Brown Paint Doesn’t Cover Up Construction Defects
April 25, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFIn a decision that describes the case as illustrating “the perils that real estate brokers and their agents assume when acting as a dual listing agent to both the buyers and sellers of the same house,” the California Court of Appeals has issued a decision in William L. Lyon & Associates v. The Superior Court of Placer County. Lyon & Associates sought summary judgment to dismiss the claims of the Henleys who bought a home in a transaction where a Lyon agent represented both sides.
The prior owners of the home, the Costas, had used a Lyon agent in purchasing their home. When they later sought to sell it, that agent “became aware of some of the house’s defects and problems.” In response, the Costas sought the help of another agent, Connie Gidal, also of Lyons & Associates. Photos taken in the presence of Ms. Gidal show defects of the paint and stucco. The Costas also took the step of painting the house dark brown. During the sale process, “rain caused many of the painted-over defects to reappear.” The Costas “purchased more dark brown paint and covered up the newly visible damage prior to inspection by the Henleys.”
With the damage concealed, the Henleys bought the home in May 2006. The agreement with Lyons & Associates noted that “a dual agent is obligated to disclose known facts materially affecting the value or desirability of the property to both parties.” Escrow closed on May 9, 2006. The contract with the broker included a two-year limit on the time to bring legal action.
The Henleys moved in during June 2006, and “began to discover construction defects that had been concealed by the Costas.” In addition to the painted-over stucco problems, the Henleys found that the Costas had “installed quartzite stone overlays on the backyard steps in a manner that caused water intrusion on the house’s stucco walls.”
In May 2009, the Henleys sued the Costas, Ron McKim Construction, Lyons & Associates, and Ms. Gidal. Their complaint alleged that Lyons & Associates had committed breach of contact, negligence, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent nondisclosure in connection with the construction defects. The Costas named Lyons in a cross complaint. Lyons moved for summary judgments on the grounds that the two-year statute of limitations had expired before the complaint and cross-complaint were filed. Both the Henleys and the Costas opposed this claim. The court denied the motion and Lyons appealed.
The appeals court upheld the denial, noting that the both California Supreme Court decision and later action by the legislature compels real estate brokers and salespersons “to conduct a reasonably competent and diligent visual inspection of the property offered for sale.” The court noted that under California law, brokers have responsibilities to both sellers and buyers. The section of law cited by Lyons applies to seller’s agents. The court rejected the contention by Lyons that they were “cooperating brokers.” The Henleys were “not constrained by the two-year statute of limitations.”
Lyons contended that even if California’s statute did not apply, there was a contractual limit of two years. The court also rejected this, agreeing with the Henleys that “the two-year limitation period must be extended by the discovery rule.”
The court noted that “Lyon & Associates may not reap the benefit of a shortened contractual limitation period when its own alleged malfeasance contributed to the delay in the discovery of the buyer’s injury.” The court found that the Henleys could proceed with their breach of contract claim, because, “when a breach of contract is committed in secret, such as the intentional nondisclosure of a real estate broker regarding a previously visible construction defect, the contractual limitations period is properly held subject to the discovery rule.” The court felt that the interpretation favored by the California Association of Realtors would “halve the applicable statute of limitations period.”
In addition to rejecting Lyon request for summary judgment on the claims made by the Henleys, the court also rejected the request of summary judgment on the claims made by the Costas, concluding that neither claim is time-barred. Costs were awarded to both the Henleys and Costas.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Car Crashes Through Restaurant Window. Result: Lesson in the History of Additional Insured Coverage
December 29, 2020 —
Randy J. Maniloff - White and Williams LLPBack in the day, additional insureds were oftentimes afforded coverage for liability “arising out of” the named insured’s work for the additional insured. When confronted with such language, courts often concluded that it dictated “but for” causation. In other words, but for the named insured doing the work for the additional insured, the additional insured would not be in the liability-facing situation that it is in. The result in some cases: additional insureds were entitled to coverage for their sole negligence. Decisions reaching such a conclusion were generally not well-received by insurers. This was especially so when you consider that the premium received by insurers, for the AI coverage, may not have been enough to buy a package of Twizzlers.
Insurer frustration with such decisions -- which insurers did not believe expressed the intent of additional insured coverage -- led ISO to make revisions to additional insured forms in 2004 (later revisions followed). At the heart of these revisions was an attempt to require fault on the part of the named insured before coverage could be afforded to the additional insured. (This is a very brief and simple history of this complex issue.)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Randy J. Maniloff, White and Williams LLPMr. Maniloff may be contacted at
maniloffr@whiteandwilliams.com
Liability Insurer’s Duty To Defend Insured Is Broader Than Its Duty To Indemnify
June 03, 2019 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen it comes to liability insurance, an insurer’s duty to defend its insured from a third-party claim is much broader than its duty to indemnify. This broad duty to defend an insured is very important and, as an insured, you need to know this. “A liability insurer’s obligation, with respect to its duty to defend, is not determined by the insured’s actual liability but rather by whether the alleged basis of the action against the insurer falls within the policy’s coverage.” Advanced Systems, Inc. v. Gotham Ins. Co., 44 Fla. L. Weekly D996b (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (internal quotation omitted). This means:
Even where the complaint alleges facts partially within and partially outside the coverage of a policy, the insurer is nonetheless obligated to defend the entire suit, even if the facts later demonstrate that no coverage actually exists. And, the insurer must defend even if the allegations in the complaint are factually incorrect or meritless. As such, an insurer is obligated to defend a claim even if it is uncertain whether coverage exists under the policy. Furthermore, once a court finds that there is a duty to defend, the duty will continue even though it is ultimately determined that the alleged cause of action is groundless and no liability is found within the policy provisions defining coverage.
Advanced Systems, supra(internal citations and quotations omitted).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
BKV Barnett, LLC v. Electric Drilling Technologies, LLC: Analyzing the Impact of Colorado’s Anti-Indemnification Statute
December 23, 2024 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation BlogIn the recent case of BKV Barnett, LLC v. Electric Drilling Technologies, LLC, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado dealt with significant legal issues concerning indemnification and insurance obligations in construction agreements. The ruling, handed down on September 26, 2024, serves as a crucial reminder of the limitations imposed by Colorado’s Anti-Indemnification Statute, C.R.S. § 13-21-111.5, and its implications for contracts in the construction industry.
This case arose from a Master Service Contract (“MSC”) between BKV Barnett, LLC (“BKV”) and Electric Drilling Technologies, LLC (“EDT”), in which EDT provided electrical services and equipment to an oil and gas lease wellsite in Texas. Following a lightning strike in early 2022 that damaged electrical infrastructure at the site, EDT dispatched Turn Key Utility Construction to repair the damage. During the repair work, an arc flash occurred, causing significant injuries to one of Turn Key’s employees, Matthew Lara, leading to a personal injury lawsuit filed by Lara in Dallas County, Texas. BKV sought indemnification, defense, and additional insured status from EDT under the terms of their MSC, which EDT contested.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Maryland Contractor Documents its Illegal Deal and Pays $2.15 Million to Settle Fraud Claims
January 07, 2015 —
Craig Martin- Construction Contractor Advisor BlogWhy would a contractor create a contract for illegal work? I really don’t know.
Late last year, the FBI announced that a Maryland contractor, Forrester Construction Company, agreed to pay $2.15 million dollars to resolve a criminal investigation into alleged fraud in connection with the use of disadvantaged business enterprises involving more than $145 million of District of Columbia government contracts.
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
Jersey City, New Jersey, to Get 95-Story Condo Tower
January 21, 2015 —
David M. Levitt and Terrence Dopp – BloombergA Chinese developer is planning a 95-story condominium tower for the Jersey City, New Jersey, waterfront that would be the tallest building in the state.
China Overseas America Inc. plans to construct the 950-foot (290-meter) building at 99 Hudson St., according to a statement on Tuesday from Mayor Steven Fulop. The skyscraper, with 760 for-sale dwellings, would surpass the Goldman Sachs Group Inc. tower two blocks to the south, which is 781 feet tall, according to the statement.
Mr. Levitt may be contacted at dlevitt@bloomberg.net; Mr. Dopp may be contacted at tdopp@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David M. Levitt and Terrence Dopp, Bloomberg
How to Build a Water-Smart City
August 23, 2021 —
Chris Malloy - BloombergCities across time have stretched to secure water. The Romans built aqueducts, the Mayans constructed underground storage chambers, and Hohokam farmers dug more than 500 miles of canals in what is now the U.S. Southwest.
Today’s cities use portfolios of technologies to conserve supply — everything from 60-story dams and chemicals to centrifugal pumps and special toilets. And yet, the cities of tomorrow will have to do more.
A recent United Nations report on drought says climate change is increasing the frequency, severity and duration of droughts, which contribute to food insecurity, poverty and inequality. The report also asserts that “drought has been the single longest-term physical trigger of political change in 5,000 years of recorded human history.” It calls for urgent action and a transformation in governance to manage modern drought risk more effectively.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Chris Malloy, Bloomberg
Lien Law Change in Idaho
December 05, 2022 —
Grace Maldonado - Gordon & Rees Construction Law BlogJuly 1, 2022, the Idaho Legislature’s amendments to I.C. 45-507 came into effect. This statute regulates the steps and requirements to sustain a valid mechanics and materialmen lien. There were three changes to the statute: (1) clarification as to who may personally serve a notice of lien; (2) additional contents that must be included in a lien claim; and (3) authorization for attorney fees.
Prior to the amendments, any person could, on behalf of the entity (contractor) seeking to establish a lien, personally serve the owner of the property with a claim of lien. Now, for personal service to be considered effective, the owner or reputed owner must be personally served by an officer “authorized by law” to serve process. Essentially, a process server needs to be employed for personal service. A contractor may still serve an owner via certified mail
The second change relates to required disclosures. Now, in order to have a valid lien, a contractor must attach a copy of the required disclosures and acknowledgement of receipt of said disclosures with the claim of lien. If the claim does not contain the required documents, it will be considered invalid. This is an important change, because even if the contractor provides all required documents to the owner if there is no copy of the documents attached to the claim of lien the contractor will lose their lien rights – assuming the deficiency is not corrected prior to the statute of limitations running.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Grace Maldonado, Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniMs. Maldonado may be contacted at
gmaldonado@grsm.com
