As Fracture Questions Remain, Team Raced to Save Mississippi River Bridge
September 06, 2021 —
Jim Parsons - Engineering News-Record"How is this bridge still standing?”
That was the initial reaction of Aaron Stover, Michael Baker International’s vice president and regional bridge practice lead, as he first studied images of a fractured tie beam that forced the May 11 emergency shutdown of the I-40/Hernando de Soto Bridge between Tennessee and Arkansas. Discovered by chance earlier in the day during MBI’s routine above-deck inspection, the fracture on the bridge’s eastbound span affected nearly half the cross-section of a 26-in. by 33-in. welded girder supporting one of the 50-year-old structure’s 900-ft-long, 100-ft-high arched navigation spans across the Mississippi River.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Significant Victory for the Building Industry: Liberty Mutual is Rejected Once Again, This Time by the Third Appellate District in Holding SB800 is the Exclusive Remedy
December 15, 2016 —
Richard H. Glucksman & Ravi R. Mehta – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Bulletin I. Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court (Certified for Publication, Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016
The California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District recently elaborated on the scope of the Right to Repair Act, commonly known as SB-800 (“Act”). In
Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (Kevin Hicks, et al.) (certified for publication, Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016), the Court considered whether the Act (and specifically the Act’s pre-litigation procedure) applies, when homeowners plead construction defect claims based only on common law causes of action, as opposed to violations of the building standards set forth in the Act (
Civil Code §896). The Court answered this question affirmatively.
The homeowners of seventeen (17) single-family homes filed a Complaint against the builder of their homes, Elliott Homes, Inc. (“Elliott”), alleging common law causes of action for construction defects. Elliott filed a motion to stay the litigation on the ground that the homeowners failed to comply with the pre-litigation procedure set forth in the Act. The trial court denied the motion, agreeing with the homeowners that this pre-litigation procedure did not apply because the homeowners had not alleged a statutory violation of the Act. Elliott appealed. The Court of Appeal purely considered the question of whether the Act, including its pre-litigation procedure, applies when a homeowner pleads construction defect claims based on common law causes of action, and not on statutory violations of the Act’s building standards.
To answer this question, the Court analyzed a recent case decided by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District:
Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98. In this subrogation case, a builder’s insurer asserted common law causes of action (but not statutory building standard violations) alleging construction defects against the builder to recover amounts paid to the homeowner after a sprinkler system failure caused extensive damage to the subject property. The trial court sustained the builder’s demurrer to the Complaint on the ground that it was time-barred under the Act. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order, holding that common law construction defect claims arising from actual damages are not covered by the Act because “the Act does not provide the exclusive remedy in cases where actual damage has occurred.” (
Liberty Mutual, 219 Cal.App.4th 98, 109).
The
Elliott Court declined to follow
Liberty Mutual, finding that that Court failed to properly analyze the language of the Act. The
Elliott Court analyzed both the statutory scheme and the legislative history of the Act to arrive at the conclusion that common law causes of action for construction defects do indeed fall within the purview of the Act.
According to the
Elliott Court, the Act “broadly applies to
any action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in…residential construction and in such an action, a homeowner’s claims or causes of action shall be limited to violation of the standards set forth in the Act, except as specified.” Further, the Act expressly provides that “no other cause of action for a claim covered by this title or for damages recoverable under Section 944 is allowed.”
Civil Code §943(a). In turn,
Civil Code §944 allows for a recovery for the cost of repairing a building standard violation, or for the cost of repairing any damage caused by such a violation, among other things.
The limited exceptions to the Act’s applicability concern the enforcement of a contract, or any action for fraud, personal injury, or violation of a statute. Civil Code §943(a). Additionally, the Act does not apply to condominium conversions. Civil Code §896.
The Elliott Court explains that apart from these exceptions, the Legislature intended the Act to apply to all construction defect claims (regardless of damage) relating to the construction of residential properties whose sales contracts are signed after January 1, 2003. There is no exception in the Act, express or implied, for common law causes of action.
Next, the Court turns to the Act’s legislative history to buttress this conclusion. This history makes clear that the Act is a legislative response to the California Supreme Court’s holding in
Aas v. Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal.4th 627, that construction defects in residential properties are only actionable in tort when actual property damage manifests. Senate Judiciary Committee hearings indicate that the Act was the product of protracted negotiations between varying interested parties, including construction industry trade groups and consumer protection groups. The Legislature intended (1) to promulgate building standards, violations of which would be actionable, even without damage, and (2) to allow homeowners to recover for actual damage caused by construction defects not covered by the building standards. In other words, the Act was intended to provide homeowners redress regardless of whether damage had manifested.
Therefore, the Court concluded that common law causes of action for construction defects, regardless of damage, are subject to the pre-litigation procedure set forth in the Act. The Court issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its earlier order, and to enter a new order granting Elliott’s motion to stay the litigation until the homeowners (and Elliott) have satisfied the pre-litigation procedure of the Act.
II. McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132
Similar to the Third Appellate District Court’s ruling in
Elliott, the Fifth Appellate District Court also rejected the holding of
Liberty Mutual in a matter now pending before the California Supreme Court:
McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132 (review granted and opinion superseded sub nom.
Albany v. Superior Court 360 P.3d 1022). Also similar to
Elliott, in
McMillin a group of homeowners filed common law construction defect claims against the builder of their homes. The builder,
McMillin, moved to stay the litigation pending compliance with the Act’s pre-litigation procedure. The trial court denied the motion, holding that the Act does not apply because the homeowners have not asserted statutory building standard violations contained within the Act.
In reasoning substantially similar to that of
Elliott, the
McMillin Court rejected Liberty Mutual’s holding that the Act is not the exclusive remedy for pursuing construction defect claims, with or without damage. Thus, the
McMillin Court issued a writ of mandate to vacate the trial court’s earlier order and to enter a new order granting McMillin’s motion to stay.
On November 24, 2015, the California Supreme Court granted the homeowners’ petition for review. In August of 2016, briefing was completed and the matter is now awaiting the scheduling of arguments. CGDRB will continue to closely monitor the pending appeal of this matter to the California Supreme Court, as well as all related developments.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Ravi R. Mehta, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Mehta may be contacted at rmehta@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Property Owner’s Defense Goes Up in Smoke in Careless Smoking Case
September 23, 2019 —
Michael J. Ciamaichelo - The Subrogation StrategistProperty owners owe a duty of reasonable care to avoid causing harm to neighboring properties. When a property owner knows or should know about a condition that poses a risk of danger to neighboring properties, the property owner must exercise reasonable care to make the condition safe. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland recently held that, where hundreds of discarded cigarette butts had accumulated in a bed of mulch over an extended period of time prior to the fire at issue, the owner of the property with the mulch beds owed a duty of care to its neighbors to prevent a foreseeable fire.
In Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 2019 Md. App. LEXIS 430 (May 30, 2019), a fire originated in a strip of mulch at property owned by the Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 (Union) and caused damage to neighboring properties. The fire occurred when an unknown person discarded a cigarette butt into the mulch. Following the fire, investigators found “hundreds, if not thousands of cigarettes” in the mulch where the fire originated. A representative for the Union acknowledged that there were more butts in the mulch “than there should have been” and that, “[i]n the right situation,” a carelessly discarded cigarette could cause a fire. The Union, however, had no rules or signs to prohibit or regulate smoking at the property, where apprentices would often gather prior to class.
The insurance companies for the damaged neighbors filed subrogation actions alleging that the Union, as the property owner, failed to use reasonable care to prevent a foreseeable fire. A jury found in favor of the subrogating insurers and against the Union.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael J. Ciamaichelo, White and Williams LLPMr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at
ciamaichelom@whiteandwilliams.com
AMLO Hits Back at Vulcan, Threatens to Use Environmental Decree
December 04, 2023 —
Maya Averbuch & Eric Martin - BloombergMexico’s president threatened to declare a disputed property owned by
Vulcan Materials Co. an environmentally protected area, after failing to reach an agreement with the US construction firm.
Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador said Vulcan continued work at the site even while in talks with his government over its potential purchase of the property, which was occupied by Mexican marines in March. Accusing the company of “vile trickery,” AMLO — as the president is known — told reporters Friday that he would act by decree if necessary to halt the destruction in “one of the most beautiful areas in the world.”
His comments came a day after Bloomberg reported that the Alabama-based firm was seeking the Biden administration’s protection from what it sees as the
threat of a hostile takeover of its property. The 2,400 hectare (5,930 acre) plot south of the resort city of Playa del Carmen includes a port and a quarry.
Reprinted courtesy of
Maya Averbuch, Bloomberg and
Eric Martin, Bloomberg Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Angelo Mozilo Speaks: No Regrets at Countrywide
September 03, 2014 —
Max Abelson – BloombergSix years after he lost control of the largest mortgage lender in the U.S., and days after news that the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles plans to sue him, the Countrywide Financial Corp. founder is baffled by a new effort to punish him, proud of past triumphs and incensed by criticism.
“You’ll have to ask those people, ‘What do you have against Mozilo, what did he do?’” he said in a 30-minute call with Bloomberg News before Labor Day, one of his few interviews since the firm’s downfall. “Countrywide didn’t change. I didn’t change. The world changed.”
Interviews with Mozilo, 75, and three friends show what retirement looks like for a chief executive officer linked to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Remaining out of public view like Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s Richard Fuld or Jimmy Cayne of Bear Stearns Cos., Mozilo has submitted plans for Old West-style offices in California, taught students in Italy about finance, invested in a building in the Arizona desert that houses a Taco Bell and written about his life so that his grandchildren will “know the truth.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Max Abelson, BloombergMr. Abelson may be contacted at
mabelson@bloomberg.net
Fire Raging North of Los Angeles Is Getting Fuel From Dry Winds
June 17, 2024 —
Brian K Sullivan - BloombergA wildfire raging north of Los Angeles has sent smoke billowing south and forced more than 1,000 people to evacuate — and with dry winds raking the hills, the blaze is poised to intensify.
A red flag fire warning has been raised in the area around the Post Fire, which is forecast to be whipped with winds reaching at least 20 miles (32 kilometers) per hour, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, commonly called Cal Fire. The flames, which have burned more than 14,000 acres (5,700 hectares), are only about 8% contained and the smoke has prompted air quality alerts in parts of Los Angeles County and Ventura County.
“Crews are working to establish perimeter fire lines around the fire’s edges,” Cal Fire said in a report. “Aircraft are being utilized to halt the fire’s forward progress but are facing challenges due to limited visibility.”
Along with the Post Fire, crews are battling 10 other blazes throughout the state that flared up over the weekend in an ominous start to wildfire season. While California had heavy snow and rain this past winter, that doesn’t mean a respite from fires. The moisture that kept drought away allowed for grasses and brush to grow, meaning more wildfire fuel as California enters its driest months.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brian K Sullivan, Bloomberg
Guidance for Structural Fire Engineering Making Its Debut
February 02, 2017 —
Nadine M. Post - Engineering News-RecordThe International Code Council has approved—as expected—the updated structural building-design standard, written by the American Society of Civil Engineers Structural Engineering Institute, for inclusion in the 2018 edition of the ICC’s model International Building Code. ICC’s validation committee certified “ASCE/SEI 7-16: Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures,” and ICC’s board of directors confirmed it late last month, says Mike Pfeiffer, ICC’s senior vice president, technical services.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nadine M. Post, ENRMs. Post may be contacted at
postn@enr.com
Eight Things You Need to Know About the AAA’s New Construction Arbitration Rules
August 19, 2015 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogI just finished a construction arbitration this past week, which also explains my sporadic posts as of late, sorry.
Coincidentally, on July 1, 2015, the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) implemented their newly revised Construction Industry Arbitration and Mediation Procedures.
For those of you who follow our blog, you know I’m not a big fan of arbitration, which, from my experience, doesn’t deliver on its promise of better, faster, or cheaper, and ends up being pretty much the same thing as trial without the benefit of discovery, the rules of evidence, or appealability.
The AAA is trying to change all of that though and in a news release announced that its new “Rules” “directly address preferences of users for a more streamlined, cost-effective, and tightly managed arbitration process that avoids the high costs of litigation.” Which makes you wonder whether they had to survey their “users” to come to this realization. But I digress.
With the AAA’s new Rules come eight new changes, as follows:
1.Fast Track Procedures: Newly revised Rule F-1 now applies to two-party cases where no party’s claim or counterclaim exceeds $100,000. Under old Rule F-1 the monetary cap was $75,000.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
