Condominium Construction Defect Resolution in the District of Columbia
October 26, 2017 —
Nicholas D. Cowie - Maryland Condo Construction Defect Law BlogNewly constructed and newly converted condominiums in the District of Columbia often contain concealed or “latent” construction defects. Left undetected and unrepaired, defects in the construction of a condominium can cause extensive damage over time, requiring associations to assess their members substantial repair costs that could have been avoided by making timely developer warranty claims.
This article provides a general overview of how Washington DC condominium associations transitioning from developer control can proactively and successfully identify defects and resolve construction defect claims with condominium developers and builders.
Condominium Association Responsibility for Timely Evaluation of Common Element Construction
Condominium associations are charged with the responsibility of overseeing and maintaining condominium common element facilities, typically consisting of building roofs, exterior walls, foundations, lobbies, common hallways, elevators, surrounding grounds, and the common structural mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems. Following the period of developer control, it is incumbent upon a condominium association’s first unit owner elected board of directors to evaluate the construction of the condominium common element facilities and determine whether the existing, developer-created, budget and reserve fund are adequate to cover the cost of maintaining, repairing, and ultimately replacing the condominium facilities over time.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nicholas D. Cowie, Cowie & Mott, P.A.Mr. Cowie may be contacted at
ndc@cowiemott.com
Court Upholds Plan to Eliminate Vehicles from Balboa Park Complex
June 10, 2015 —
Kristen Lee Price and Lawrence S. Zucker II – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Save Our Heritage Organisation v. City of San Diego, et al. (No. D063992, filed 5/28/15), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District upheld a controversial plan to eliminate vehicles from various plazas in historic Balboa Park. In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal considered a question of first impression involving the interpretation of San Diego Municipal Code section 126.0504.
Balboa Park, designated a National Historic Landmark in 1940, is a large urban park in the center of San Diego. The City of San Diego (“City”) recently approved a proposed plan (“Project”) to eliminate vehicles from the plazas within the Balboa Park complex and to return the plazas to purely pedestrian zones. Subsequently, a community group named Save Our Heritage Organisation (“SOHO”) filed a petition for a writ of mandate alleging, among other things, the City erroneously approved the Project. SOHO contended Municipal Code section 126.0504 mandated two key findings be made before the Project could be approved: (1) that the intended purpose of the property would not be adversely affected; and (2) without the proposed project, the property would not be put to a “reasonable beneficial use.” SOHO argued that although the City made the requisite findings, those findings lacked substantial evidentiary support. The trial court agreed with SOHO and directed the City to rescind the site development permit.
The City argued on appeal that Municipal Code section 126.0504 vested it with “discretion to make a qualitative determination of whether an existing use of the property, even if deemed beneficial, is also a reasonable use of that property under all of the facts and circumstances applicable to the particular property in question.” The Court of Appeal agreed and reversed.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kristen Lee Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Price may be contacted at kprice@hbblaw.com; Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Colorado Requires Builders to Accommodate High-Efficiency Devices in New Homes
December 14, 2020 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction LitigationStarting in 2009, the Colorado Legislature began adding requirements that builders offer certain options to accommodate high-efficiency devices. These requirements started with solar prewire options in 2009, then water-smart home options in 2010. In 2020, the Legislature added requirements for electric vehicle charging and heating systems. These sections apply to unoccupied homes serving as sales inventory or a model home or manufactured homes, as defined by Colorado law. While the Legislature has only required builders to include options to accommodate these devices, it may be just a matter of time until builders must install the prescribed devices themselves.
In 2009, the Legislature passed C.R.S. 38-35.7-106, which was amended this year by HB 20-1155. As it now reads, Colorado law requires every builder of single-family detached residences to offer to have the home’s electrical or plumbing system, or both, include:
- A residential photovoltaic solar generation system or a residential thermal system, or both;
- Upgrades of wiring or plumbing, or both, planned by the builder to accommodate future installation of such systems; and
- A chase or conduit, or both, constructed to allow ease of future installation of the necessary wiring or plumbing for such systems.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Illinois Court Addresses Rip-And-Tear Coverage And Existence Of An “Occurrence” In Defective Product Suit
September 04, 2018 —
Brian Bassett - TLSS Insurance Law BlogIn Lexington Ins. Co. v. Chi. Flameproof & Wood Specialties Corp., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135871, 2018 WL 3819109 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 10, 2018), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois found that rip-and-tear costs could qualify as covered “property damage,” but the court rejected coverage for claims that the insured intentionally sold a noncompliant product as the suit did not allege an “occurrence.”
Lexington Insurance Company (“Lexington”) issued a CGL policy to Chicago Flameproof & Wood Specialties Corp. (“Flameproof”). During the policy period, a third party ordered fire-retardant-treated lumber from Flameproof for construction in Minnesota. Flameproof instead sent materials that were not tested, certified, or labeled as compliant. The third party installed the materials, discovered the non-compliance, and then removed the materials. Removing the materials allegedly damaged other portions of the building on the project. The third party then sued Flameproof, alleging costs associated with replacing the lumber as well as property damage to the other materials from the removal of the lumber. Flameproof tendered the claim to Lexington seeking a defense. Lexington filed a declaratory action in the Northern District of Illinois.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brian Bassett, Traub Lieberman Strauss & Shrewsberry LLPMr. Bassett may be contacted at
bbassett@tlsslaw.com
Colorado House Bill 20-1290 – Restriction on the Use of Failure to Cooperate Defense in First-Party Claims
May 18, 2020 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction LitigationOn February 7th, Representative Garnett, with Senator Fenberg as the Senate sponsor, introduced HB 20-1290, concerning the ability of an insurer to use a failure-to-cooperate defense in an action in which the insured has made a claim for insurance coverage.
If the bill were to pass, in order to plead or prove a failure-to-cooperate defense in any action concerning first-party insurance benefits, the following conditions must be met:
- The carrier has submitted a written request for information the carrier seeks to the insured or the insured’s representative, by certified mail;
- The written request provides the insured 60 days to respond;
- The information sought would be discoverable in litigation;
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
The A, B and C’s of Contracting and Self-Performing Work Under California’s Contractor’s License Law
July 19, 2017 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogThe California Contractors State License Board issues licenses in three general classifications:
- Class A – General Engineering Contractors;
- Class B – General Building Contractors; and
- Class C – Specialty Contractors of which there are currently 42 different Class C specialty contractors license types.
Each of these license classifications has separate contracting rules, and rules regarding when work can be self-performed, which for many can be confusing.
Minor Work Exception
One important (albeit “minor”) exception is that no contractor’s license is required no matter what type of work is being performed if the project has a value of less than $500. Known as the “minor work exception,” the exception is a project-based, not work-based, exception. Thus, for example, if a project owner is remodeling their kitchen at a cost of $6,000 and the cost of doing the flooring is only $300, the person doing the flooring would need to have a contractor’s license in the appropriate classification since the aggregate cost of the work is $500 or more.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
Inverse Condemnation and Roadwork
October 09, 2023 —
David R. Cook Jr. - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLPThe following case, issued yesterday by the Georgia Supreme Court, addresses the accrual of the statute of limitations on a claim of inverse condemnation based on nuisance.
Wise Bus. Forms, Inc. v. Forsyth Cnty., S22G0874, 2023 WL 6065278 (Ga. Sept. 19, 2023)
We granted certiorari in this case to clarify the standards for determining when a claim for inverse condemnation by permanent nuisance accrues for purposes of applying the four-year statute of limitation set forth in OCGA § 9-3-30 (a).
[. . .]
Permanent nuisance cases vary in relation to when the alleged harm to a plaintiff’s property caused by the nuisance becomes “observable” to the plaintiff. Forrister, 289 Ga. at 333 (2), 711 S.E.2d 641. In some cases, the harm to the plaintiff’s property is immediately observable “upon the creation of the nuisance.” Id. For example, where a landowner or governmental agency “erects a harmful structure such as a bridge or conducts a harmful activity such as opening a sewer that pollutes a stream,” and it is immediately obvious that the structure or activity interferes with the plaintiff’s interests, the plaintiff must file “one cause of action for the recovery of past and future damages caused by [the] permanent nuisance” within four years of the date the structure is completed or the harmful activity is commenced. Id. at 333-336 (2) and (3), 711 S.E.2d 641 (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 899 and 930). Phrased another way, where the “construction and continuance” of the permanent nuisance at issue is “necessarily an injury, the damage is original, and may be at once fully compensated. In such cases[,] the statute of limitations begins to run upon the construction of the nuisance.” City Council of Augusta v. Lombard, 101 Ga. 724, 727, 28 S.E. 994 (1897).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hall & Cook, LLPMr. Cook may be contacted at
cook@ahclaw.com
Home Buyer May Be Third Party Beneficiary of Property Policy
July 19, 2017 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the insurer, finding that the purchaser may have third party beneficiary rights under the seller's property policy. Hensley v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2017 Okla. LEXIS 59 (June 20, 2017).
In May 2000, Hensley sold his property and a mobile home located thereon to Douglas using a contract for deed. The contract for deed required Douglas to keep the premises insured, and the monthly payments made by Douglas to Hensley included the premiums. Hensley had a policy with State Farm on the property. Hensley continued to make the premium payments and the policy continued to be renewed. Further, State Farm was informed of the change in the property's status.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
