SB800 CONFIRMED AS EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CLAIMS
January 24, 2018 —
Jeffrey Brower and Nathan Owens - Newmeyer & Dillion, LLPIn
McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App., Aug. 26, 2015) 2015 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9931 (“
McMillin”), the Fifth Appellate District Court of Appeal in California published a resounding win for builders, general contractors, and others entities seeking the protections of the Right to Repair Act, Civil Code sections 895, et seq. (“SB800”). The
McMillin Court firmly rejected the reasoning and outcome of both
Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98 (“
Liberty Mutual”) and
Burch v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1411 (“
Burch”), and held that:
the Legislature intended that all claims arising out of defects in residential construction, involving new residences sold on or after January 1, 2003 (§ 938), be subject to the standards and the requirements of the Act; the homeowner bringing such a claim must give notice to the builder and engage in the prelitigation procedures in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 4 of the Act prior to filing suit in court.
(
McMillin, Opinion, p. 15.) The
McMillin Court further held that even if the claimant’s counsel intentionally pleads around SB800 by asserting only tort causes of action, SB800 still applies to all defect claims and a stay of the action to require SB800 compliance is appropriate.
Newmeyer & Dillion has strongly supported builders’ efforts to enforce the Right to Repair Act since its inception. The firm filed an amicus brief in
McMillin on behalf of Leading Builders of America (“LBA”), an association of the leading residential homebuilders in the United States. For years, LBA members developed their warranty and dispute resolution procedures according to the Right to Repair Act and performed prelitigation repairs to the satisfaction of thousands of homeowners.
Liberty Mutual and
Burch undermined the Right to Repair Act by allowing plaintiffs’ attorneys to circumvent the prelitigation procedures to the detriment of homeowners and builders, resulting in confusion and increased litigation. The
McMillin decision breathes new life into the Right to Repair Act and sets the stage for future review by the California Supreme Court.
The
McMillin Court focused on the express language of the Right to Repair Act to arrive at its conclusion that Civil Code sections 896, 897, 943 and 944 demonstrate a clear Legislative intent to occupy the field of construction defect litigation – a belief held by nearly all in the construction industry and the California Superior Courts before
Liberty Mutual. The
McMillin Court found further support for SB800’s comprehensive nature in the Legislative history, which consistently described the Act as “groundbreaking reform” and a “major change” in construction defect litigation, designed to “significantly reduce the cost of construction defect litigation and make housing more affordable.” (
McMillin, Opinion, pp. 18-19.) The
McMillin Court found it inescapable that the Right to Repair Act exclusively governs construction defect litigation involving homes sold on or after January 1, 2003.
The
McMillin, decision will have a significant impact on construction litigation moving forward in two respects. First,
McMillin, is the only appellate decision to date to address whether a builder has the right to enforce SB800 when the claimant’s counsel deliberately attempts to plead around SB800 by asserting only tort claims. Second, the decision provides trial courts with the authority and precedent to ensure compliance with the Right to Repair Act. Trial courts may also find it necessary to revisit prior rulings against builders that relied on
Liberty Mutual.
Newmeyer & Dillion will continue to advocate in support of builders and general contractors by working vigorously to gain further support for the
McMillin, decision and setting the stage for review by the California Supreme Court.
Jeffrey R. Brower is an associate at the Newport Beach office of Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP. His practice focuses on business and construction litigation. Jeffrey can be reached at jeffrey.brower@ndlf.com.
Nathan Owens is the managing partner of the Las Vegas office for Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP. He represents businesses and individuals operating in a wide array of economic sectors including real estate, construction, insurance and health care in all stages of litigation in state and federal court. Nathan can be reached at nathan.owens@ndlf.com.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit
www.ndlf.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wait! Don’t Sign Yet: Reviewing Contract Protections During the COVID Pandemic
April 13, 2020 —
Danielle S. Ward - Balestreri Potocki & HolmesAs the circumstances of the COVID pandemic change day by day, and we all rush to keep business moving where and when we can, companies should consider hitting the “pause button” before renewing or executing any new contracts. Developing contracts often takes considerable time and expense, and companies are not in the habit of reworking them often. A change in law may prompt a company to revisit their contract terms, but otherwise business is often carried out with a standard form contract for a period of years. With the COVID pandemic affecting nearly every business and industry, life is not business as usual, and companies should make sure their contracts consider what previously seemed like an unforeseeable event.
Force Majeure clauses are included in many contracts to excuse contract performance when made impossible by some unforeseen circumstance. These clauses typically fall under two categories: general and specific. General force majeure clauses excuse performance if performance is prevented by circumstances outside the parties’ control. By contrast, specific force majeure clauses detail the exhaustive list of circumstances (acts of god, extreme weather, war, riot, terrorism, embargoes) which would excuse contract performance. Force majeure clauses are typically interpreted narrowly. If your contract has a specific clause and pandemic or virus is not one of the listed circumstances it may not apply. Whether a particular existing contract covers the ongoing COVID pandemic will vary depending on the language of the contract.
Force majeure clauses previously made headlines when the great economic recession hit in 2008. A number of courts held that simple economic hardship was not enough to invoke force majeure. The inability to pay or lack of desire to pay for the contracted goods or services did not qualify as force majeure. In California, impossibility turns on the nature of the contractual performance, and not in the inability of the obligor to do it. (Kennedy v. Reece (1964) 225 Cal. App. 2d 717, 725.) In other words, the task is objectively impossible not merely impossible or more burdensome to the specific contracting party.
California has codified “force majeure” protection where the parties haven’t included any language or the circumstances in the clause don’t apply to the situation at hand. Civil Code section 1511 excuses performance when “prevented or delayed by an irresistible, superhuman cause, or by the act of public enemies of this state or of the United States, unless the parties have expressly agreed to the contrary.” (Civ. Code § 1511.) What qualifies as a “superhuman cause”? In California, the test is whether under the particular circumstances there was such an insuperable interference occurring without the party's intervention as could not have been prevented by the exercise of prudence, diligence and care. (Pacific Vegetable Oil Corp. v. C. S. T., Ltd. (1946) 29 Cal.2d 228, 238.)
If you find yourself in an existing contract without a force majeure clause, or the statute does not apply, you may consider the doctrine of frustration of purpose. This doctrine is applied narrowly where performance remains possible, but the fundamental reason the parties entered into the contract has been severely or substantially frustrated by an unanticipated supervening circumstance, thus destroying substantially the value of the contract. (Cutter Laboratories, Inc. v. Twining (1963) 221 Cal. App. 2d 302, 314-15.) In other words, performance is still possible but valueless. Note this defense is not likely to apply where the contract has simply become less profitable for one party.
Now that COVID is no longer an unforeseeable event, but rather a current and grave reality, a party executing a contract today without adequate protections may have a difficult time proving unforeseeability. Scientists are not sure whether warm weather will suppress the spread of the virus, as it does with the seasonal flu, but to the extent we get a reprieve during the summer we may see a resurgence of cases this Fall or Winter. Companies should take care in reviewing force majeure clauses, and other clauses tied to timely performance such as delay and liquidated damages before renewing or executing new contracts.
Your contract scenario may vary from the summary provided above. Please contact legal counsel before making any decisions. During this critical time, BPH’s attorneys can be reached via email to answer your questions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Danielle S. Ward, Balestreri Potocki & HolmesMs. Ward may be contacted at
dward@bph-law.com
No Coverage For Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall
October 28, 2011 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe pollution exclusion barred coverage for alleged property damage and bodily injury in Evanston Ins. Co. v. Harbor Walk Dev., LLC, No. 2:10cv312 (E.D. Va. Sept. 9, 2011).
Homeowners sued the insured, Harbor Walk, in three lawsuits, alleging the Chinese drywall installed in their homes emitted sulfides and other noxious gases. This caused corrosion and damage to the air-conditioning and ventilation units, refrigeration coils, copper tubing, faucets, metal surfaces, electrical appliances and other personal items. The homeowners also alleged the compounds emitted by the drywall caused bodily injury, such as allergic reactions, headaches, etc.
Harbor Walk’s insurer, Evanston, filed for a declaratory judgment that the pollution exclusion precluded coverage.
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Can an Owner Preemptively Avoid a Mechanics Lien?
May 25, 2020 —
William L. Porter - Porter Law GroupVarious sections of the California Civil Code, beginning with section 8000, protect the right of contractors, subcontractors and suppliers in the construction industry to obtain payment for work performed and materials supplied to construction projects. Under these statutes, unpaid claimants are entitled to use mechanics liens, stop payment notices and other methods to protect their right to payment. Mechanics liens allow unpaid claimants to sell the property where the work was performed in order to obtain payment. Stop payment notices force the owner or the bank to set money aside to pay unpaid claimants. Article XIV of our California Constitution even elevates the mechanics lien remedy to a “constitutional right”. The system generally works well, and claimants are paid.
As someone who practices and teaches construction law, I have noticed a seldom used statutory tool that seems to provide a mechanism for property owners under certain circumstances to prevent subcontractors and suppliers from imposing enforceable mechanics lien on property where work was performed. Under California Civil Code section 8520, it appears that all that an owner of property need do to avoid a mechanics lien on its property is to give a proper notice (per Civil Code section 8100 et seq.) to a person who has a mechanics lien right (a subcontractor or supplier) that the owner is invoking Civil Code section 8520 and that if the claimant is unpaid for work performed or materials supplied to the owner’s property that the claimant must either provide the owner with a stop payment notice or forfeit the right to a mechanics lien on the owner’s property. This would allow an owner to avoid a mechanics lien on its property if the claimant failed to send a stop payment notice to the owner.
Providing the “notice” under Civil Code section 8100 appears to be easy. It can be sent by “registered or certified mail or by express mail or by overnight delivery by an express service carrier”. It can even be by “hand delivery”. As far as the notice itself, it would seem that it can be very simple and easily performed under the process described below, which can be implemented within the office of any owner or developer.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Porter, Porter Law GroupMr. Porter may be contacted at
bporter@porterlaw.com
Insurance Law Client Alert: California FAIR Plan Limited to Coverage Provided by Statutory Fire Insurance Policy
February 07, 2014 —
Valerie A. Moore and Chris Kendrick - Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLPIn St. Cyr v. California Fair Plan Association (No. B243159, filed 1/31/14), a California appeals court held that the state's high risk property insurance plan is not obligated to provide any greater coverage than that mandated for the state's statutory fire insurance policy.
The plaintiff-policyholders lived in high fire risk areas and were insured under the California FAIR Plan, which provides property insurance to the otherwise uninsurable. Following loss of their homes and other property in wildfires, the policyholders were paid the full amount of their policy limits, but contended that they were entitled to additional payments. Specifically, the policyholders alleged that the FAIR plan provided less protection than statutorily mandated by Insurance Code sections 10090 through 10100.2, which spells out the "Basic Property Insurance Inspection and Placement Plan" of the FAIR program.
The policyholders contended that FAIR was required to issue a policy not only in accordance with the standard form fire insurance policy set forth in Insurance Code section 2071, but also the "'Basic Property Insurance' written in the normal market . . . known as the 'HO-3'," referring to the copywrited homeowners policy form promulgated by the Insurance Services Office (ISO).
Reprinted Courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP and
Chris Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com and Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
What You Need to Know About “Ipso Facto” Clauses and Their Impact on Termination of a Contractor or Subcontractor in a Bankruptcy
September 12, 2022 —
Martha B. Chovanes & Laurie A. Stanziale - ConsensusDocsWhile contractor bankruptcies have long been an issue in the construction industry, in the aftermath of COVID-19 and the resultant labor, material and supply-chain delays, contractor bankruptcies are of even greater concern. Many construction contracts attempt to protect the upstream party from a bankruptcy filing of its contractor or subcontractor by providing for an automatic right to terminate a contract, referred to as “ipso facto” clauses. However, such clauses are generally unenforceable as bankruptcy laws, specifically Section 365(e) of Title 11 of the United States Code, protect the party filing for bankruptcy (the “Debtor”) from unilateral termination of the contract by the non-Debtor party.
What is an “Ipso Facto” clause? An ipso facto clause is a provision in an agreement which permits its termination by one party due to the bankruptcy, insolvency or financial condition of the other party.
Reprinted courtesy of
Martha B. Chovanes, Fox Rothschild LLP (ConsensusDocs) and
Laurie A. Stanziale, Fox Rothschild LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Ms. Chovanes may be contacted at mchovanes@foxrothschild.com
Ms. Stanziale may be contacted at lstanziale@foxrothschild.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Candis Jones Named to Atlanta Magazine’s 2023 “Atlanta 500” List
February 01, 2023 —
Candis Jones - Lewis Brisbois NewsroomAtlanta, Ga. (January 30, 2023) - Atlanta Partner Candis R. Jones has been named to Atlanta Magazine’s 2023 “Atlanta 500” list of the most powerful law professionals in Atlanta. This is the third year in a row she has received this recognition.
To compile this list, the publication reviewed nominations from the public and consulted experts across various sectors. The magazine’s editors and writers considered not only the status of the nominees within their respective organizations, but also whether the nominees were visionaries who led programs for their communities and created opportunities for employees. According to Atlanta Magazine, this year's nominees displayed an "intensified commitment to inclusiveness."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Candis Jones, Lewis BrisboisMs. Jones may be contacted at
Candis.Jones@lewisbrisbois.com
Preservationists Want to Save Penn Station. Yes, That Penn Station.
December 20, 2021 —
Kriston Capps - BloombergIn November, as one of her first major acts since taking office, New York Governor Kathy Hochul pared back development plans for New York City’s Pennsylvania Station set in place by her predecessor, disgraced former governor Andrew Cuomo.
The Cuomo plan would have greatly expanded Penn Station and upscaled the neighborhood; Hochul’s vision narrows the scope of work, but it still stands to dramatically transform the subterranean transportation hub, which has been the focus of various unrealized redesign dreams for decades. On Dec. 8, critics and supporters sounded off on the Penn Station scheme in a public hearing. More than 200 people registered to weigh in on how the 10 new skyscrapers coming to the area (shrunk down a bit under Hochul) would affect the scale and character of the community, and the historic buildings that would need to be razed to make way for new development.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kriston Capps, Bloomberg
