SB800 Is Now Optional to the Homeowner?
August 30, 2013 —
James Ganion - Ulich & Terry, LLPThe following communication republished courtesy of James Ganion, Ulich & Terry, LLP
Dear Builders, Colleagues, and Interested Parties:
I attach for your review a copy of this week’s opinion of the California Court of Appeal in our case of Liberty Mutual v. Brookfield. This opinion represents a significant change to the right of California builders to repair homes under SB800, California’s Right to Repair Act.
In a nutshell, the Court determined that SB800 was not intended to replace prior applicable law, but merely be supplemental to prior law. Thus, a homeowner, or in this case the homeowner’s insurer, can pick and choose among SB800 and prior law, or even allege both in the alternative. In so deciding, the Court of Appeal reversed the holding of the trial court which had held, as so many trial courts have since 2003, that SB800 was intended to be the new exclusive remedy for construction defect claims.
While we of course take issue with most of what the Court of Appeal has to say, the real life net effect is that SB800 is now optional to the homeowner, meaning the “right” to repair now lies in the hands of the homeowner who can elect to simply bypass that law and proceed with the filing of a lawsuit under prior law. Hardly what any of us believe the legislature intended.
ULICH & TERRY LLP as counsel for Brookfield in this case will be filing a petition for rehearing with the Court of Appeal by September 6, 2013. Anyone interested in supporting the petition may file a letter with the Court of Appeal, preferably by September 13, 2013. Thereafter, assuming the Court of Appeal does not grant rehearing, we will be filing a petition for review with the California Supreme Court.
Our firm, as appellate counsel, has established a website
libertymutualvbrookfieldcrystalcove.com and through it will be providing information regarding the case, including copies of pleadings, orders, deadlines, and information on how to provide support for this case, which is of interest to the home building industry.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James Ganion James Ganion can be contacted at
jganion@ut-law.com
One Colorado Court Allows Negligence Claim by General Contractor Against Subcontractor
December 20, 2012 —
HEATHER ANDERSON , HIGGINS, HOPKINS, MCLAIN & ROSWELLJudge Paul King of the Douglas County District Court recently confirmed that subcontractors in residential construction owe an independent duty, separate and apart from any contractual duties, to act without negligence in the construction of a home in Colorado. See Order, dated September 7, 2010,
Sunoo v. Hickory Homes, Inc. et al., Case No. 2007CV1866; see also
Cosmopolitan Homes, Inc. v. Weller, 663 P.2d 1041 (Colo. 1983);
A.C. Excavating v. Yacht Club II Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 114 P.3d 862 (Colo. 2005). He also verified that the holding in the
B.R.W. Inc. v. Dufficy & Sons, Inc., 99 P.3d 66 (Colo. 2004)[1] case does not prohibit general contractors, such as Hickory Homes, from enforcing a subcontractor’s independent duty to act without negligence in the construction of a home.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Heather Anderson, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC.Ms. Anderson can be contacted at
anderson@hhmrlaw.com
Colorado Supreme Court Rules that Developers Retain Perpetual Control over Construction Defect Covenants
June 21, 2017 —
Jesse Witt - The Witt Law FirmThe Colorado Supreme Court ruled today that developers can retain control over community covenants in perpetuity by recording a covenant that requires declarant consent to any amendments. Although the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA) states that such controls should be void, the court nevertheless ruled that a declarant may veto amendments that alter the dispute resolution procedures for construction defect actions at any time.
The case of Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condominium Ass’n v. Metropolitan Homes, Inc., __ P.3d __, 15CO508, arose when the community’s members discovered widespread construction defects. When the declarant developed the project, it had recorded a declaration of covenants that purported to waive the homeowners’ right to a jury trial and instead require that any construction defect disputes be resolved by a private arbitration panel. The declaration also prohibited the homeowners from recovering attorney fees and costs, and it limited the declarant’s liability for damages. Consistent with CCIOA, the declaration allowed the homeowners to amend their covenants by a 67% vote, but it recited that the declarant could veto any such amendment prior to the sale of the last unit to a homeowner. The covenants further stated that the declarant must consent to any amendment that altered the construction defect restrictions.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jesse Howard Witt, Acerbic Witt
Mr. Witt may be contacted at www.witt.law
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Fannie-Freddie Propose Liquidity Rules for Mortgage Insurers
July 16, 2014 —
Clea Benson and Zachary Tracer – BloombergMs. Benson may be contacted at cbenson20@bloomberg.net; Mr. Tracer may be contacted at ztracer1@bloomberg.net
Private mortgage insurers looking to do business with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would have to hold minimum amounts of liquid assets under standards proposed by the companies and their regulator.
To back loans packaged into securities by the U.S.-owned mortgage-finance giants, insurers would have to hold liquid assets worth at least 5.6 percent of their risk exposure, and possibly more depending on the quality of the loans they cover, according to the proposal released today by the companies and the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
“Mortgage insurance counterparties must be able to fulfill their intended role of providing private capital, even in adverse market conditions,” FHFA Director Melvin L. Watt said in an e-mailed statement.
Ms. Benson may be contacted at cbenson20@bloomberg.net; Mr. Tracer may be contacted at ztracer1@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Clea Benson and Zachary Tracer, Bloomberg
Claim for Collapse After Demolition of Building Fails
January 09, 2023 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiAfter several city citations and the eventual demolition of the insureds' apartment building, their claim for coverage based on collapse was unsuccessful. Barker v. AmGuard Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202069 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 7, 2022).
The plaintiffs purchased a three-story multi-family apartment building on March 9, 2009. Prior to the purchase, steel beams were installed in the basement along the east and south walls. By 2013, the south and east walls were leaning.
On March 13, 2017, the city building inspector observed "the foundation failing in several areas and deflection in the south wall." The building inspector issued a citation for a pubic nuisance in violation of the City Code. This was followed by several more citations against plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' inspector reported the basement walls were experiencing "extensive lateral deflections primarily due to the inadequate design of the basement walls."
Plaintiffs understood the issues to be "cosmetic.'" They had no work done on the property besides aesthetic upgrades. After additional citations were entered, the building was ordered demolished.
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
How Small Mistakes Can Have Serious Consequences Under California's Contractor Licensing Laws.
February 15, 2018 —
Eric Reed - Myers, Widders, Gibson, Jones & Feingold, LLPIn construction, some risks have nothing to do with how well a contractor executes a project. Licensing problems is one of these risks. Even a brief lapse caused by an unintentional administrative error can give the CSLB grounds to discipline a contractor, or enable a customer to seek disgorgement and other remedies provided by Business and Professions Code section 7031. This article discusses five tips for mitigating the liabilities associated with licensing problems.
Tip 1: Take workers' compensation insurance very seriously. Workers’ compensation insurance problems can trigger license suspension in California. Business and Professions Code section 7125.4 calls for automatic suspension if a contractor cannot provide proof of workers’ compensation insurance for any period of time. This is particularly serious for residential remodelers who claim exemption for workers’ compensation but are later discovered – usually during litigation with a homeowner – to have “off the books” workers helping them. Courts can declare the contractor retroactively unlicensed under these circumstances and order it to disgorge,
i.e., to pay back, every penny paid by the customer for the entire project (even for materials). (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7031, subd. (b);
Wright v. Issak (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1116.) The contractor will also find itself unable to collect any amounts owed to it by the customer. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7031, subd. (a).)
Tip 2: Watch out for licensing confusion after a merger or acquisition. The economic downturn of 2008 and 2009 resulted in consolidation throughout the building industry. The newly merged or acquired entities often allowed redundant licenses to expire, assuming they could complete all pending projects under the umbrella of the acquiring company's license. Many learned this was a mistake the hard way. Armed with the California Supreme Court's opinion in
MW Erectors, Inc. v. Niederhauser Ornamental & Metal Works Co., Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 412, customers began refusing to pay invoices and demanding disgorgement under Business and Professions Code section 7031 because the original contractor did not maintain licensure “at all times.” Many of these customers succeeded.
Tip 3: If a license suspension has occurred or is imminent, prepare to prove substantial compliance. Section 7031(a) and (b) give a disgruntled or indebted customer every incentive to capitalize on a contractor's licensing problems. Subdivision (e) is where a contractor must turn to protect its interests if this happens. It allows the contractor to prove “substantial compliance” with licensing requirements and avoid (a)’s and (b)’s sharp edges if it can show the following:
(1) The contractor “had been duly licensed as a contractor in this state prior to the performance of the act or contract”;
(2) It “acted reasonably and in good faith to maintain proper licensure”; and
(3) It “acted promptly and in good faith to remedy the failure to comply with the licensure requirements upon learning of the failure.”
The Court of Appeal confirmed in
Judicial Council of California v. Jacobs Facilities, Inc. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 882 that a contractor, upon request, is entitled to a hearing on these three factors before it is subjected to disgorgement under Section 7031(b). The legislature amended Section 7031 shortly after the Court of Appeal published this case. The Assembly’s floor analysis went so far as to directly quote the opinion’s observation that penalizing a construction firm for “technical transgressions only indirectly serves the Contractors Law’s larger purpose of preventing the delivery of services by unqualified contractors.” (Assem. Com. on Bus. and Prof., Off. of Assem. Floor Analyses, analysis of Sen. Holden's No. 1793 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.) as amended August 2, 2016, p. 2.) This echoed an industry consensus that clarifying the law was needed to ensure that properly licensed and law-abiding construction firms were not “placed at fatal monetary risk by malicious lawsuits motivated by personal gain rather than consumer protection.” (Assem. Com. on Judiciary, com. on Assem. Bill No. 1793 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.), pp. 6-7.)
Unfortunately, existing law does not give many examples of what it means to act “reasonably and in good faith to maintain proper licensure” or to act “promptly and in good faith” to fix license problems. A practical approach is for a contractor to work backwards by assuming it will need to prove substantial compliance at some point in the future. Designated individuals within the organization should have clear responsibility over obtaining and renewing the proper licenses and should keep good records. If necessary, these designees can testify about the contractor's internal policies and their efforts to fix licensing problems when they arose. For example, if the suspension resulted from not providing the CSLB proof of workers’ compensation insurance, the designee can testify about the cause (a broker miscommunication, transmission error,
etc.) and produce documents showing how he or she worked promptly to procure a certificate of insurance to send CSLB. Saved letters, emails, and notes from telephone calls will provide designees and their successors with an important resource months or years down the line if a dispute arises and the contractor is required to reconstruct the chronology of a licensing glitch and prove its due diligence.
Tip 4: Don't sign new contracts unless all necessary licenses are active and any problems are resolved. A recently-formed contractor should not begin soliciting and signing contracts until all required licenses are confirmed as “active.” The first requirement of substantial compliance – being “duly licensed as a contractor in this state prior to the performance of the act or contract” – cannot be met by a contractor that first obtains its license mid-project. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7031, subd. (e)(1);
Alatriste v. Cesar’s Exterior Designs (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 656.) A licensed contractor should also consider refraining from signing new contracts if there is any reason to believe its license might be suspended in the near future – especially if the suspension will be retroactive. Having a suspension on record at the time of contracting may complicate the question of whether the contractor was “duly licensed . . . prior to performance” for the purposes of substantial compliance.
Tip 5: Any judgment against a contractor can cause license suspension if not handled promptly and correctly. The Business and Professions Code authorizes the CSLB to suspend the license of a contractor that does not pay a construction related court judgment within 90 days. The term “construction related” is interpreted to include nearly all types of disputes involving a contractor. (16 Cal. Code Reg. 868;
Pacific Caisson & Shoring, Inc. v. Bernards Bros. Inc. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1254-1255.) This means a contractor should treat a judgment against it for unpaid office rent, for example, as one carrying the same consequences as one arising from a construction defect or subcontractor claim. The contractor should also not assume that filing an appeal, or agreeing with the other side to stay enforcement, automatically excuses the 90-day deadline in the eyes of the CSLB. It does not. A contractor must notify the CSLB in writing before this period expires, then post bond for the amount of judgment, if it wishes to delay payment for any reason. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7071.17, subd. (d).) A suspension may result if it does not. This applies even to small claims judgments.
Recent case law and the 2016 amendments to Business and Professions Code section 7031 provide some solace to those caught in the dragnet of California's licensing laws. But avoiding these problems altogether is preferable. Consider licensing the foundation of a successful business and deserving of the same attention as the structures a contractor builds.
Eric R. Reed is a business and insurance litigator in the Ventura office of Myers, Widders, Gibson, Jones & Feingold, LLP.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Eric Reed, Myers, Widders, Gibson, Jones & Feingold, LLPMr. Reed may be contacted at
ereed@mwgjlaw.com
Godfather Charged with Insurance Fraud
July 01, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFTexas-based Godfather Construction is a recipient of a fraud suit from the Cook County state attorney’s office. The firm incorporated in Illinois in April 2010, moving there to do business after storms damaged homes in the Chicago suburbs, according to a report in the Chicago Tribune. The state attorney alleges that Godfather brought unlicensed out-of-state workers and the work they performed was “incomplete or shoddy.” Godfather is claimed to have received about $60,000 from Illinois homeowners. The prosecutors are seeking restitution for Godfather’s clients and seek to forbid the firm from doing business in Illinois.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Couple Perseveres to Build Green
August 27, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFMost homeowners don’t want to make their way through the mountain of paperwork required for LEED certification. But according to the Patriot News, Jens and Donna Damgaard aren’t most homeowners. The Damgaards set out to build a LEED-certified home, and struck with it to the end.
The Damgaards started out by assembling a team so there wouldn’t be any questions down the road. They also kept going green as a goal, no matter what. Don Park, their contractor, said that “it worked out well. There was never a cost issue.”
Jens Damgaas is an attorney in Harrisburg, and he put his skills as a lawyer to work in going through the paperwork, as if he were the projet’s LEED consultant. One further takeaway from the contractor, “everyone wants two-button toilets.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
