California Supreme Court Raises the Bar on Dangerous Conditions on Public Property Claims
February 16, 2016 —
Roger Hughes – California Construction Law BlogEarlier we wrote about the affirmative defense of “design immunity” which can be used by public entities to shield themselves from personal injury claims dangerous conditions on public property. Under the design immunity doctrine a public entity can avoid liability for dangerous conditions on public property if it can show:
1.A causal relationship between the plan or design and the accident;
2.Discretionary approval of the plan or design prior to construction; and
3.Substantial evidence supporting the reasonableness of the plan or design.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Roger Hughes, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Hughes may be contacted at
rhughes@wendel.com
Las Vegas Student Housing Developer Will Name Replacement Contractor
February 15, 2018 —
John Guzzon – ENRMore than four months after construction abruptly stopped on a $76-million student housing project for the University of Nevada at Las Vegas, the developer is seeking a new contractor.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John Guzzon, Engineering News- RecordMr. Guzzon may be contacted at
ENRSouthWestEditor@enr.com
Hyundai to Pay 47M to Settle Construction Equipment's Alleged Clean Air Violations
November 04, 2019 —
Tom Ichniowski - Engineering News-RecordHyundai Construction Equipment Americas Inc. and its parent company are paying a $47-million civil penalty to settle federal allegations that the company sold construction vehicles that weren't certified to meet the appropriate Clean Air Act emissions standards, federal agencies say.
Reprinted courtesy of
Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A Court-Side Seat: Citizen Suits, “Facility” Management and Some Nuance for Your Hazard Ranking
September 28, 2020 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelSome very interesting and fairly complex environmental law rulings have been released in the past few days.
U.S. Supreme Court—Trump, et al. v. Sierra Club, et al.
On July 31, 2020, in a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court denied a motion to lift the stay entered by the Court a few days earlier. The earlier action stayed a preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which had enjoined the construction of a wall along the Southern Border of the United States which was to be constructed with redirected Department of Defense funds. The merits will be addressed by the lower court and perhaps the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit—Meritor, Inc. v. EPA
In a case involving EPA’s administration of the Superfund National Priority List (NPL) of priority Superfund sites requiring expedited cleanup, the court held that EPA had acted in accordance with the law and its implementing rules, and denied relief. Meritor was spun off from Rockwell Corporation, and is responsible for Rockwell’s environmental liabilities, including sites Meritor never operated. In 2016, EPA added the Rockwell International Wheel & Trim facility in Grenada, Miss., to the NPL list. Meritor alleged that this listing was arbitrary and capricious, pointing to EPA’s failure to adequately consider the impact of a mitigation measure added to the facility to address vapor intrusion, a factor EPA must consider in its application of the agency’s hazard ranking system. However, the court was not impressed by these arguments, and denied relief. The court’s discussion of the nuances of the hazard ranking system is very instructive
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Traub Lieberman Attorneys Named 2019 Super Lawyers
November 04, 2019 —
Traub LiebermanRelated Attorneys:
Jonathan R. Harwood,
Michael K. Kiernan,
Michael S. Knippen,
Meryl R. Lieberman,
Christopher Russo,
Scot E. Samis,
Lisa L. Shrewsberry,
Stephen D. Straus,
Richard K. Traub,
Cheryl P. Vollweiler,
Brian C. Bassett,
Jessica N. Kull,
Jeremy S. Macklin,
Dana A. Rice,
Burks A. Smith, III,
Jason Taylor
Ten Traub Lieberman attorneys have been named 2019 Super Lawyers and seven named 2019 Rising Stars. The honored attorneys represent five of the firm's seven offices and nearly all of its service areas.
Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters business, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas, who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Will a Notice of Non-Responsibility Prevent Enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien?
March 05, 2015 —
William L. Porter – Porter Law Group, Inc.The “Notice of Non-Responsibility” is one of the most misunderstood and ineffectively used of all the legal tools available to property owners in California construction law. As a result, in most cases the answer to the above question is “No”, the posting and recording of a Notice of Completion will not prevent enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien.
The mechanics lien is a tool used by a claimant who has not been paid for performing work or supplying materials to a construction project. It provides the claimant the right to encumber the property where the work was performed and thereafter sell the property in order to obtain payment for the work or materials, even though the claimant had no contract directly with the property owner. When properly used, a Notice of Non-Responsibility will render a mechanics lien unenforceable against the property where the construction work was performed. By derailing the mechanics lien the owner protects his property from a mechanics lien foreclosure sale. Unfortunately, owners often misunderstand when they can and cannot effectively use a Notice of Non-Responsibility. As a result, the Notice of Non-Responsibility is usually ineffective in protecting the owner and his property.
The rules for the use of the Notice of Non-Responsibility are found in California Civil Code section 8444. Deceptively simple, the rules essentially state that an owner “that did not contract for the work of improvement”, within 10 days after the owner first “has knowledge of the work of improvement”, may fill out the necessary legal form for a Notice of Non-Responsibility and post that form at the worksite and record it with the local County Recorder in order to prevent enforcement of a later mechanics lien on the property.
What commonly occurs however is that early in the process the owner authorizes or even requires its tenant to perform beneficial tenant improvements on the property. This authorization is often set forth in a tenant lease or other written document. The dispositive factor for determining whether the Notice of Non-Responsibility will be enforceable though is that the owner knows that these improvements will be made to the property and intends that they be made, usually long before the work begins. Indeed, the owner has usually negotiated these very terms into the lease contract. The owner then mistakenly believes that once work on the property commences it has 10 days to post and record a Notice of Non-Responsibility and thereby protect itself from a mechanics lien.
The usual error is two-fold. First, the statute states that the Notice is available when the owner “did not contract for the work of improvement”. The fact though is that the owner did contract for the work of improvement. It did so through the lease contract. This is true even though the owner’s contract was not with the contractor or supplier directly. Secondly, the 10 day period to post and record the Notice begins when the owner first “has knowledge” of the work of improvement. This knowledge was of course gained when the lease was negotiated and signed, providing knowledge typically many days before the work has begun. Thus, the 10 day period can also seldom be met. The Notice of Non-Responsibility will therefore fail both rules because the owner has in fact contracted for the improvement and because he does not act within 10 days of gaining this knowledge.
The next event in the typical scenario occurs when the tenant does not pay its contractor. The contractor then has nothing to pay its subcontractors. Material suppliers also go unpaid. Mechanics liens are then recorded by the unpaid claimants, followed by foreclosure actions within ninety days thereafter. Owners will typically point to the Notice of Non-Responsibility they posted and recorded, claiming its protection. Claimants then in turn point to the lease or other evidence that the owner knew of the pending improvements and contracted in some way that the improvements be performed, often also more than 10 days before they posted the Notice. Judges generally agree with the unpaid mechanics lien claimants and the Notice of Non-Responsibility is deemed ineffective.
The fact that the Court does not enforce the Notice of Non-Responsibility under these circumstances is not an unfair result. Since the owner authorized the work to be performed and it received a substantial benefit in the form of those improvements, it is not unfair that the owner should pay for those benefits. It would be inequitable for the owner to obtain the benefit of the improvements which it authorized but for which it did not pay, while allowing those who provided the benefit to go unpaid. Moreover, without such a system in place the door would be open to owners setting up sham “tenants” who would enter into contracts to have work performed, only to disappear when the work is completed, leaving the contractor without a source of payment. The system in place as described above prevents such duplicity. Owners would do well to arm themselves with proper knowledge of when the Notice of Non-Responsibility will and will not protect them and then responsibly use the Notice of Non-Responsibility.
For the legal eagles among you, the following cases illustrate the view of the courts, consistent with the above: Baker v. Hubbard (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 226; Ott Hardware v. Yost (1945) 69 Cal. App.2d 593 (lease terms); Los Banos Gravel Co. v. Freeman (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 785 (common interest); Howard S. Wright Construction Co. v. Superior Court (2003); 106 Cal.App.4th 314 (participating owner).
William L. Porter of
Porter Law Group, Inc. located in Sacramento, California may be contacted at (916) 381-7868 or bporter@porterlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A Win for Policyholders: Court Finds Flood Exclusion Inapplicable to Plumbing Leaks Caused by Hurricane Rainfall
October 21, 2024 —
Kelly A. Johnson & Damian S. Barquin - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. A recent decision by a federal court helps clear the path to coverage for property owners this hurricane season. The Court deemed one property policy’s flood exclusion inapplicable to bar coverage for water damage from backed-up drainage and overflow caused by excessive rainfall. The case, styled G.E.M.S. Partners LLC v. AmGUARD Ins. Co., — F.Supp. 3d —, No. CV 22-1664, 2024 WL 3568932 (D.N.J. July 29, 2024)), involved a familiar dispute between the insured and insurer following damage to covered property after a named storm’s heavy rainfall.
Here, G.E.M.S. Partners LLC (“Insured”) obtained a commercial property policy from AmGUARD Insurance Company (“AmGUARD”) to cover three neighboring buildings in Union, New Jersey. In September 2021, intense rainfall from Hurricane Ida overwhelmed the local infrastructure and sewer system, leading to water leakage from plumbing fixtures at the insured property. To secure coverage under its AmGUARD policy, the Insured wisely relied on its “Water Back-Up and Sump Overflow Endorsement” (“Back-Up/Overflow Endorsement”). Under this endorsement, AmGUARD promised to “pay for ... damage ... caused by ... water ... which backs up through or overflows or is otherwise discharged from a sewer.”1 Indeed, a plumber that inspected the buildings following Hurricane Ida described the root cause of the water damage as a “back up” of “sewer ... water.”2
Reprinted courtesy of
Kelly A. Johnson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Damian S. Barquin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Johnson may be contacted at KJohnson@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Barquin may be contacted at DBarquin@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Be Careful How You Terminate: Terminating for Convenience May Limit Your Future Rights
January 19, 2017 —
Brett M. Hill - Ahlers & Cressman, PLLC BlogMany construction contracts contain a termination clause that allows a contractor to be terminated either for convenience or for cause. Termination for convenience and termination for cause clauses have been discussed previously on the blog
here,
here and
here. The distinction between a termination for convenience or for cause is an important one.
If a contractor is terminated for convenience, the rights of the party who has terminated the contractor for convenience could be limited in the future. This is specifically true as to any defects in the terminated contractor’s work that are discovered after the termination for convenience.
This issue was addressed in an Oregon Court of Appeals case where a general contractor attempted to recover costs incurred in correcting a terminated subcontractor’s work after the subcontractor was terminated for convenience. Shelter Prods. v. Steel Wood Constr., Inc., 257 Or. App 382 (2013). In that case, the subcontractor sued the general contractor for its termination expenses. The general contractor asserted an offset/backcharge claim for damages incurred by the general contractor in correcting the subcontractor’s defective work. The general contractor had incurred the costs after it had terminated the subcontractor. The general contractor did not notify the subcontractor that its work was defective and did not give the subcontractor an opportunity to cure before the repairs were completed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brett M. Hill, Ahlers & Cressman, PLLCMr. Hill may be contacted at
bhill@ac-lawyers.com
