Warranty of Workmanship and Habitability Cannot Be Disclaimed or Waived Under Any Circumstance
May 01, 2023 —
Jason Feld & Stephanie Wilson - Kahana & Feld LLPArizona residential construction and single-family home production is growing at a rapid pace. And just as fast as the homes are sold, homeowners are constantly seeking warranty repairs from their homebuilders. Despite having strong purchase documents with express warranty language, the Arizona Supreme Court in
Zambrano v. M & RC, II LLC, 254 Ariz. 53 (2022) adopted a bright line rule that regardless of the contract, the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability (“implied warranty”) cannot be disclaimed or waived under any circumstance. The Arizona Supreme Court opinion provides clear guidance of the law in this area on the scope of the implied warranty in contracts between homebuyers and builder/vendors, specifically on the issue of whether an express warranty can negate and effectively waive the common law implied warranty – which is a definitive violation of public policy.
The Zambrano decision involved a licensed real estate broker who bought a new single family home for herself in a newly constructed master planned community in Surprise, AZ. Zambrano entered into a valid sales contract with Scott Homes (homebuilder) which contained a stand-alone 45-page pre-printed form express warranty. The express warranty was to be the “only warranty applicable to the home.” The contract further clarified that the buyer was expressly disclaiming (and, thus, waiving) the implied warranty. The sales documents and express warranty were signed and authorized by Zambrano. A short time later, the home developed alleged “design and construction defects” that were “either time barred or outside the coverage” of the express warranty. Zambrano filed suit for the alleged defects based on the implied warranty. Scott Homes filed summary judgment based on the Zambrano’s waiver and disclaimer of the implied warranty in the purchase agreement. The trial court granted summary judgment and the matter was appealed up to the Arizona Supreme Court.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Feld, Kahana & Feld LLP and
Stephanie Wilson, Kahana & Feld LLP
Mr. Feld may be contacted at jfeld@kahanafeld.com
Ms. Wilson may be contacted at swilson@kahanafeld.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Disrupt a Broken Industry—The Industrial Construction Sandbox
November 23, 2020 —
Brian Sayre - Construction ExecutiveThe existing built environment structure—arguably—is antiquated and must be disrupted to meet the rapidly changing demands of the industry. The built environment struggles with labor shortages, addressing demand, sustainability needs, cost controls, affordability and efficiency gains. Even with the advancement of emerging technology trends, the construction industry still lags behind more technologically advanced verticals.
What’s missing? Something is needed beyond incremental change that will truly disrupt the industry, increase the value of other innovations and tackle industry challenges.
The answer is industrialized construction technology with offsite manufacturing as the cornerstone. Technology innovation becomes exponentially more valuable when placed in this context. Shadow Ventures, a venture capital firm focused on the built environment, set out to test these theories with verifiable research published this year in a report titled, “Disrupt a Broken Industry—The Industrial Construction Sandbox.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Brian Sayre, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insureds' Not Entitled to Recovery for Partial Collapse
February 04, 2025 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision that the insureds could not recover for a partial collapse of a wall. Builders Mut. Ins. Co. v. GCC Construction, LLC, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 31518 (6th Cir. Dec. 11, 2024).
Tahini Main Street bought a century-old building in Chattanooga, Tennessee. The building was constructed using what masons call three-wythe construction. This meant that the building's walls consisted of three brick layers - each layer was a "wythe" - that sit next to each other. When Tahini renovated the building, it hired GCC Construction, LLC (GCC). GCC planned to add windows which meant cutting a new opening into the building's western wall, boring straight through all three brick layers. When they finished slicing through the wall, some bricks fell from the opening's top. The middle rows fell into the new gap, leaving the two outside row with nothing in between. Accordingly, the wall lost its middle.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
The Washington Supreme Court Rules that a Holder of a Certificate of Insurance Is Entitled to Coverage
March 09, 2020 —
Sally Kim & Kyle Silk-Eglit - Gordon & Rees Insurance Coverage Law BlogThe Washington courts have historically found that the purpose of a certificate of insurance is to advise others as to the existence of insurance, but that a certificate is not the equivalent of an insurance policy. However, the Washington State Supreme Court recently held that, under certain circumstances, an insurer may be bound by the representations that its insurance agent makes in a certificate of insurance as to the additional insured (“AI”) status of a third party. Specifically, in T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of America, the Supreme Court found that where an insurance agent had erroneously indicated in a certificate of insurance that an entity was an AI under a liability policy, that entity would be considered as an AI based upon the agent’s apparent authority, despite boilerplate disclaimer language contained in the certificate. T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of America, Slip. Op. No. 96500-5, 2019 WL 5076647 (Wash. Oct. 10, 2019).
In this case, Selective Insurance Company of America (“Selective”) issued a liability policy to a contractor who had been retained by T-Mobile Northeast (“T-Mobile NE”) to construct a cell tower. The policy conferred AI status to a third party if the insured-contractor had agreed in a written contract to add the third party as an AI to the policy. Under the terms of the subject construction contract, the contractor was required to name T-Mobile NE as an AI under the policy. T-Mobile NE was therefore properly considered as an AI because the contractor was required to provide AI coverage to T-Mobile NE under the terms of their contract.
However, over the course of approximately seven years, Selective’s own insurance agent issued a series of certificates of insurance that erroneously identified a different company, “T-Mobile USA”, as an AI under the policy. This was in error because there was no contractual requirement that T-Mobile USA be added as an AI. Nonetheless, the certificates stated that T-Mobile USA was an AI, and they were signed by the agent as Selective’s “authorized representative.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Sally S. Kim, Gordon & Rees and
Kyle J. Silk-Eglit, Gordon & Rees
Ms. Kim may be contacted at sallykim@grsm.com
Mr. Silk-Eglit may be contacted at ksilkeglit@grsm.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Professor Stempel's Excpert Testimony for Insurer Excluded
October 07, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court denied Daubert motions for several experts with the exception of Professor Stempel's expert testimony opining that the insurer did not act in bad faith Adell Plastics, Inc. v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102942 (D. Md. June 19, 2019).
A fire demolished several buildings at Adell's facility. Adell was insured under a commercial property policy issued by Mt. Hawley. Mt. Hawley sued Adell, seeking a declaration that it owed no coverage, and requesting recoupment of a substantial advance payment. Adell filed a counterclaim, alleging that Mt. Hawley had breached the policy and had acted with a lack of good faith. Before the court were several pretrial motions, including motions to exclude testimony of eight expert witnesses.
The court denied Adell's motion to exclude several experts to be called by Mt. Hawley. The accountant's testimony was relevant. Adell had to prove damages on its breach of contract claim, and the accountant's testimony would aid the jury in evaluating Adell's documentation and calculating documented damages. Mt. Hawley's fire safety expert investigated the Adell fire. Mt. Hawley had shown that his expert opinion would be sufficiently reliable for admissibility. Further, three fire protection engineers offered by Mt. Hawley and two fire protection engineers to be called by Adell were allowed to testify. Each expert based his investigation and conclusions on the standards of fire investigation as set out in the NEPA Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations. This was a fire insurance case, and fire protection engineers would be allowed to testify and illuminate the circumstances of the fire.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
The “Unavailability Exception” is Unavailable to Policyholders, According to New York Court of Appeals
September 10, 2018 —
William S. Bennett & Warsame Y. Hassan - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.The New York Court of Appeals recently upheld a prior appellate division decision finding that policyholders facing environmental claims, spanning multiple years, cannot force their insurers partially on the risk to provide coverage for years where the insurers did not issue policies, even though pollution insurance was unavailable in the marketplace.
In Keyspan Gas E. Corp. v. Munich Reins. Am., Keyspan Gas East Corporation (“Keyspan”) argued other insurers should cover the period when pollution property insurance was unavailable in the marketplace, according to their pro-rata share of coverage. 31 N.Y.3d 51 (2018). In a unanimous decision, the Court emphasized the Appellate Division’s prior ruling that stated, “spreading risk should not by itself serve as a legal basis for providing free insurance to an insured.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Bennett may be contacted at
wsb@sdvlaw.com
Construction Contractor “Mean Tweets” Edition
June 04, 2024 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogBack in the day, if someone had a problem with you the rules of school yard jungle dictated that they had better tell it to your face or you had the right to call them out on it. That, of course, was back then. These days, with social media seemingly everywhere (e.g., Yelp, Twitter, Facebook, etc.), if someone has a problem with you they tell you . . . as well as the rest of the world . . . to your digital face. Jimmy Kimmel has even made it a “thing” with his celebrity “
Mean Tweets” segments.
In
Paglia & Associates Construction, Inc. v. Hamilton, 98 Cal.App.5th 318 (2023), homeowner Vanessa Hamilton was sued by her contractor Paglia & Associates Construction, Inc. doing business as Protech Construction after she posted critical comments to her blog and on Yelp about work performed by Paglia at her home.
The Paglia Case
In or about 2016, after a tree fell on her house, Hamilton’s insurer, Safeco, recommended Paglia to perform the repairs. Paglia and Hamilton entered into a repair contract in 2016 but Paglia did not finish the work until sometime in 2017 claiming that the repair was extensive because Hamilton’s circa 1923 home was in poor condition and current building codes required extensive reconstruction.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Texas Supreme Court Defines ‘Plaintiff’ in 3rd-Party Claims Against Design Professionals
September 10, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to attorney Matthew J. Mussalli, writing in Texas Lawyer, “In Jaster v. Comet II Construction on July 3, the Texas Supreme Court ruled how to construe the term ‘plaintiff’ in the context of claims against design professionals and under what circumstances a Certificate of Merit (COM) is required.”
Mussalli explained that “the court narrowly construed the relevant statute contained in Chapter 150 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code and held that the plaintiff is just that—the plaintiff; not a defendant/third-party plaintiff nor a cross-claimant. Accordingly, builders, contractors and others who find themselves in the position of defending breach of contract, negligence or other claims and who seek to implead design professionals, need not file a COM with their third-party petitions or cross-claims against architects, engineers or other design professionals.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
