Subsequent Purchaser Can Assert Claims for Construction Defects
October 17, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesCan a subsequent purchaser pursue construction defect claims relating to the original construction of the property? This was the threshold issue on a motion for summary judgment by a drywall manufacturer against a subsequent purchaser of a home in Karpel v. Knauf Gips KG, 2022 WL 4366946 (S.D. Fla. 2022). This matter deals with the defective Chinese drywall that was installed in homes years ago. The plaintiffs, which were subsequent purchasers of a home, sued the manufacturer of the defective drywall for various theories including negligence, negligence per se, strict liability, breach of express and/or implied warranty, private nuisance, unjust enrichment, and Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
The trial court noted, from the onset, that Florida does NOT have a subsequent purchaser rule that prohibits subsequent purchasers from asserting construction defect claims. With this consideration in mind, the trial court went through the claims the plaintiff, as a subsequent purchaser, asserted against the manufacturer to determine whether they were viable claims as a matter of law.
Negligence Claim
The trial court found that a subsequent purchaser could sue in negligence. “Florida courts have long allowed subsequent purchasers to sue for negligence including in construction defect litigation.” Karpel, 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
Milhouse Engineering and Construction, Inc. Named 2022 A/E/C Building a Better World Award Winner
September 12, 2022 —
Milhouse Engineering and Construction, Inc.CHICAGO, IL, Sept. 07, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- PSMJ has awarded Milhouse Engineering and Construction, Inc. (Milhouse) their 2022 Building a Better World award. This recognition is given to a firm in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction industries that significantly and positively impacts the communities they serve. This highly regarded award is chosen by a panel of industry visionaries and leaders based on the impact and nature of the activities completed by the organization.
"Firms nominated for an A/E/C Building a Better World Award come in all sizes, from less than 10 architects to over 10,000 civil engineers. What they share is a realization that giving time and resources to those less fortunate is the right thing to do. And more and more, the most sought-after candidates for open positions are judging firms on their level of corporate social responsibility," says Frank A. Stasiowski, FAIA, Founder and CEO of PSMJ Resources, Inc.
In 2012, Milhouse established
Milhouse Charities, the 501c3 non-profit arm of the Milhouse family of companies. Milhouse Charities supports the Milhouse vision "to be a positive impact" by supporting the education, exposure and advancement of underrepresented youth and minorities in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM). Since its founding in 2012, Milhouse Charities has invested over $1 Million and 7,000 hours of community service into STEM, resource, and mentorship programs. The organization has made a global impact having done service in Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, New York, Atlanta, and throughout Africa.
About Milhouse Engineering and Construction, Inc.
Milhouse Engineering and Construction, Inc. is a full-service engineering firm offering expertise in civil, mechanical, electrical, structural and environmental engineering, as well as construction and program management. We deliver creative solutions to complex problems around the globe. Driven by our diverse perspectives, we challenge the status quo to pursue a brighter future for the communities we serve. Milhouse has been named a 'Best & Brightest Companies to Work For' for 17 years in a row and is ranked as an 'ENR Top 500 Design Firm'. Follow us on
LinkedIn and
Facebook.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Colorado Supreme Court Issues Decisions on Statute of Limitations for Statutory Bad Faith Claims and the Implied Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege
July 11, 2018 —
Jennifer Arnett-Roehrich - Gordon & Rees Insurance Coverage Law BlogThe Colorado Supreme Court has been busy the past two weeks, issuing a couple rulings that should be of interest to the insurance industry:
Statute of Limitations for Bad Faith Statute: In Rooftop Restoration, Inc. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 2018 CO 44 (May 29, 2018), the Colorado Supreme Court held that the one-year statute of limitations that applies to penalties, does not apply to claims brought under C.R.S. 10-3-1116, Colorado’s statutory cause of action for unreasonable delay or denial of benefits. Section 10-3-1116 provides that a first-party claimant whose claim for payment of benefits has been unreasonably delayed or denied may seek to recover attorney fees, costs, and two times the covered benefit, in addition to the covered benefit. A separate Colorado statute, CRS 13-80-103(1)(d) provides a one-year statute of limitations for “any penalty or forfeiture of any penal statutes.” To arrive at the conclusion that the double damages available under section 10-3-1116 is not a penalty, the Court looked at yet another statutory provision, governing accrual of causes of action for penalties, which provides that a penalty cause of action accrues when “the determination of overpayment or delinquency . . . is no longer subject to appeal.” The Court stated that because a cause of action under 10-3-1116 “never leads to a determination of overpayment or delinquency . . . the claim would never accrue, and the statute of limitations would be rendered meaningless.” Para. 15. Presumably, the default two-year statute of limitations, provided by CRS 13-80-102(1)(i), will now be found to apply to causes of action seeking damages for undue delay or denial of insurance benefits.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jennifer Arnett-Roehrich, Gordon & Rees Scully MansukhaniMs. Arnett-Roehrich may be contacted at
jarnett-roehrich@grsm.com
Haight has been named a Metropolitan Tier 1 and Tier 2 “Best Law Firm” by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” in 2025
November 11, 2024 —
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPHaight Brown & Bonesteel LLP is listed in the U.S. News – Best Lawyers® (2025 Edition) “Best Law Firms” list with metro rankings in the following areas:
Los Angeles
- Metropolitan Tier 1
- Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
Orange County
- Metropolitan Tier 1
- Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Statute of Limitations Upheld in Construction Defect Case
September 30, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Missouri Court of Appeals has ruled in Ball v. Friese Construction Co., finding that Mr. Ball’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations.
Mr. Ball hired Friese Construction Company to build a single-family home. The sale was completed on March 29, 2001. That December, Mr. Ball complained of cracks in the basement floor. SCI Engineering, n engineering firm, hired by Friese, determined that the home’s footing had settled and recommended that Mr. Ball hire a structural engineer to determine if the footings were properly designed and sized. In September 2002, the structural engineer, Strain Engineering, determined that the cracks were due to slab movement, caused in part by water beneath the slab, recommending measures to move water away from the foundation. In 2005, Mr. Ball sent Friese correspondence “detailing issues he was having with the home, including problems with the basement slab, chimney structure, drywall tape, and doors.” All of these were attributed to the foundation problems. In 2006, Friese stated that the slab movement was due to Ball’s failure to maintain the storm water drains.
In 2009, Ball received a report from GeoTest “stating the house was resting on highly plastic clay soils.” He sued Friese in May, 2010. Friese was granted a summary judgment dismissing the suit, as the Missouri has a five-year statute of limitations. Ball appealed on the grounds that the extent of the damage could not be determined until after the third expert report. The appeals court rejected this claim, noting that a reasonable person would have concluded that after the conclusion of SCI and Strain Engineering that “injury and substantial damages may have occurred.”
The court concluded that as there were not “continuing wrongs causing new and distinct damages,” he should have filed his lawsuit after the first two expert reports, not waiting seven years for a third expert to opine.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Association Insurance Company v. Carbondale Glen Lot E-8, LLC: Federal Court Reaffirms That There Is No Duty to Defend or Indemnify A Builder For Defective Construction Work
December 20, 2017 —
David M McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation BlogIn a case that squarely confronts the juxtaposition of an insurer’s duty to defend or indemnify its insured for construction related defects, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado recently granted an insurer’s motion for summary judgment on both matters against a construction subrogee, in Ass’n Ins. Co. v. Carbondale Glen Lot E-8, LLC, No. 15-cv-02025-RPM, 2016 WL 9735743, at *1 (D. Colo. Oct. 10. 2017).
Mountainview Construction Services, LLC (“MCS”) served as the general contractor for the construction of a residence on a lot owned by Glen Lot E-8, LLC (“E-8”). MCS took out a Commercial General Liability Policy (“Policy”) with Association Insurance Company (“AIC”) that provided coverage to MCS for the relevant time period for the construction of the residence. E-8 then asserted a series of claims against MCS, based on the allegation that MCS and its subcontractors defectively constructed the home by, among other things, building the residence two feet too high in violation of applicable codes. E-8 also argued that MCS and its subcontractors made significant alterations and/or deviations from the original project specifications without obtaining E-8’s consent or approval from relevant authorities. MCS tendered the claim to AIC for defense and indemnity. In turn, AIC declined coverage on the argument that the Policy precluded any coverage for defective work MCS may have performed on the project, absent damage to person or other property.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David M McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
This Is the Most Remote and Magical Hotel on Earth
May 12, 2016 —
Sarah Hepola – BloombergThere are no signs leading to the Fogo Island Inn. That’s how hard it is to miss the place. Designed by architect Todd Saunders, who grew up in nearby Gander, the building takes its inspiration from the fishing shacks that dot the shoreline, sagging on old wooden stilts, but it was also made with the dimensions of a cruising vessel. Three hundred feet long by 30 feet wide. Like a ship that’s just sailed into harbor.
For decades, the flow of traffic in this community off the Newfoundland coast had moved in one direction: away. Fewer than 2,500 people live on an island four times the size of Manhattan. But the inn, the brainchild of Fogo Island native and tech millionaire Zita Cobb, reversed that trend when it was completed in 2013. Strangers now come from around the world to see the island, whose unspoiled landscape makes it a coveted spot for the under-the-radar traveler.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sarah Hepola, Bloomberg
Court of Appeal Confirms Privette Doctrine as Applied to Passive Conduct of Property Owner
March 22, 2018 —
Bruce Cleeland and Frances Ma – Publications & InsightsIn
Delgadillo v. Television Center, Inc., 2018 No. B270985, the California Court of Appeal examined and refined the
Privette doctrine.
Mr. Delgadillo worked as a supervisor/window cleaner for a company named Chamberlin Building Services (CBS). Television Center, Inc. (TCI) purchased an existing building and thereafter contracted with CM Cleaning Solutions, Inc. (CMC) to provide cleaning and janitorial services. CMC, on behalf of TCI, solicited a proposal from CBS to wash the building’s windows. CBS and its employees made all decisions about how the window washing would be accomplished. The window washing equipment used on the job was owned, inspected and maintained by CBS. In violation of CBS’ policy, Mr. Delgadillo, attached a safety line to a single connector which was not an acceptable anchor point. The bracket failed and Mr. Delgadillo fell 50 feet to his death.
Survivors of Mr. Delgadillo filed suit against TCI for negligence and negligence per se, alleging that Mr. Delgadillo was fatally injured because TCI failed to install structural roof anchors, as required by several statutes.
Reprinted courtesy of
Bruce Cleeland, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Frances Ma, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Cleeland may be contacted at bcleeland@hbblaw.com
Ms. Ma may be contacted at fma@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
