Does the Implied Warranty of Habitability Extend to Subsequent Purchasers? Depends on the State
October 08, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAttorneys for Traub Liberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP (in JD Supra Business Advisor), discussed how state courts have come to different conclusions as to “whether a subsequent purchaser of a previously inhabited residence can recover contract damages from a builder or general contractor for breach of the implied warranty of habitability.”
Recently, a Pennsylvania “sided with the builder, holding that the implied warranty of habitability was grounded in contract law. Thus, the Court reasoned that an action for breach of the implied warranty of habitability required a showing of contractual privity between the parties. Because there was no contractual privity between the Conways and the builder, the Conways could not pursue an action against the builder based on a breach of the implied warranty of habitability.”
However, other state courts have made other conclusions. “Iowa permits an action for breach of the implied warranty of workmanlike construction by subsequent purchasers and does not require a showing of contractual privity. Rhode Island also does not require contractual privity, but limits liability to latent defects discovered within 10 years of construction.” Vermont and Connecticut, however, require contract privity.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Poor Pleading Leads to Loss of Claim for Trespass Due to Relation-Back Doctrine, Statute of Limitations
April 13, 2017 —
Brett G. Moore & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Scholes v. Lambirth Trucking Co. (No. C070770, Filed 4/6/2017), the California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District held that the relation-back doctrine could not save a property owner’s trespass claim against an adjacent neighbor where the property owner’s original complaint was factually devoid and was later amended to include the trespass claim after the statute of limitations had run.
The relation-back doctrine is a well-settled legal principle which allows a plaintiff to amend a complaint to add a cause of action which would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations. As long as the factual allegations “relate back” to the those alleged in the original complaint, an additional cause of action will not be subject to the applicable statute of limitations. The policy behind statutes of limitation is to put a defendant on notice of the need to defend against a claim in time to prepare an adequate defense.
On May 21, 2007, a fire broke out at defendant Lambirth Trucking Company’s (“Lambirth”) soil enhancement facility adjacent to plaintiff Vincent Scholes’ (“Scholes”) property. Scholes had previously notified Lambirth that wood chips and rice hulls were accumulating on his property as a result of Lambirth’s operations. Local authorities also warned Lambirth of the hazards presented by storage of those materials.
Reprinted courtesy of
Brett G. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Moore may be contacted at bmoore@hbblaw.com
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Avoiding Lender Liability for Credit-Related Actions in California
October 27, 2016 —
Anthony J. Carucci – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogAside from general statutory prohibitions on lender discrimination, there are certain circumstances under California law in which lenders may be held liable for credit-related actions, such as negotiating or denying credit. See generally 11 Cal. Real Est. § 35:3 (explaining that the business of lending money is subject to the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51 et seq., the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov. Code § 12900 et seq., the Federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691, et seq.). Specifically, lenders have been held liable for credit-related actions where, among other things, the lender (1) breached a loan commitment; (2) committed fraud; or (3) breached a fiduciary duty owed to the borrower.
The Lender-Borrower Relationship
As a general rule, a lender does not owe a duty of care to a borrower when the lender’s involvement in a transaction does not exceed the scope of its conventional role as a lender of money. Oaks Management Corp. v. Superior Court (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 453, 466 (“[I]t is established that absent special circumstances . . . a loan transaction is at arms-length and there is no fiduciary relationship between the borrower and lender.”); Nymark v. Heart Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1089, 1096 (holding lender owed no duty of care to a borrower in preparing an appraisal of the real property that was security for the loan when the purpose of the appraisal is to protect the lender by satisfying it that the collateral provided adequate security for the loan, and noting that “as a general rule, a financial institution owes no duty of care to a borrower when the institution’s involvement in the loan transaction does not exceed the scope of its conventional role as a mere lender of money”).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony J. Carucci, Snell & WilmerMr. Carucci may be contacted at
acarucci@swlaw.com
Contractor Owed a Defense
November 07, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Illinois Appellate Court reversed the lower court and found that the insured contractor was entitled to a defense for alleged construction defects. Acuity v. M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC, 2022 Ill. App. LEXIS 393 (Ill. Ct. App. Sept. 9, 2022).
The owners association (AOAO) sued M/I Homes for breach of contract and the implied warranty of habitability due to alleged defects. The AOAO alleged that the defects caused physical injury to the townhomes. There was resulting property damage such as damage to other building materials, windows and patio doors, and water damage to the interior of units. M/I Homes requested a defense from Acuity, but the request was denied.
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
BHA has a Nice Swing: Firm Supports Wounded Warrior Project at WCC Seminar
May 01, 2015 —
CDJ STAFFIn just two weeks, the 22nd West Coast Casualty (WCC) Construction Defect Seminar returns to the Disneyland Hotel in Anaheim, California. The annual event begins on Thursday, May 14th, with breakfast and registration starting at 7:30am. Panel discussions on various construction defect related topics begin at 8:30am and continue through the morning and afternoon, followed by a cocktail reception in the early evening. The following day includes break-out sessions with the event concluding in the afternoon. Attendees can enhance their seminar experience with the WCC Construction Defect Seminar Mobile App. The event schedule, speaker information, product information, sponsor details, and interactive floorplan can all be accessed through the app. Furthermore, registered attendees will have access to session presentations.
The designated charity for this years’ event is the
Wounded Warrior Project and there are several ways for attendees to support this honorable cause. In addition to the opportunity to purchase a “Buy A Banner” to hang in the seminar hall, there will be a traditional raffle for two American Themed quilts donated by Marianne Cutcher. Bert L. Howe and Associates, Inc. has also stepped up to support Wounded Warriors, and attendees will get the chance to help raise money for this cause in the following manner:
If you stop by the Bert L. Howe & Associates (BHA) booth at the seminar and try their “Sink A Putt For Charity” not only will you have the chance to win a $25 Best Buy gift card, but you’ll also have the opportunity to help raise funds for Wounded Warriors. For every hole-in-one made at their booth, BHA will also make a $25.00 cash donation in the golfer’s name to the Wounded Warrior Project. BHA strongly supports the goals and principles of Wounded Warriors, and is honored to assist the organization in fulfilling its mandate of assisting our returning military heroes who are in need.
Download an invitation and register for WCC Seminar...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Assembly Bill 1701 Contemplates Broader Duty to Subcontractor’s Employees by General Contractor
August 17, 2017 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq. & Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq. – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & BargerAB 1701 recently passed the Assembly and is pending in the Senate’s Labor and
Industrial Relations and Judiciary Committees. The Bill, if signed by the Governor, would
create a new section in the California Labor Code (Section 218.7) making “direct contractors” –
defined as a contractor “making or taking a contract in the state for the erection, construction,
alteration, or repair of a building, structure, or other private work” – liable for wages a
subcontractor or sub-subcontractor fails to pay to its employee for work included in the general
contractor’s contract with the project owner.
Under the new law, direct contractors would be liable for up to one year from the date of
completion of the work for unpaid wages, fringe benefits, health and welfare benefits, and
pension fund contributions, including interest and state tax payments owed to a subcontractor’s
employee. The employee, however, would not be able to recover penalties or liquidated
damages from the general contractor.
AB 1701 would give the employee, Labor Commissioner, or a joint labor-management
cooperation committee the right to enforce the direct contractor’s liability through a civil action.
It would also extend to third parties who are owed fringe or other benefit payments or
contributions on the employee’s behalf. Pursuant to the proposed language of the new statute, a
prevailing plaintiff in such an action would be entitled to their reasonable attorneys’ fees and
costs, including expert witness fees.
Although Labor Code § 218.7 would impose certain obligations on the subcontractor to
provide the direct contractor with relevant project and payroll records, the subcontractor’s failure
to comply with those obligations does not relieve the direct contractor from liability.
Impact
AB 1701’s apparent purpose is to protect employees, an undeniably important legislative
goal. However, if passed, the bill could greatly increase general contractors’ exposure when
subcontracting work and their cost of doing business. Especially because the new law would not
impact existing laws requiring a direct contractor to timely pay a subcontractor.
As a result, many coalitions against AB 1701 stress the halting effect this could have on
the construction industry as a whole, particularly private construction, which is not as heavily
regulated as public works.
CGDRB will continue to monitor this Bill and provide updates as developments occur.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Chelsea L. Zwart, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Washington School District Sues Construction Company Over Water Pipe Damage
August 27, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe Yakima Herald reported that “[t]he Toppenish School District is suing a local construction company over a breach of contract that allegedly led to defective water pipes at one of its elementary schools, according to a complaint filed with the Yakima County Superior Court earlier this week.”
According to the complaint (as reported by the Yakima Herald), Toppenish officials alleged that the Huylar Construction Co. failed to install calcium silicate seals during the pipe installation. Furthermore, the complaint stated that last November, the school district discovered “’[e]xtensive corrosion and deterioration’ of the pipes.” Toppenish argued that failure to install the seals is a breach of contract.
Toppenish is suing for about $120,000. The Yakima Herald stated that a Huylar representative “could not be reached for comment.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Georgia Supreme Court Says Construction Defects Can Be an “Occurrence”
July 31, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Georgia Supreme Court has ruled in an insurance coverage case, concluding that under a commercial general liability policy, defective construction can count as an occurrence. William Wildman and Kent Collier discuss the case in a Legal Alert published by their firm, Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP. The court decisions came about after the U.S. Court of Appeals certified the question to the Georgia Supreme Court.
Wildman and Collier note that the Georgia Supreme Court “after analyzing recent Georgia decisions regarding CGL insurance and construction defects, as well as noting cases from other jurisdictions, held that ‘an “occurrence” as the term is used in a standard CGL policy, does not require damage to the property or work of someone other than the insured.” The court also “held that an ‘occurrence’ must arise from liability for a causeof action that is consistent with the concept that the ‘occurrence’ is ‘accidental.’”
However, they note that the court also concluded that “certain ‘business risk’ coverage exclusions common in many standard CGL policies may apply to exclude coverage for defective construction even though such defective construction constitutes an ‘occurrence.’”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
