Construction Contractor “Mean Tweets” Edition
June 04, 2024 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogBack in the day, if someone had a problem with you the rules of school yard jungle dictated that they had better tell it to your face or you had the right to call them out on it. That, of course, was back then. These days, with social media seemingly everywhere (e.g., Yelp, Twitter, Facebook, etc.), if someone has a problem with you they tell you . . . as well as the rest of the world . . . to your digital face. Jimmy Kimmel has even made it a “thing” with his celebrity “
Mean Tweets” segments.
In
Paglia & Associates Construction, Inc. v. Hamilton, 98 Cal.App.5th 318 (2023), homeowner Vanessa Hamilton was sued by her contractor Paglia & Associates Construction, Inc. doing business as Protech Construction after she posted critical comments to her blog and on Yelp about work performed by Paglia at her home.
The Paglia Case
In or about 2016, after a tree fell on her house, Hamilton’s insurer, Safeco, recommended Paglia to perform the repairs. Paglia and Hamilton entered into a repair contract in 2016 but Paglia did not finish the work until sometime in 2017 claiming that the repair was extensive because Hamilton’s circa 1923 home was in poor condition and current building codes required extensive reconstruction.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Client Alert: Naming of Known and Unknown Defendants in Initial Complaints: A Cautionary Tale
September 24, 2014 —
R. Bryan Martin & Whitney L. Stefko – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPOn September 12, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Butler v. National Community Renaissance of California, upheld a district court's dismissal of certain defendants named in amended complaints, affirming the necessity of naming those known and unknown defendants in Plaintiff's original complaint.
In April 2009, Plaintiff Zina Butler filed an action in federal district court, naming a single defendant, National Community Renaissance Corporation ("National"), for an alleged warrantless search of Plaintiff's apartment on April 18, 2007. The single page complaint asserted that the apartment manager provided a Section 8 investigator, a City employee and Sherriff deputies keys to Plaintiff's apartment and conducted a search in violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. Shortly after, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, with the only change being the addition of defendant, the Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles ("HACoLA") in the caption. In May 2009, the court (on its own accord) dismissed the first amended complaint with leave to amend as "it [was] unclear whom Plaintiff intend[ed] to sue."
In June 2009, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, identifying National and HACoLA in the caption as defendants, but separately identifying several other individuals and entities allegedly involved in the incident occurring in April of 2007 in the complaint's statement of facts. The Court, once again, dismissed the second amended complaint with leave to amend for the same reasons it dismissed Plaintiff's first amended complaint.
Reprinted courtesy of
R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Whitney L. Stefco, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Ms. Stefko may be contacted at wstefko@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Disappearing Data: Avoid Losing Electronic Information to Avoid Losing the Case
February 01, 2022 —
Daniel C. Wennogle & Jennifer Knight Lang - Construction ExecutiveIt happens: A contractor on a delayed project ends up in litigation over liquidated damages, but the key communications regarding delays and approvals were sent and received by the project manager on a mobile device using text messages and personal email accounts. Unfortunately, the project manager left the company a year ago on bad terms and has changed phones. The information that would serve to mitigate the contractor’s liability has disappeared. With better awareness and policies for capturing and managing electronic information, this is avoidable.
Proactive and effective management of electronically stored information on construction projects can not only reduce costs and discovery disputes should litigation arise but can also provide critical evidence in reducing liability exposure in such disputes. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (as well as most state rules, which often mirror federal rules), provide for sanctions if a party fails to preserve electronically stored information (ESI) that should have been preserved in anticipation of litigation but is lost due to the failure to take reasonable steps to preserve it.
Even in arbitration, where discovery and disclosure obligations are often more limited than in the court setting, preservation of ESI can help strengthen claims and defenses, avoiding accusations of spoliation that can derail a case. Arbitrators can also fashion appropriate sanctions for destruction of relevant evidence, not to mention the impact that apparent spoliation can have on a party’s credibility.
Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel C. Wennogle & Jennifer Knight Lang, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Ms. Lang may be contacted at jennifer.lang@moyewhite.com
Mr. Wennogle may be contacted at daniel.wennogle@moyewhite.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Slavin Doctrine and Defense from Patent Defects
June 13, 2018 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThe Slavin doctrine is an affirmative defense primarily geared to the personal injury context designed to protect contractors from third-party negligence-type claims when an owner accepts a patent defect.
The Slavin doctrine protects contractors from liability for injuries to third parties by presuming that the owner has made a “reasonably careful inspection” of the contractor’s work prior to accepting it as completed; if the owner accepts the contractor’s work as complete and an alleged defect is patent, then the owner “accepts the defects and the negligence that caused them as his own,” and the contractor will no longer be liable for the patent defect.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
Definitions Matter in Illinois: Tenant Held Liable Only for Damage to Apartment Unit
September 09, 2024 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn Phila. Indem. Ins. Co. v. Gonzalez, No. 1-23-0833, 2024 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1372, the Appellate Court of Illinois considered whether the terms of a lease agreement limited a tenant’s liability for fire damages, a fire caused by her negligence, to her apartment unit only. The plaintiff insured the subject apartment building, which incurred damage to several units as result of a fire in the tenant’s unit. The lease defined “Premises” as the specific apartment unit occupied by the tenant and held the tenant responsible for damage caused to the Premises. While the court found that the lease permitted the plaintiff to subrogate against the tenant, it held that the lease terms limited the damages to the tenant’s apartment unit only.
In Gonzalez, the plaintiff’s insured owned a multi-unit apartment building in Chicago. In September 2019, the building owner entered into a lease agreement with the defendant for apartment Unit 601. The lease stated that Unit 601 was the “Leased Address (Premises).” Another provision stated that building owner “hereby leases to Tenant(s) and Tenant(s) hereby leases from Landlord(s) for use as a private dwelling only, the Premises, together with the fixtures and appliances (if any) in the premises…” The lease also stated that “Tenant shall be liable for any damage done to the premises as a result of Tenant’s or Tenant’s invitees, guests or others authorized to reside in the Premises [sic] direct action, negligence, or failure to inform Landlord of repairs necessary to prevent damage to the Premises.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and WilliamsMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
Construction Defect Suit Can Continue Against Plumber
June 28, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Kansas Court of Appeals has reversed a district court ruling that a homeowner’s suit against a plumber was barred under the economic loss doctrine. However, subsequently the Kansas Supreme Court “refused to extend the economic loss doctrine to homeowner claims against construction contractors.” In light of this, the appeals court sent the case back to the lower court.
The case, Coker v. Siler, was brought by Gregory Coker, who had bought a home from J.M.C. Construction. JMC purchased an unfinished house from Michael D. Siler in August 2006. As part of the completion process, John M. Chaney, the president of JMC, installed the water line into the residence. Mr. Coker bought the home in September 2007.
Starting in April 2008, Mr. Coker noticed that his water bills had increased. Mr. Coker could find “no evidence of a leak above the ground,” so he contacted JMC Construction. Mr. Chaney had R.D. Johnson Excavation dig up the water line, after which a gap was discovered that had been allowing water to flow under the foundation. In addition to the higher water bills, an engineer determined that the water “resulted in cracks in the wall and uneven doors.”
Mr. Coker sued, Siler, J.M.C. and Chaney for negligence, breach of implied warranty, strict liability, and breach of express warranty. J.M.C. and Chaney requested a summary judgment. The court dismissed Mr. Coker’s claims of negligence, strict liability, and breach of implied warranty on the basis of the economic loss doctrine, rejecting a petition from Mr. Coker to reconsider. The court, however, allowed Mr. Cocker to proceed with his claim of express warranty. In December, 2011, Mr. Coker accepted an offer from J.M.C. of $40,000.
Mr. Coker then appealed the summary judgment, making the claim that while the court’s decision was based on Prendiville v. Contemporary Homes, Inc., this has now been overruled by David v. Hett. In this case, “the court ultimately found the rationale supporting the economic loss doctrine failed to justify a departure from a long time of cases in Kansas that establish a homeowner’s right to assert claims against residential contractors.” The appeals court concluded that “although the district court properly relied on the law as it existed at the time of its ruling, the intervening change in the law necessarily renders the conclusion reached by the district court erroneous as a matter of law.”
In sending this case back to the district court, the appeals court noted that the lower court will need to determine if the “defendant accused of negligence did not have a duty to act in a certain manner towards the plaintiff,” in which case “summary judgment is proper. Mr. Coker claims that Mr. Chaney did indeed have this duty.
Further, Mr. Coker claimed that Mr. Chaney had a duty arising out of implied warranty. The appeals court questioned whether the district court properly applied the economic loss doctrine to this claim, because despite being president of the construction company, Mr. Chaney “in his individual capacity as a plumber performing work for Coker, was not a party to the J.M.C. contract.” The court found that “Coker’s claim that Chaney breached an implied duty within such a contract fails as a matter of law.”
However, the court did uphold Cocker’s claim of a contractor liability for injury to a third party, noting that “Chaney owed Coker a legal duty independent of Coker’s contact with J.M.C.” The appeals court left it to the district court to determine if the defect that caused the damage was present when the house left J.M.C.’s possession.
The case was reversed and remanded “with directions to reinstate Coker’s claim of negligence against Chaney in his individual capacity as a plumber.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Architect Not Responsible for Injuries to Guests
September 01, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Texas Court of Appeals has ruled, with one dissent, that the architectural firm that designed a home was not responsible to the injuries caused to guests when a balcony collapsed. Judge David Puryear wrote the majority opinion in Black + Vernooy Architects v. Smith.
Black + Vernooy designed a vacation home for Robert and Kathy Maxfield in 2000. The Maxfields hired a general contractor to build the home. The general contractor hired a subcontractor to build a balcony; however, the subcontractor did not follow the architect’s design in building the balcony.
A year after the house was completed; the Maxfields were visited by Lou Ann Smith and Karen Gravely. The balcony collapsed under the two women. Ms. Gravely suffered a broken finger, a crushed toe, and bruises. Ms. Smith was rendered a paraplegic as a result of the fall. They sued the Maxfields, the general contractor, and the architects for negligence. The Maxfields and the general contractor settled. A jury found that the architects held 10% of the responsibility. The architects appealed the judgment of the district court.
The Appeals Court reversed this judgment, noting that “there has been no allegation that the Architects negligently designed the balcony or that the Architects actually created the defects at issue.” Further, “the Smiths allege that the defect was caused by the construction practices of the contractor and subcontractor when the balcony was not built in accordance with the design plans of the Architects.”
The court found that even though the architects had a duty “to endeavor to guard against defects and deficiencies in the construction of the home and to generally ascertain whether the home was being built in compliance with the construction plans,” this duty did not extend to third parties.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Texas Court Requires Insurer to Defend GC Despite Breach of Contract Exclusion
December 19, 2018 —
Ashley L. Cooper - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.In Mt. Hawley Insurance Co. v. Slay Engineering, et al.,1 a Texas federal court ruled in favor of a general contractor, finding that its insurer had a duty to defend it in a construction defect case filed by the owner. The decision adds more clarity to the interpretation of the subcontractor exception to the “Damage to Your Work” exclusion as well as the Breach of Contract exclusion, which has been the subject of several cases coming out of Texas over the past decade.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ashley L. Cooper, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Cooper may be contacted at
alc@sdvlaw.com
