Supreme Court of Oregon Affirms Decision in Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, et al.
April 20, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFAfter reviewing the decision in Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, et al., the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed that a tort claim for property damage arising from construction defects may exist even when the homeowner and the builder are in a contractual relationship.
When the case was initially filed, the plaintiffs alleged breach of contract and negligence. The defendants moved for summary judgment arguing that one, the claim was barred by the six-year statute of limitations and two, no special relationship (such as one between a doctor and patient) existed. The court agreed with the defendants. However, the Court of Appeals while affirming the trial court’s decision on breach of contract reversed the decision on negligence. The Court of Appeals stated that an administrative or statute rule could establish a standard of care independent from the contract.
The Oregon Supreme Court gave an example of cases where a tort claim could exist when a contract is present: “If an individual and a contractor enter into a contract to build a house, which provides that the contractor will install only copper pipe, but the contractor installs PVC pipe instead (assuming both kinds of pipe comply with the building code and the use of either would be consistent with the standard of care expected of contractors), that failure would be a breach of contract only. […] If the failure to install the copper pipe caused a reduction in the value of the house, the plaintiff would be able to recover that amount in an action for breach of contract. […] On the other hand, if the contractor installed the PVC pipe in a defective manner and those pipes therefore leaked, causing property damage to the house, the homeowner would have claims in both contract and tort. […] In those circumstances, the obligation to install copper instead of PVC pipe is purely contractual; the manner of installing the pipe, however, implicates both contract and tort because of the foreseeable risk of property damage that can result from improperly installed pipes.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Litigation—Battles on Many Fronts
May 07, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorWhen you are involved in construction litigation, you have battles on several fronts, including those against subcontractors, owners, insurers and the court. Shoring up your defenses on each of these fronts is imperative, or you may lose the battle or, worse yet, the war.
A recent opinion out of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (overseeing federal courts in Alabama, Florida and Georgia) Carithers v. Mid-Continent Casualty Company, illustrates the various battle fronts involved in a construction case. In this case, the Carithers (Home Owner) sued their homebuilder, Cronk Duch Miller & Associates (Contractor) in state court after discovering multiple defects with their home.
Battle Front #1—Claim Against Contractor
The Contractor and Home Owner entered into a consent judgment for approximately $90,000.00 and the Contractor assigned its claim against its insurer to the Home Owner. It is unlikely that the Contractor paid the $90,000.00 judgment. The Home Owner likely agreed not to collect on the $90,000.00 in exchange for the chance to pursue the Contractor’s claim against its insurer.
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
Woodbridge II and the Nuanced Meaning of “Adverse Use” in Hostile Property Rights Cases in Colorado
November 23, 2020 —
Luke Mecklenburg - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogEarlier this year, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued an opinion addressing at length “whether the requirement that the use be ‘adverse’ in the adverse possession context is coextensive with adverse use in the prescriptive easement context.” See Woodbridge Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Lo Viento Blanco, LLC, 2020 COA 34 (Woodbridge II), ¶ 2, cert. granted, No. 20SC292, 2020 WL 5405376 (Colo. Sept. 8, 2020). As detailed below, the Woodbridge II court concluded that the meanings of “adverse” in these two contexts are not coextensive—while “hostility” in the adverse possession context requires a claim of exclusive ownership of the property, a party claiming a prescriptive easement is only required to “show a nonpermissive or otherwise unauthorized use of property that interfered with the owner’s property interests.” Thus, the Woodbridge II court reasoned a claimants’ acknowledgement or recognition of an owner’s title alone is insufficient to defeat “adverse use” in the prescriptive easement context.
This significant ruling is at odds with a prior division’s broad statement, while considering a prescriptive easement claim, that “[i]n general, when an adverse occupier acknowledges or recognizes the title of the owner during the occupant’s claimed prescriptive period, the occupant interrupts the prescriptive use.” See Trask v. Nozisko, 134 P.3d 544, 553 (Colo. App. 2006). Perhaps for that reason, Woodbridge II is currently pending certiorari review before the Colorado Supreme Court in a case that should provide some much-needed clarity on what constitutes “adverse use” in the context of a prescriptive easement. As we await the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision, I thought it worthwhile to provide a brief analysis of the Woodbridge II court’s deep dive into the nuances of “adverse use” in this field of Colorado law.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & WilmerMr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at
lmecklenburg@swlaw.com
Eleventh Circuit Finds Professional Services Exclusion Applies to Construction Management Activities
April 29, 2024 —
Ashley Kellgren - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogIn Colony Ins. Co. v. Coastal Constr. Mgmt., LLC, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 4809 (11th Cir. Feb. 29, 2024), the Eleventh Circuit found the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify its insured based on a professional services exclusion. In that case, the underlying claims arose out of the construction of a four-story apartment complex. The owner and project developer contracted with the insured to provide construction management services as a construction manager and construction consultant. Several years after the project was completed, the owner filed suit against the architect, general contractor, and the insured alleging numerous defects and deficiencies with respect to the project. The owner asserted claims against the insured for breach of contract and negligence, alleging various failures by the insured in connection with its supervision of construction and failures to properly and timely complete the project, and correct inadequate, defective, and noncomplying work.
Colony issued two commercial general liability policies to the insured, both of which contained a professional services exclusion. Although the policy did not expressly define “professional services,” the professional services exclusion provided a non-exhaustive list of examples, including:
(2) preparing, approving, or failing to prepare or approve maps, drawings, opinions, reports, surveys, change orders, designs or specifications;
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ashley Kellgren, Traub LiebermanMs. Kellgren may be contacted at
akellgren@tlsslaw.com
Traub Lieberman Partner Gregory S. Pennington and Associate Emily A. Velcamp Obtain Summary Judgment in Favor of Residential Property Owners
December 13, 2022 —
Gregory S. Pennington & Emily A. Velcamp - Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman Partner Gregory S. Pennington and Associate Emily A. Velcamp obtained summary judgment in favor of their clients, owners of a residential property [the “Owners” or “Defendants”] used as a short-term rental in Beach Haven, New Jersey. Plaintiff alleged injuries resulting from a fall into an open water meter pit, located in the public sidewalk abutting the Owners’ property during the time within which the property was rented to plaintiff and his family. According to plaintiff, defendants breached their duty owed to him, relying on a Borough of Beach Haven Ordinance, thereby allowing the water meter pit to be raised in an unsafe manner, which resulted in plaintiff’s fall and subsequent injuries.
After the Court denied defendants’ initial Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that issues of material fact existed regarding defendants’ duty and the alleged breach of that duty, a Motion for Reconsideration was filed. Mr. Pennington and Ms. Velcamp argued that their clients, as residential landowners, owed no duty of care to plaintiff for the raised condition of the water meter pit lid, located in the abutting sidewalk, as they did not cause or contribute to the alleged condition. Defendants further argued that even if a duty of care existed, no breach occurred given the lack of notice to defendants, either actual or constructive. Plaintiff attempted to argue that defendants had constructive notice of the lid’s raised condition, relying on his expert report and the fact that defendants had 3.5 months from the date the property was purchased, to the date of the subject accident to discover the lid’s raised condition. Mr. Pennington and Ms. Velcamp successfully argued that despite plaintiff’s allegations and the findings contained in plaintiff’s expert report, authored 2 months after the alleged accident, there was still no credible, material evidence to say how long the water meter pit lid was in that raised condition to allow defendants a reasonable time to discover it, remedy it, or report it to the Borough.
Reprinted courtesy of
Gregory S. Pennington, Traub Lieberman and
Emily A. Velcamp, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Pennington may be contacted at gpennington@tlsslaw.com
Ms. Velcamp may be contacted at evelcamp@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
OSHA Issues Fines for Fatal Building Collapse in Philadelphia
November 27, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Occupational Safety and Health Administration has issued $400,000 in fines to two contactors who were involved with the collapse of a building in Philadelphia. Six people died and 14 more were injured in an adjacent building. OSHA concluded that the two firms, Campbell Construction and S&R Contracting, violated workplace safety regulations 12 times in their demolition of the building.
According to OSHA, Campbell Construction removed structural supports and portions of the lower floors of the building while upper stories were still being demolished. Both firms failed to provide its workers with fall protection equipment.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Southern California Lost $8 Billion in Construction Wages
August 17, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFLos Angeles and Orange Counties are first on a list no area wants to be on. According to the Sacramento Bee, reporting on data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, LA and Orange Counties saw an $8 billion drop in construction wages in 2010, as compared to 2006. In 2006, the region saw payrolls of $26.8 billion, but in 2010, that was reduced to $18.5 billion.
This was not the largest percentage change. Of the metropolitan areas with the largest declines in construction earnings, Las Vegas saw a $3.6 billion drop, however that represented half of their 2006 totals of $7.2 billion. Conversely, a $3.3 billion drop in the New York area represented only 10% of what had been $33.8 billion in payroll in 2006.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Virtual Jury Trials of Construction Disputes: The Necessary Union of Both Sides of the Brain
May 17, 2021 —
John Dannecker - Construction ExecutiveBart Smith is the Senior Project Manager for Simply Best, a general contracting firm. He has been assigned to serve as the liaison with outside counsel in a lawsuit against Holly’s Harleys, a project owner who contracted with Best for the construction of a motorcycle showroom. Best filed suit in federal court for additional project costs it incurred, which it contends were caused by the specification of incompatible materials by Holly’s design firm.
The coronavirus pandemic is still raging as the trial date approaches. Courthouse facilities are closed so civil trials are conducted using remote technology, if they occur at all. Bart negotiated the prime contract with Holly’s, and he regrettably allowed Best’s binding arbitration and jury trial waiver clauses in the prime contract to be deleted. Bart worries about how the intricacies of Best’s case can be adequately explained to a jury in a remote trial. His concern approaches panic when Best’s trial counsel explains how the trial will be conducted with none of the parties—their attorneys, the judge, the witnesses or the jury—present in the same location.
Reprinted courtesy of
John Dannecker, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
