Is Your Home Improvement Contract Putting You At Risk?
February 10, 2020 —
Hannah Kreuser - Porter Law GroupIf you are like many contractors, odds are that your home improvement contract (HIC) is not compliant with California law, putting you at risk for disciplinary action, voiding of the contract, and even criminal prosecution.
Generally, the laws allow parties to contract how they wish. However, California HICs are an exception and California Business and Professions Code (BPC) requires much in the way of content, form and formatting for a HIC to meet the legal requirements. This is because California has written its laws to provide broad protections to homeowners when it comes to construction work performed at their residence. However, in attempting to promote this goal, the laws surrounding HICs have produced requirements that are confusing and fail to account for the realities of a home improvement project, making it difficult and uncomfortable for contractors to comply.
A HIC is required for home improvement projects that change a residence or property. Specifically, the law defines a “home improvement” as “the repairing, remodeling, altering, converting, or modernizing of, or adding to, residential property and shall include, but not be limited to, the construction, erection, replacement or improvement of driveways, swimming pools, including spas and hot tubs, terraces, patios, awnings, storm windows, landscaping, fences, porches, garages, fallout shelters, basements, and other improvements of the structures or land which is adjacent to a dwelling house.” (BPC section 7151.) A HIC is not required for new residential construction; for work priced at $500 or less; the sale, installation, and service of a fire alarm or burglar system; or a service and repair contract (which has its own requirements).
When a HIC is used, BPC section 7159 specifies certain content, form, and format requirements, all of which must be followed to produce a compliant HIC. While this article will not discuss all of these requirements, it will discuss some of the problems commonly seen in HICs.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hannah Kreuser, Porter Law GroupMs. Kreuser may be contacted at
hkreuser@porterlaw.com
Contractor Succeeds At the Supreme Court Against Public Owner – Obtaining Fee Award and Determination The City Acted In Bad Faith
September 20, 2021 —
Lindsay T. Watkins - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCA contractor won a rare but much-deserved victory at the Supreme Court on July 8, 2021 in Conway Construction Co. v. City of Puyallup, 197 Wn.2d 825, 490 P.2d 221 (2021). The case, which involved an aggressive stance by a public owner:
- confirmed that the public owner bears the burden of demonstrating a termination for default is justified,
- reaffirmed the requirement to provide an opportunity to cure, and
- rejected the public owner’s attempts to escape its own contract language that the contractor relied upon.
John Ahlers and Lindsay Watkins of Ahlers Cressman and Sleight and Jamie Becker of Osborne Construction submitted the Amicus Brief for the Associated General Contractors (AGC) of Washington in support of Conway to the Supreme Court.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lindsay T. Watkins, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMs. Watkins may be contacted at
Lindsay.Watkins@acslawyers.com
New 2021 ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey Standards Effective February 23, 2021
March 01, 2021 —
Emily K. Bias & Josh D. Morton - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate BlogThe “Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/NSPS Land Title Surveys” is a document jointly promulgated by the American Land Title Association (ALTA), representing the title insurance industry, and the National Society of Professional Surveyors (NSPS), representing professional land surveyors, which describes the uniform minimum standards with which surveyors must comply when preparing a survey to be used by a title insurance company for the purpose of deleting the general survey exception from ALTA title policy forms. The first such set of standards was developed in 1962 and has since been revised 10 times. The standards are currently updated every five years and are relied on by real estate professionals, including purchasers, lenders, title insurers and their attorneys, nationwide. In October 2020, a joint committee comprising representatives of both ALTA and NSPS adopted the “2021 Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/NSPS Land Title Surveys,” which will become effective on February 23, 2021. The significant changes between the 2021 standards and the previous 2016 standards are summarized below.
Survey Matters
The 2021 standards clarify that only survey-related matters must be summarized on the survey. This revision was intended to foreclose a practice common among some institutional lenders to require that the survey list all items shown in Schedule BII of the title commitment on the face of the survey regardless of whether those items may in fact be survey related. The 2021 standards also add a requirement that the surveyor include a note specifying whether the location of a right of way, easement or other survey-related matter is shown on the survey. This change incorporates common lender and purchaser requirements that were not previously enumerated in the survey standards.
Reprinted courtesy of
Emily K. Bias, Pillsbury and
Josh D. Morton, Pillsbury
Ms. Bias may be contacted at emily.bias@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Morton may be contacted at josh.morton@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Delaware River Interstate Bridge Shut to Assess Truss Fracture
January 26, 2017 —
Justin Rice - Engineering News-RecordThe Delaware River Bridge, which runs between Pennsylvania and New Jersey, was shut down indefinitely over the Jan. 22-23 weekend, after a large fracture was discovered in the bridge that connects the turnpikes of the two states. The fracture on a steel truss below the bridge deck on the Pennsylvania side was discovered during a routine check as part of a painting operation. Steel plates were installed to temporarily reconnect the fracture and stabilize the 1.5-mile bridge, which is located in Bucks County on I-276 and accommodates 42,000 vehicles a day. As engineers assess how the damage will impact the entire bridge, a sample from the fractured truss was sent to a forensic lab to determine the cause of the crack. A high-definition video survey is being used to monitor the bridge.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Justin Rice, ENRMr. Rice may be contacted at
ricej@enr.com
OSHA ETS Heads to Sixth Circuit
December 13, 2021 —
George Morrison - White and Williams LLPOn November 16, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was selected during the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s lottery to hear the multiple consolidated challenges to the recent COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA is permitted to issue an ETS if the agency arrives at the conclusion that a “grave danger” to worker safety exists. An ETS does not go through the typical notice-and-comment period that federal regulations usually follow.
Inheriting the Fifth Circuit’s recent nationwide stay on implementation and enforcement of the ETS, the Sixth Circuit will decide whether the stay should be “modified, revoked, or extended” in the short term. Early this morning, OSHA filed an emergency motion to dissolve the Fifth Circuit’s stay of the vaccine mandate with the Sixth Circuit. OSHA argued, among other things:
- The Fifth Circuit erred in holding “that OSHA lacked statutory authority to address the grave danger of COVID-19 in the place on the ground that COVID-19 is caused by a virus and also exists outside of the workplace” because “[t]hat rationale has no basis in the statutory text.”
- The Fifth Circuit erred in finding the ETS both over- and underinclusive because “OSHA recounted extensive empirical data showing that all employees can transmit COVID-19 in the workplace and that COVID-19 has spread in a vast variety of workplace.”
- The “petitioners have not shown that their claimed injuries outweigh the interests in protecting employees from a dangerous virus while this litigation proceeds . . . . These claimed injuries do not justify delaying the [ETS] that will save thousands of lives and prevent hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
George Morrison, White and Williams LLPMr. Morrison may be contacted at
morrisong@whiteandwilliams.com
Be Careful with Good Faith Payments
February 24, 2020 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsSometimes doing the expedient thing and what looks good at the time can come back to bite you. Just ask 3M Company.
In Faneuil, Inc. v. 3M Co., the Virginia Supreme Court considered a customer services subcontract between Faneuil and 3M relating to a toll collection contract 3M entered into with ERC. The subcontract had a “pay if paid” clause in it requiring payment to 3M from ERC before ERC was required to pay Faneuil, a written change order provision and a base monthly payment to Faneuil for the services that could be reduced in the event of less than expected toll collections. Further, the subcontract stated that if either party settled 3rd party claims, that settlement would not bind the other party to the subcontract absent consent or Court order.
Faneuil was then alleged to have been required to provide “Special Services” relating to manual identification of license plates and other information necessary for toll billing due to 3M’s alleged failure to provide adequate imaging services. Faneuil requested (without written change order) and 3M promised to pay extra for these services. When 3M was slow to pay for the special services, Faneuil did what you would expect and threatened to stop providing them. Instead of contesting the right to the work, 3m made sporadic “good faith” payments to induce continued Special Services from Faneuil. Eventually 3M’s issues caused ERC to stop payments and thus 3M stopped paying Faneuil. 3M then settled the payment claims with ERC and still failed to pay Faneuil.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Ruling Finds Builder and Owners at Fault in Construction Defect Case
December 30, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFA Minnesota home owners association has been found 30liable for some of the damage to their homes in a jury trial. The Interlachen Propertyowners Association made a claim of construction defects against Keupers Architects and Builders who had constructed the 24-unit town home complex. According to the association’s lawyer, the half-log siding was improperly installed, leading to water intrusion and rot.
The jury did find for the homeowners on the construction defect claim, but found on a claim of negligent repairs that the association was 30% at fault, due to insufficient maintenance of the building. “We don’t think any amount of maintenance would have saved these buildings,” said Jason Tarasek, the lawyer for the association. The association is likely to appeal.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sub-Limit Restricts Insured's Flood Damage Recovery
March 15, 2021 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe insured's recovery for flood damage was controlled by the policy's sub-limit. David S. Brown Enters. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 239208 (D. Md. Dec. 18, 2020).
Roughly 6.6 inches of rain fell in Ellicott City, Maryland, causing extensive flooding. During the storm, a water main broke on Main Street, in relatively close proximity to the insured's two properties on Main Street. The foundations of the two properties washed away.
The insured, David S. Brown Enterprises (DSB), had a business owners' policy with Affiliated with covered 204 named locations. The Main Street Properties were not listed, but the policy also provided certain coverage for unnamed locations. The sub-limit applicable to unnamed locations was $1,000,000. The sub-limit for flood, however, was $50,000, annual aggregate "as respects Errors & Omissions, Off-Premises Service Interruption, Unnamed Locations and Supply Chain combined." Affiliated paid $50,000 for the loss based upon the $50,000 Flood annual aggregated Sub-Limit for Unnamed Locations. DSB disagreed that the $50,000 sub-limit applied and filed suit.
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
