Water Bond Would Authorize $7.5 Billion for California Water Supply Infrastructure Projects
October 29, 2014 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogWhen California voters cast their votes on November 4, 2014 they will decide the fate of a $7.5 billion water bond proposal – Proposition 1 – which would authorize $7.12 billion in new general obligation bonds and reallocate $425 million in previously authorized but unissued bonds for water supply infrastructure projects.
Proposition 1 – The Water Quality, Supply and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014
If you live in California you know that the state is in the midst of its third straight year of drought.
And it’s no ordinary drought.
According to some, it’s the severest drought on record, as nearly the entire state experiences “severe” to “exceptional” drought conditions across its counties.
The California Water Resources Board has implemented emergency water conservation regulations including hefty fines for those who don’t comply and even Governor Brown has allowed the grounds of the State Capitol to go brown to underscore the severity of the situation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & GirardMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@kmtg.com
Care, Custody or Control Exclusion Requires Complete and Exclusive Control by Insured Claiming Coverage
July 30, 2019 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn McMillin Homes Construction v. Natl. Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (No. D074219, filed 6/5/19) a California appeals court held that a “care, custody or control” exclusion did not bar coverage for defense of a general contractor as an additional insured under a subcontractor’s policy, because the exclusion requires exclusive control, but the facts and allegations posed a possibility of shared control with the subcontractor.
McMillin was the general contractor on a housing project and was added as an additional insured to the roofing subcontractor’s policy pursuant to the construction subcontract. The homeowners sued, including allegations of water intrusion from roof defects. McMillin tendered to the roofing subcontractor’s insurer, which denied a defense based on the CGL exclusion for damage to property within McMillin’s care, custody or control.
In the ensuing bad faith lawsuit, McMillin argued that the exclusion required complete or exclusive care, custody or control by the insured claiming coverage, which was not the case for McMillin. The insurer argued that the exclusion said nothing about complete or exclusive care, custody or control. Further, the intent to exclude coverage for damage to any and all property in McMillin’s care, custody or control, to whatever degree, was demonstrated by the fact that the additional insured endorsement in question was not an ISO CG2010 form, but a CG2009 form, which expressly adds a care, custody or control exclusion to the additional insured coverage not found in the CG2010 form. The argument was that the CG2009 form evidences an intent to conclusively eliminate coverage for property in the additional insured’s care, custody or control. In addition, the insurer argued that this result was also reinforced by its inclusion of an ISO CG2139 endorsement in the roofer’s policy, which eliminated that part of the “insured contract” language of the CGL form, defining an “insured contract” as “[t]hat part of any other contract or agreement pertaining to your business . . . under which you assume the tort liability of another party to pay for ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ to a third person or organization.” The insurer’s argument was that by having eliminated coverage for contractual indemnity or hold harmless agreements, it had “closed the loop” of eliminating additional insured coverage for construction defect claims.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The New “White Collar” Exemption Regulations
August 19, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorThis summer the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division issued proposed changes to the white-collar overtime regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The white collar exemptions include the executive, administrative, professional, outside sales and computer employee exemptions. The focus of the proposed regulations is to increase the salary level required to qualify for the exemption from $23,660 per year to $50,440 per year. The DOL predicts this will cause employers to change the exempt status of nearly 5 million workers who are currently exempt from overtime requirements to non-exempt status – requiring the payment of overtime.
Current Regulations
Under today’s regulations, the white collar exemption applies to employees who are paid at least $455 per week ($23,660 per year) and who customarily and regularly perform any one or more of the exempt duties or responsibilities of an executive, administrative or professional employee.
Proposed Changes
The most significant change is the sizeable increase in the minimum salary requirements for the exemptions. The proposed regulations more than double the current minimum salary of $455 per week to $921. This corresponds to the 40th percentile of weekly earnings projected for the first quarter of 2016, based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The DOL also proposes annual adjustments to the minimum salary requirements.
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
The Dangers of an Unlicensed Contractor from Every Angle
January 11, 2021 —
William L. Porter - Porter Law GroupThe State of California requires that contractors in the building trades be licensed. Individuals and business entities obtain their contractors licenses by demonstrating to the California Contractors State License Board that they have the requisite knowledge, skill, and experience to be licensed. The CSLB issues licenses to those meeting requirements. As a construction attorney of longstanding tenure, I have witnessed the impact of unlicensed building contractors from every point of view. If you are considering hiring an unlicensed contractor, acting as an unlicensed contractor or even working for an unlicensed contractor as an employee, please consider the following perils:
To the Owner Considering Hiring an Unlicensed Contractor:
On the positive side for owners considering hiring an unlicensed contractor, the general rule in California is that an owner can escape the obligation to pay an unlicensed contractor for work performed and materials supplied because unlicensed contractors are prohibited from bringing legal actions against owners for payment. The law even goes so far as to allow the Owner to bring a legal action against the unlicensed Contractor for reimbursement of anything the owner paid to the unlicensed contractor. This is done through a “disgorgement” action (see, Business and Professions Code 7031. See also, the following article: Disgorgement Article). Despite this, there are a great many negative potential consequences to be considered by any owner who might consider hiring an unlicensed contractor. Among them are the following:
- If you are considering not paying your unlicensed contractor because Business and Professions Code 7031 allows it, please consider that unlicensed contractors, who have clearly demonstrated a disinclination to follow legal obligations in the first place, may resort to “less than socially acceptable” means of exacting retribution against those who do not pay them or who demand the return of money paid through a disgorgement action I am sorry to say this. Let us leave it at that.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Porter, Porter Law GroupMr. Porter may be contacted at
bporter@porterlaw.com
Home Sales Topping $100 Million Smash U.S. Price Records
May 07, 2014 —
Prashant Gopal – BloombergThe U.S. trophy-home market is shattering price records this year as an increasing number of residential properties change hands for more than $100 million.
Barry Rosenstein, founder of hedge fund Jana Partners LLC, has purchased an 18-acre (7.3-hectare) beachfront property in East Hampton, New York, for $147 million, according to the New York Post. That would break the U.S. single-family price record of $120 million set last month with the sale of a Greenwich, Connecticut, waterfront estate on 51 acres. In Los Angeles, a 50,000-square-foot (4,600-square meter) home sold in February for $102 million in cash after a bidding war.
The world’s richest people are moving cash to real estate as they seek havens for their wealth. In the U.S., an improving economy and stocks at a record are bolstering confidence among the affluent. Home purchases of $2 million or more jumped 33 percent in January and February from a year earlier to the highest level for the two-month period in data going back to 1988, according to an analysis by DataQuick.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Prashant Gopal, BloombergMr. Gopal may be contacted at
pgopal2@bloomberg.net
Boston Team Obtains Complete Defense Verdict for Engineering Firm in Professional Liability Matter
June 08, 2020 —
Kenneth Walton & Oliver Vega - Lewis BrisboisBoston, Mass. (June 5, 2020) - Boston Partner Kenneth B. Walton and Associate Oliver J. Vega recently obtained a complete defense verdict after a 10-day bench trial in the U.S District Court for the District of South Carolina. The plaintiff in this matter, who is the owner of a newly acquired food processing facility, alleged breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims against our client, a Massachusetts engineering firm, arising out of allegedly defective design and construction management services provided during the renovation of and addition to said facility.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kenneth Walton, Lewis Brisbois and
Oliver Vega, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Walton may be contacted at Ken.Walton@lewisbrisbois.com
Mr. Vega may be contacted at Oliver.Vega@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A Landlord’s Guide to California’s New Statewide Rent Control Laws
May 18, 2020 —
Colton Addy - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogApplicability of California’s Rent Control Laws: California Civil Code Sections 1946.2 and 1947.12 took effect on January 1, 2020, and implement statewide rent control in California for most residential properties. The rent control laws, however, do not apply to a rental property that was issued a certificate of occupancy in the last 15 years. (Civ. Code §§ 1947.12(d)(4), 1946.2(e)(7)). The statutes also do not apply to most single-family residences, provided that (a) the owner is not a real estate investment trust, a corporation, or a limited liability company where one of the members is a corporation, and (b) the required statutory language is included in the lease agreement for tenancies commencing or renewing on or after July 1, 2020. (Civ. Code §§ 1947.12(d)(5), 1946.2(e)(8)).
Annual Increases Permitted Under California’s Rent Control Laws: Commencing on January 1, 2020, unless otherwise permitted by California law, a Landlord cannot increase the gross rental rate for a rental unit over a continuous 12-month period more than the change in the regional cost of living index where the property is located plus 5%, and gross rental rate increases are subject to a maximum cap of 10% over a continuous 12-month period regardless of the change in the cost of living index. (Civ. Code § 1947.12(a)(1)). The gross rental rate is determined using the lowest rental amount charged in any month in the immediately preceding 12 months. (Id.) Any incentives, discounts, concessions, or credits are not taken into account. (Id.) Even if a rent increase does not exceed the amount permitted under the statute, a Landlord is prohibited from increasing rent more than twice in any continuous 12-month period. (Civ. Code § 1947.12(a)(2)).
Retroactive Applicability of Restrictions on Rent Increases: Although the statute took effect on January 1, 2020, the statute retroactively applies to all rent increases that occurred on or after March 15, 2019. (Civ. Code § 1947.12(h)(1)). If a landlord increased the rent amount more than the amount permitted under California Civil Code Section 1947.12(a)(1) after March 15, 2019, and prior to January 1, 2020, the rent amount on January 1, 2020, is reduced to the amount of the rent on March 15, 2019, plus the maximum permissible increase under California Civil Code Section 1947.12(a)(1). (Civ. Code § 1947.12(h)(2)). The Landlord does not have to refund the tenant any rent payments that were in excess of the permissible rent increase that the tenant made prior to January 1, 2020. (Id.)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Colton Addy, Snell & WilmerMr. Addy may be contacted at
caddy@swlaw.com
Reports of the Death of SB800 are Greatly Exaggerated – The Court of Appeal Revives Mandatory SB800 Procedures
September 03, 2015 —
Steven M. Cvitanovic & David A. Harris – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn a 20 page opinion, the Court of Appeal for the Fifth District repudiated the holding of Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98 (“Liberty Mutual”), and held that plaintiffs in construction defect actions must comply with the statutory pre-litigation inspection and repair procedures mandated by SB800 (the “Act”) regardless of whether they plead a cause of action for violation of the Act. The Case, McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (Carl Van Tassell), (Ct. of Appeal F069370) breathes new life into the Act’s right to repair requirements, and reinforces the Act’s stated purpose of seeking to limit the number of court cases by allowing a builder to resolve construction defect claims by agreeing to repair the homeowners’ residence.
In McMillin, 37 homeowners filed a lawsuit against McMillin, the builder of their homes, alleging eight causes of action, including strict products liability, negligence, and breach of express and implied warranty. Plaintiffs’ third cause of action alleged violations of the Act. The plaintiffs did not follow the Act’s notification procedures and filed their lawsuit without providing McMillin with an opportunity to repair the alleged defects. Plaintiffs and McMillin attempted to negotiate a stay of the lawsuit to complete the Act’s prelitigation procedures. When talks broke down, plaintiffs dismissed the third cause of action and contended they were no longer required to follow the Act’s prelitigation procedures. McMillin filed a motion to stay with the trial court. The trial court denied McMillin’s motion concluding that under Liberty Mutual, “[plaintiffs] were entitled to plead common law causes of action in lieu of a cause of action for violation of the building standards set out in [the Act], and they were not required to submit to the prelitigation process of the Act when their complaint did not allege any cause of action for violation of the Act.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
David A. Harris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com
Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
