Client Alert: Court Settles Conflict between CCP and Rules of Court Regarding Demurrer Deadline Following Amended Complaint
August 20, 2014 —
R. Bryan Martin and Kristian B. Moriarty - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Carlton v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. (No. E056566, filed 8/14/2014), The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, held a demurrer was timely filed in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 471.5, despite being filed after the 10-day filing period prescribed in California Rule of Court 3.1320(j).
This case appears to settle the conflict that existed between the CCP and the Rules of Court as to the timing of demurrers following amendments to Complaints. Prior to this case, the validity of Rule of Court 3.1320(j)(2) was unclear as it arguably conflicted with CCP Section 471.5, which requires defendants to “answer” an amended complaint within 30 days after service. At the same time, it was not clear that CCP Section 471.5 applied to amendments after a demurrer had been sustained, and it was even more unclear whether the statutory 30-day period to “answer” an amended complaint foreclosed the shorter 10-day period prescribed under Rule of Court 3.1320(j)(2) for a demurrer or motion to strike.
On July 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. (“Dr. Pepper”) and others. On October 24, 2011, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Dr. Pepper demurred to the FAC on various grounds. On January 5, 2012, the trial court sustained the demurrer in part, and overruled it in part. The Court granted Plaintiff 30 days to amend the FAC.
Reprinted courtesy of
R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com, Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Don’t Assume Your Insurance Covers A Newly Acquired Company
February 19, 2019 —
Patrick M. McDermott & Michael S. Levine - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogThe Supreme Court of Virginia’s decision yesterday finding no coverage for fire damage to a building is a cautionary tale for companies acquiring other companies. Erie Ins. Exch. v. EPC MD 15, LLC, 2019 WL 238168 (Va. Jan. 17, 2019). In that case, Erie Insurance issued a property insurance policy to EPC. The policy covered EPC only and did not cover any subsidiaries of EPC. EPC then acquired the sole member interest in Cyrus Square, LLC. Following the acquisition, fire damaged a building that Cyrus Square owned.
EPC sought coverage under its property insurance policy. Because the policy did not cover Cyrus Square, EPC argued that a provision extending coverage to “newly acquired buildings” applied, contending that EPC had newly acquired Cyrus Square’s building by virtue of becoming the sole member interest in the LLC. Based on the law relative to LLCs and its interpretation of the policy, the Supreme Court of Virginia ruled against EPC. It found that although EPC had acquired Cyrus Square, it had not “newly acquired” the building and so the “newly acquired buildings” coverage extension did not apply.
Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick M. McDermott, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. McDermott may be contacted at pmcdermott@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Final Nail: Ongoing Repairs Do Not Toll the Statute of Repose
November 07, 2022 —
Kyle Rice - The Subrogation StrategistIn Venema v. Moser Builders, Inc., 2022 PA Super. 171, 2022 Pa. Super. LEXIS 414, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Superior Court) upheld an award of judgment on the pleadings from the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County (Trial Court). The Superior Court found that Pennsylvania’s 12-year Statute of Repose for improvements to real property (Statute of Repose) began to run upon the issuance of the certificate of occupancy following original construction of the home in 2003—not from the completion of repairs to the home that continued through 2008.
The underlying cause of action involved a home constructed by Moser Builders, Inc. (Moser) in 2003. The certificate of occupancy for the home was issued on August 13, 2003. Matthew Venema and Liza Squires (collectively, Venema) purchased the property from the original owners in 2004.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kyle Rice, White and WilliamsMr. Rice may be contacted at
ricek@whiteandwilliams.com
Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (05/23/23) – Distressed Prices, Carbon Removal and Climate Change
June 05, 2023 —
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogIn this week’s roundup, we consider distressed property bonds and loans, cities that are sinking under their own skyscrapers, efforts to lower carbon emissions, the unexpected potential of dirty diapers as a building material, and so much more.
Globally, more than $190 billion of property bonds and loans are
trading at distressed prices, a result of China’s real estate woes. (
Alice Huang and
Erin Hudson, Bloomberg)
PacWest Bancorp sees a stock market boost as it announces the sale of its
real estate loans, valued at around $2.6 billion. (
Jaiveer Shekhawat and
Chibuike Oguh, Reuters)
New construction home sales
exceeded expectations for April while existing home sales dropped. (
Anna Bahney, CNN)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team
Claim for Consequential Damages Survives Motion to Dismiss
November 14, 2018 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe insured's claim for consequential damages survived the insurer's motion to dismiss. Tiffany Tower Condominium, LLC v. Ins. Co. of the Greater N.Y., 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5783 (N.Y. App. Div. Aug. 22, 2018).
Tiffany Tower submitted a claim in November 2012 with Insurance Company of the Great New York for damages sustained by its building during Superstorm Sandy. The insurer paid the original claim in December 2012. Then, in September 2014, Tiffany Tower submitted a supplemental claim for additional losses which it asserted were caused by the storm. The insurer denied the supplemental claim.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
New Hampshire Asbestos Abatement Firm Pleads Guilty in Federal Fraud Case
February 02, 2017 —
Justin Rice - Engineering News-RecordFor the second time in three months, a New England-based asbestos removal company pleaded guilty in federal court to wage and benefit violations.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Justin Rice, ENRMr. Rice may be contacted at
ricej@enr.com
Practical Pointers for Change Orders on Commercial Construction Contracts
December 31, 2014 —
John E. Bowerbank - Newmeyer & DillionConstruction projects pose unique challenges, including keeping costs within budget, meeting project deadlines, and coordinating the work of numerous contractors and subcontractors in the wake of inevitable design revisions and changes to the plans. Anticipating potential project challenges and negotiating contract provisions before commencing work on a project is critical for all parties. Careful planning should reduce the number of contract disputes. This, in turn, can facilitate the completion of a project within budget and on schedule.
“Changes” Clauses in Construction Contracts
Most commercial construction contracts have a clause addressing changes to the contract. A “changes” clause typically requires the mutual agreement of the parties on the scope of any modifications to the contract, as well as the effect on the contract price and timeframe for the work to be performed. This results in what is generally referred to as a “change order.” Many projects have a large number of change orders, which can result in significant cost overruns and delays to the project if the contract contains a complicated change order process. Therefore, in order to minimize cost overruns and project delays, it is crucial to keep the change order process as simplified and streamlined as possible.
In the most basic terms, change orders memorialize modifications to the original contract, and typically alter the contract's price, scope of work, and/or completion dates. A typical change order is a written document prepared by the owner or its design professional, and signed by the owner, design professional, and affected contractors and subcontractors. An executed change order indicates the parties’ agreement as to what changes are taking place, including approval for additional costs and schedule impacts.
While the reasons for change orders and the parties initiating them may vary, all change orders have one feature in common. Effective change orders alter the original contract and become part of the contract. Therefore, from a legal standpoint, change orders must be approached with the same caution and forethought as the original contract.
Practice Pointers for Change Orders
In light of the foregoing, some practice pointers for change orders in commercial construction contracts are as follows:
- Carefully Negotiate and Draft Change Order Provisions in the Original Contract.
A carefully negotiated and drafted “changes” clause that accounts for “unexpected circumstances” or “hidden conditions” can protect the parties from downstream costly disputes.
- Immediately Address Changes by Following the Change Order Process, Including Obtaining Necessary Signatures.
Regardless if you are an owner, general contractor or subcontractor, you should address any proposed change order immediately. Even if a decision maker gives “verbal” approval to go ahead with changed work, the work should not proceed without following the change order process in the original contract. This includes making sure to obtain any necessary signatures for the change order, if at all possible.
- Analyze the Plans and Specifications to Determine Whether “Changes” are Within the Scope of the Original Contract, or Whether They are Extra Work.
Prior to entering an original contract, it is imperative that the parties review the plans and specifications for ambiguities regarding work included in the original contract, versus potential extra work that would require a change order. This is important because a careful review of the plans and specifications sometimes reveals that work believed to be a change order is, in fact, original work, or vice versa.
- Make Sure Requests and Approvals for Change Orders are Done by an Authorized Representative.
When a party requests or gives its approval to a change order, it is important to confirm the request or approval came from an authorized representative.
- Avoid Vague and Open-Ended Change Orders.
Indeed, the vaguer a change order, the more likely it can lead to a dispute. Vague and open-ended change orders, including change orders that provide for payment on a time and materials basis, can be difficult for an owner to budget and schedule. This can lead to disputes as to cost and/or time extensions.
- Oral Assurances for Payment Without a Signed Change Order May Not Be Recoverable.
When a party provides verbal assurances to another party for extra work without following the change order process, there is a much higher likelihood that disputes will occur. Although there is case law that may allow a contractor to recover for extra work in private contracts based on oral promises, the parties should avoid placing themselves in such a legal position. Notably, in public contracts, a contractor may not be able to recover for any extra work without a signed changed order, even with verbal assurances of payment from the owner.
About the Author:
John E. Bowerbank, Newmeyer & Dillion
Mr. Bowerbank is a partner in the Newport Beach office and practices in the areas of business, insurance, real estate, and construction litigation. You can reach John at john.bowerbank@ndlf.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Jersey Supreme Court Hears Insurers’ Bid to Overturn a $400M Decision
January 25, 2021 —
Lawrence J. Bracken II, Michael S. Levine & Daniel Hentschel - Hunton Andrews KurthNew Jersey’s highest court heard arguments Monday in the appeal of a ruling that the New Jersey Transit Corp.’s (“NJ Transit”) insurers are required to insure $400 million of water damage loss caused by Hurricane Sandy.
The matter stems from an insurance claim NJ Transit made after the super storm rocked the East Coast in 2012. NJ Transit claimed over $400 million in losses as a result of damage to its tracks, bridges, tunnels and power stations. In response, its tower of property insurers took the position that a $100 million flood sublimit applied to limit NJ Transit’s recovery under its insurance tower, not the policy’s $400 million overall limits.NJ Transit filed a coverage action in state court. The trial court granted summary judgment to NJ Transit, holding that NJ Transit was entitled to full coverage of $400 million under the tower’s named windstorm coverage. The insurers appealed, again arguing that the flood sublimit applied to the claim.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lawrence J. Bracken II, Hunton Andrews Kurth,
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Bracken may be contacted at lbracken@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
