Connecticut Reverses Course for Construction Managers on School Projects
August 05, 2024 —
Anand Gupta - Construction Law Zone BlogOn June 6, 2024, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed into law Public Act 24-151 (H.B. 5524) (Bill 5524). Bill 5524 authorized and adjusted bonds of the state and provisions related to state and municipal tax administration, as well as addressed school building projects. Notably, Bill 5524 removed the ban on construction managers self-performing work on public school construction projects, effective July 1, 2024. Allowing construction managers to self-perform certain portions of the work, such as general trades, subject to the standard bidding requirements, is a common industry practice that, theoretically, reduces total project costs by reducing the amount of subcontracted work. However, proponents of banning self-performance argue that construction managers have too much information to bid fairly and competitively.
Reprinted courtesy of
Anand Gupta, Robinson+Cole
Mr. Gupta may be contacted at agupta@rc.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Balestreri Potocki & Holmes Attorneys Named 2020 Super Lawyers and Rising Star
July 06, 2020 —
Balestreri Potocki & HolmesThe law firm of Balestreri Potocki & Holmes is pleased to announce that Shareholders
Thomas A. Balestreri, Jr. and
Joseph P. Potocki have been selected as 2020 Super Lawyers and Associate
Robin H. Smith has been named a 2020 Rising Star.
Each year no more than 5 percent of the lawyers in the state are selected to receive the honor of being included in the Super Lawyers list and no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers are selected to the Rising Stars list.
Balestreri has been selected to the Super Lawyers list in the areas of Construction Litigation. Balestreri has dedicated most of his 30 plus years in practice to the representation of developers, property owners, and general contractors in litigation, negotiations, and risk management. A seasoned trial lawyer, he has tried a number of high exposure cases with great success.
Selected as a Super Lawyer in the area of Construction Litigation, Potocki’s practice concentrates on litigation, transactional matters and construction contract drafting and negotiation. His extensive litigation experience involves high-value disputes relating to a wide variety of issues in the real estate, business and construction arenas.
Smith has been named a Rising Star by Super Lawyers in the area of Civil Litigation. In her varied litigation practice, Smith represents individuals and business entities in complex catastrophic personal injury matters. She also represents employers in labor and employment matters and a variety of businesses, including automobile dealers, in breach of contract, unfair competition, unfair business practices, defamation, and consumer claims.
Super Lawyers, a Thompson Reuters business, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area. The result is a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys.
Balestreri Potocki & Holmes is headquartered in San Diego, California. The firm provides comprehensive counsel to large and small companies across a wide range of established and emerging industries. Balestreri Potocki & Holmes is located in downtown San Diego at 401 B Street, Suite 1470. More information about the firm can be found at: www.bph-law.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Balestreri Potocki & Holmes
Florida Decides Against Adopting Daubert
January 28, 2019 —
Rahul Gogineni - The Subrogation StrategistIn Delisle v. Crane Co., 2018 Fla. LEXIS 1883, 43 Fla. L. Weekly S 459, the Supreme Court of Florida reaffirmed that the appropriate test for admissibility of an expert opinion about new or novel scientific evidence is the “Frye” test, not the “Daubert” test.
As result of developing mesothelioma, Richard Delisle sued sixteen defendants, including Crane Company (Crane) and R.J. Reynolds, claiming that each exposed him to asbestos, which is a leading cause of mesothelioma. At trial, Crane and R.J. Reynolds sought to preclude the expert opinions of Mr. Delisle’s causation experts. The trial denied the motions and the jury awarded Mr. Delisle $8 million.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rahul Gogineni, White and WilliamsMr. Gogineni may be contacted at
goginenir@whiteandwilliams.com
Building Stagnant in Las Cruces Region
November 20, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThere was an increase in the number of building permits issued in Las Cruces, New Mexico through the first ten months of 2013, but the 2,162 permits represent only a minimal increase over last year’s 2,158 permits. To make matters worse for building suppliers and workers, builders can “pull all the permits for a subdivision at one time but might not start some of those for six months,” said Lee Rawson, the owner of Rawson Builders Supply.
For a comparison, during the building boom of 2006, Las Cruces issued 3,529 building permits. The values are down too. Although fewer permits were issued in 2012, their valuation was $147 million, while the marginally larger number in 2013 is worth only $128 million.
As a result, the area is losing skilled labor. After 25 consecutive months of declining construction, workers are leaving the construction industry. Mr. Rawson noted that “you can’t just go find that skilled labor, it doesn’t exist.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
U.S. Judge Says Wal-Mart Must Face Mexican-Bribe Claims
October 01, 2014 —
Jef Feeley – BloombergWal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) was ordered by a federal judge in Arkansas to face a pension fund’s claims the retailer defrauded shareholders by concealing corruption tied to bribes allegedly paid by officials of its Mexican unit.
U.S. District Judge Susan Hickey in Fayetteville rejected Wal-Mart’s bid to throw out the Michigan-based fund’s lawsuit accusing it of making misleading statements to regulators about claims it paid bribes to facilitate Mexican real-estate deals.
The world’s largest retailer has said it’s spent $439 million since 2012 in connection with investigations into allegations that employees paid bribes in Mexico, China, India and Brazil. Both U.S. and Mexican prosecutors have said they are probing whether executives of Wal-Mart’s Mexican unit were paying off local officials to clear the way for construction of new stores and warehouses.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jef Feeley, BloombergMr. Feeley may be contacted at
jfeeley@bloomberg.net
The Privacy Shield Is Gone: How Do I Now Move Data from the EU to the US
February 08, 2021 —
Heather Whitehead - Newmeyer DillionFollowing the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (EU) in case C-311/18 Data Protection Commissioner v. Facebook Ireland Limited and Maximillian Schrems (known as “Schrems II”), companies in the United States can no longer rely on the Privacy Shield, the framework developed by the US Department of Commerce, and the European Commission and Swiss Administration to promote transatlantic commerce while protecting personal data.
Schrems II Invalidated the Privacy Shield and Creates Uncertainty
Schrems II concluded that the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework is no longer a valid mechanism to comply with EU data protection requirements when transferring personal data from the EU to the United States. Further, in a subsequent decision, the Swiss Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner concluded that the data protection of the Privacy Shield does not provide an adequate level of protection for data transfer from Switzerland to the US pursuant to their Federal Act on Data Protection.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Heather Whitehead, Newmeyer DillionMs. Whitehead may be contacted at
heather.whitehead@ndlf.com
Nine Haight Attorneys Selected for Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch 2021
September 14, 2020 —
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPNine Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys were selected for Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch 2021. Congratulations to
Courtney Arbucci,
Frances Brower,
James de los Reyes,
Kyle DiNicola,
Arezoo Jamshidi,
Kristian Moriarty,
Beth Obra-White,
Casey Otis and
Kaitlin Preston!
Since it was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers® has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Best Lawyers lists are compiled based on an exhaustive peer-review evaluation. Almost 94,000 industry leading lawyers are eligible to vote (from around the world), and Best Lawyers has received over 11 million evaluations on the legal abilities of other lawyers based on their specific practice areas around the world. Lawyers are not required or allowed to pay a fee to be listed; therefore inclusion in Best Lawyers is considered a singular honor. Corporate Counsel magazine has called Best Lawyers “the most respected referral list of attorneys in practice.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Life After McMillin: Do Negligence and Strict Liability Causes of Action for Construction Defects Still Exist?
January 24, 2018 —
Thomas Balestreri and Amanda Crawley - Balestreri, Potocki, & HolmesThe ruling is in but the battle will likely continue over the practical application of SB 800. On January 18, 2018 the California Supreme Court issued its decision in
McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (Van Tassel) (January 18, 2018, S229762) __ Cal.4th __, holding that the statutory prelitigation scheme in The Right to Repair Act (“the Act”) that provides for notice and an opportunity for the Builder to repair defects applies to all claims for construction defects in residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003, regardless whether the claim is founded on a violation of the Act’s performance standards or a common law claim for negligence or strict liability. (
McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (Van Tassel) (January 18, 2018, S229762) __ Cal.4th __.) With this holding, has the Court ruled that common law causes of action for construction defect still survive? If so, what will they look like and what standards will be applied?
The short answer is that it appears that common law causes of action still survive, at least for now, but it is not clear from this decision what they will look like and what standards will apply.
Portions of the decision seem to suggest that the Act is the sole and exclusive remedy for construction defect claims: “…even in some areas where the common law had supplied a remedy for construction defects resulting in property damage but not personal injury, the text and legislative history [of the statute] reflect a
clear and unequivocal intent to supplant common law negligence and strict product liability actions under the Act.” (
McMillin (January 18, 2018, S229762) __Cal.4th.__ [p. 6].) (Italics added for emphasis) However, at the end of the decision, the Court seems to be saying that there may still be a place for common law claims for negligence and strict liability alongside the Act but that these causes of action may be subject to the performance standards in the Act.
The
McMillin case went up to the Supreme Court on a procedural issue: whether a common law action alleging construction defects resulting in both economic loss and property damage is subject to the Act’s prelitigation notice and cure procedures. The Van Tassels had dismissed their claims under the Act opting to proceed solely on their common law claims including negligence and strict liability. McMillin sought a stay to force the Van Tassels to comply with the Act’s prelitigation procedures. The Supreme Court held that the Van Tassels must comply with the statutory procedures and affirmed the stay issued by the trial court. But the question remained: now that the Van Tassels were left only with common law claims, how would they proceed under the Act?
To understand how the Court dealt with this question, one must first understand how the Court dealt with the narrow procedural question presented by the case. The Court provides a very detailed, clear explanation of the reasons why it felt the Legislature intended for all construction defect claims involving residential construction must comply with the prelitigation requirements of the Act. In summing up its conclusions the Court makes three definitive holdings.
First, for claims involving economic loss only—the kind of claims involved in
Aas—the Court holds that the Legislature intended to supersede
Aas and provide a statutory basis for recovery. (
McMillin (January 18, 2018, S229762) __Cal.4th.__ [p. 10].) In other words, the Court clearly agrees that the Act was meant to allow recovery of damages based solely on economic damages. No surprise there. Second, the Court held for personal injuries, the Legislature made no changes to existing law that provides common law remedies for the injured party. (Id.) Nobody has ever contested that. Finally, the Court held that for construction defect claims involving property damage and not just economic loss “the Legislature replaced the common law
methods of recovery with the new statutory scheme.” (
Id.,) (Italics added for emphasis.)
In other words, the Court is not saying that negligence and strict liability are not permitted causes of action. The Court is merely stating that these causes of action must comply with the Act’s statutory scheme just as the same as a claim for economic loss. Here the Court is focusing on the procedure that must be followed. “The Act, in effect, provides that construction defect claims not involving personal injury will be treated the same procedurally going forward whether or not the underlying claims gave rise to any property damage.” (
Id.)
Having laid out its fundamental premise, the Court then deals with Plaintiff’s arguments regarding the intent of the Legislature and makes light work of them all. In the process, the Court disapproves
Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal. App. 4th 98, and
Burch v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 1411, to the extent they are inconsistent with the views expressed in the
McMillin opinion.
This is where the decision gets interesting. The Court reminds us that the Van Tassels had dismissed their statutory causes of action for violation of the performance standards under Section 896. One would think at that point that Plaintiffs had to be wondering if they had any claims left given that the Court had ruled that the Act was the sole means of recovery for construction defects. Not so fast. The Court points out that the complaint still rests on allegations of defective construction and that the suit remains an “ ‘action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in, the residential construction’ of the plaintiffs’ homes (§896)
and McMillin’s liability under the Van Tassels’ negligence and strict liability claims depends on the extent to which it [McMillin] violated the standards of sections 896 and 897.” (
McMillin (January 18, 2018, S229762) __Cal.4th.__ [p. 19].) (Emphasis added.) WHAT DID THE COURT JUST SAY? Did the Court just say that a plaintiff could bring a common law cause of action for negligence or strict liability based on a violation of the performance standards under Section 896? What exactly would that claim look like? What would be the elements of such a cause of action?
To answer these questions, the Court states in the very next paragraph, which also happens to be the last paragraph in the decision: “In holding that claims seeking recovery for construction defect damages are subject to the Act’s prelitigation procedures regardless of how they are pleaded,
we have no occasion to address the extent to which a party might rely upon common law principles in pursuing liability under the Act.” (
McMillin (January 18, 2018, S229762) __Cal.4th.__ [p. 19].) (Italics added for emphasis) Is the Court answering “No” to the questions posed above? Probably not. It is simply following the age old rule that an appellate court will
not rule on an issue that is not specifically presented by an appeal, leaving that question for another day.
All we know for sure from
McMillin is that every claim for construction defects falling within the scope of the Act must follow the prelitigation procedure. There are no hall passes for negligence and strict liability. The larger question posed by the last two paragraphs in the decision, is whether the law recognizes a cause of action for negligence and strict liability for construction defects based on the standards in Section 896. The answer will have to be worked out by judges and trial attorneys in courtrooms across the State! The parameters of this hybrid cause of action that the Court seems to have posited will need more careful consideration than can be offered on first reading of
McMillin v. Superior Court.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Balestreri, Potocki, & Holmes
