CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

California Indemnity and Defense Construction Law Changes for 2013

April 03, 2013 — William L. Porter, Esq. - Porter Law Group

Death of “Type 1” Indemnity in California Construction

For many years the prevalence of the “Type 1” indemnity clause has been the subject of fierce debate within the construction industry.  Subcontractors have complained that they are saddled with indemnity obligations that require them to indemnify contractors from construction-related claims for which these subcontractors are truly not responsible.  In defense, contractors have argued that they must be entitled to the freedom to set contractual terms to best protect themselves and they point out that subcontractors are certainly free to negotiate better terms or turn down work.

After many years of debate and small legislative inroads in prohibiting Type 1 indemnity in residential projects and where it concerns the “sole negligence”, “willful misconduct” or the “design defects” of others, the California legislature has finally spoken broadly and definitively on the issue of Type 1 indemnity clauses in construction contracts.  Under new Civil Code section 2782, beginning with contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2013, broad “Type 1” indemnity clauses shall be void and unenforceable in the context of both private and public construction projects in California.  Civil Code section 2782 now makes it clear that subcontractors can no longer be required to indemnify against another’s active negligence in connection with construction contracts, whether public or private.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Esq.
William L. Porter, Esq. can be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

---

Arizona Supreme Court Confirms Eight-Year Limit on Construction Defect Lawsuits

July 18, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

Acting on the case of Albano v. Shea Homes Ltd. Partnership, the Arizona Supreme Court has ruled that Arizona’s eight-year statute of repose applies. The case was referred to the court by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which had asked for a clarification of Arizona law. The case focused on three questions:



1. Does the filing of a motion for class certification in an Arizona court toll the statute of limitations for individuals, who are included within the class, to file individual causes of action involving the same defendants and the same subject matter?2. If so, does this class-action tolling doctrine apply to statutes of repose, and more specifically, to the statute of repose for construction defects set forth in Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") § 12-552?3. If the doctrine applies to statutes of repose, and specifically § 12-552, may a court weigh the equities of the case in determining whether, and to what extent, an action is tolled?



The litigation at hand has a lengthy history, starting with a case referred to as “Hoffman” in 2003. The Albano plaintiffs were not able to join in Hoffman, and they filed their own lawsuit in 2006. An additional lawsuit was filed by the Albano plaintiffs in 2007. The courts decided that the Albano plaintiffs’ lawsuit was untimely.



The Arizona Supreme Court concluded that the statute of repose was the appropriate standard for this case. They noted that “the eight-year statute of repose period began to run on November 6, 1997, the date of the Town of Gilbert’s final inspection. Albano II was filed on November 5, 2007.”



The court found that the plaintiffs had waited too long for start their suit. As a result, they found it unnecessary to answer the first or third questions. Justice A. John Pelander of the Arizona Supreme Court wrote the opinion, dated June 30, 2011.

Read the court’s decision…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Arizona Supreme Court Confirms a Prevailing Homeowner Can Recover Fees on Implied Warranty Claims

August 30, 2017 — Rick Erickson - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
On August 9th, in Sirrah Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Wunderlich, the Arizona Supreme Court settled the question about recovery of attorneys’ fees after prevailing on implied warranty claims against a residential contractor. The simple answer is, yes, a homeowner who prevails on the merits can recover the fees they spent to prove that shoddy construction breached the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability. Why? Because, as Justice Timmer articulated, “[t]he implied warranty is a contract term.” Although implied, the warranty is legally part of the written agreement in which “a residential builder warrants that its work is performed in a workmanlike manner and that the structure is habitable.” In other words, a claim based on the implied warranty not only arises out of the contract, the claim is actually based on a contract term. Since, in A.R.S. § 12-341.01, Arizona law provides for prevailing parties to recover their fees on claims “arising out of contract” and because the implied warranty is now viewed by the courts as a contract term, homeowners can recover their fees after successfully proving breach of the implied warranty. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Rick Erickson, Snell & Wilmer
Mr Erickson may be contacted at rerickson@swlaw.com

---

Why Is It So Hard to Kill This Freeway?

April 18, 2023 — Benjamin Schneider - Bloomberg
Keith Pete remembers what Claiborne Avenue was like before the interstate. As a child in the early 1960s, the native New Orleanian would come to Claiborne Avenue with his dad to buy chickens from the local grocers. Sometimes, as a treat, father and son would get hamburgers on French rolls and pineapple juice and picnic on the neutral ground — the avenue’s wide, grassy median, which was thick with live oak trees and azaleas. “People used to sit and enjoy the weather,” Pete, 68, recalls. “There was beautiful grass all the way down. It was gorgeous.” At the time, Claiborne Avenue coursed through the heart of New Orleans’ Tremé neighborhood and a major center of Black commerce and culture. “It was safe; it was thriving,” Pete said. “It was mostly wiped out.” In 1966, workers began removing the avenue’s oaks and driving the pilings that would transform 18 blocks of the tree-lined boulevard into a viaduct carrying Interstate 10. While plans for a Robert Moses-designed waterfront freeway through the French Quarter were halted in 1969 after intense resistance from historic preservationists, the state- and city-backed Claiborne Expressway proceeded. The elevated highway and its tangle of off-ramps destroyed some 500 homes and 326 Black-owned businesses. The once-thriving corridor became a dark, noisy netherworld, unsafe for pedestrians and unhealthy for anyone who breathes. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Benjamin Schneider, Bloomberg

---

Good and Bad News on Construction Employment

February 10, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The construction industry hit a two-year high in January, with 21,000 jobs added that month. The mild winter is assumed to have helped. According to the General Contractors of America, the construction industry currently employs about 5.57 million people. This is a 21 percent gain over January 2010. Ken Simonson, the chief economist of GCA, noted that “the unemployment rate in construction is still double that of the overall economy.” He said it was not currently clear if “the recent job growth reflects a sustained pickup or merely acceleration of homebuilding and highway projects that normally halt when the ground freezes in December and January.”



Stephen Sandherr, the chief executive officer of the GCA, said that the federal government had to make infrastructure funding a top priority. “Without adequate long-term funding for infrastructure, competitive tax rates and fewer costly regulatory hurdles, the construction industry may lose some of the jobs it gained in the last year.”

Read the full story…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Implementation of CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards Delayed

February 25, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In his California Construction Law blog, Garret Murai published the recent Industry Bulletin released by the California Contractors State License Board (CSLB) regarding the delayed implementation of the California Building Energy Standards. CSLB has delayed implementation from January 1st, 2014 to July 1, 2014 due to “unanticipated delays in developing complete performance compliance software for 2013 Public Domain Residential and Nonresidential California Building Energy Code Compliance guidelines, necessitating the CEC action to change the effective date of energy related provisions.” The Industry Bulletin summarized changes regarding various codes including 2013 California Energy Code, Part 6; 2013 California Administrative Code, Chapter 10, Part 1; and, 2013 CALGreen, Part 11. According to the bulletin, as reported by the California Construction Law blog, “Contractors are encouraged to contact their local building enforcement agencies for assistance and/or clarification.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

One More Statutory Tweak of Interest to VA Construction Pros

April 25, 2022 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
While I have focused on the recent “pay if paid” legislation in recent posts, the Virginia General Assembly has taken other action that is of interest to those of us that represent construction professionals in Virginia. One such action is yet another tweak to the so-called “wage theft” statute that essentially made a general contractor the guarantor of all wage payments of its downstream construction partners. The first of the tweaks to the statute passed in 2020 was to create a defense for a general contractor if it obtained a written certification of wage payment from its immediate downstream subcontractor. This year, the General Assembly expanded the protection provided by such certification to all subcontractors. In other words, any contractor or subcontractor can now protect itself from wage theft claims by the use of a certification that all wages were paid from its immediate downstream partner. The text of the changes can be found here. [note that the Governor has sent suggested grammatical amendments that did not affect the substance] Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Terminating Contracts for Convenience — “Just Because”

June 28, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Termination for convenience provisions are important provisions to include in construction contracts. These are provisions that allow a party to terminate the contract for ANY REASON. No cause is needed to exercise the termination for convenience provision. In other words, the terminating party does not have to demonstrate the other party breached the contract. A termination for convenience can be exercised “just because.” Typically, the party providing the service should not get to terminate for convenience. However, the party receiving the service will want to be afforded this contractual right. For example, an owner (receiving a service) will want to include a termination for convenience provision with its prime contractor (providing a service). And, a general contractor (receiving a service) will want to include a termination for convenience provision in its subcontract with its subcontractor (providing a service). However, a general contractor providing a service for an owner, or a subcontractor providing a service to a general contractor, should not be able to terminate the contract for their convenience “just because” a better opportunity comes along. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---