Improvements to AIA Contracts?
February 05, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorJoel Sciascia, general counsel for the construction management company Pavarini McGovern, made some insightful comments in the Viewpoint section of the latest Engineering News Record magazine. He argues that architects should not be the initial decision maker (“IDM”) under AIA contracts. Instead of using the architect, Mr. Sciascia suggests the use of an independent dispute-resolution board.
In 2007, the AIA introduced a new concept into the A-201 documents through which the owner and contractor had the option of naming an independent third party to resolve disputes, instead of automatically allowing the architect to resolve disputes. But, if the parties did not select any specific independent decision maker, the architect would be considered the default initial decision maker.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
The Cheapest Place to Buy a House in the Hamptons
August 20, 2018 —
James Tarmy - BloombergFiguring out how much a home is worth in a vacation destination is often an uphill battle.
Whereas normal property markets have prices that are tied closely to square footage, size of a lot, quality of a building, and its proximity to basic services, many of those calculations go out the window when it comes to a market comprised of second homes. “Nobody needs anything out here,” says Chris Foglia, a broker at the Hamptons-based Daniel Gale Sotheby’s International Realty. “They all want.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James Tarmy, Bloomberg
NJ Condo Construction Defect Case Dismissed over Statute of Limitations
June 11, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to an article by Matthew D. Stockwell of the firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP published in Lexology, “a trial court in Bergen County, New Jersey dismissed a condominium association's construction defect claims against several construction entities for failure to comply with the applicable statute of limitations.”
Stockwell stated that the “aftermath will be interesting to follow, because the trial court stripped away some of the protection that New Jersey's discovery rule affords to property owners who become aware of latent defects well after a project is substantially completed.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurance Coverage for COVID-19? Two N.J. Courts Allow Litigation to Proceed
March 06, 2022 —
Bethany L. Barrese - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Courts across the nation have struggled to determine whether insurance policies that provide coverage for “direct physical loss or damage” insure losses stemming from COVID-19. Many courts have been applying an overly stringent pleading standard, inappropriately granting insurers’ motions to dismiss as a result of the insureds’ purported failure to allege that COVID-19 caused damages covered by their policies or because certain exclusions supposedly barred coverage. However, two New Jersey state courts recently decided these issues in favor of the insureds in well-reasoned opinions that give proper deference to procedural pleading standards and substantive insurance coverage law.
A. COVID-19 causes “direct physical loss or damage”
In AC Ocean Walk, LLC v. American Guarantee and Liability Ins. Co., the New Jersey Superior Court held that physical alteration to an insured’s property is not a prerequisite to coverage for losses due to COVID-19. The insured, Ocean Casino, sued multiple insurers for COVID-19 losses, alleging that the virus caused Ocean Casino to shut down and suffer a loss of use of its property. Looking at the language of the policies, the court explained that each policy’s insuring agreement substantially read the same:
“This policy insures against direct physical loss of, or damage caused by, a covered cause of loss to covered property, at an insured location [the casino] … subject to the terms, conditions, and exclusions stated in this policy.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bethany L. Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Barrese may be contacted at
BBarrese@sdvlaw.com
Keller Group Fires Two Executives in Suspected Australia Profits Reporting Fraud
February 20, 2023 —
James Leggate - Engineering News-RecordLondon-based geotechnical contracting giant Keller Group's profits from its Australia business unit may have been fraudulently inflated by the U.S. equivalent of as much as $20 million in today’s dollars since 2019, the company has revealed.
Reprinted courtesy of
James Leggate, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Virtual Jury Trials of Construction Disputes: The Necessary Union of Both Sides of the Brain
May 17, 2021 —
John Dannecker - Construction ExecutiveBart Smith is the Senior Project Manager for Simply Best, a general contracting firm. He has been assigned to serve as the liaison with outside counsel in a lawsuit against Holly’s Harleys, a project owner who contracted with Best for the construction of a motorcycle showroom. Best filed suit in federal court for additional project costs it incurred, which it contends were caused by the specification of incompatible materials by Holly’s design firm.
The coronavirus pandemic is still raging as the trial date approaches. Courthouse facilities are closed so civil trials are conducted using remote technology, if they occur at all. Bart negotiated the prime contract with Holly’s, and he regrettably allowed Best’s binding arbitration and jury trial waiver clauses in the prime contract to be deleted. Bart worries about how the intricacies of Best’s case can be adequately explained to a jury in a remote trial. His concern approaches panic when Best’s trial counsel explains how the trial will be conducted with none of the parties—their attorneys, the judge, the witnesses or the jury—present in the same location.
Reprinted courtesy of
John Dannecker, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Action Needed: HB24-1230 Spells Trouble for Colorado Construction Industry and its Insurers
March 25, 2024 —
David McLain - Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCIn an apparent gift to plaintiffs’ construction defect lawyers, Representatives Parenti and Bacon introduced House Bill 24-1230 on February 12, 2024. The bill was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee and is scheduled for hearing on March 6th, during the afternoon session beginning at 1:30 pm. To date, the bill does not have any senate sponsors, perhaps because the senators are more interested in serving their constituents’ needs for attainable housing than in lining the pockets of their plaintiffs’ construction defect attorney friends.
According to the bill’s summary, HB 24-1230 contains the following provisions:
Current law declares void any express waivers of or limitations on the legal rights or remedies provided by the “Construction Defect Action Reform Act” or the “Colorado Consumer Protection Act.” Sections 1 and 4 make it a violation of the “Colorado Consumer Protection Act” to obtain or attempt to obtain a waiver or limitation that violates the aforementioned current law.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Significant Victory for the Building Industry: Liberty Mutual is Rejected Once Again, This Time by the Third Appellate District in Holding SB800 is the Exclusive Remedy
December 15, 2016 —
Richard H. Glucksman & Ravi R. Mehta – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Bulletin I. Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court (Certified for Publication, Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016
The California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District recently elaborated on the scope of the Right to Repair Act, commonly known as SB-800 (“Act”). In
Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (Kevin Hicks, et al.) (certified for publication, Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016), the Court considered whether the Act (and specifically the Act’s pre-litigation procedure) applies, when homeowners plead construction defect claims based only on common law causes of action, as opposed to violations of the building standards set forth in the Act (
Civil Code §896). The Court answered this question affirmatively.
The homeowners of seventeen (17) single-family homes filed a Complaint against the builder of their homes, Elliott Homes, Inc. (“Elliott”), alleging common law causes of action for construction defects. Elliott filed a motion to stay the litigation on the ground that the homeowners failed to comply with the pre-litigation procedure set forth in the Act. The trial court denied the motion, agreeing with the homeowners that this pre-litigation procedure did not apply because the homeowners had not alleged a statutory violation of the Act. Elliott appealed. The Court of Appeal purely considered the question of whether the Act, including its pre-litigation procedure, applies when a homeowner pleads construction defect claims based on common law causes of action, and not on statutory violations of the Act’s building standards.
To answer this question, the Court analyzed a recent case decided by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District:
Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98. In this subrogation case, a builder’s insurer asserted common law causes of action (but not statutory building standard violations) alleging construction defects against the builder to recover amounts paid to the homeowner after a sprinkler system failure caused extensive damage to the subject property. The trial court sustained the builder’s demurrer to the Complaint on the ground that it was time-barred under the Act. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order, holding that common law construction defect claims arising from actual damages are not covered by the Act because “the Act does not provide the exclusive remedy in cases where actual damage has occurred.” (
Liberty Mutual, 219 Cal.App.4th 98, 109).
The
Elliott Court declined to follow
Liberty Mutual, finding that that Court failed to properly analyze the language of the Act. The
Elliott Court analyzed both the statutory scheme and the legislative history of the Act to arrive at the conclusion that common law causes of action for construction defects do indeed fall within the purview of the Act.
According to the
Elliott Court, the Act “broadly applies to
any action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in…residential construction and in such an action, a homeowner’s claims or causes of action shall be limited to violation of the standards set forth in the Act, except as specified.” Further, the Act expressly provides that “no other cause of action for a claim covered by this title or for damages recoverable under Section 944 is allowed.”
Civil Code §943(a). In turn,
Civil Code §944 allows for a recovery for the cost of repairing a building standard violation, or for the cost of repairing any damage caused by such a violation, among other things.
The limited exceptions to the Act’s applicability concern the enforcement of a contract, or any action for fraud, personal injury, or violation of a statute. Civil Code §943(a). Additionally, the Act does not apply to condominium conversions. Civil Code §896.
The Elliott Court explains that apart from these exceptions, the Legislature intended the Act to apply to all construction defect claims (regardless of damage) relating to the construction of residential properties whose sales contracts are signed after January 1, 2003. There is no exception in the Act, express or implied, for common law causes of action.
Next, the Court turns to the Act’s legislative history to buttress this conclusion. This history makes clear that the Act is a legislative response to the California Supreme Court’s holding in
Aas v. Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal.4th 627, that construction defects in residential properties are only actionable in tort when actual property damage manifests. Senate Judiciary Committee hearings indicate that the Act was the product of protracted negotiations between varying interested parties, including construction industry trade groups and consumer protection groups. The Legislature intended (1) to promulgate building standards, violations of which would be actionable, even without damage, and (2) to allow homeowners to recover for actual damage caused by construction defects not covered by the building standards. In other words, the Act was intended to provide homeowners redress regardless of whether damage had manifested.
Therefore, the Court concluded that common law causes of action for construction defects, regardless of damage, are subject to the pre-litigation procedure set forth in the Act. The Court issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its earlier order, and to enter a new order granting Elliott’s motion to stay the litigation until the homeowners (and Elliott) have satisfied the pre-litigation procedure of the Act.
II. McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132
Similar to the Third Appellate District Court’s ruling in
Elliott, the Fifth Appellate District Court also rejected the holding of
Liberty Mutual in a matter now pending before the California Supreme Court:
McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132 (review granted and opinion superseded sub nom.
Albany v. Superior Court 360 P.3d 1022). Also similar to
Elliott, in
McMillin a group of homeowners filed common law construction defect claims against the builder of their homes. The builder,
McMillin, moved to stay the litigation pending compliance with the Act’s pre-litigation procedure. The trial court denied the motion, holding that the Act does not apply because the homeowners have not asserted statutory building standard violations contained within the Act.
In reasoning substantially similar to that of
Elliott, the
McMillin Court rejected Liberty Mutual’s holding that the Act is not the exclusive remedy for pursuing construction defect claims, with or without damage. Thus, the
McMillin Court issued a writ of mandate to vacate the trial court’s earlier order and to enter a new order granting McMillin’s motion to stay.
On November 24, 2015, the California Supreme Court granted the homeowners’ petition for review. In August of 2016, briefing was completed and the matter is now awaiting the scheduling of arguments. CGDRB will continue to closely monitor the pending appeal of this matter to the California Supreme Court, as well as all related developments.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Ravi R. Mehta, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Mehta may be contacted at rmehta@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
