Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2023 Illinois Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars
February 01, 2023 —
Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman is pleased to announce that two Partners from the Chicago, IL office have been selected to the 2023 Illinois Super Lawyers list. In addition, two Partners have been named to the 2023 Super Lawyers Rising Stars list.
2023 Illinois Super Lawyers
- Brian Bassett – Insurance Coverage
- Dana Rice – Insurance Coverage
2023 Super Lawyers Rising Stars
- Jessica Kull – Civil Litigation: Defense
- Jeremy Macklin – Insurance Coverage
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman
Smart Construction and the Future of the Construction Industry
October 11, 2021 —
Caroline A. Harcourt, James W. McPhillips & Adam J. Weaver - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog“Smart Construction” is a loose term but generally refers to the development and use of processes and applications that improve construction planning and the management of projects (thereby potentially streamlining costs of construction).
The increased deployment of collaboration tools (e.g., Zoom, Microsoft Teams, WebEx) and other cloud-based technology solutions during the COVID-19 pandemic will invariably result in more efficient project management in construction going forward. These type of efficiencies are sorely needed, especially as the industry is trying to recover from supply chain issues, lockdown challenges and social distancing requirements resulting from the pandemic.
However, smart construction goes well beyond those basic business efficiency and collaboration tools. For example, drones are regularly used on construction projects to monitor site conditions, detect problems, and assess conditions safely. Meanwhile, newer technologies such as “programmable” cement, “self-healing” concrete, and autonomous and robotic machinery are increasingly being deployed in construction projects. And yet, these current technology solutions are just the tip of the iceberg as researchers continue to look for new ways machines and technology can be used to solve complex engineering challenges.
Reprinted courtesy of
Caroline A. Harcourt, Pillsbury,
James W. McPhillips, Pillsbury and
Adam J. Weaver, Pillsbury
Ms. Harcourt may be contacted at caroline.harcourt@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. McPhillips may be contacted at james.mcphillips@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Weaver may be contacted at adam.weaver@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Consult with Counsel when Preparing Construction Liens
April 13, 2017 —
David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal UpdatesAll too often entities prepare their own construction liens. Sure, it is an effective way to save a few bucks. No doubt about it. But, by doing so, you are (i) not relying on advice of counsel that is important when it comes to lien preparation and (ii) not relying on strategy that goes along with the preparation of a lien. When you are liening, the reason you are doing so is because you have not been paid. You therefore want to collateralize your nonpayment against the real property—the leverage of a construction lien. This is a very beneficial statutory tool if implemented correctly, so it only makes sense to do it “strategically” right.
A construction lien is a statutory form. So, how hard can it be? Filling out the “form” is not hard, however, there is legal significance to the information and amounts included in a lien. For instance:
- There is significance to the amount you are liening. Are you liening for disputed change order work? Are you liening for amounts unrelated to base contract work?
- There is significance to the final furnishing date. Are you liening within 90 days of performing base contract work unrelated to punchlist or warranty work?
- There is significance to date the Notice to Owner was served (if you are not in privity with the owner). Was the Notice to Owner served within 45 days of initial furnishing?
- There is significance to the legal description identified in the lien. Are you liening the right property based on the type of project you are working on?
- There can even be significance to the initial furnishing date. Assuming you are the general contractor, what was your initial furnishing date in comparison with when the Notice of Commencement was recorded? If you are not a general contractor, when was the initial furnishing date in comparison with when you served the Notice to Owner?
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
Review of Recent Contractors State License Board Changes
February 27, 2023 —
Alexander Moore - Kahana FeldCalifornia’s Contractors State License Board (CSLB) was established in 1929 to protect California residents through licensing and regulating contractors working in the state. Today, the CSLB licenses approximately 290,000 contractors, utilizing forty-four different classifications. Each licensing classification specifies the type of contracting work permitted by that classification.
The CSLB website (www.cslb.ca.gov) contains a wealth of information for contractors and non-contractor consumers alike. Consumers can use the website’s features to check the history and business information of contractors, searching via license number, business name, or individual name. License applicants can use the website for instructions and forms for the application process. Contractors can use the website for renewals, regulations, and various resources.
One the CSLB’s most important roles is assisting contractors with keeping track of the multitude of state regulations, and periodic changes thereto, that apply to those in the construction trades. The CSLB posts periodic Industry Bulletins which provide helpful guidance and reminders of important construction topics. At year end, the CSLB issues a bulletin to update licensees of the changes to California Law that will become effective on the first of January in the coming year. Below are four of the more interesting and impactful statutory changes.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Alexander Moore, Kahana FeldMr. Moore may be contacted at
amoore@kahanafeld.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
Trial Court Abuses Discretion in Appointing Unqualified Umpire for Appraisal
April 25, 2023 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Texas Court of Appeals agreed with the insurer that the trial court abused its discretion in appointing an attorney as umpire in a property damage dispute. In re State Farm Lloyds, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 966 (Tex. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2023).
The insured filed an application for the appointment of an umpire regarding his insurance claim for property damage to his residence. The home was damaged by a hurricane on July 25, 2020, and the parties disagreed regarding the full extent of the property damage to the residence. The appraisers appointed by the insured and State Farm disagreed on the damages, leading to the insured asking the trial court to appoint a competent and disinterested umpire.
The trial court appointed Derek Salinas, an attorney, as umpire. State Farm challenged the appointment because the policy required the umpire to be either an engineer, architect, adjuster, public adjuster, or a contractor with experience and training in the construction, repair and estimating the type of property damage in dispute. State Farm argued that Salinas met none of the criteria. The trial court rejected State Farm's motion for reconsideration.
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
Ahlers & Cressman’s Top 10 Construction Industry Contract Provisions
July 02, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFJames R. Lynch of Ahlers & Cressman, PLLC, has published the first two parts of the four-part “Top 10 Construction Contract Provisions” series: “As a powerful mechanism to control contract risk, increase predictability, and reduce the cost and complexity of potential disputes, we frequently recommend that our clients’ contracts include a mutual waiver of consequential damages.”
The first part “explains the significance of such a clause and the risk a contractor assumes without it,” while the second part discusses “the various categories of damages flowing from a breach of contract and conclude[s] with examples of how parties can limit these damages to reflect their agreed allocation of risk.”
Read the full story, Part 1...
Read the full story, Part 2... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
More Charges Anticipated in Las Vegas HOA Scam
February 28, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFWith almost forty people already charged in the conspiracy to take over Las Vegas homeowners associations in order to profit from construction defect claims, more charges are likely to come, according to an article in the Las Vegas Review Journal. The article also notes that the trial against Leon Benzer will involve millions of pages of documents. It is alleged that Benzer found straw purchasers for condominiums in order to control homeowner boards. Benzer’s firm, Silver Lining Construction, would then receive contracts to repair construction defects.
The Justice Department will be seeking restitution for the victims, which may total $25 million. Four individuals with connections to the conspiracy have died since investigations began. At least three of these deaths were suicides, and included Nancy Quon, who with Benzer are thought to be the main figures in the scam.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
