Subcontractor Entitled to Defense for Defective Work Causing Property Damage Beyond Its Scope of Work
May 27, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Illinois Court of Appeals found the subcontractor was owed a defense for alleged property damage caused by its faulty workmanship, but outside its scope of work. Acuity Ins. Co. v. 950 W. Huron Condo. Ass'n, 2019 Ill. App. LEXIS 208 (Ill. Ct. App. March 29, 2019).
The condominium association sued its general contractor, Belgravia, for alleged defects allowing water to infiltrate and cause damage. Belgravia filed a third-party complaint against its subcontractors, including the carpentry subcontractor Denk & Roche. Denk & Roche held a CGL policy with two insurers during the relevant period, one with Cincinnati Insurance Company for the period January 1, 2000 through June 1, 2007, and another with Acuity Insurance Company, effective June 1, 2007, through December 31, 2013.
Denk & Roche tendered its defense to both insurers. Cincinnati agreed to defend and contributed to a settlement of the AOAO's claims. Acuity denied a defense, contending that the underlying claims did not trigger a duty to defend. Acuity's declaratory judgment suit sought a determination that it had no duty to defend. Cincinnati intervened and argued it was entitled to equitable contribution from Acuity.
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
Haight’s John Arbucci and Kristian Moriarty Selected for Super Lawyers’ 2020 Southern California Rising Stars
July 20, 2020 —
T. Giovanni “John” Arbucci & Kristian B. Moriarty - Haight Brown & BonesteelCongratulations to attorneys T. Giovanni “John” Arbucci and Kristian Moriarty who were selected to the Super Lawyers 2020 Southern California Rising Stars list. Each year, no more than 2.5% of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor.
Reprinted courtesy of
T. Giovanni “John” Arbucci, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and
Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel
Mr. Arbucci may be contacted at jarbucci@hbblaw.com
Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New FAR Rule Mandates the Use of PLAs on Large Construction Projects
October 10, 2022 —
Reggie Jones - ConsensusDocsThe Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council recently published a proposed ruled that, once implemented, will require the use of project labor agreements (PLAs) on federal construction projects with a contract value of $35 million or greater. The proposed rule revokes President Obama’s Executive Order 13502 and implements an Executive Order 14063 (E.O. 14063) issued on February 9, 2022. E.O. 14063 addresses the use of PLAs in the government contracts. Under the current Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), the use of PLAs on “large-scale construction projects” is discretionary. The new rule proposed by the Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) revises the FAR contract clauses making the use of PLAs mandatory.
Under the proposed rule, contractors performing “large-scale construction projects” will be required to “negotiate or become a party to a [PLA] with one or more appropriate labor organizations.” FAR 52.222-33. A PLA is in essence a collective bargaining agreement between a local trade union and contractor that governs employment terms, including wages and benefits, for union and non-union workers. Although the PLA mandate only applies to large-scale construction projects with the contract value of $35 million and more, under the proposed rule, agencies have the option to include the PLA requirement for construction projects that are under the $35 million threshold. The proposed rule also sets out a flow-down requirement, which means that subcontractors working on a large-scale project must likewise be familiar with and comply with terms of the PLA negotiated by a prime contractor.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Reggie Jones, Fox Rothschild LLP (ConsensusDocs)Mr. Jones may be contacted at
rjones@foxrothschild.com
Massachusetts Affordable Homes Act Provides New Opportunities for Owners, Developers, and Contractors
October 15, 2024 —
Larry Grijalva - Construction Law ZoneOn August 6, 2024, Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey signed the Affordable Homes Act (the Act) into law. The Act aims to counter the rising cost of housing in the commonwealth by implementing new policies and providing funding for the construction of affordable housing. New policies include:
- A requirement that municipalities permit the construction of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on the same parcel as a primary dwelling.
- A requirement that municipalities permit the construction of single-family residences on previously unbuildable lots held in common ownership with an adjacent residential lot.
- The creation of a commercial property conversion program to support the conversion of commercial space into housing or mixed-use developments.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Larry Grijalva, Robinson & Cole LLPMr. Grijalva may be contacted at
lgrijalva@rc.com
Does Your 998 Offer to Compromise Include Attorneys’ Fees and Costs?
June 15, 2017 —
Anthony J. Carucci - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogIn California, the “prevailing party” in litigation is generally entitled to recover its costs as a matter of law. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1032. But under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998, a party may make a so-called “offer to compromise,” which can reverse the parties’ entitlement to costs after the date of the offer, depending on the outcome of the litigation. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998. The potential payoff of a 998 offer to compromise is explained in section 998(c)(1):
If an offer made by a defendant is not accepted and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover his or her postoffer costs and shall pay the defendant’s costs from the time of the offer.
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998(c)(1) (emphasis added).
The Basic Requirements for a Valid 998 Offer
Pursuant to section 998(b), a 998 offer must satisfy three principal conditions: (1) it must be contained in a writing; (2) it must state the terms and conditions of the proposed judgment or award; and (3) it must contain a provision allowing the offeree to accept the offer by signing a statement to that effect. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998(b).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony J. Carucci, Snell & WilmerMr. Carucci may be contacted at
acarucci@swlaw.com
It’s Time to Include PFAS in Every Property Related Release
June 01, 2020 —
John Van Vlear & Gregory Tross - Newmeyer DillionWhile the federal government and states (including California) are working on establishing standards and how to manage the toxic chemicals known as PFAS (as defined below), certain states and banks are requiring testing for PFAS to approve no-further-action (NFA) determinations or to underwrite loans. PFAS do not easily fit within standard definitions of hazardous substances used in today’s agreements. Thus, if you want to ensure you and your successors are released for PFAS which later environmental testing may reveal, ensure such is specifically listed in your releases.
What Are PFAS
As depicted in the recent major-release movie Dark Waters, PFAS are a group of very stable man-made chemicals that are both toxic and ubiquitous. They are long-chain chemicals which means they do not naturally degrade easily.
Reprinted courtesy of
John Van Vlear, Newmeyer Dillion and
Gregory Tross, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Vlear may be contacted at john.vanvlear@ndlf.com
Mr. Tross may be contacted at greg.tross@ndlf.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THAT THE RIGHT TO REPAIR ACT (SB800) IS THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CLAIMS NOT INVOLVING PERSONAL INJURIES WHETHER OR NOT THE UNDERLYING DEFECTS GAVE RISE TO ANY PROPERTY DAMAGE in McMillin Albany LL
January 24, 2018 —
Chapman, Glucksman, Dean, Roeb, & BargerRICHARD H. GLUCKSMAN, ESQ.
GLENN T. BARGER, ESQ.
JON A. TURIGLIATTO, ESQ.
DAVID A. NAPPER, ESQ.
The Construction Industry finally has its answer. The California Supreme Court ruled that the Right to Repair Act (SB800) is the exclusive remedy for construction defect claims alleged to have resulted from economic loss, property damage, or both. Our office has closely tracked the matter since its infancy. The California Supreme Court’s holding resolves the split of authority presented by the Fifth Appellate District’s holding in
McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132, which outright rejected the Fourth Appellate District’s holding in
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98.
By way of background, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held in
Liberty Mutual that compliance with SB800’s pre-litigation procedures prior to initiating litigation is only required for defect claims involving violations of SB800’s building standards that have not yet resulted in actual property damage. Where damage has occurred, a homeowner may initiate litigation under common law causes of action without first complying with the pre-litigation procedures set forth in SB800. Two years later, the Fifth District Court of Appeal, in
McMillin Albany, held that the California Legislature intended that all claims arising out of defects in new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003 are subject to the standards and requirements of the Right to Repair Act, including specifically the requirement that notice be provided to the builder prior to filing a lawsuit. Thus, the Court of Appeal ruled that SB800 is the exclusive remedy for all defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003.
After extensive examination of the text and legislative history of the Right to Repair Act, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s ruling that SB800 preempts common law claims for property damage. The Complaint at issue alleged construction defects causing both property damage and economic loss. After filing the operative Complaint, the homeowners dismissed the SB800 cause of action and took the position that the Right to Repair Act was adopted to provide a remedy for construction defects causing only economic loss and therefore SB800 did not alter preexisting common law remedies in cases where actual property damage or personal injuries resulted. The builder maintained that SB800 and its pre-litigation procedures still applied in this case where actually property damages were alleged to have occurred.
The Supreme Court found that the text and legislative history reflect a clear and unequivocal intent to supplant common law negligence and strict product liability actions with a statutory claim under the Right to Repair Act. Specifically the text reveals “…an intent to create not merely
a remedy for construction defects but
the remedy.” Additionally certain clauses set forth in SB800 “…evinces a clear intent to displace, in whole or in part, existing remedies for construction defects.” Not surprisingly, the Court confirmed that personal injury damages are expressly not recoverable under SB800, which actually assisted the Court in analyzing the intent of the statutory scheme. The Right to Repair Act provides that construction defect claims not involving personal injury will be treated the same procedurally going forward whether or not the underlying defects gave rise to any property damage.
The Supreme Court further found that the legislative history of SB800 confirms that displacement of parts of the existing remedial scheme was “…no accident, but rather a considered choice to reform construction defect litigation.” Further emphasizing how the legislative history confirms what the statutory text reflects, the Supreme Court offered the following summary: “the Act was designed as a broad reform package that would substantially change existing law by displacing some common law claims and substituting in their stead a statutory cause of action with a mandatory pre-litigation process.” As a result, the Supreme Court ordered that the builder is entitled to a stay and the homeowners are required to comply with the pre-litigation procedures set forth in the Right to Repair Act before their lawsuit may proceed.
The seminal ruling by the California Supreme Court shows great deference to California Legislature and the “major stakeholders on all sides of construction defect litigation” who participated in developing SB800. A significant win for builders across the Golden State, homeowners unequivocally must proceed via SB800 for all construction defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003. We invite you to contact us should you have any questions.
Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys
Richard Glucksman,
Glenn Barger,
Jon Turigliatto and
David Napper
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Barger may be contacted at gbarger@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Turgliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Colorado Court of Appeals Enforces Limitations of Liability In Pre-Homeowner Protection Act Contracts
February 14, 2013 —
Heidi Gassman — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCKeirns Construction Co. (“Keirns”) hired Landmark Engineering, Ltd. (“Landmark”) to provide a geotechnical investigation and foundation designs for two duplexes Keirns built in Larimer County. Keirns and Landmark signed one contract in 2001 for the geotechnical work and two separate contracts in 2005 for the foundation design of the two duplexes. Each contract contained an identical “risk allocation clause,” which had language specifically limiting Landmark’s liability to Keirns. The risk allocation clause also had language specifically prohibiting claims against individuals and only allowing claims against a corporation.
After the two duplexes were built, foundation problems developed, and Keirns filed suit against Landmark for breach of contract and negligence. Keirns also filed suit against two individual employees of Landmark, Wayne Thompson and Larry Miller, for negligence. Messrs. Thompson and Miller performed the geotechnical and design services pursuant to the contracts.
Landmark and Messrs. Thompson and Miller filed a motion seeking to enforce the risk of allocation clauses in the contracts, thereby limiting Landmark’s liability. Messrs. Thompson and Miller also filed a summary judgment motion seeking their dismissal from the case based on the prohibition in the risk allocation clause against asserting claims against individuals.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Heidi GassmanMs. Gassman can be contacted at
gassman@hhmrlaw.com
