How California’s Construction Industry has dealt with the New Indemnity Law
October 22, 2014 —
Mark S. Himmelstein, Esq. - Newmeyer & DillionIt has been almost two years since the California legislature enacted changes to the state’s indemnity law affecting commercial construction contracts. Although we do not yet have any court opinions analyzing the new statutes, the attorneys at
Newmeyer & Dillion now have real world experience in negotiating such indemnity provisions. It is time to evaluate how the construction community has reacted to the changes. In this article, we examine the practical applications of the new law to various construction agreements.
Enacted on January 1, 2013, the new legislation was the latest in a series of efforts by subcontractors and their insurers to eliminate “Type I” indemnity clauses. Under a Type I provision, a subcontractor has a duty to indemnify the developer or general contractor for the negligence of the developer or general contractor or other subcontractors, in addition to the negligence of the subcontractor itself. In 2006, the law was changed to preclude Type I provisions regarding “For Sale” residential construction defect claims. At that time, there was no such restriction enacted for commercial construction contracts. However, since then, commercial subcontractors have been seeking similar legislation. Their efforts culminated in the 2013 revisions regarding commercial contracts.
Commercial Subcontracts
Pursuant to the new indemnity statute — Civil Code section 2782.05 — we have revised our clients’ commercial subcontracts to:
(a) Eliminate the requirement that the subcontractor indemnify the general contractor for the general contractor’s “active negligence;” and
(b) Include the subcontractor’s options for defending claims for which they have an indemnity obligation.
Many subcontractors have responded: “Hey, wait a minute, the new legislation eliminated Type I indemnity so you (general contractor) cannot still require any indemnification for the general contractor’s negligence”. Well, that might be the rumor in subcontractor circles, but the new statute does not eliminate indemnity for the general contractor’s passive fault. In addition, the Civil Code lists 13 instances where the new indemnity restrictions do not apply.
Residential Subcontracts
The legislature did not make anyone’s job easier by drafting a different indemnity provision for commercial subcontracts than for residential subcontracts. In fact, the residential and commercial statutes are different in several critical respects. First, the restrictions on indemnity in the residential statute apply only to construction defect claims in newly constructed “For Sale” houses. The statute does not preclude Type I indemnity provisions for any other claims arising out of residential subcontracts. In contrast, the indemnity restrictions in the commercial statute apply to all claims arising out of commercial subcontracts. In addition, the commercial statute allows indemnity for the general contractor’s passive fault. Since some subcontractors on “residential” projects perform off-site “commercial” work as well, we have amended even residential subcontracts to address the subcontractors’ various indemnity obligations for different parts of their work (e.g., residential work versus commercial work).
Owner-Contractor Agreements
The January 1, 2013 new indemnity provisions apply not only to subcontracts, but also to owner-contractor agreements. Civil Code section 2782(c)(1) precludes indemnity for an owner’s active negligence. Interestingly, the exclusions contained in Civil Code section 2782.05 for subcontracts do not apply, and the statute does not provide contractors with the option of defending claims set forth in the sections concerning subcontracts. Therefore, we have revised the indemnity provisions in owner-contractor agreements to exclude indemnity for the owner’s active negligence.
Design Professional Agreements
The 2007 revisions with respect to “For Sale” residential contracts (discussed above), and the 2013 revisions for commercial contracts do not apply to design professionals. The new indemnity statute concerning commercial subcontracts specifically excludes design professionals from the “anti-indemnity” benefits provided to subcontractors. Therefore, Type I indemnity provisions are fair game and can still be included in design professional contracts.
Conclusion
In sum, Civil Code sections 2782 et seq. now contain an increasingly complex framework for indemnity rules in construction contracts. For example, there is one set of rules for “For Sale” residential construction defect claims (no indemnity for the developer’s active or passive negligence), another for any other claims arising out of residential construction (Type I indemnity is permitted), another for commercial subcontracts (no indemnity for the general contractor’s active negligence, but indemnity for the general contractor’s passive negligence unless any of the exceptions apply, in which case Type I indemnity is permitted), and yet another for commercial owner contractor agreements (no indemnity for the owner’s active negligence, but indemnity for the owner’s passive negligence with no exceptions).
California’s indemnity laws are complex, and rumors as to the impact of the new legislation have made it even more difficult to negotiate these provisions. It is imperative that indemnity clauses in construction contracts clearly delineate the obligations for the specific type or types of work contemplated by the contract. The legislature’s attempt to simplify indemnity obligations has actually made such provisions lengthier and more cumbersome. As experienced construction attorneys, our task is to draft indemnity provisions that comply with the laws, address potential claims, and are understandable.
Mr. Himmelstein is a partner in the Newport Beach office of Newmeyer & Dillion and practices in the areas of construction, real estate, business and insurance litigation. He also specializes in drafting and negotiating construction and real estate contracts. Mark can be reached at mark.himmelstein@ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
How to Drop a New Building on Top of an Old One
December 05, 2022 —
Kriston Capps - BloombergFaçadectomy. That’s the tongue-in-cheek term for a widely unloved architectural compromise that developers sometimes strike: saving the historic veneer of an existing building while demolishing and replacing its internal structure. Façade preservation is especially popular in Washington, DC, where a federal cap on the height of buildings and the strength of the preservationist cause locally makes the case for adapting existing structures, even at great expense.
Façadism is rarer where cheaper tear-downs are possible, but over the last 40 years, this trend hit its stride on the East Coast. Prominent examples include the Spanish Embassy in DC and the Penn Mutual tower in Philadelphia.
A new condo tower in Boston’s South End isn’t a typical façadectomy. The development at 100 Shawmut Avenue looks as if a glassy modern building had been plopped down on top of an old warehouse. According to Tom Schultz, associate for The Architectural Team, the Boston-area firm behind the project, the case for incorporating a six-story warehouse into a new residential project wasn’t merely aesthetic. The site and structure lent itself to building up.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kriston Capps, Bloomberg
LA Lakers Partially Survive Motion to Dismiss COVID-19 Claims
June 13, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiWhile the appellate court affirmed dismissal of a majority of the claims submitted by the Los Angeles Lakers for closure of the Staples Center and other properties due to COVID-19, a portion of their claims survived. L.A. Lakers v. Fed Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31503 (C.D. Calif. March 17, 2022).
Government orders closed the Staples Center in March 2020. The Lakers alleged they lost tens of millions of dollars in revenue. They further alleged that the presence of coronavirus particles on fixtures and building systems caused physical alterations to the covered properties. The Lakers had to upgrade their properties to include new air filters, touchless light switches, toilets and sinks; sleeves or coatings for high-touch surfaces; and plexiglass dividers. The Lakers also alleged that five Metro stations within a mile of the Staples Center, that was used to get to games, were closed by civil authorities due to the presence of COVID-19.
The Lakers submitted a claim for property damage and business interruption to Federal. The claim was denied and the Lakers filed suit. In February 2021, the court granted Federal's motion to dismiss without prejudice, after concluding that the Lakers' allegations of direct physical loss or damage were mere legal conclusions and not sufficient to state a claim.
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
Aecmaster’s Digital Twin: A New Era for Building Design
May 06, 2024 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessI sat down with Anssi Auvinen, the CEO and founder of Finnish startup Aecmaster, to discuss the future of design and how the company plans to make it happen. Anssi envisions data-driven design as the next radical change in the AEC sector.
Anssi Auvinen started working in the building industry as a 16-year-old construction worker. Since then, he has acquired two master’s degrees: structural engineering and architecture.
During his career, Anssi has witnessed how the digitalization of the design sector has progressed, but the results for both designers and building owners could have been more impressive. That inspired him in 2019 to start up
Aecmaster, a software and consulting firm that aims to fulfill the promise of digitalization. The company’s software product launched in January 2024.
The need for digital twins
Anssi states that you can’t say you own a building until you possess its digital assets, the digital twin.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
‘I’m a Scapegoat,’ Says Former CEO of Dubai Construction Firm
September 30, 2019 —
Layan Odeh & Zainab Fattah - BloombergThe former chief executive officer of Drake & Scull International PJSC said the company’s accusations of financial violations against him are an attempt to find a “scapegoat” for rising losses.
Khaldoun Tabari said the Dubai-based contractor has filed 15 complaints against him to the public prosecutor last year. He said the allegations prompted authorities in the United Arab Emirates to order banks to freeze his bank accounts in June 2018. He denies any wrongdoing.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Layan Odeh & Zainab Fattah, Bloomberg
Colorado’s Federal District Court Finds Carriers Have Joint and Several Defense Duties
October 10, 2013 —
Bret Cogdill — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC.An 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
Bret CogdillBret Cogdill can be contacted at
cogdill@hhmrlaw.com
Construction Defect Not an Occurrence in Ohio
November 07, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Ohio Supreme Court has concluded that claims of defective construction or workmanship are not an occurrence under a general liability policy. The court looked at appellate decisions and concluded that CGL policies are not intended to insure against risks under the control and management of the insured. These risks should instead be mitigated with performance bonds.
The question was raised in the case Westfield Ins. Co. v. Custom Agri Systems, Inc. The Sixth District Court of Ohio concluded it was an “open question under Ohio law whether a CGL policy covers defective construction claims.” Westfield filed a motion, granted by the Sixth Circuit, to certify the question to the state Supreme Court. The Sixth Court additionally found that the contractual liability exclusion barred coverage in the case, issues a summary judgment to Westfield.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Recent Developments Involving Cedell v. Farmers Insurance Company of Washington
September 05, 2022 —
Donald Verfurth, Sally Kim, Stephanie Ries & Kyle Silk-Eglit - Gordon & Rees Insurance Coverage Law BlogEver since the Washington Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Cedell v. Farmers Insurance Company of Washington, 176 Wn.2d 686, 295 P.3d 239 (2013), insurance coverage attorneys have been struggling to define the exact parameters of the Cedell ruling in order to safeguard the attorney-client privilege as to the communications between the insurer and its counsel. As a brief background, the Washington Supreme Court held in Cedell that there is a presumption of no attorney-client privilege in a lawsuit involving bad faith claims handling. However, an insurer can overcome the presumption of no attorney-client privilege by showing that its counsel provided legal advice regarding the insurer’s potential liability under the policy and law, and did not engage in any quasi-fiduciary activities, i.e. claims handling activities, such as investigating, evaluating, adjusting or processing the insured’s claim.
Since Cedell, various trial courts have held that the following activities by an insurer’s counsel constitute quasi-fiduciary conduct that do not overcome the presumption of no attorney-client privilege, resulting in an order to produce documents and/or to permit the deposition of the insurer’s counsel:
- Insurer’s attorney being the primary or sole point of contact with the insured for the insurer;
- Insurer’s attorney requesting documents from the insured that are relevant to the investigation of the claim;
- Insurer’s attorney communicating directly with the insured or the insured’s counsel regarding claims handling issues or payments;
- Insurer’s attorney interviewing witnesses for purposes of the investigation of the claim;
- Insurer’s attorney conducting an examination under oath of the insured;
- Insurer’s attorney drafting proposed or final reservation of rights letter or denial letter to the insured; and
- Insurer’s attorney conducting settlement negotiations in an underlying litigation.
Reprinted courtesy of
Donald Verfurth, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani,
Sally Kim, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani,
Stephanie Ries, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani and
Kyle Silk-Eglit, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Mr. Verfurth may be contacted at dverfurth@grsm.com
Ms. Kim may be contacted at sallykim@grsm.com
Ms. Ries may be contacted at sries@grsm.com
Mr. Silk-Eglit may be contacted at ksilkeglit@grsm.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
