California Builders’ Right To Repair Is Alive
March 19, 2014 —
David J. Byassee - Ulich & Terry LLPThe California Supreme Court surprised everyone on December 11, 2013 when it denied Brookfield Homes’ request for review of the ruling in the case of Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC (2014) 219 Cal.App.4th 98, which was decided by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District Division Three (Orange County). In that case the Court of Appeal held that the Right to Repair Act aka SB800 is not the exclusive remedy for a homeowner seeking damages for construction defects that have resulted in property damage. Under the ruling, homeowners may choose to sue builders under common law theories of liability such as strict liability and negligence, in addition to liability under the Act. This ruling made homeowners' compliance with the prelitigation requirements of the Act optional and thereby put builders' “right to repair” in jeopardy. The ruling undermined the expectations of California's homebuilders who, for the past decade, understood that their liability is limited by the Act and that they have a right to repair.
Since the Liberty Mutual case was handed down, the topic has become a hotbed item with several divisions of the Court of Appeal. On February 19, 2014, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District Division Three (Los Angeles County) issued a ruling against Premier Homes in the case of Burch v. Superior Court 2014 Cal.App.LEXIS 159 that, without independent analysis, simply adopted the holding in the Liberty Mutual case.
But on February 21, 2014, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District Division Four (Los Angeles County) ruled in the case of KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc. v.Superior Court 2014 Cal.App.LEXIS 167 that a homeowner's failure to give the builder an opportunity to inspect and repair a construction defect excused the builder's liability under the Act. Additionally, the Court of Appeal went out of its way to state it had ruled earlier in that case that the Act is the exclusive remedy.
The various rulings lay a foundation for ultimate intervention by the California Supreme Court. In the meantime, these opposing cases will be cited by counsel for homeowners and builders alike for opposing positions as they continue to navigate construction defect disputes.
Mr. Byassee is a strategic litigator specializing in representation of builders and developers. For more information regarding dispute resolution procedures under SB800, Mr. Byassee may be contacted at (949) 250-9797 or by email at dbyassee@ut-law.com.
Published courtesy of
David J. Byassee, Ulich & Terry LLP
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Privette Doctrine and Its Exceptions: Court of Appeal Grapples With the Easy and Not So Easy
November 18, 2024 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIn
CBRE v. Superior Court, 102 Cal.App.5th 639 (2024), the 4th District Court of Appeal grappled with a thorny and not-so-thorny issue involving injured parties under the Privette doctrine. The less thorny issue was whether application of the Privette doctrine depends on whether a written contract exists between the parties. Spoiler: It does not. The thorny issue was whether the Hooker exception to the Privette doctrine – which applies when a landowner exercises control over a project – should apply where a landowner directs a contractor to perform work that is at odds with legal requirements.
The CBRE Case
Property Reserve, Inc. owns an office building managed by CBRE in San Diego, California. On April 9, 2019, PRI entered into a lease agreement with a new tenant for a suite in the building. The lease required that PRI perform certain tenant improvements.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Cal/OSHA-Approved Changes to ETS Will Take Effect May 6, 2022
May 16, 2022 —
Matthew C. Lewis & Nicole R. Kardassakis - Payne & FearsA new, third revised version of the Cal/OSHA COVID-19 Prevention Emergency Temporary Standards (“ETS”) has been approved by Cal/OSHA, and is expected to go into effect on May 6, 2022. This updated ETS will likely be in effect through Dec. 31, 2022.
The language still needs to be reviewed, finalized, and filed with the Secretary of State by the Office of Administrative Law, but a redline of the proposed changes that Cal/OSHA has approved is available here. Much of the previous ETS (which took effect in January 2022, and we discussed here) will remain in effect. But the new version includes some key changes, including the following:
- Employers will now have similar obligations toward employees who are fully vaccinated and employees who are not fully vaccinated with respect to testing and face coverings. Employers must make COVID-19 testing available at no cost to all symptomatic employees during the employee’s paid time, regardless of the employee’s vaccination status. Employers also must make respirators available to all employees upon request, again regardless of the employee’s vaccination status.
Reprinted courtesy of
Matthew C. Lewis, Payne & Fears and
Nicole R. Kardassakis, Payne & Fears
Mr. Lewis may be contacted at mcl@paynefears.com
Ms. Kardassakis may be contacted at nrk@paynefears.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Delays for China’s Bahamas Resort Project
October 01, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe Wall Street Journal reported that the $3.5 billion resort and casino China’s building in the Bahamas is being undermined by delays and labor crashes, which is “dulling the buzz surrounding the venture and threaten to undermine China's future business.”
Once finished, the project “will include 2,200 new hotel rooms, luxury condominiums priced as high as $12 million, a 100,000-square-foot casino and an 18-hole golf course. Singer Lenny Kravitz is designing the nightclub.”
Baha Mar, the developers, told the Wall Street Journal that they will not be meeting their December 2014 deadline, and instead are “focused on late spring 2015.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Citigroup Pays Record $697 Million for Hong Kong Office Tower
June 18, 2014 —
Michelle Yun – BloombergCitigroup Inc. (C) paid a record HK$5.4 billion ($697 million) to a unit of Wheelock & Co. for a Hong Kong office tower that will bring most of its 5,000 employees under one roof.
The price for the 512,000 square-foot property in Kowloon is the largest ever office transaction in Hong Kong, the New York-based bank said in a statement yesterday. The tower, scheduled for completion by the end of 2015, will be used to house staff currently spread out across offices in the city, said Weber Lo, the bank’s chief executive officer for Hong Kong and Macau.
Citigroup joins banks and insurers in buying buildings in the city as falling vacancies pose a challenge for companies looking for large office spaces, realtor CBRE Group Inc., which advised the deal, said in a first-quarter review report.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michelle Yun, BloombergMs. Yun may be contacted at
myun11@bloomberg.net
Blindly Relying on Public Adjuster or Loss Consultant’s False Estimate Can Play Out Badly
May 03, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesInsurance policies, particularly property insurance policies, have a concealment or fraud provision that, in essence, gives the insurer an out if the insured submits a fraudulent claim, a false claim, or conceals material facts. Unlike a traditional fraud claim where a party needs to prove intent, the provision is broad enough that it does not require any intent behind making a false statement. See Mezadieu v. Safepoint Ins. Co., 46 Fla.L.Weekly D691c (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). For this reason, and as exemplified below, do NOT blindly rely on a public adjuster or loss consultant’s estimate that contains false statements because those false statements, particularly if you know they are false, can play out badly for you! Review the estimate and ask questions about it to make sure you understand what is being included in the loss or damages estimate.
In Mezadieu, a homeowner submitted a claim to her property insurance carrier due to a second-floor water leak emanating from her bathroom. She submitted an estimate from her public adjuster that included damages for her kitchen cabinets directly below the second-floor bathroom, as well as other items on her first-floor. Her carrier denied coverage based on the exclusion that the policy excludes damage caused by “[c]onstant or repeated seepage of water or steam…which occurs over a period of time.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Limits The Scope Of A Builder’s Implied Warranty Of Habitability
September 10, 2014 —
Edward A. Jaeger, Jr. and William L. Doerler – White and Williams LLPIn Conway v. Cutler Group, Inc., -- A.3d --, 2014 WL 4064261 (Pa.), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania addressed the question of whether a subsequent home buyer can recover from a home builder pursuant to the builder’s implied warranty of habitability, a warranty that protects those who purchase a newly constructed home from latent defects. Concluding that a builder’s warranty of habitability is grounded in contract, the Court held that a subsequent purchaser of a previously inhabited home cannot recover damages from a builder-vendor based on the builder-vendor’s breach of the implied warranty of habitability. The Court’s decision leaves unanswered the question of whether a purchaser who is also the first user-purchaser of a new home can pursue a breach of warranty action against a builder with whom the purchaser is not in privity of contract.
In Conway, the Cutler Group, Inc. (Cutler) sold a new home to Davey and Holly Fields. The Fields subsequently sold the home to Michael and Deborah Conway. After the Conways discovered water infiltration problems in their home, they filed a one-count complaint against Cutler, alleging that Cutler breached its implied warranty of habitability. In response to the Conways’ complaint, Cutler filed preliminary objections, arguing that the warranty of habitability extends from the builder only to the first purchaser of a newly constructed home. The trial court sustained Cutler’s preliminary objections based on the lack of contractual privity between the parties and the Conways appealed the trial court’s decision. On appeal, the Superior Court reversed, stating that the implied warranty of habitability is based on public policy considerations and exists independently of any representations by the builder, and even in the absence of an express contract between the builder and the purchaser. Cutler appealed the Superior Court’s decision to the Supreme Court.
To address the question of whether the implied warranty of habitability extends to a subsequent purchaser of a used residence, the Court discussed the history of the implied warranty of habitability in Pennsylvania. As stated by the Court, the Court adopted the implied warranty of habitability in the context of new home sales to reject the traditional doctrine of caveat emptor (buyer beware) because the purchaser of a new home justifiably relies on the skill of the developer. Thus, as between the builder-vendor and the buyer, the builder should bear the risk that the home he builds is habitable and functional. In adopting the doctrine, the Court noted that the doctrine is rooted in the existence of a contract – an agreement of sale – between the builder-vendor and the buyer.
Reprinted courtesy of
Edward A. Jaeger, Jr., White and Williams LLP and
William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Jaeger may be contacted at jaegere@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Industry Standard and Sole Negligence Defenses Can’t Fix a Defect
June 14, 2021 —
Lian Skaf - The Subrogation StrategistStrict products liability cases have been the subject of much fluctuation in the Pennsylvania courts over the last few years. Utilizing hope created by the courts in recent strict liability cases, defendants have tried to revive defenses based on meeting industry standards and the plaintiff’s contributory negligence. Recently, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania tempered that hope with limitations of how far strict liability defenses can extend.
In Sullivan v. Werner Co., No. 3086 EDA 2019, 2021 Pa. Super. LEXIS 210, an appellate panel of the Superior Court reviewed the lower court’s decision to exclude evidence of industry standards and of the plaintiff’s negligence in a trial that resulted in a $2.5 million verdict for the plaintiff. Upholding the decision of the lower court, the court found that the proffered evidence was within the discretion of the court to exclude.
In Sullivan, Michael Sullivan (Sullivan) was working as a union carpenter at a renovation project for a local school. He and his apprentice were installing exterior sheathing to the outdoor walls. In order to install the sheathing, Sullivan had to use a scaffold. He put together a new SRS-72 scaffold manufactured by Werner Company (Werner) that his foreman bought at Lowe’s Companies, Inc. (Lowe’s) and used the scaffold during the course of his work. While on the scaffold, Sullivan fell through and crashed to the ground. He suffered permanent injuries as a result of the incident.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLPMr. Skaf may be contacted at
skafl@whiteandwilliams.com
