Homeowner Loses Suit against Architect and Contractor of Resold Home
June 14, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe California Court of Appeals in the case of Kizor v. Architects ruled that Mr. Kizor could not make construction defect claims against the architect and contractor of his home, as the defects had caused significant damage to the former owners, and it was they, not Kizor, who could have asserted those claims.
The background of the case was that John and Miranda Redig hired BRU Architects to design a home. During construction in 2000, they wrote to the roofing supplier complaining about leaks. The leaks were caulked, but the roof continued leaking during rains. The Redigs sold their house to Kizor in 2002, with an addendum to the sale contract protecting themselves from liability for further problems with the roof. “Seller has no responsibility for the condition of the roof and stucco and buyer absolves seller of any liability in connection therewith.”
In 2006, Kizor sued the architects, contractor, and subcontractor. The defendants moved for summary judgment which was granted. Kizor appealed, and in this current court case, appeal was denied.
Read the court’s decision
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
'Regluing' Oregon State's Showcase for Mass Timber
September 17, 2018 —
Nadine M. Post - Engineering News-RecordThe tally of how many defective cross-laminated timber panels need replacement on a $79-million college of forestry building under construction at Oregon State University is almost complete, nearly six months after two layers of a seven-layer CLT floor panel, 30 ft x 4 ft, came unglued and crashed 14 ft from the third to the second floor of the three-story building.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nadine M. Post, ENRMs. Post may be contacted at
postn@enr.com
Starting July 1, 2020 General Contractors are “Employers” for All Workers on Their Jobsite
June 08, 2020 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsI have discussed the impactful legislation to the Virginia construction industry in prior posts here at Construction Law Musings. One of those statutes that will take effect on July 1, 2020 will fundamentally change the relationships between general contractors and their subcontractors and suppliers.
Senate Bill 838 does the following on construction projects with a value of $500,000 or greater that are not single family residential construction projects:
- Makes the general contractor, and all tiers of subcontractors on a particular project contractually liable to pay their subcontractors’ (at any tier) employees wages.
- Requires that the payments are equal or exceed those required by other statutes.
- Deems contractors to be the employers of their subcontractors’ employees for purposes of Va. Code Section 40.1-29 that imposes criminal and civil penalties for failure to pay wages when due, and
- Grants employees a private right of action for any violations, including the right to a class or joint action, award of liquidated damages, reasonable attorney fees and possible treble damages for “knowing” violations by the contractor.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Building 47 Bridges in Two Years
December 23, 2023 —
Dan Sopczak - Construction ExecutiveEvery construction project has its challenges, but some truly push the boundaries of what is achievable in the heavy civil industry. When the Indiana Department of Transportation sought to modernize its I-65/I-70 North Split Interchange in Indianapolis, Indiana, its request for proposals included building 47 new bridges and rehabilitating six additional bridges on an ambitious two-year timeline—905 days to substantial completion.
“Three design-build teams responded to the RFQ, and the same three teams responded to the RFP,” according to INDOT Strategic Communications Director Natalie Garrett. “Proposals were scored and evaluated using the best-value evaluation process defined by INDOT. The score was a combination of a technical proposal score and a price score.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Dan Sopczak, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lane Construction Sues JV Partner Skanska Over Orlando I-4 Project
February 08, 2021 —
Scott Judy - Engineering News-RecordOne of Florida’s most troubled construction projects is now in court, with one partner in a design-build joint venture pitted against another.
Reprinted courtesy of
Scott Judy, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Judy may be contacted at judys@enr.com
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment in Landis v. Fannin Builders
April 20, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFThe Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in Landis v. William Fannin Builders. Landis contracted Fannin Builders to build their home. The case involved staining problems on the T1-11 siding chosen by the plaintiffs.
After a year and a half of discussion on how to resolve the problem of uneven staining on the siding, Landis filed suit “against Fannin Builders, alleging claims for breach of contract, breach of the express limited warranty, and violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (“OCSPA”). Fannin Builders, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against 84 Lumber, alleging claims for breach of contract and indemnification. With the trial court’s leave, Fannin Builders also later amended its answer to add a counterclaim against appellees for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. In the counterclaim, Fannin Builders alleged that appellees still owed it $3,908.98 for the construction of appellees’ home.”
“In its decision, the trial court found in appellees’ favor on their breach of contract claim and against appellees on their claims for breach of the express limited warranty and violation of the OCSPA. Additionally, the trial court found in Fannin Builders’ favor on its counterclaim for breach of contract and against Fannin Builders on its third-party claims for breach of contract and indemnity. The trial court determined that appellees’ damages amounted to $66,906.24, and after setting off the $3,908.98 that appellees owed Fannin Builders under the construction contract, the trial court awarded appellees $62,997.26. The trial court reduced its decision to judgment on May 18, 2010.”
Fannin Builders appealed this judgment and assigned the following errors:
[1.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant Breached its Contract with Appellees when it provided a Semi-Transparent Oil-Based Stain that Simply did not Meet their Approval.
[a.] The Contract does not Contain a Satisfaction Clause.
[b.] Even if the Court Implies a Satisfaction Clause, the Court Should Apply an Objective Standard.
[2.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Failing to Consider Appellant’s Right to Cure.
[3.] The Trial Court committed Reversible Error by not Assessing Damages Using “Diminished Value Standard,” and by Creating a Remedy that Constitutes Economic Waste.
[4.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant is Barred from Seeking Indemnification When 84 [Lumber] Never Fulfilled its Obligations Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement Entered on August 2, 2005.
In response to the first assigned error, the Court of Appeals stated: “Because the failure to provide siding of a uniform color, not appellees’ displeasure, breached the contract, we reject Fannin Builders’ contention that the trial court implied a satisfaction clause into the contract and found a breach of that clause. Accordingly, we overrule Fannin Builders’ first assignment of error.”
The Court of Appeals overruled the second assignment of error and provided the following reasoning: “Although Fannin Builders depends upon a term of the limited warranty for its right to cure, the trial court concluded that no breach of the limited warranty occurred. Fannin Builders breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIA’s Quality Standards. Consequently, the limited warranty does not apply to this case, and thus, it does not prevent appellees’ recovery of damages.”
The Appeals Court found “the trial court’s award of damages” was “both reasonable and supported by competent, credible evidence,” and therefore concluded “that the trial court did not err in setting appellees’ damages at $62,997.26.” The Fannin Builders third assignment of error was overruled.
The fourth and final assignment of error was also overruled by the Court of Appeals. “While Fannin Builders correctly asserts that 84 Lumber never installed the replacement siding, it ignores the fact that it ordered 84 Lumber to remove the replacement siding from appellees’ property. Thus, Fannin Builders precluded 84 Lumber from completely performing under the August 2, 2005 letter agreement. […] Consequently, Fannin Builders cannot now claim that the letter agreement is unenforceable or that it is entitled to indemnification from 84 Lumber. Because Fannin Builders assumed all liability for the defective siding in the letter agreement, it is responsible for appellees’ damages.”
James A. Zitesman, Columbus, Ohio Business Attorney, compared the case to Jones v. Centex (Ohio App. 2010), which had a different verdict:
“The common thread is the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the Jones case, the Court found that the buyers had in fact waived all implied warranties, including the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the contract between Jones and Centex, the builder stated that it “…would not sell the property to Purchasers without this waiver.” Probably should have been a sign to the buyers.
In the Landis case, the Court stated, “Contracts for the future construction of a residence include a duty, implied by law, that the builder must perform its work in a workmanlike manner.” The Court gave significant weight to the concept of the implied warranty of good workmanship. The builder relied upon the BIA Warranty which limits builders’ liability and exposure to legal issues. The trial court concluded there was no breach of the limited warranty, rather the builder “breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIAs Quality Standards.”
The Supreme Court of Ohio has accepted the Jones v. Centex Homes case for review.
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Be Careful When Walking Off of a Construction Project
November 24, 2019 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsI am truly grateful that my buddy Craig Martin (@craigmartin_jd) continues his great posts over at The Construction Contractor Advisor blog. He is always a good cure for writer’s block and once again this week he gave me some inspiration. In his most recent post, Craig discusses a recent Indiana case relating to the ever present issue of termination by a subcontractor for non-payment. In the Indiana case, the court looked at the payment terms and determined that the subcontractor was justified in walking from the project when it was not paid after 60 days per the contract.
This result was the correct, if surprising. Why do I say surprising? Because I am always reluctant to recommend that a subcontractor walk from a job for non payment if it is possible to continue. This is not so much for legal reasons (not paying a sub is a clear breach of contract by a general contractor) but practical ones. The practical effect of walking from the job is that the subcontractor is put on the defensive. Instead of arguing later that it performed but was not paid, that subcontractor is put in the position of arguing that the general contractor cannot collect its completion related and other damages because it breached first. This is a more intuitively difficult argument and one that is not as strong as the first.
Of course, all of this is contingent on the language in your contract (is there a “pay if paid” or language like that in the Indiana case?).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
What to do When the Worst Happens: Responding to a Cybersecurity Breach
November 21, 2018 —
Scott L. Satkin & J. Kyle Janecek – Newmeyer Dillion LLPCybersecurity is a growing concern for today's businesses. While it's always advisable to take whatever action possible to avoid a cybersecurity breach, no security measures can be one hundred percent perfect, and malicious actors are always innovating and trying to find new security flaws. The implementation of new technology brings with it new opportunities, but also potentially new vulnerabilities. And hackers have one major advantage – those working to defend against cyber-attacks have to try to find and fix every potential exploit, whereas those on the other side only need to find one. As demonstrated by recent high-profile breaches at Google and Facebook, even massive tech companies with access to vast financial resources and top engineering talent can still fall prey to cyber-attacks. Therefore, understanding how to respond to a breach is just as critical to a company's cybersecurity plan as attempting to prevent one. Below are a few solid tips on how to react when an organization's cybersecurity has been compromised.
Plan in Advance
The best response to a cybersecurity breach begins before the breach ever happens. A written incident response plan is of paramount importance. In the immediate aftermath of a cybersecurity breach, people will be scared and stressed. In those circumstances, they will be more likely to be able to respond effectively if there is a plan laid out for them and they have received training on how to follow that plan. Make sure that employees are trained on the parts of the plan that are relevant to them. Most may only need to know who to report to if they suspect a breach may have occurred, while those who will be involved in the breach response will need more in-depth training. The plan should also be updated regularly to account for staffing changes, new technology, and the evolving legal landscape. The law may also require a plan for responding to cybersecurity breaches, depending on the jurisdiction.
Call Your Lawyer- Early and Often
At the risk of sounding self-aggrandizing, attorneys are critical in responding to a cybersecurity breach. The most obvious reason is to advise clients on their legal obligations and potential liability – and this is indeed an important function. The patchwork of federal and state regulations governing cybersecurity is something laypeople – and even non-specialized attorneys – should navigate with caution. Of equal importance is the preservation of confidential communication under the attorney-client privilege. The presence of an attorney helps to improve the security of information surrounding the response to the breach because correspondence with that attorney is privileged, allowing candid evaluation of the breach. The ability to assert attorney-client privilege regarding an internal investigation and response can be quite useful in the event of a later external investigation or litigation.
To Disclose or Not to Disclose?
An important question that needs to be asked in the wake of a cybersecurity breach is whether the incident must be disclosed, and if so, when, how, and to whom should such disclosures be made? While many understandably wish that their mistakes and failures will never see the light of day, there are also many people who will want to know when a company's cybersecurity has been breached. Shareholders want to know – and may have a right to know – if such a breach has harmed the business. Consumers want to know if their personal information has been compromised so that they can protect against identity theft. Furthermore, state breach notification laws may mandate certain disclosures to consumers depending on facts surrounding the breach. Legal requirements from states, the federal government, and even foreign entities may also require companies to provide notices to one or more regulatory agencies.
An attorney can advise on whether a company is legally required to provide any notice in the aftermath of a data breach, but even though notice may not be a legal requirement in a particular set of circumstances, it may still be prudent to give it anyway. Google decided not to disclose the recent breach of data from its Google+ service to avoid a PR and regulatory backlash, but the fact that it had happened eventually leaked out anyway. Even though legal experts have opined in the aftermath that Google likely was not obligated to disclose the breach, the fact that it did not caused exactly what Google attempted to avoid, but with magnified effect. "Google Experiences Consumer Data Breach" may not have been a good headline, but "Google Hides Consumer Data Breach" was a worse one.
Remember: Protection Is Key
No company wants a cybersecurity breach, but past experience has increasingly demonstrated that this is not a question of "if" but rather one of "when" and "how bad." Planning ahead and knowing what to do when a data breach does happen can ensure that an organization bounces back from a breach as smoothly and painlessly as possible.
Scott Satkin and Kyle Janecek are associates in the Cybersecurity group of Newmeyer & Dillion. Focused on helping clients navigate the legal dispute implications of cybersecurity, they advise businesses on implementing and adopting proactive measures to prevent and neutralize cybersecurity threats. For questions on how they can help, contact Scott at scott.satkin@ndlf.com and Kyle at kyle.jancecek@ndlf.com.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of cybersecurity, business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client's needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America© and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
