Developer’s Fraudulent Statements Are His Responsibility Alone in Construction Defect Case
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Texas Court of Appeals ruled on December 21 in the case of Helm v Kingston, a construction defect case. After purchasing what was described as “an extremely well-built” two-bedroom townhouse, Mr. Kingston made complaints of construction defects. Greenway Development did not repair the defects to Kingston’s satisfaction, and he filed notice of suit. In his suit, he claimed that GDI and its president, John Helm, had committed fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Kingston claimed that Helm “fraudulently induced Kingston to believe that the townhouse evidenced the highest quality of workmanship when in fact the quality of workmanship was atrocious.” Helms brought a counterclaim that Kingston’s suit was frivolous.
About four years after Kingston purchased the townhome, the suit proceeded to trial. The trial court determined that Helm was not “liable in his individual capacity,” but this was reversed at appeal.
A second trial was held ten years later on the question of whether Kingston’s unit was a townhome or an apartment. A jury found that Helm “engaged in a false, misleading or deceptive act or practice that Kingston relied on to his detriment.” Kingston was awarded $75,862.29 and an additional $95,000 in attorney fees by the jury. Helms made an unsuccessful appeal to the Appeals Court, after which Kingston was awarded an additional $10,000. Helms then made an unsuccessful appeal to the Texas Supreme Court, which lead to an additional $3,000 for Kingston. There was also a verdict of $48,770.09 in pre-judgment interest and “five percent post-judgment interest accruing from the date of the judgment until the time the judgment is paid. Helm appealed.
In his appeal, Helm raised seven issues, which the court reorganized into five Kingston raised one issue on cross-appeal.
Helms’ first claim was that Kingston “failed to satisfy the requirement of” Texas’s Residential Construction Liability Act and that by not filing under the RCLA, Kingston’s fraud and misrepresentation claims were preempted. Further Helms claimed that the RCLA limited Kingston’s damages. The court rejected this, as the RCLA deals with complaints made to a contractor and not only did Helm fail to “conclusively establish” his “status as a ‘contractor’ under the statutory definition,” Helm testified that he was “not a contactor” at the pre-trial hearing.
Helms’s second claim was that Kingston’s later claim of a misconstructed firewall should be barred, claiming that Kingston “‘had knowledge of a defect in the firewall’ as early as 1997 but did not assert them until 2007.” The court rejected this because Kingston’s claim was that “Helm ‘fraudulently induced Kingston to believe that the townhouse evidenced the highest quality of workmanship when in fact the quality of the workmanship was atrocious.’”
Helms also challenged whether his statements that the residence was of “good quality” constituted fraud and misrepresentation under Texas’s Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. The court concluded that Helm was in a position to make knowledgeable statements and further that “residential housing units are not artistic works for which quality is inherently a matter of subjective judgment.” Helm also claimed that Kingston could have avoided certain repair expenses through the “exercise of reasonable care.” Helms argued that the repairs could have been made for $6,400. The court disagreed, as these claims were cited only to invoke the DTPA, and that later petitions established additional defects.
Helms’s next claim was that he was not allowed to designate responsible third parties. The court rejected this because there GDI represented matters concerning the residence only through Helm’s statements. The court noted that “Helm is correct that?third parties may be liable for fraud if they ‘participated in the fraudulent transactions and reaped the benefits,’” but they note that “Helm never specifically alleged that GDI or CREIC participated in Helm’s alleged fraudulent transactions.
The final issue in the decision was about court costs, and here the court denied claims on both sides. Helm argued that the award of legal fees were excessive, as they exceeded the actual damages. The court noted that they “may not substitute our judgment for that of the jury,” and also that “the ratio between the actual damages awarded and the attorney’s fees is not a factor that determines the reasonableness of the fees.” But the court also rejected Kingston’s claim for post-judgment interest on $10,312.30 that Helm had deposited in the trial court’s registry. The court noted that the monies were to be paid out upon final judgment, but the mandate did not include any reference to interest.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Delays for China’s Bahamas Resort Project
October 01, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe Wall Street Journal reported that the $3.5 billion resort and casino China’s building in the Bahamas is being undermined by delays and labor crashes, which is “dulling the buzz surrounding the venture and threaten to undermine China's future business.”
Once finished, the project “will include 2,200 new hotel rooms, luxury condominiums priced as high as $12 million, a 100,000-square-foot casino and an 18-hole golf course. Singer Lenny Kravitz is designing the nightclub.”
Baha Mar, the developers, told the Wall Street Journal that they will not be meeting their December 2014 deadline, and instead are “focused on late spring 2015.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Developer Pre-Conditions in CC&Rs Limiting Ability of HOA to Make Construction Defect Claims, Found Unenforceable
August 16, 2021 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogThe Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (Civ. Code §4000, et seq.), also known simply as “Davis-Stirling,” is a statute that applies to condominium, cooperative and planned unit development communities in California. The statute, which governs the formation and management of homeowners associations or HOAs, also governs lawsuits filed by HOAs for construction defects.
In the next case,
Smart Corners Owner Association v. CJUF Smart Corner LLC, Case No. D076775 (May 20, 2021), the 4th District Court of Appeal addressed the pre-litigation voting requirements of Davis-Stirling and the impact of recent amendments to the Act.
The Smart Corners Case
In 2004, CJUF Smart Corner LLC contracted with Hensel Phelps Construction Company for the construction of the Smart Corner condominium project, a 19-story mixed-use development with 301 residential units and common areas, in San Diego, California. As part of the development an HOA was formed, the Smart Corner Owner Association.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Building Group Has Successful 2012, Looks to 2013
February 14, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe North State Building Industry Association has looked back at 2012, and feels that they are “well-positioned to addressed future challenges in 2013 and beyond.” The organization, which represents home builders in Northern California, had several major accomplishments in 2012.
The NSBIA has managed to reduce fees that builders must pay. Due to their work with the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District and the Sacramento Area Sewer District over the last several years, a new rate and fee methodology has been adopted, saving builders $3,000 per single family unit in SRCSD fees and $1,000 per acre in SASD fees. Fees were also reduced through agreements with the Folsom Cordova unified and Elk Grove school districts. The city of Rancho Cordova reduced its transportation fee by $3,500 per home.
In addition to their advocacy work, the NSBIA has continued its worker training programs. During 2012, 113 people participated in their Journeyman Upgrade classes, an increase of 20 from the prior year.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The “Unavailability Exception” is Unavailable to Policyholders, According to New York Court of Appeals
September 10, 2018 —
William S. Bennett & Warsame Y. Hassan - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.The New York Court of Appeals recently upheld a prior appellate division decision finding that policyholders facing environmental claims, spanning multiple years, cannot force their insurers partially on the risk to provide coverage for years where the insurers did not issue policies, even though pollution insurance was unavailable in the marketplace.
In Keyspan Gas E. Corp. v. Munich Reins. Am., Keyspan Gas East Corporation (“Keyspan”) argued other insurers should cover the period when pollution property insurance was unavailable in the marketplace, according to their pro-rata share of coverage. 31 N.Y.3d 51 (2018). In a unanimous decision, the Court emphasized the Appellate Division’s prior ruling that stated, “spreading risk should not by itself serve as a legal basis for providing free insurance to an insured.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Bennett may be contacted at
wsb@sdvlaw.com
Construction Delays: Which Method Should Be Used to Calculate Delay?
July 25, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIf you need to prove and allocate construction project delays, you should engage a scheduling consultant qualified with CPM (critical path method) analysis. You should also engage counsel to assist in preserving your rights, as well as presenting and maximing your arguments for delay.
There are numerous methodologies used to quantify and allocate delay. You want to discuss the most effective analysis for your case and facts including whether you want/should use a forward-looking prospective analysis or a backward-looking retrospective analysis that factors in as-built data. In doing so, you want to make sure you understand the pros and cons of each methodology including the bases to attack the methodology that will be subject to cross-examination. The five primary CPM methodologies are as follows:
- As-Planned Versus As-Built. This methodology compares the as-planned baseline schedule to an as-built schedule reflecting progress to assign delay. An as-built schedule that reflects progress includes actual start dates, finish dates, and durations. The actual dates and durations are compared with the as-planned dates and durations on the baseline schedule to determine delay. Under this methodology, the delay impact is determined retrospectively.
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
Subrogation 101 (and Why Should I Care?)
July 16, 2023 —
Clark Thiel & Alexis N. Wansac - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogWhat is subrogation? Why am I being asked to waive it? Should I care? To answer that last question, let’s take a quick run at the first two.
What Is Subrogation?
“Subrogation” refers to the act of one person or party standing in the place of another person or party. It is a legal right held by most insurance carriers to pursue a third party that caused an insurance loss in order to recover the amount the insurance carrier paid the insured to cover the loss. This occurs when (i) the insurance carrier makes a payment on behalf of its insured as the result of a covered accident or injury, and then (ii) the insurer then seeks repayment from the at-fault party.
Reprinted courtesy of
Clark Thiel, Pillsbury and
Alexis N. Wansac, Pillsbury
Mr. Thiel may be contacted at clark.thiel@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Wansac may be contacted at alexis.wansac@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Three lawyers from Haight were recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© 2020 Edition
September 30, 2019 —
William G. Baumgaertner, Michael Leahy, & Denis Moriarty - Haight Brown & BonesteelCongratulations to Haight’s attorneys who were recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© 2020 Edition
Los Angeles, California
William G. Baumgaertner for personal injury and product liability litigation for plaintiffs and defendants
Michael Leahy for insurance law
Denis Moriarty for insurance law
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel attorneys
William G. Baumgaertner,
Michael Leahy and
Denis J. Moriarty
Mr. Baumgaertner may be contacted at wbaum@hbblaw.com
Mr. Leahy may be contacted at mleahy@hbblaw.com
Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at dmoriarty@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
