Changes to Pennsylvania Mechanic’s Lien Code
November 05, 2014 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsFor this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Musings, we welcome Jim Fullerton. Jim is the President of the law firm of
Fullerton & Knowles, P.C., which has attorneys licensed in Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia, is a Martindale Hubbell Peer Rated Lawyer AV® Preeminent.™ The firm represents owners, lenders, design professionals, suppliers, subcontractors, general contractors and other members of the real estate and construction industries, filing mechanic’s liens, surety bond and other construction claims across all of the states in the Mid Atlantic region. He also represents creditors in bankruptcy issues nationwide, particularly defense of bankruptcy preference claims; advises owners and lenders in real estate lending and acquisition transactions; on all real estate and construction law issues; contract formation and disputes.
The firm’s Construction Law Survival Manual is well known and widely used by participants in the construction process. The 550 page manual provides valuable information about construction contract litigation, mechanic’s liens, payment bond claims, bankruptcy and credit management and contains over 30 commonly used contract forms. All of this information and recent construction law issues are constantly updated on the firm’s website.
There are two changes to the Pennsylvania Mechanic’s Lien Code that became effective September 2014. First, residential properties built by an owner for their own residence will now have a defense of payment to subcontractor mechanic’s liens. This protects homeowners from mechanic’s liens if they have paid their general contractors in full. Second, construction loan open end mortgages will have priority over mechanic’s liens, as long as at least sixty per cent (60%) of the loan proceeds are used for construction costs. This change was pushed by Pennsylvania lenders in response to a recent court case.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PCMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
In Texas, a General Contractor May be Liable in Tort to a Third-Party Lessee for Property Damage Caused by a Subcontractor’s Work
February 16, 2016 —
Michael L. DeBona – White and Williams LLPIn Zbranek Custom Homes, Ltd. v. Joe Allbaugh, et al., No. 03-14-00131-CV, 2015 WL 9436630 (Tex.App.-Austin Dec. 23, 2015), the Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin, considered the circumstances under which a general contractor can be held liable for injuries to a non-contracting party’s property. The court held that, because the general contractor, Zbranek Custom Homes, Ltd. (Zbranek), exercised control over the construction of the fireplace at issue, Zbranek owed a duty of care to the first lessees of the home that Zbranek built.
In Zbranek, Bella Cima Developments, L.P. (Bella Cima) hired Zbranek to act as the general contractor for the construction of a home. As the general contractor, Zbranek engaged various subcontractors to perform different aspects of the construction, including the framing, stucco and masonry work for an outdoor fireplace.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael L. DeBona, White and Williams LLPMr. DeBona may be contacted at
debonam@whiteandwilliams.com
New York Appellate Division: Second Department Contradicts First Department, Denying Insurer's Recoupment of Defense Costs for Uncovered Claims
March 01, 2021 —
Jasjeet K. Sahani - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.New York law has historically allowed insurers to recoup defense costs paid on behalf of an insured if there is ultimately no coverage for the underlying action, provided that the insurer reserved its rights to seek reimbursement. On December 30, 2020, the New York Appellate Division, Second Department declined to follow this longstanding principle in American Western Home Insurance Co. v. Gjonaj Realty & Mgt. Co.,1 by holding that the insurer was not entitled to recoup defense costs, even where it was determined that the claim was not covered under the insurance policy.
In American W. Home Ins. Co., the insureds were named as defendants in an underlying personal injury action. More than four years after the accident, and a $900,000 default judgment against the insureds, they tendered the lawsuit to their commercial general liability insurer, American Western Home Insurance Company (“American”). American denied coverage based on untimely notice, but after the default judgment was subsequently vacated, it agreed to defend the underlying action subject to a reservation of rights. The reservation of rights specifically reserved American’s right to deny coverage if the vacatur of the default judgment against the insureds was reversed. Further, American reserved its right to recover the costs of defending the underlying litigation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jasjeet K. Sahani, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Sahani may be contacted at
JSahani@sdvlaw.com
Amendments to California Insurance Code to Require Enhanced Claims Handling Requirements for Claims Arising Out Of Catastrophic Events
September 04, 2019 —
Jon A. Turigliatto, Esq. & Ravi R. Mehta, Esq. – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger BulletinSenator Bill Dodd, who represents Napa County and surrounding areas in the California Senate, has recently introduced Senate Bill 240, known colloquially as The Insurance Adjuster Act of 2019. S.B. 240 would amend the California Insurance Code to streamline and organize claim processing, particularly during a state of emergency / catastrophic events. The proposal is in response to a series of devastating wildfires which ravaged the Sonoma County and Napa Valley wine country during the 2017 fire season (Atlas, Tubbs, and Nun fires). Many of Senator Dodd’s constituents reported difficulty in navigating the claim process due to multiple claim professionals handling a single claim, many of whom were outside of California, and many of whose capabilities were challenged.
S.B. 240 would direct the Department of Insurance to issue annual notices setting forth legal developments as they relate to property insurance policies, including best practices for evaluating damage caused by an emergency, and requires out-of-state claims professionals to certify, under penalty of perjury, that they have read these notices along with claim adjusting literature also prepared by the Department of Insurance.
S.B. 240 would also require insurers to designate a primary point of contact for their customers during a state of emergency until the claim is closed or litigation is initiated. While the proposed legislation would not prohibit multiple claims professionals handling a single claim, it would provide for training standards issued by the Department of Insurance on how best to handle claims in a state of emergency.
Further, S.B. 240 would require claims professionals who are not licensed in California (1) to be supervised by a licensed California claims professional, and (2) to read and understand the annual emergency claim adjusting literature issued by the Department of Insurance within 15 calendar days of beginning adjusting of claims in California.
The bill passed the Senate by unanimous vote and is pending in the Assembly. The bill is also supported by Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara. Accordingly, the bill is expected to pass the Legislature. Once enacted, S.B. 240 would significantly elevate claim adjusting requirements related to emergencies, such as natural disasters, by placing greater oversight in the Department of Insurance, and greater responsibility on claims professional within and outside of California. How pragmatic these requirements are and what practical impact they will have on the industry are developments which we will follow and provide further commentary as this bill makes its way through the California legislature and into the California Insurance Code.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jon A.Turigliatto, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Ravi R. Mehta, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. A.Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Mehta may be contacted at rmehta@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Know When Your Claim “Accrues” or Risk Losing It
August 20, 2019 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsI have discussed statutes of limitation on construction claims in various contexts from issues with a disconnect on state projects to questions of continuous breach here at Construction Law Musings. For those that are first time readers, the statute of limitations is the time during which a plaintiff can bring its claim, whether under the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA), for breach of contract, or for any other legal wrong that was done to him, her or it by another. The range of limitations runs the gamut of times, for instance it is 5 years for breach of a written contract and 6 months for enforcement of a mechanic’s lien. This time period is calculated from the “accrual” of the right of action. “Accrual” is, in general terms, when the plaintiff was originally harmed or should have known it was harmed (depending on the particular cause of action).
A recent case out of the Circuit Court of Norfolk, Virginia examined when a cause of action for a construction related claim under the VCPA accrued and thus whether the plaintiff’s claim was timely. In Hyde Park Free Will Baptist Church v. Skye-Brynn Enterprises Inc., the Court looked at the following basic facts (pay attention to the dates):
The Plaintiff, Hyde Park Baptist Church, hired the Defendant, Skye-Brynn Enterprises, Inc., to perform certain roof repairs that were “completed” in 2015. Shortly after the work was done, in 2015, the Plaintiff informed Defendant that the roof still leaked and that some leaks were worse than before. The Defendant unsuccessfully attempted repair at the time. 14 months later in 2017, the church had other contractors examine the roof and opine as to its faulty installation. Also in 2017, the church submitted roof samples to GAF, the roof membrane manufacturer and in February 2018 GAF responded stating that the leaks were not due to manufacturing defects. The church filed its complaint on October 1, 2018 breach of contract, breach of warranty of workmanship and fraud in violation of the VCPA. Defendant responded with a plea in bar, arguing that the statute of limitations barred the claim.
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
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
Noteworthy Construction Defect Cases for 1st Qtr 2014
April 30, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFJohn A. Husmann and Jocelyn F. Cornbleet of BatesCareyLLP analyzed several noteworthy construction defect cases that have already occurred in 2014, as published in Law360. The cases involved “the ‘occurrence’ requirement, contractual liability exclusion and ‘other insurance’ clauses.” Husmann and Cornbleet summarized Owners Insurance Co. v Jim Carr Homebuilder LLC (Alabama), Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Snider (also Alabama), Woodward LLC v. Acceptance Indemnification Insurance Co. (Mississippi), and others.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Los Angeles Construction Sites May Be on Fault Lines
December 30, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFCalifornia law prohibits building near or on top of earthquake fault lines, but Los Angeles County building officials may have used outdated information that misreported the location of certain faults. The Los Angeles Times reports that after their earlier articles on fault lines, the officials have started using newer maps.
According to the older maps, an apartment building under construction on Brockton Avenue in Los Angeles is 1.9 miles away from the Santa Monica fault. But a more recent map, created by the state in 2010, shows that the fault line could potentially be right under the building site.
The builders of another apartment building potentially located on the Santa Monica fault said that the city did not ask for a fault investigation. The Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety said that there was no official zone designation for the Santa Monica fault, and so did not require seismic studies.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
