The Impact of Sopris Lodging v. Schofield Excavation on Timeliness of Colorado Construction Defect Claims
January 26, 2017 —
Jean Meyer - Colorado Construction LitigationOn October 20, 2016, the Colorado Court of Appeals announced the Sopris Lodging, LLC v. Schofield Excavation, Inc.[1] decision. The Sopris decision significantly altered the potential pitfalls awaiting a general contractor in pursuit of third-party claims as well as potential defenses available for a subcontractor defending against third-party claims.
By way of background, the Sopris construction defect case arose out of the following facts: TDC was the general contractor for the construction of a hotel owned by Sopris Lodging. On March 11, 2011, Sopris Lodging sent TDC a notice of claim regarding alleged construction defects. On May 24, 2013, Sopris Lodging filed a complaint in district court asserting construction defect claims against one of the subcontractors of the hotel, and against the general contractor’s principals, but not the general contractor. Contemporaneous with the filing of the suit, Sopris Lodging and TDC entered into an agreement to toll the statute of limitations on Sopris Lodging’s potential claims against TDC. In August 2013, Sopris Lodging joined the general contractor to the suit. A year later, in 2014, the general contractor joined a variety of subcontractors as third-party defendants.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jean Meyer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. Jean may be contacted at
meyer@hhmrlaw.com
Unlicensed Contracting and Florida Statute S. 489.128
February 03, 2025 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesFlorida Statute s. 489.128 is a statute that provides a remedy against unlicensed contracting. However, keep in mind that this argument—the unlicensed contractor argument—is a technical statutory argument. In other words, it’s not so much of a fact-based merits argument, but an argument that’s solely based on the technicality of the statute. This, by no means, is not a recommendation that the argument should not be raised. In instances, it absolutely should be and could have legitimate traction. However, when deciding whether to or how to pursue a dispute, including settlement, you want to keep in mind whether this is an argument you want to bank your outcome on because there are always costs (attorney’s fees, court costs, etc.) that should get factored into any business decision regarding a dispute.
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
2023 Construction Outlook: Construction Starts Expected to Flatten
February 06, 2023 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogThere’s a lot to worry about going into 2023 according to Dodge Data & Analytics in its 2023 Construction Industry Outlook:
- Inflation
- More oil production cuts from OPEC
- Relations between China and Taiwan
- Further escalation of the war in Ukraine
While the immediate forecast is choppy, if things stabilize in the back half of 2023, according to Dodge Data & Analytics, total construction starts in the U.S. should remain flat in 2023. While “flat” may not sound particularly optimistic, it is, when you consider that total construction starts in 2022 were up 17%.
“We’re sitting at 14- to 15-year highs in the Dodge Momentum Index,” stated Richard Branch, Chief Economist at Dodge Data, “so it should provide some semblance of confidence and reassurance that developers and owners are continuing to put projects into the queue despite the fact that we’re concerned about what might happen when interest rates keep rising and the economy slows down in 2023.” Labor shortages will continue to be a big hurdle for the construction industry, according to Branch, but a bright spot is in material prices that peaked in 2021 but generally fell throughout 2022.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Understanding California’s Pure Comparative Negligence Law
November 13, 2023 —
Yaron Shaham - Kahana FeldIn order for a plaintiff to prove a defendant is negligent, the plaintiff must prove the defendant (1) owed a duty to plaintiff, (2) breached that duty, (3) the breach was the actual and proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury, and (4) the resulting monetary damage. However, for both plaintiffs and defendants it is not an all or nothing game in California. This is because California is a pure Comparative Negligence state.
California’s Comparative Negligence law provides that even if a plaintiff is deemed 99% at fault, the plaintiff can still recover 1% in damages from a defendant. Thus, even if a plaintiff is deemed to be more than 50% (or even 99%) at fault for the incident, the plaintiff could still recover some monetary amount, or the defendant will still have to pay plaintiff, depending on how you see it. In most instances, a jury decides what percentage of fault to assign to each party.
Just as a plaintiff must prove he/she/its negligence case against a defendant, if the defendant claims plaintiff was partially responsible for the incident, the defendant must prove plaintiff was also negligent and said negligence contributed to plaintiff’s injuries. The total amount of monetary responsibility distributed among all defendants and plaintiffs must equal 100%. As crazy as it may sound, a plaintiff found to be 99.9% at fault, is still entitled to recover 0.01% from a defendant in California.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Yaron Shaham, Kahana FeldMr. Shaham may be contacted at
yshaham@kahanafeld.com
Loan Snarl Punishes Spain Builder Backed by Soros, Gates
July 30, 2014 —
Katie Linsell, Manuel Baigorri and Ruth David – BloombergPressure is mounting on Esther Koplowitz to refinance personal loans before a deadline tomorrow and allow a Spanish builder that counts Bill Gates and George Soros among investors to resolve its own debt tangle.
Koplowitz is renegotiating about 1 billion euros ($1.8 billion) of debt tied to her controlling stake in Fomento de Construcciones & Contratas SA, according to two people familiar with the matter, who asked not to be identified because it’s private. Her determination to retain control means that she is unlikely to approve any plan by FCC to raise equity until she refinances her own debt, the people said.
Ms. Linsell may be contacted at klinsell@bloomberg.net; Mr. Baigorri may be contacted at mbaigorri@bloomberg.net; Ms. David may be contacted at rdavid9@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Katie Linsell, Manuel Baigorri and Ruth David, Bloomberg
Builders Beware: A New Class Of Defendants In Asbestos Lawsuits
January 06, 2016 —
David J. Byassee, Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP & Timothy A. Gravitt, Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld, LLPResidential, commercial and industrial builders face new and potentially significant liability for construction activities that took place in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s: personal injury lawsuits filed by construction workers from exposure to building products containing asbestos. After emptying the pockets of manufacturers and suppliers of raw asbestos and asbestos-containing products over the last 20 years, plaintiff lawyers are beginning to set their sights on a new class of defendants in asbestos litigation: residential, commercial and industrial builders who unknowingly allowed asbestos-containing products to be incorporated into their projects.
The men and women who have been involved in the building industry for 40 years or more may remember the subject of asbestos surfacing in the 1970s with the enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). At that point builders were just beginning to learn that asbestos was a component of some building materials, and the potential risk of cancer presented by asbestos was being debated in scientific and medical journals. Although the use of building materials containing asbestos was mostly phased out by the 1980s, the health risks associated with exposure to asbestos continue – and in fact increase – for the duration of an exposed person’s life.
Today it is generally accepted that exposure to asbestos increases the risk of developing asbestosis and certain kinds of cancer, including mesothelioma. Cancers associated with exposure to asbestos are typically diagnosed at least 15 years (and sometimes up to 50 years) after a person’s exposure to asbestos, meaning that exposures in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s might not manifest in disease until now. The class of persons who may be at risk for asbestos-related disease is long and varied: insulators, HVAC installers, pipe fitters, plumbers, drywall installers, painters, plasterers and roofers, to name a few. Long-term exposure history, coupled with the theory that “each and every” exposure during a lifetime is a substantial factor increasing the risk of developing cancer, presents potential liability to builders acting as general contractors and/or property owners, as well as the usual defendants in asbestos lawsuits, which include manufacturers, suppliers, and users of asbestos-containing materials.
In recent years, plaintiff lawyers have set their sights on builders as the financial wherewithal of traditional asbestos defendants has dried up. Plaintiff lawyers have created a new theory of liability which they use to rope builders in as defendants in asbestos lawsuits: that the builder knew – or should have known – that a deadly ingredient (asbestos) was contained in the building materials used in construction, and the builder failed to warn its subcontractors or anyone else on the project that exposure to asbestos could harm them.
Builders have unique legal defenses to claims brought by employees of subcontractors who have developed asbestos-related disease. For example, the California Supreme Court in Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, held that an injured employee of a subcontractor cannot maintain a claim against the hirer (builder) for the employee’s injury absent affirmative contribution on the part of the builder to the injury. Thus the first line of defense in an asbestos exposure case is to argue that the developer had no direct role in the plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos and therefore the Privette doctrine precludes the plaintiff from suing the builder. But resourceful plaintiff lawyers are coming up with arguments to get around this so-called Privette defense in asbestos lawsuits by claiming that builders’ activities such as cleanup of asbestos-containing materials, or assertion of control over the work of the subcontractor, directly contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries and therefore provide exceptions to Privette and allow the claim to proceed.
A practical question is raised in asbestos cases: How is a plaintiff able to prove, decades after working on a project, what building materials contained asbestos, or that a builder knew or should have known in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s that asbestos-containing materials were used on their project, or that asbestos presented a health risk? To answer the first part of the question (what building materials contained asbestos), plaintiff’s experts will say that during the relevant timeframe asbestos was a common ingredient in many building products, e.g., drywall joint compounds, stucco/plaster/gun cement, acoustic ceiling products, cement pipe, insulation, roofing mastic, caulk and plumber’s putty; this can be further proven by reference to product manufacturers’ disclosures made pursuant to the Asbestos Information Act. Also, through the decades of asbestos litigation against product manufacturers and suppliers, resourceful plaintiff lawyers have developed vast banks of data and documentation identifying the manufacturers of asbestos-containing building products, the end-users of those products, and the projects where those products were supplied. With this bank of knowledge, all that is necessary for them to make the claim against a builder is to have the plaintiff identify a construction project where he or she remembers working during the relevant timeframe. Once that identification is made, it is a simple matter for the lawyers to dig and find out who developed the building/project, who then becomes a defendant in an asbestos lawsuit.
The answer to the second part of the question (whether the developer knew or should have known that the products brought to their projects contained asbestos) requires a detailed investigation into the dates at which the products were supplied to the project, the manufacturer of the product, and what information was available in the market place about the material content of the particular product.
The answer to the third part of the question (knowledge that asbestos presented a health risk) is trickier. One of the first standards set by OSHA in 1972 related to permissible levels of exposure to asbestos. It is a common tactic for plaintiff lawyers to argue that the existence of OSHA standards created a presumption of knowledge in the building industry about the dangers of asbestos. But what about pre-OSHA knowledge? Here plaintiff lawyers will argue that well before OSHA, going back as far as 1936, exposure to asbestos was regulated in California under General Industry Safety Orders relating to Dusts, Fumes, Mists, Vapors and Gases. They argue that the General Industry Safety Orders put builders “on notice” of the dangers of asbestos by virtue of being regulated by the State of California, and, by extension, builders had “knowledge” of the health risks associated with asbestos.
There are defenses that skilled defense counsel can utilize to defeat asbestos claims, assuming the Privette defense is not available. The first is to thoroughly investigate and evaluate all of the plaintiff’s potential exposures to asbestos throughout his entire lifetime, and identify those sources that likely were the major contributors to his disease. Next, counsel has to properly investigate the project at which the plaintiff is alleged to have been exposed to asbestos, identify all of the possible sources of exposure, i.e., the products that were used or might have been used at the project, and finally how the plaintiff was allegedly exposed at the project. As most builders do not maintain records of what products were used in their projects dating back 15 years or more, let alone the identities of the trades that worked on the projects, knowledgeable defense counsel can be a valuable partner in unearthing the brands of products typically in use in the locale where the construction took place, and identifying the manufacturers of those products. Defense counsel must analyze the frequency, duration, proximity and intensity of the exposure, as well as the type of asbestos the plaintiff was allegedly exposed to (not all asbestos is created equal – some types are more toxic than others). This will involve careful evaluation of the levels of exposure created by the alleged activity of the builder, to determine, through experts and a thorough understanding of the scientific and medical studies on the subject, whether the levels of asbestos exposure created by the activity could be considered a “substantial factor” in contributing to the risk of the plaintiff’s development of his asbestos-related disease.
Asbestos lawsuits present a significant risk to the unsuspecting and unprepared builder. Money damages available to a plaintiff are substantial. Medical expenses for treatment of asbestos-related disease typically run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, lost income (including retirement benefits) can also be significant, and jury awards for pain, suffering and emotional distress can be staggering - often millions of dollars. In some cases punitive damages are even awarded.
The bottom line is that a builder runs a big risk if it treats an asbestos claim like any other claim. The level of analysis and investigation to properly defend against the claim requires prompt action by knowledgeable counsel, and frequently there is no insurance coverage.
David J. Byassee is an attorney with the firm
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP, and is a litigator who has devoted nearly a decade to representation of real estate developers and builders. He can be reached at: dbyassee@bremerwhyte.com.
Timothy A. Gravitt is an attorney with the firm
Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld, LLP who is devoted to defending real estate developers and builders in a variety of litigation. He can be reached at: tgravitt@ulichlaw.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
BOOK CLUB SERIES: Everything You Want to Know About Construction Arbitration But Were Afraid to Ask
October 30, 2023 —
Marissa L. Downs - The Dispute ResolverI recently had the pleasure of speaking with construction law notables John Foust and Andy Ness to discuss the release of their new book—
Construction Arbitration: The Advocate’s Practical Guide. The goal of their book: to teach attorneys what they need to know to maximize their effectiveness in the arbitration context. To that end, the book covers every aspect of the arbitration process including motion practice, conduct as an advocate, presentation of the case, and post-hearing submissions. Read on for Andy and John’s candid, behind-the-scenes take on how this book came to be and why you should get your copy now, while supplies last!
Q: Who is the target audience for this book?
Andy: In the editing process (and in writing my own chapter on Navigating an International Construction Arbitration) I pretended that I was speaking with a construction lawyer who was a few years out of law school, with some litigation experience, who was getting ready to take on a significant and complex construction arbitration for the first time. The book presupposes knowledge of the basics and tries to anticipate the questions that would be asked when you are trying to think through the whole arbitration process from start to finish. What should my pleadings look like? How much discovery am I likely to be able to obtain? How should my demeanor be different from what I would do in a courtroom? How much should I object during the hearing? In a nutshell, it’s “What do I need to know to maximize my chances of success in the arbitration setting?”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Marissa L. Downs, Laurie & Brennan, LLPMs. Downs may be contacted at
mdowns@lauriebrennan.com
Reminder: Just Being Incorporated Isn’t Enough
June 29, 2020 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsI have discussed why contractors need to incorporate previously here at Construction Law Musings. Among the many reasons to incorporate are possible tax benefits and the protection of personal assets (like your house and your dog) from judgement and collection actions. This latter reason is key in the construction world in which Murphy can look like an optimist and projects have so many moving parts that something is likely to go wrong.
The reason incorporation works as at least a partial shield is that the company and the owners are separate “people” or entities from a legal perspective and a contract with one “person” cannot be enforced against another. This same logic applies in the context of corporate versus individual actions, i. e. the actions of one person cannot be legally attributed to another person. By extension the assets of an individual cannot be collected to satisfy a purely corporate debt or judgment.
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
