Don’t Ignore the Dispute Resolution Provisions in Your Construction Contract
June 05, 2023 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesDon’t ignore dispute resolution provisions in a construction contract. Sometimes, you may want to. But dispute resolution provisions should be one of the first provisions you look to when a dispute arises recognizing these provisions will be raised if you fail to comply. Not only will they be raised, but the presumption is they will be enforced. This is the situation that was raised in Seminole County, Florida v. APM Construction Corp., 2023 WL 3555356 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023).
Here, a contractor was terminated for cause by Seminole County. The contractor then filed suit against the County. The County moved to dismiss the lawsuit because the contractor failed to comply with contractual presuit administrative procedures in the contract prior to filing a lawsuit. While the trial court denied the County’s motion to dismiss, the appellate court granted the County’s petition for writ of certiorari quashing the trial court’s order denying the motion to dismiss. For purposes of granting the writ of certiorari, the appellate court held irreparable harm existed because “certiorari jurisdiction is properly exercised when a trial court permits a party to litigate when there is a contractual or legal obligation to first administrative proceed.” Seminole County, supra, at *2.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Georgia Law: “An Occurrence Can Arise Where Faulty Workmanship Causes Unforeseen or Unexpected Damage to Other Property”
March 05, 2011 —
CDCoverage.comIn American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Hathaway Development Co., Inc., No. S10G0521 (Ga. March 7, 2011), insured plumbing subcontractor Whisnant was sued by general contractor Hathaway seeking damages for costs incurred by Hathaway in repairing damage to property other than Whisnant’s plumbing work resulting from Whisnant’s negligently performed plumbing work on three separate projects. On one project, Whisnant installed a pipe smaller
Read the full story... Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
User Interface With a Building – Interview with Esa Halmetoja of Senate Properties
September 14, 2017 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessArchitect Mies van der Rohe once said that, “An office is a machine for working in.” From a maintenance person’s point of view that might be true. For a user, an office should offer a productive working environment. A pilot project, led by Esa Halmetoja of Senate Properties, is trying to find out how a digital twin of a building would serve both the needs of the maintenance worker and the office worker.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
info@aepartners.fi
140 Days Until The California Consumer Privacy Act Becomes Law - Why Aren't More Businesses Complying?
September 09, 2019 —
Kyle Janecek and Jeff Dennis – Newmeyer DillionCalifornia, for better or for worse, has a reputation as being a trendsetter, and has taken the lead in the United States by passing the "California Consumer Privacy Act," or "CCPA." This massive law has been on the books since 2018, but hasn't taken effect yet. However, the timeframe for businesses to be in compliance is rapidly diminishing. Currently, there are less than five months for businesses to (a) familiarize themselves with what the law requires; (b) determine how and if they are affected by the law; and (c) determine how to be in compliance with the law's demands. Right now, companies aren't making a rush to become CCPA compliant, but this is a mistake. Below are a few of the misconceptions that businesses have, as well as the realities.
MISCONCEPTION 1: It doesn't apply to my company.
For many businesses, it will apply. The baseline of the CCPA is: (1) does the business do anything with California residents (including employees); (2) is it for-profit; and (3) it either has $25 million annual revenue, "sells" 50,000 pieces of personal information or receives 50% or more of its revenue from personal information.
It does not matter if the business is in Nevada, Arizona, Texas or Delaware. So long as there is some connection to Californian residents, exists to make a profit, and otherwise satisfies either the profit, volume, or revenue percentage requirements, it applies. On that note, even if a business does not sell personal information, it does not mean it does not "sell" personal information under the law, as it includes any exchange of personal information for valuable consideration, such as the exchange of consumer data between companies, or the sale of information to a University for study.
MISCONCEPTION 2: The Federal Government will stop it.
One of the main reasons we have the CCPA is because the Federal Government has not acted on this issue. Furthermore, there is a high likelihood that any Federal law will not be substantially different from the CCPA, keeping the core principles in place. It's also unlikely that such a law will take effect and be passed in the remaining five months before the CCPA begins enforcement. Companies must accept that ideals of transparency, choice, consent and reasonable security as they relate to consumers' personal information are here to stay.
MISCONCEPTION 3: California is still changing the law, so I should wait.
California is still in the process of fine-tuning the CCPA, but this is no reason to wait. Fixes to questions arising regarding the CCPA have come out piecemeal, and continued changes, including expansions are likely. For example, employees were previously not addressed specifically within the CCPA, but are being addressed in the planned AB 25, excluding employees from some of the CCPA's protections. Conversely, there have also been planned provisions to expand on the protections and enforcement mechanisms of the CCPA, including a broad and expansive private right of action to permit individuals to sue for technical violations of the statute, like having to wait too long for a response to the demand, even if no actual damage is suffered. Again, the foundational requirements of the CCPA will not change via amendment – so companies should act now.
MISCONCEPTION 4: It's too expensive.
Actually no. Many of the basic actions are not cost-prohibitive, and are actions a business would want to do anyways: (a) Employee training to avoid data breaches and how to respond to user requests; (b) data mapping to quickly find, access, and arrange protections for consumer data; and (c) ensuring you have reasonable cyber security. This can even be turned into a competitive advantage, as consumers increasingly value companies that share their interests, including their privacy.
A compliance mistake could be extraordinarily costly. Currently, a violation for statutory violations of the CCPA can carry a penalty between $2,500 to $7,500 per individual violation. Furthermore, there is a private right of action with statutory damages of $100 to $750 per individual violation that could quickly balloon to exceed $5 million at a minimum, and invites class action/lawsuits for a data breach.
While this is true of almost every legal risk, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The penalties on the higher end of the spectrum are for willful violations, and attempts to comply with the law can act to curb potential risks.
What Should I Do?
If you feel CCPA compliance is important to your business, and decide to prepare for the CCPA with us, our firm has created a 90-day CCPA compliance program where our team will collaborate with you to determine a scalable, practical, and reasonable way for you to meet your needs, without breaking the bank. Let us provide you a free initial consultation to see if our CCPA compliance program works for you.
Kyle Janecek is an associate in the firm's Privacy & Data Security practice, and supports the team in advising clients on cyber related matters, including policies and procedures that can protect their day-to-day operations. For more information on how Kyle can help, contact him at kyle.janecek@ndlf.com.
Jeff Dennis is the head of the firm's Privacy & Data Security practice. Jeff works with the firm's clients on cyber-related issues, including contractual and insurance opportunities to lessen their risk. For more information on how Jeff can help, contact him at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com.
About Newmeyer Dillion
For 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that align with the business objectives of clients in diverse industries. With over 70 attorneys working as an integrated team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers tailored legal services to propel clients' business growth. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California and Nevada, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Significant Victory for the Building Industry: Liberty Mutual is Rejected Once Again, This Time by the Third Appellate District in Holding SB800 is the Exclusive Remedy
December 15, 2016 —
Richard H. Glucksman & Ravi R. Mehta – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Bulletin I. Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court (Certified for Publication, Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016
The California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District recently elaborated on the scope of the Right to Repair Act, commonly known as SB-800 (“Act”). In
Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (Kevin Hicks, et al.) (certified for publication, Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016), the Court considered whether the Act (and specifically the Act’s pre-litigation procedure) applies, when homeowners plead construction defect claims based only on common law causes of action, as opposed to violations of the building standards set forth in the Act (
Civil Code §896). The Court answered this question affirmatively.
The homeowners of seventeen (17) single-family homes filed a Complaint against the builder of their homes, Elliott Homes, Inc. (“Elliott”), alleging common law causes of action for construction defects. Elliott filed a motion to stay the litigation on the ground that the homeowners failed to comply with the pre-litigation procedure set forth in the Act. The trial court denied the motion, agreeing with the homeowners that this pre-litigation procedure did not apply because the homeowners had not alleged a statutory violation of the Act. Elliott appealed. The Court of Appeal purely considered the question of whether the Act, including its pre-litigation procedure, applies when a homeowner pleads construction defect claims based on common law causes of action, and not on statutory violations of the Act’s building standards.
To answer this question, the Court analyzed a recent case decided by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District:
Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98. In this subrogation case, a builder’s insurer asserted common law causes of action (but not statutory building standard violations) alleging construction defects against the builder to recover amounts paid to the homeowner after a sprinkler system failure caused extensive damage to the subject property. The trial court sustained the builder’s demurrer to the Complaint on the ground that it was time-barred under the Act. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order, holding that common law construction defect claims arising from actual damages are not covered by the Act because “the Act does not provide the exclusive remedy in cases where actual damage has occurred.” (
Liberty Mutual, 219 Cal.App.4th 98, 109).
The
Elliott Court declined to follow
Liberty Mutual, finding that that Court failed to properly analyze the language of the Act. The
Elliott Court analyzed both the statutory scheme and the legislative history of the Act to arrive at the conclusion that common law causes of action for construction defects do indeed fall within the purview of the Act.
According to the
Elliott Court, the Act “broadly applies to
any action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in…residential construction and in such an action, a homeowner’s claims or causes of action shall be limited to violation of the standards set forth in the Act, except as specified.” Further, the Act expressly provides that “no other cause of action for a claim covered by this title or for damages recoverable under Section 944 is allowed.”
Civil Code §943(a). In turn,
Civil Code §944 allows for a recovery for the cost of repairing a building standard violation, or for the cost of repairing any damage caused by such a violation, among other things.
The limited exceptions to the Act’s applicability concern the enforcement of a contract, or any action for fraud, personal injury, or violation of a statute. Civil Code §943(a). Additionally, the Act does not apply to condominium conversions. Civil Code §896.
The Elliott Court explains that apart from these exceptions, the Legislature intended the Act to apply to all construction defect claims (regardless of damage) relating to the construction of residential properties whose sales contracts are signed after January 1, 2003. There is no exception in the Act, express or implied, for common law causes of action.
Next, the Court turns to the Act’s legislative history to buttress this conclusion. This history makes clear that the Act is a legislative response to the California Supreme Court’s holding in
Aas v. Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal.4th 627, that construction defects in residential properties are only actionable in tort when actual property damage manifests. Senate Judiciary Committee hearings indicate that the Act was the product of protracted negotiations between varying interested parties, including construction industry trade groups and consumer protection groups. The Legislature intended (1) to promulgate building standards, violations of which would be actionable, even without damage, and (2) to allow homeowners to recover for actual damage caused by construction defects not covered by the building standards. In other words, the Act was intended to provide homeowners redress regardless of whether damage had manifested.
Therefore, the Court concluded that common law causes of action for construction defects, regardless of damage, are subject to the pre-litigation procedure set forth in the Act. The Court issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its earlier order, and to enter a new order granting Elliott’s motion to stay the litigation until the homeowners (and Elliott) have satisfied the pre-litigation procedure of the Act.
II. McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132
Similar to the Third Appellate District Court’s ruling in
Elliott, the Fifth Appellate District Court also rejected the holding of
Liberty Mutual in a matter now pending before the California Supreme Court:
McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132 (review granted and opinion superseded sub nom.
Albany v. Superior Court 360 P.3d 1022). Also similar to
Elliott, in
McMillin a group of homeowners filed common law construction defect claims against the builder of their homes. The builder,
McMillin, moved to stay the litigation pending compliance with the Act’s pre-litigation procedure. The trial court denied the motion, holding that the Act does not apply because the homeowners have not asserted statutory building standard violations contained within the Act.
In reasoning substantially similar to that of
Elliott, the
McMillin Court rejected Liberty Mutual’s holding that the Act is not the exclusive remedy for pursuing construction defect claims, with or without damage. Thus, the
McMillin Court issued a writ of mandate to vacate the trial court’s earlier order and to enter a new order granting McMillin’s motion to stay.
On November 24, 2015, the California Supreme Court granted the homeowners’ petition for review. In August of 2016, briefing was completed and the matter is now awaiting the scheduling of arguments. CGDRB will continue to closely monitor the pending appeal of this matter to the California Supreme Court, as well as all related developments.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Ravi R. Mehta, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Mehta may be contacted at rmehta@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Fifth Circuit -- Damage to Property Beyond Insured’s Product/Work Not Precluded By ‘Your Product/Your Work Exclusion’
January 24, 2022 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia & Marianne Bradley - White and Williams LLPOn January 11, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in Siplast, Incorporated v. Employers Mutual Casualty Company, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 795 (5th Cir. Jan. 11, 2022), finding that an insurer had a duty to defend its insured in a construction defect case where the underlying complaint alleged damage to property beyond the product and work of the insured.
Siplast, Inc. (Siplast) had contracted with the Archdiocese of New York (the Archdiocese) to install a roof membrane system at a high school in the Bronx, New York. Id. at *1. As part of the contract, Siplast guaranteed that the roof membrane system would remain in a watertight condition for at least twenty years. Id. at *2. If it did not, Siplast would repair the roof membrane system at its own expense. Id.
Several years after the installation, the Archdiocese observed water damage in the ceiling tiles at the high school. Id. The Archdiocese contacted Siplast, who attempted to repair the damage and prevent further leaks; however, leaks and resultant damage continued to occur. Id. Siplast subsequently refused to make any more improvements to the roof. Id.
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and
Marianne Bradley, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Bradley may be contacted at bradleym@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Colorado HB 13-1090: Concerning Payment of Amounts Due Under a Construction Agreement
February 21, 2013 —
David M. McLain — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCOn January 17, 2013 Representative Fischer introduced House Bill 13-1090 into the Colorado House of Representatives. HB 1090 was assigned the House Business, Labor, Economic and Workforce Development Committee.
The bill, sponsored by Senator Tochtrop in the Senate, sets the following requirements for both private and public construction contracts:
The owner and contractor must make regular progress payments approximately every 30 days to contractors and subcontractors for work actually performed.
To receive the progress payments, the contractor and subcontractor must submit a progress payment invoice plus any required documents.
A contractor must pass on the progress payment to the subcontractor within 5 days or by the end of the billing cycle.
Interest accrues on unpaid progress payments.
A contract may extend a billing cycle to 60 days, but the contract must duly warn of this.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David M. McLainmclain@hhmrlaw.com
Pentagon Has Big Budget for Construction in Colorado
January 17, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Pentagon is an important source of construction contracts, and one place where they’re acutely aware of this in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Luckily for the town’s economy, the military awarded $400 million in construction contracts to Colorado, many of them in the town of Colorado Springs.
Projects in Colorado Springs include facilities for a helicopter unit at Fort Carson and renovations at the Air Force Academy. The new operation center for defense intelligence at Buckley Air Force Base will be built in nearby Aurora. The price tag on the operations center is $117 million. Meanwhile, the military has thousands of both civilian and military employees who will be using these facilities.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
