A Homeowner’s Subsequent Action is Barred as a Matter of Law by way of a Prior “Right to Repair Act” Claim Resolved by Cash Settlement for Waiver of all Known or Unknown Claims
February 26, 2015 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq., Jon A. Turigliatto, Esq., and David A. Napper, Esq. – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger BulletinDavid Belasco v. Gary Loren Wells et al. (2015) B254525
OVERVIEW
In a decision published on February 17, 2015, the Second District Court of Appeal made clear that settlement agreements containing waivers of unknown claims in connection with a construction of a property, absent fraud or misrepresentation, will be upheld. In brief, the homeowner plaintiff had made a claim against the builder pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 896 (“Right to Repair”) and settled for a cash payment and obtained a Release of all Claims including for all known and unknown claims. The court held that homeowner’s subsequent construction defect claim was barred pursuant to the terms and conditions of the earlier release.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff and Appellant, David Belasco ("Belasco"), purchased a newly construction home in Manhattan Beach from builder Gary Loren Wells ("Wells"). Two years after purchasing the property, Belasco filed a Complaint for construction defects, which eventually resulted in settlement between the parties. The settlement agreement included a California Civil Code Section 1524 waiver of all known or unknown claims with the word "claims" defined in part as “any and all known and unknown construction defects." Six years later in 2012, Belasco filed a Complaint alleging a claim, amongst others, that the defective and leaky roof breached the statutory warranty on new construction under California Civil Code section 896 ("Right to Repair Act").
Relying on San Diego Hospice v. County of San Diego (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1048, Wells and Wells' surety, American Contractors Indemnity Company (collectively "Wells"), filed a motion for summary judgment contending that the 2012 action was barred by the settlement of Belasco’s prior Complaint against Wells for construction defects to his home. When the trial court ruled in favor of Wells, Belasco appealed. Belasco, a patent attorney, made the following contentions:(1) the general release and section 1542 wavier in the settlement agreement for patent construction defects is not a "reasonable release" of a subsequent claim for latent construction defects within the meaning of section 929 and the “Right to Repair” Act; (2) a reasonable release can only apply to a "particular violation" and not to a latest defect under the language of section945.5, subdivision (f), and the settlement was too vague to be valid because it does not reference a "particular violation;" (3) section 932 of the California Civil Code specifically authorizes an action on "[s]subsequently discovered claims of unmet standards;" (4) public policy prohibits use of a general release and section 1542 waiver to bar a subsequent claim for latent residential construction defects; and (5) a genuine issue of material fact exists concerning Belasco's fraud and negligence claims that would have voided the settlement pursuant to section 1668.
Pursuant to the "Right to Repair Act" Section 929 subsection (a), a builder can make a cash offer in lieu of a repair and the homeowner is free to accept or reject such offer. Section 929subsection (b) goes on to state that
"[t]he builder may obtain a reasonable release in exchange for the cash payment. The builder may negotiate the terms and conditions of any reasonable release in terms of scope and consideration in conjunction with a cash payment under this chapter."
The Second District Court of Appeal ruled that the prior cash settlement, with a release and section 1524 wavier, was a "reasonable release" under the language of California Civil Code Section 929.
On multiple occasions, the Court noted that Belasco is an attorney and was represented by an attorney during the negotiation of the settlement agreement. By executing the agreement with express language regarding what claims were to be release, Belasco released Wells of "any and all claims" due to "any and all known and unknown construction defects." The Court reasoned that because Belasco is an attorney in his own right, he should have understood the import of the Section 1542 waiver and had the opportunity to reject or revise the settlement agreement prior to binding himself to it. The Court further found that the agreement "could not have been more clear" regarding the waiver of all unknown and known construction defect claims and therefore was not vague. Belasco's additional contentions were found to be without merit because Belasco availed himself of the statutory remedy of a cash settlement in lieu of repairs and voluntarily entered into a negotiated settlement agreement. Lastly, Belasco failed to present any evidence regarding his misrepresentation claim.
When a homeowner files a "Right to Repair Act" claim, often it seems that only two options exist: either repair the alleged defects or go to court. However, Belasco is a reminder to builders that the "Right to Repair Act" does offer an avenue for settlement. The Second District Court of Appeal presented a clear, unqualified opinion regarding the validity and enforceability of settlement agreements releasing all known or unknown construction defects in a single family home case. The Court will hold parties to the settlements they agree to. This is especially so when one of the parties is an attorney and provides deposition testimony expressly acknowledging that he understood the scope of the agreement. Attorneys for builders should always include a waiver of all known and unknown claims, which pursuant to Belasco and San Diego Hospice, will ensure that any future claims at the property will be effectively barred by the terms of the settlement agreement.
Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys
Richard H. Glucksman,
Jon A. Turigliatto and
David A. Napper
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Miller Act Statute of Limitations and Equitable Tolling
July 11, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen it comes to a Miller Act payment bond claim, there is a one-year statute of limitations—“The Miller Act contains a statute of limitations provision that requires actions to ‘be brought no later than one year after the day on which the last of the labor was performed or material was supplied by the person bringing the claim.’” U.S. f/u/b/o Techniquex Specialty Flooring, Inc., v. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co., 2022 WL 169070, *3 (M.D.Penn. 2022) (citing the Miller Act).
There is an argument, albeit a difficult one, to support an equitable tolling of the one-year statute of limitations. This would be an argument filed when the one-year statute of limitations expires, but there is reason for missing the statute of limitations caused typically by the overt misleading of the defendant (surety/bond-principal):
“Equitable tolling functions to stop the statute of limitations from running where the claim’s accrual date has passed.” “Equitable tolling is appropriate in three situations: (1) when the defendant has actively misled the plaintiff respecting the facts which comprise the plaintiff’s cause of action; (2) when the plaintiff in some extraordinary way has been prevented from asserting his rights; and (3) when the plaintiff has timely asserted his rights in the wrong forum.” The first ground for equitable tolling“appears to be the same, in all important respects” to equitable estoppel, which “excuses late filing where such tardiness results from active deception on the part of the defendant” and “what courts describe as ‘equitable tolling’ is encompassed by the latter two parts of our Circuit’s doctrine.” The extraordinary circumstances standard may be met “where the defendant misleads the plaintiff, allowing the statutory period to lapse; or when the plaintiff has no reasonable way of discovering the wrong perpetrated against her …”
Tehniquex, supra, at *5 (internal citations omitted).
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
Addressing the Defective Stucco Crisis
November 28, 2018 —
Wally Zimolong - Supplemental ConditionsI received several emails regarding the expose by Caitlin McCabe and Erin Arvedlund in the Philadelphia Inquirer titled “Rotting Within.” The story outlines the epidemic of defective stucco and other “building envelope” issues in Southeastern Pennsylvania that is causing homes to literally rot from within. Having litigated several of these cases, they are frustrating for both the attorneys that handle them and the homeowners who must deal with the reality that their home is rotting away. The story points to the multiple (and all too common) causes for the epidemic: unskilled subcontractors, lack of oversight and care, and poor construction drawings. The is no quick solution to the crisis and litigation regarding these defects is sure to proliferate.
However, there is one potential solution that the story does not cover and which could help alleviate some of the challenges homeowners face in recovering damages for their claims. The Pennsylvania Legislature must act to change the insurance laws in Pennsylvania to make defective construction covered by a developer’s, contractor’s, and subcontractor’s commercial general liability policy (“CGL”). Most homeowners and many attorneys incorrectly assume that defective construction is covered by insurance. This assumption makes sense. If someone operates a car in a negligent manner and hits your car and causes damage, the negligent driver’s insurance company with cover your loss. In reality, Pennsylvania courts follows a minority of states that holds that generally speaking defective workmanship is not a “covered occurrence” under an insurance policy. (There are several exceptions to this rule and thorough discussion is beyond this blog post and would probably bore you.)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLCMr. Zimolong may be contacted at
wally@zimolonglaw.com
Texas Federal Court Finds Total Pollution Exclusion Does Not Foreclose a Duty to Defend Waterway Degradation Lawsuit
October 24, 2022 —
Jeremy S. Macklin - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogEvanston Ins Co. v. Tex. Concrete and Sand Gravel, Inc., No. 4:20-cv-00103 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 2022) is a coverage dispute over Evanston Insurance Co.’s (“Evanston”) duty to defend and indemnify Texas Concrete Sand and Gravel, Inc. (“Texas Concrete”) and Apcon Services, LLC (“Apcon”) (collectively, the “Insureds”) for their contributions to the degradation of the waterways and retention lakes built to control flooding in the Houston area. On August 3, 2022, Magistrate Judge Yvonne Y. Ho recommended that Evanston’s motion for summary judgment be denied. On August 30, 2022, District Court Judge Alfred H. Bennett adopted Judge Ho’s Memorandum and Recommendations.
In 2017, Hurricane Harvey caused significant flooding of the Houston area, which resulted in large-scale property damage. The underlying lawsuits alleged that, since 1954, Lake Houston’s waterways sustained a steady decline in capacity because of the release of materials into the waterway system. The Insureds allegedly contributed to the decline by allowing “materials and substances” (such as processed water, silt, sand, sediment, dirt, rock, and aggregate) to run off their privately controlled properties and into the Houston waterways. The reduced capacity, allegedly caused in part by the Insureds, exacerbated the flooding after Hurricane Harvey hit, increasing the damage from the hurricane.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub LiebermanMr. Macklin may be contacted at
jmacklin@tlsslaw.com
Spearin Doctrine as an Affirmative Defense
November 30, 2016 —
David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThe Spearin doctrine, referred to as the implied warranty of constructability doctrine, is oftentimes utilized as an affirmative defense by a contractor being sued for construction defects. Under the Spearin doctrine (recognized in the government contract setting), a contractor is NOT liable for defects in the plans and specifications furnished by the owner if the contractor constructs the project pursuant to the plans and specifications. This is because the owner impliedly warrants the constructability of the plans and specifications it furnishes to the contractor. Hence, the contractor should not be liable for defective construction caused by the owner furnishing defective plans and specifications.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Katz, Barron, Squitero, Faust, Friedberg, English & Allen, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@katzbarron.com
The Cost of Overlooking Jury Fees
February 07, 2022 —
Nicholas B. Brummel, Arezoo Jamshidi & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & BonesteelOn January 21, 2022, the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two (Los Angeles), certified for publication a 2-1 decision that serves as an important reminder to California attorneys to post jury fees in a timely manner and to use appropriate channels and consult with appellate counsel in seeking appellate relief from contested rulings.
In TriCoast Builders, Inc. v. Nathaniel Fonnegra, (B303300, Jan. 21, 2022), a construction defect dispute, the trial court set a jury trial at defendant’s request. However, on the day trial was set, defendant waived jury trial. Plaintiff objected and made an oral request for jury trial. The trial court denied the request finding that plaintiff waived its right to a jury trial by failing to timely post jury fees. The matter proceeded to a bench trial, and the court ruled in favor of defendant. Plaintiff appealed, having failed to seek a writ of mandate, which the appellate court noted “is the proper remedy to secure a jury trial allegedly wrongfully withheld.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Nicholas B. Brummel, Haight Brown & Bonesteel,
Arezoo Jamshidi, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and
Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel
Mr. Brummel may be contacted at nbrummel@hbblaw.com
Ms. Jamshidi may be contacted at ajamshidi@hbblaw.com
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Goldberg Segalla Welcomes William L. Nimick
February 07, 2022 —
Goldberg Segalla LLP(RALEIGH, N.C.)—Goldberg Segalla added William L. Nimick to the firm's Construction Litigation and Counsel group in Raleigh. Nimick was previously with The Law Offices of Stephen R. Paul in Raleigh.
Nimick is an experienced litigator who focuses his practice on counseling and defending corporate entities, insurers, contractors, and subcontractors in a range of liability claims, including those alleging construction defect, personal injury, property damage, premises liability, and more. Nimick draws on a background in civil litigation, personal injury and wrongful death, workers' compensation, and subrogation. He has handled subrogation claims across North Carolina, including construction defects, motor vehicle accidents, product liability lawsuits, and large fire losses.
Nimick earned his bachelor's degree at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington and his juris doctor at the Campbell University Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law.
About Goldberg Segalla
Goldberg Segalla is a national civil litigation firm with more than 20 offices in 10 states spanning major metro markets across the U.S., providing strategic coverage wherever our clients do business. As a firm of experienced litigators and trial attorneys, Goldberg Segalla's capabilities span business and commercial disputes, employment and labor, insurance coverage, product liability, and more. Today, our more than 400 attorneys are trusted counselors to public and private clients in key sectors and industries including construction and energy, transportation, manufacturing, retail and hospitality, and insurance. To learn more, visit goldbergsegalla.com or follow us on
LinkedIn,
Facebook, and
Twitter.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
DOJ to Prosecute Philadelphia Roofing Company for Worker’s Death
June 17, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFWhile Construction Dive reported that it’s rare for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to prosecute employers for on-the-job deaths, the DOJ “plans to prosecute the owner of a Philadelphia roofing company for alleged crimes that the government claims led to the death of a construction worker.” According to Construction Dive, James J. McCullaugh, owner of James J. McCullagh Roofing Inc. has been accused of lying to US. Occupational Safety and Health Administration investigators “in an attempt to cover up his company’s failure to provide required fall protection for a man – Mark T. Smith – who died after falling 45 feet from a church roof in 2013. Two other workers said no fall protection was provided.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
