Message from the Chair: Kelsey Funes (Volume I)
November 06, 2023 —
Marissa L. Downs - The Dispute ResolverI am so honored to assume the Division 1 mantle from my friend, Tom Dunn, and look forward to carrying on his good work.
For those of you who don’t know me, I’d like to take this opportunity to share a bit about my background. I grew up in New Orleans and went to LSU for undergraduate and law school. (Geaux Tigers!) I started my practice in 1997 at Phelps Dunbar LLP in Baton Rouge, where I still practice today. I manage the litigation group in the Baton Rouge office of the firm. I practice as a construction lawyer full time and serve on the Construction Panel of the American Arbitration Association and serve as a mediator in construction cases.
I am married to Dr. Chris Funes (the world’s best pediatrician) and we are the parents to two high schoolers. My son is a high school senior and my daughter is a sophomore. So, when I am not lawyering, I have been spending my time lately touring colleges, prepping for homecoming, and helping to teach my daughter to drive (all very relaxing!!). We also have a very sweet (and very hairy) rescue dog, Maggie, who makes sure we get lots of walks.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Marissa L. Downs, Laurie & Brennan, LLPMs. Downs may be contacted at
mdowns@lauriebrennan.com
Homeowner Who Wins Case Against Swimming Pool Contractor Gets a Splash of Cold Water When it Comes to Attorneys’ Fees
February 05, 2024 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogLooking outside as of late it seems like the glorious, sun-drenched days of Summer are just a nostalgic memory of days long gone. So, to bring back some of those warm-weather memories, I have a swimming pool case for you. Although, like most of the things we write about here on the California Construction Law Blog it’s not all fun-in-the-sun.
The Lee Case
In Lee v. Cardiff, 94 Cal.App.5th 398 (2023), Homeowner Dianne Lee entered into a construction contact with contractor David Brian Cardiff doing business as Advantage Pools Bay Area for a swimming pool and landscaping project totaling $231,500. It must have been quite a pool.
As these things sometimes go, a dispute arose and Cardiff left the job before its was finished. Lee later sued alleging breach of contract, negligent construction and violation of the Contractor State License Law.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Coverage for Injury to Insured’s Employee Not Covered
June 10, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe employee exclusions in the employer's CGL and Umbrella policies barred coverage. Piatt v. Indiana Lumbermen's Mut. Ins. Co., 2015 Mo. LEXIS 32 (Mo. April 28, 2015).
Linda Nunley was killed while working for Missouri Hardwood Charcoal, Inc. The kiln's large steel door had been removed and was leaning upright against another kiln when it blew over and crushed Ms. Nunley. Her family filed a wrongful death suit against Junior Flowers, the company's sole owner, director, and executive officer. The complaint alleged that Flowers was negligent in ordering employees to lean the kiln doors upright, even though he knew it was unsafe. The complaint further alleged that Flowers breached a personal duty of care owed to Ms. Nunley and that his actions were "something more" that a breach of the company's duty to provide a safe workplace.
Flowers requested a defense under CGL and Umbrella policies issued by Lumbermen's. The policies insured Missouri Hardwood and its executive officers, but excluded liability for a work-related injury to an "employee of the insured." The policies also had a "separation of insureds" provision, stating that the insurance applied "separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought." Lumbermen's denied coverage.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Tesla Powerwalls for Home Energy Storage Hit U.S. Market
May 12, 2016 —
Dana Hull – BloombergTo Steve Yates, the best thing about his new Tesla Powerwall is that he doesn’t have to worry anymore about the lights going out during a storm. Or maybe it’s how cool an addition it is to the entryway of his house in Monkton, Vermont.
“I’ve always wanted to have a backup power source,” said Yates, who was without electricity for 36 hours during Hurricane Irene in 2011. He also admires the Powerwall’s sleek white contours. “It’s kind of art-deco looking.”
A year after Elon Musk unveiled the Powerwall at Tesla Motors Inc.’s design studio near Los Angeles, the first wave of residential installations has started in the U.S. The 6.4-kilowatt-hour unit stores electricity from home solar systems and provides backup in the case of a conventional outage. Weighing 214 pounds and standing about 4-feet tall, it retails for around $3,000. But hookup by a trained electrician is required, as is something called a bi-directional inverter that converts direct-current electricity into the kind used by dishwashers and refrigerators. The costs add up quickly -- which has fueled skepticism about Musk’s dream of changing the way the world uses energy.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dana Hull, Bloomberg
Wage Theft Investigations and Citations in the Construction Industry
October 11, 2017 —
Evelin Y. Bailey - California Construction Law BlogThis month we share some cautionary tales for employers in the construction industry. During the past several months the California Labor Commissioner has cited or filed suit against several construction companies. In one investigation, a general contractor was held equally responsible for wages owed by a subcontractor to its employees. The lesson learned from these stories is that now more than ever it is important to have in place proper wage and hour practices and to conduct periodic audits of those practices, including those of your lower tiered contractors, preferably by experienced legal counsel.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Evelin Y. Bailey, California Construction Law Blog
Hennigh Law Corporation Wins Award Against Viracon, Inc In Defective Gray PIB Case
July 11, 2022 —
Scott Hennigh - Hennigh Law CorporationLOS ANGELES, July 08, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Hennigh Law Corporation has announced that, after an over four-year battle in and out of court, a three arbitrator panel issued a 93-page interim award in finding Viracon, Inc., liable for $13,682,840 in direct damages for defrauding the owner of the premier office building in Burbank, California, The Pointe. The matter now enters the second phase, where the arbitration panel will rule on the amount of punitive damages to assess, as well as attorney fees and interest.
Scott Hennigh, trial attorney, states, "The California construction industry is very robust with high standards. The arbitration panel appears to have recognized that California law does not tolerate large out-of-state companies misleading customers. They appear poised to send a message to Viracon about its lack of corporate responsibility."
The premier Class-A office building in Burbank, California, The Pointe, serves high-end tenants in entertainment industries such as Warner Brothers. Constructed in 2009, the 13 exterior curtain wall of the 13-story building is encased in seamless glass panels.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scott Hennigh, Hennigh Law CorporationMr. Hennigh may be contacted at
Scott.hennigh@hennighlaw.com
History of Defects Leads to Punitive Damages for Bankrupt Developer
March 01, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe South Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled that evidence of construction defects at a developer’s other projects were admissible in a construction defect lawsuit. They issued their ruling on Magnolia North Property Owners’ Association v. Heritage Communities, Inc. on February 15, 2012.
Magnolia North is a condominium complex in South Carolina. The initial builder, Heritage Communities, had not completed construction when they filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11. The remaining four buildings were completed by another contractor. The Property Owners’ Association subsequently sued Heritage Communities, Inc. (HCI) alleging defects. The POA also sued Heritage Magnolia North, and the general contractor, BuildStar.
The trial court ruled that all three entities were in fact one. On appeal, the defendants claimed that the trial court improperly amalgamated the defendants. The appeals court noted, however, that “all these corporations share officers, directors, office space, and a phone number with HCI.” Until Heritage Communities turned over control of the POA to the actual homeowners, all of the POA’s officers were officers of HCI. The appeals court concluded that “the trial court’s ruling that Appellants’ entities were amalgamated is supported by the law and the evidence.”
Heritage also claimed that the trial court should not have allowed the plaintiffs to produce evidence of construction defects at other Heritage properties. Heritage argued that the evidence was a violation of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence. The court cited a South Carolina Supreme Court case which made an exception for “facts showing the other acts were substantially similar to the event at issue.” The court noted that the defects introduced by the plaintiffs were “virtually identical across all developments.” This included identical use of the same products from project to project. Further, these were used to demonstrate that “HCI was aware of water issues in the other projects as early as 1998, before construction on Magnolia North had begun.”
The trial case ended with a directed verdict. Heritage charged that the jury should have determined whether the alleged defects existed. The appeals court noted that there was “overwhelming evidence” that Heritage failed “to meet the industry standard of care.” Heritage did not dispute the existence of the damages during the trial, they “merely contested the extent.”
Further, Heritage claimed in its appeal that the case should have been rejected due to the three-year statute of limitations. They note that the first meeting of the POA was on March 8, 2000, yet the suit was not filed until May 28, 2003, just over three years. The court noted that here the statute of limitation must be tolled, as Heritage controlled the POA until September 9, 2002. The owner-controlled POA filed suit “approximately eight months after assuming control.”
The court also applied equitable estoppel to the statute of limitations. During the time in which Heritage controlled the board, Heritage “assured the unit owners the construction defects would be repaired, and, as a result, the owners were justified in relying on those assurances.” Since “a reasonable owner could have believed that it would be counter-productive to file suit,” the court found that also prevented Heritage from invoking the statute of limitations. In the end, the appeals court concluded that the even apart from equitable tolling and equitable estoppel, the statute of limitations could not have started until the unit owners took control of the board in September, 2002.
Heritage also contested the jury’s awarding of damages, asserting that “the POA failed to establish its damages as to any of its claims.” Noting that damages are determined “with reasonable certainty or accuracy,” and that “proof with mathematical certainty of the amount of loss or damage is not required,” the appeals court found a “sufficiently reasonable basis of computation of damages to support the trial court’s submission of damages to the jury.” Heritage also claimed that the POA did not show that the damage existed at the time of the transfer of control. The court rejected this claim as well.
Finally, Heritage argued that punitive damages were improperly applied for two reasons: that “the award of punitive damages has no deterrent effect because Appellants went out of business prior to the commencement of the litigation” and that Heritages has “no ability to pay punitive damages.” The punitive damages were upheld, as the relevant earlier decision includes “defendant’s degree of culpability,” “defendants awareness or concealment,” “existence of similar past conduct,” and “likelihood of deterring the defendant or others from similar conduct.”
The appeals court rejected all of the claims made by Heritage, fully upholding the decision of the trial court.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gone Fishing: Tenant’s Insurer Casts A Line Seeking To Subrogate Against The Landlord
October 17, 2022 —
William L. Doerler - The Subrogation StrategistIn J&J Fish on Ctr. Str., Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-644-bhl, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16361, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (District Court) recognized that “[t]here will be no further fish fries on Center Street until someone pays to repair the collapsed floor at J&J Fish on Center Street, Inc. (J&J Fish).” The contenders were: 1) J&J Fish; 2) its’ insurer, Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company (Insurer); and 3) J&J Fish’s landlord, Vision Land, LLC (Vision). Recognizing Insurer’s right to subrogate against Vision based on the terms of the parties’ lease, the District Court held Insurer owed J&J Fish coverage for the losses it sustained, but that Insurer could subrogate against Vision for anything it had to pay J&J Fish.
In J&J Fish, Vision and J&J Fish signed a lease (Lease) for a building (the Building) located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The Lease required Vision to “purchase and keep in full force and effect on the building(s) . . . insurance against fire and such other risks as may be included in all-risks policies . . .” Vision, however, never obtained any insurance on the Building. Pursuant to the Lease, Vision also agreed to “maintain and repair the structure including the slab floor and exterior walls of the Premises.”
With respect to J&J Fish, the Lease required J&J Fish to maintain “Physical Damage insurance, including but not limited to fire . . . and all other risks of direct physical loss as insured . . . for the full replacement cost of all additions, improvements (including leasehold improvements) and alterations to the Premises.” J&J Fish purchased a commercial property and casualty insurance policy (the Policy) from Insurer. The Policy covered “additions, improvements . . . and alterations” as the Lease required. In addition, it insured the Building itself against “collapse,” subject to certain exceptions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLPMr. Doerler may be contacted at
doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com
