Construction Law MusingsMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Guarantor’s Liability on Partially Secured Debts – The Impacts of Pay Down Provisions in Serpanok Construction Inc. v. Point Ruston, LLC et al.
October 24, 2021 —
Margarita Kutsin - Ahlers Cressman & SleightIn
Serpanok Construction, Inc. v. Point Ruston, LLC, Division Two of the Washington Court of Appeals decided an issue of first impression in Washington—whether a guarantor of a partially secured debt remains liable until the last dollar of the entire debt is paid off. After examining cases from other jurisdictions, the court held that that a guarantor is liable until the underlying debt is paid in full unless the agreement contains an express pay down provision. A pay down provision sets forth the guarantor’s right to reduce its obligation to the extent of any payment toward the debt, and it establishes that the guaranty applies only until an amount equivalent to the guaranteed amount is paid off.
The Serpanok decision addressed several other issues, but the published portion of this part-published case focused on whether an entity involved in a real estate development, Point Ruston LLC, was discharged from its guaranty obligation following a foreclosure sale where the proceeds did not cover the entire debt owed to a subcontractor. Point Ruston LLC, Point Ruston Phase II LLC (“Phase II”), and Century Condominiums (“Century”) were affiliated entities (collectively “Point Ruston parties”) that constructed retail and residential structures on a site in Point Ruston. Serpanok Construction Inc. (“Serpanok”) entered into subcontract agreements with Phase II and Century to perform concrete and steel work on a parking garage and movie theater for the project. Point Ruston LLC was not a party to either subcontract.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Margarita Kutsin, Ahlers Cressman & SleightMs. Kutsin may be contacted at
margarita.kutsin@acslawyers.com
