Biggest U.S. Gas Leak Followed Years of Problems, State Says
June 10, 2019 —
Mark Chediak & Edvard Pettersson - BloombergThe worst natural gas leak in U.S. history, which broke out at a Sempra Energy storage field near Los Angeles almost four years ago, was caused by corrosion, according to a report commissioned by California regulators.
The rupture of a 7-inch (18-centimeter) well casing at Sempra Energy’s Aliso Canyon storage complex was due to “microbial corrosion” brought on by contact with groundwater, an independent analysis conducted by Blade Energy Partners and commissioned by two state agencies found.
The report also concluded there had been more than 60 leaks in the field dating back to the 1970s, and Sempra didn’t carry out detailed inspections after they occurred, the California Public Utilities Commission and Department of Conservation said in a joint statement. The company’s Southern California Gas lacked “any form of risk assessment” to manage the integrity of its wells and hadn’t established systematic practices to protect against corrosion and monitor well pressure, the agencies said.
Reprinted courtesy of
Mark Chediak, Bloomberg and
Edvard Pettersson, Bloomberg
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
In Matter of First Impression, California Appellate Court Finds a Claim for a Real Estate Professional’s Breach of Fiduciary Duty is Assignable
January 28, 2025 —
Briane Slome & Pamela Albanese - Lewis Brisbois NewsroomSan Diego, Calif. (January 17, 2025) - The California Court of Appeal recently reversed a judgment entered in favor of real estate brokers who were sued for breaching their fiduciary duties in connection with the sale of residential real estate in Malibu. The Court of Appeal found the trial court erred when it rendered judgment in favor of the brokers on the basis that the plaintiff lacked standing to pursue claims that had been assigned to her. The trial court reasoned that claims for breach of fiduciary duty against real estate brokers are highly personalized tort causes of action, which cannot be assigned. The Court of Appeal disagreed. In a case of first impression, it held that a cause of action for breach of a real estate broker’s fiduciary duties, which seeks damages related to property rights and pecuniary interests, is assignable.
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Lazar v. Bishop, issued December 19, 2024, involved a unique set of facts. The seller bought the property in 2006. His daughter, Laura Lazar, lived at the property. The seller hired a real estate broker to sell the home. The broker listed the property for $4.2 million. Thereafter, she persuaded the seller to drop the listing price to $3.15 million, the price at which it was ultimately sold.
Reprinted courtesy of
Briane Slome, Lewis Brisbois and
Pamela Albanese, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Slome may be contacted at Brian.Slome@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Albanese may be contacted at Pamela.Albanese@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nevada Update: Nevada Commissioner of Insurance Updates Burning Limits Statute with Emergency Regulation
September 06, 2023 —
William S. Bennett - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Following significant backlash in reaction to its enactment of legislation prohibiting enforcement of any provisions in liability insurance policies dictating that defense costs are included within the limits of insurance, the Nevada Division of Insurance issued an emergency regulation further clarifying the law.1
The regulation modifies two key aspects of the original law:
- The term “policy of liability insurance,” as used in the statute, shall only mean those casualty insurance policies offered by insurers authorized under NRS 680A.060 and NRS 694C.230 to issue third-party liability insurance. In other words, the statute’s restrictions on eroding limits will no longer apply to “non-admitted” insurers.
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
NLRB Hits Unions with One-Two Punch the Week Before Labor Day
November 18, 2019 —
John Baker & Robert Pettigrew - White and Williams LLPThe National Labor Relations Board (the Board) continues to modify the way employers, unions and employees view and relate to each other in the workplace. In two decisions right before Labor Day, the Board strengthened employer rights in their workplaces, while at the same time making life for their union counterparts more difficult.
On August 23, 2019, the Board revisited the issue of whether an employer must grant access to the off-duty employees of an onsite contractor so they can engage in Section 7 activities on the employer’s property. In general, Section 7 activities consist of employees acting together to improve their pay and working conditions, which constitute fundamental rights under the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). In Bexar County Performing Arts Center Foundation d/b/a Tobin Center, the San Antonio-based performing arts center, the Tobin Center, owned the Center as well as grounds that abutted the famed San Antonio River Walk. The Tobin Center housed three resident companies, one of which was the Ballet San Antonio with whom it had a licensor-licensee agreement.
In addition to plays, movies and other productions, the Tobin Center hosted the San Antonio Symphony (the Symphony) to perform for 22 weeks of the year. The Ballet San Antonio also occasionally utilized the Symphony for live musical performances at its ballets. When, however, the Ballet San Antonio decided to use recorded music for a particular production, off-duty employees of the Symphony protested by leafletting the public on the Tobin Center property. The leaflets advised the public of this decision and urged that they “DEMAND LIVE MUSIC!” Their protests were not directed at the property owner, who denied them access to its property.
Reprinted courtesy of
John Baker, White and Williams LLP and
Robert Pettigrew, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Baker may be contacted at bakerj@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Pettigrew may be contacted at pettigrewr@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
NEW DEFECT WARRANTY LAWS – Now Applicable to Condominiums and HOAs transitioning from Developer to Homeowner Control. Is Your Community Aware of its Rights Under the New Laws?
February 07, 2014 —
Nicholas D. Cowie – Maryland Condo Construction Defect Law BlogAll condominium associations and homeowners associations (“HOAs”) created in Maryland 0n or after October 1, 2010 are subject to new laws pertaining to statutory warranties for construction defects in workmanship and materials.
Most associations that have recently transitioned, or that are about to transition, from developer to homeowner control were created on after October 1, 2010. It is now time for these Associations to become familiar with the new laws to ensure they protect and preserve their warranty rights. Below is an Article I wrote regarding these new laws, which I helped create. See Blog Post: “Maryland Construction Defect Lawyers Enforcing Warranty Claims for Condominiums.”
Too often our firm is contacted by condominium associations who never knew what there warranty and other legal rights were until it was too late to seek developer repairs and reimbursement for construction defects. There is no reason for community associations to remain uniformed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nicholas D. Cowie, Maryland Condo Construction Defect Law BlogMr. Cowie may be contacted at
ndc@cowiemott.com
Court Rules on a Long List of Motions in Illinois National Insurance Co v Nordic PCL
May 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe case Illinois National Insurance Co. v Nordic PCL, et al. “involves a dispute about whether insurance benefits are available to a general contractor who built structures that allegedly have construction defects. Plaintiffs Illinois National Insurance Company (‘Illinois National’) and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (‘National Union’) (collectively, the ‘Insurers’), commenced this action for declaratory relief against Defendant Nordic PCL Construction, Inc., f/k/a Nordic Construction, Ltd. ("Nordic"), on August 23, 2011.”
The court was asked to rule on a long list of motions: “Counterclaim Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Their (1) Motion to Dismiss the Counterclaim and (2) Motion to Strike Portions of the Counterclaim, ECF No. 16 (‘Request for Judicial Notice’); Counterclaim Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim Filed October 24, 2011, ECF No. 14 (‘Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim’); Counterclaim Defendants’ Motion to Strike Portions of the Counterclaim Filed October 24, 2011, ECF No. 15 (‘Motion to Strike’); Third-Party Defendant Marsh USA, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Stay Proceedings in Favor of Pending State Action, ECF No. 33 (‘Marsh’s Motion To Dismiss Or Stay’); Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Nordic PCL Construction, Inc., f/k/a Nordic Construction Ltd.’s Substantive Joinder to Third-Party Defendant Marsh USA Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Stay Proceedings in Favor of Pending State Action, ECF No. 36 (‘Nordic’s Joinder’); and Third-Party Defendant Marsh USA, Inc.’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Counts V and VI of Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Nordic PCL Construction, Inc.’s Third-Party Complaint, ECF No. 29 (‘Marsh’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings’).”
In result, the court reached the following decisions: “The court GRANTS IN RELEVANT PART the Insurers’ Request for Judicial Notice to the extent it covers matters relevant to these motions; GRANTS IN PART the Insurers’ Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim, but gives Nordic leave to amend the Counterclaim in certain respects; DENIES the Insurers’ Motion to Strike; DENIES Marsh’s Motion To Dismiss Or Stay and Nordic’s Joinder; and GRANTS Marsh’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.”
The court provides a bit of background on the case: “This action arises out of alleged construction defects involving two projects on which Nordic acted as the general contractor. Nordic is a defendant in a pending state court action with respect to one of the projects and says it spent more than $400,000 on repairs with respect to the other project. Nordic tendered the defense of the pending state court action to the Insurers and sought reimbursement of the cost of repairs already performed. The Insurers responded by filing this action to determine their rights under the insurance policies issued to Nordic.”
Furthermore, the court presented a brief procedural history: “The Insurers commenced this declaratory action in this court on August 23, 2011. The Complaint asserts two claims, one seeking a declaration that the Insurers have no duty to provide a defense or indemnification regarding the Safeway Action, the other seeking such a declaration regarding the Moanalua Claims. Along with its Answer, Nordic filed a Counterclaim against the Insurers. The Counterclaim asserts breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, misrepresentations and omissions of material fact, and bad faith, and seeks declaratory relief against the Insurers.”
The procedural history continues: “Nordic also filed a Third-Party Complaint against Marsh, the broker that had procured the Policies from the Insurers for Nordic. Nordic alleges that it reasonably believed that the Policies would provide completed operations insurance coverage for the types of construction defects alleged in the Safeway Action and Moanalua Claims. The Third-Party Complaint asserts breach of contract, negligence, promissory estoppel, breach of fiduciary duties, implied indemnity, and contribution and equitable subrogation.”
In conclusion, “The court GRANTS IN RELEVANT PART the Insurers’ Request for Judicial Notice. With regard to the Insurers’ Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim, the court GRANTS the motion as to Count I (breach of contract), Count II (duty of good faith and fair dealing), Count III (fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation), the portion of Count IV (bad faith) premised on fraud, and Count IV (declaratory relief). The court DENIES the motion as to Count IV (bad faith) that is not premised on fraud. Except with respect to the "occurrence" issue, which the court disposes of here on the merits, and Count V, which concerns only a form of relief, Nordic is given leave to amend its Counterclaim within three weeks of the date of this order. The court DENIES the Insurers’ Motion to Strike, DENIES Marsh’s Motion to Dismiss or Stay and Nordic’s Joinder, and GRANTS Marsh’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings with respect to Counts V and VI of the Third-Party Complaint.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Colorado Finally Corrects Thirty-Year Old Flaw in Construction Defect Statute of Repose
March 29, 2017 —
Jesse Howard Witt - The Witt Law FirmThe Colorado Supreme Court has finally settled a decades-old conundrum surrounding the state’s construction defect statute of repose.
A statute of repose is similar to a statute of limitations insofar as both restrict the time a party can bring a claim. A statute of repose period begins on a fixed date (such as the day someone finishes work on a project), while a statute of limitations period begins when someone discovers an injury (such as a defectively installed window).
In 1986, at the height of the so-called “tort reform” movement, the Colorado General Assembly voted to shorten both the statute of repose and the statute of limitations for construction defect claims. Historically, Colorado’s statute of repose had given a homeowner ten years following construction to file an action, and its statute of limitations had required that any such action be filed within three years of the date that the claimant discovered a defect. After 1986, however, these time periods changed; the new statute of repose required suits to be filed within six years of the end of construction, and the new statute of limitations gave claimants only two years following discovery of the physical manifestation of a defect to seek legal relief.[1]
Reprinted courtesy of
Jesse Howard Witt, Acerbic Witt
Mr. Witt may be contacted at www.witt.law
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New California "Construction" Legislation
November 08, 2018 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq. & Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq. - Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & BargerGovernor Jerry Brown signed two potentially impactful Senate Bills relating to the construction of apartment buildings late last month. These Bills, discussed further below, were introduced, in part, in response to the Berkeley balcony collapse in June 2015, which was determined by the California Contractors State License Board to be caused by the failure of severely rotted structural support joists the repair of which were deferred by the property manager, despite indications of water damage.
SENATE BILL 721 ESTABLISHES HEIGHTENED “LOAD-BEARING” INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS
On August 21, 2018, the California State Senate passed SB 721, one of two bills by Senator Jerry Hill introduced this year seeking to address the safety of multifamily rental residences. Now that the Governor has signed the Bill, a new section will be added to the California Health and Safety Code, requiring that every 6 years, destructive testing be performed on at least 15% of each type of load-bearing, wood framed exterior elevated element (such as balconies, walkways, and stair landings) in apartment buildings with 3 or more units. Interestingly, prior to being passed by the State Senate, SB 721 was revised in June 2018, such that the inspection requirements do not apply to common interest developments (i.e., condominiums).
As set forth in the new Health and Safety Code Section 17973:
"the purpose of the inspection is to determine that exterior elevated elements and their associated waterproofing elements are in a generally safe condition, adequate working order, and free from any hazardous condition caused by fungus, deterioration, decay, or improper alteration to the extent that the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or the occupants is not endangered."
The inspection must be paid for by the building owner and performed by a licensed contractor, architect, or civil or structural engineer, or a certified building inspector or building official from a recognized state, national, or international association. Emergency repairs identified by the inspector must be made immediately. For non-emergency repairs, a permit must be applied for within 120 days and the repair completed within 120 days of the permit’s issuance. If repairs are not completed within 180 days, civil penalties of $100-$500 per day may be imposed.
The required inspection must be completed by January 1, 2025 and every 6 years thereafter, unless an equivalent inspection was performed during the 3 years prior to January 1, 2019, the effective date of the new law. For a building converted to condominiums that will be sold after January 1, 2019, the inspection required by Health and Safety Code Section 17973, must be performed prior to the first close of escrow.
SENATE BILL 1465 SETS CONTRACTOR REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The Governor also signed SB 1465, adding Sections 7071.20, 7071.21, and 7071.22 to the California Business and Professions Code. The new law requires that a contractor licensed with the Contractors’ State License Board "report to the registrar in writing within 90 days after the licensee has knowledge of any civil action resulting in a final judgment, executed settlement agreement, or final arbitration award in which the licensee is named as a defendant or crossdefendant, filed on or after January 1, 2019," that meets certain and specific criteria, including that it is over $1 million and arises out of an action for damages to a property or person allegedly caused by specified construction activities of the contractor on a multifamily rental residential structure.
Where more than one contractor was named as a defendant or cross-defendant, each of the contractors apportioned more than $15,000 in liability must report the action. Importantly, the new statute also imposes similar reporting requirements on insurers of contractors. SB 1465 also addresses an impacted party’s failure to comply with the reporting requirements.
COMMENT
Both SB 721 and SB 1465 are potentially significant and seek “legislative reform” to address construction issues by placing a greater burden on apartment owners as well as builders and subcontractors. How pragmatic and what impact they will have on the industry is obviously developing. If you are interested in receiving further detail concerning the Bills, please contact us. We are analyzing the new legislation and its intent and will be providing our ongoing comments.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
RICHARD H. GLUCKSMAN, ESQ. CHELSEA L. ZWART, ESQ., CGDRBChelsea L. Zwart may be contacted at
czwart@cgdrblaw.com
