How California’s Construction Industry has dealt with the New Indemnity Law
October 22, 2014 —
Mark S. Himmelstein, Esq. - Newmeyer & DillionIt has been almost two years since the California legislature enacted changes to the state’s indemnity law affecting commercial construction contracts. Although we do not yet have any court opinions analyzing the new statutes, the attorneys at
Newmeyer & Dillion now have real world experience in negotiating such indemnity provisions. It is time to evaluate how the construction community has reacted to the changes. In this article, we examine the practical applications of the new law to various construction agreements.
Enacted on January 1, 2013, the new legislation was the latest in a series of efforts by subcontractors and their insurers to eliminate “Type I” indemnity clauses. Under a Type I provision, a subcontractor has a duty to indemnify the developer or general contractor for the negligence of the developer or general contractor or other subcontractors, in addition to the negligence of the subcontractor itself. In 2006, the law was changed to preclude Type I provisions regarding “For Sale” residential construction defect claims. At that time, there was no such restriction enacted for commercial construction contracts. However, since then, commercial subcontractors have been seeking similar legislation. Their efforts culminated in the 2013 revisions regarding commercial contracts.
Commercial Subcontracts
Pursuant to the new indemnity statute — Civil Code section 2782.05 — we have revised our clients’ commercial subcontracts to:
(a) Eliminate the requirement that the subcontractor indemnify the general contractor for the general contractor’s “active negligence;” and
(b) Include the subcontractor’s options for defending claims for which they have an indemnity obligation.
Many subcontractors have responded: “Hey, wait a minute, the new legislation eliminated Type I indemnity so you (general contractor) cannot still require any indemnification for the general contractor’s negligence”. Well, that might be the rumor in subcontractor circles, but the new statute does not eliminate indemnity for the general contractor’s passive fault. In addition, the Civil Code lists 13 instances where the new indemnity restrictions do not apply.
Residential Subcontracts
The legislature did not make anyone’s job easier by drafting a different indemnity provision for commercial subcontracts than for residential subcontracts. In fact, the residential and commercial statutes are different in several critical respects. First, the restrictions on indemnity in the residential statute apply only to construction defect claims in newly constructed “For Sale” houses. The statute does not preclude Type I indemnity provisions for any other claims arising out of residential subcontracts. In contrast, the indemnity restrictions in the commercial statute apply to all claims arising out of commercial subcontracts. In addition, the commercial statute allows indemnity for the general contractor’s passive fault. Since some subcontractors on “residential” projects perform off-site “commercial” work as well, we have amended even residential subcontracts to address the subcontractors’ various indemnity obligations for different parts of their work (e.g., residential work versus commercial work).
Owner-Contractor Agreements
The January 1, 2013 new indemnity provisions apply not only to subcontracts, but also to owner-contractor agreements. Civil Code section 2782(c)(1) precludes indemnity for an owner’s active negligence. Interestingly, the exclusions contained in Civil Code section 2782.05 for subcontracts do not apply, and the statute does not provide contractors with the option of defending claims set forth in the sections concerning subcontracts. Therefore, we have revised the indemnity provisions in owner-contractor agreements to exclude indemnity for the owner’s active negligence.
Design Professional Agreements
The 2007 revisions with respect to “For Sale” residential contracts (discussed above), and the 2013 revisions for commercial contracts do not apply to design professionals. The new indemnity statute concerning commercial subcontracts specifically excludes design professionals from the “anti-indemnity” benefits provided to subcontractors. Therefore, Type I indemnity provisions are fair game and can still be included in design professional contracts.
Conclusion
In sum, Civil Code sections 2782 et seq. now contain an increasingly complex framework for indemnity rules in construction contracts. For example, there is one set of rules for “For Sale” residential construction defect claims (no indemnity for the developer’s active or passive negligence), another for any other claims arising out of residential construction (Type I indemnity is permitted), another for commercial subcontracts (no indemnity for the general contractor’s active negligence, but indemnity for the general contractor’s passive negligence unless any of the exceptions apply, in which case Type I indemnity is permitted), and yet another for commercial owner contractor agreements (no indemnity for the owner’s active negligence, but indemnity for the owner’s passive negligence with no exceptions).
California’s indemnity laws are complex, and rumors as to the impact of the new legislation have made it even more difficult to negotiate these provisions. It is imperative that indemnity clauses in construction contracts clearly delineate the obligations for the specific type or types of work contemplated by the contract. The legislature’s attempt to simplify indemnity obligations has actually made such provisions lengthier and more cumbersome. As experienced construction attorneys, our task is to draft indemnity provisions that comply with the laws, address potential claims, and are understandable.
Mr. Himmelstein is a partner in the Newport Beach office of Newmeyer & Dillion and practices in the areas of construction, real estate, business and insurance litigation. He also specializes in drafting and negotiating construction and real estate contracts. Mark can be reached at mark.himmelstein@ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lauren Motola-Davis Honored By Providence Business News as a 2021 Leader & Achiever
August 04, 2021 —
Lauren Motola-Davis - Lewis BrisboisProvidence Managing Partner Lauren Motola-Davis was recently named a 2021 Leader & Achiever by Providence Business News (PBN). Ms. Motola-Davis, along with 21 other honorees, will be recognized during an in-person ceremony on August 26 at 5:30 p.m. ET at the Aldrich Mansion in Warwick, Rhode Island.
The Leaders & Achievers Award Program recognizes individuals for their notable success and strong leadership both in their fields and to the region. Honorees were chosen based on their long-standing commitment to the business community as well as a sustained demonstration of leading others, community service, and mentoring.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lauren Motola-Davis, Lewis BrisboisMs. Motola-Davis may be contacted at
Lauren.MotolaDavis@lewisbrisbois.com
Mitsubishi Estate to Rebuild Apartments After Defects Found
March 19, 2014 —
Kathleen Chu and Takahiko Hyuga – BloombergMitsubishi Estate Co. (8802), Japan’s biggest developer by market value, will rebuild a Tokyo residential complex where it stopped selling apartments that went for as much as 350 million yen ($3.4 million) after finding defects.
The reconstruction will take about three to four years to complete, and builder Kajima Corp. will be in charge of the project and cover the cost, said Masayuki Watanabe, a spokesman at Tokyo-based Mitsubishi Estate. The building was constructed by Kajima along with Kandenko (1942) Co., according to the developer.
Mitsubishi Estate stopped selling apartments in the building in central Tokyo’s upscale Aoyama neighborhood after finding it needed repairs, including to some of the pipes, the developer said in an e-mail on Feb. 3. Eighty-three out of 86 units were under contract and were expected to be handed over to the owners on March 20, the company said last month.
Ms. Chu may be contacted at kchu2@bloomberg.net; Mr. Hyuga may be contacted at thyuga@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kathleen Chu and Takahiko Hyuga, Bloomberg
Water Drainage Case Lacks Standing
March 28, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Texas Court of Appeals has ruled in the case La Tierra de Simmons Familia Ltd. V. Main Event Entertainment, LP. The trial court had found for Main Event. On appeal, the court threw out some of the grounds on which the trial court had reached its decision.
The case involved two commercial lots in northwest Austin, Texas. The uphill tract (Phase III of the Anderson Arbor development) diverts its runoff onto the lower tract (the “Ballard tract”). The owners of the Ballard tract claim that “the drainage system was designed or constructed in a manner that has damaged and continues to damage the Ballard tract.”
Both tracts have undergone changes of ownership since the construction of the drainage system in 2004. At the time the drainage system was constructed, the parcel was owned by Sears Roebuck and Co. Sears later sold the property. Main Event Entertainment is the current tenant. Likewise, the Ballard tract was previously owned by the Ballard Estate which sold the property to La Tierra on an “as is” basis in 2007.
After La Tierra bought the Ballard tract, La Tierra’s engineer “witnessed and videotaped what he described as ‘flooding’ on the Ballard tract caused by storm water discharge from the Anderson Arbor drainage system during a rainfall event.” La Tierra determined that an adequate drainage system would cost about $204,000. Development plans were put on hold.
La Tierra sued Main Event and various other parties associated with the uphill tract, seeking “actual damages for (1) decrease and loss in rental income due to delay in obtaining the development permit, (2) interest on carrying costs during that time period, (3) the cost to build a water conveyance system on the Ballard tract, (4) engineering fees incurred to redesign the water conveyance system, (5) unspecified out-of-pocket real estate expenses, and (6) property devaluation occasioned by the need to construct an expensive water conveyance system.” The trial court never reached these claims, ruling instead that La Tierra lacked standing, that its claims were barred under the statute of limitations, and that there was no evidence of damage.
La Tierra appealed, arguing that “(1) the summary-judgment evidence does not conclusively establish that property damage claims accrued or were discovered prior to September 11, 2007, which is within the limitations period and was after La Tierra purchased the property; (2) even if the property was damaged before La Tierra acquired ownership of the Ballard tract, standing exists based on the assignments of interest from the Ballard Estate heirs, and the discovery rule tolls limitations until the injury was discovered on September 11, 2007; (3) limitations does not bar La Tierra's request for injunctive relief; (4) La Tierra's water code claim against Main Event and M.E.E.P. is viable based on their control over the drainage system, which makes them necessary and indispensable parties for injunctive relief; (5) La Tierra presented more than a scintilla of evidence to raise a fact issue on damages, causation, and other essential elements of its causes of action; and (6) the trial court abused its discretion when it sustained the defendants' objections to La Tierra's summary-judgment evidence.”
The appeals court concluded that La Tierra’s second claim was irrelevant to standing, as La Tierra “obtained assignments from the Ballard Estate heirs ? nearly one year after the lawsuit was initially filed.” Nor did the court accept their first point. The water system had been operating unaltered since January, 2004, with monthly maintenance and inspection to maintain its designed operation. Further, a feasibility report La Tierra received stated that “over sixteen acres drain into those ponds, and thus onto this site.” The court noted that “the underlying facts giving rise to a cause of action were known before La Tierra acquired ownership of the Ballard tract.”
The court concluded that the drainage issue is a permanent injury, but that it “accrued before La Tierra acquired an ownership interest in the property.” As La Tierra has standing, the appeals court ruled that it was improper for the trial court to rule on the issues. The appeals court dismissed the questions of whether the case was barred under the statute of limitation and also the question of whether or not La Tierra had damages.
As the issue of standing would not allow La Tierra to bring the suit, the appeals court found for the defendants, dismissing the case for this single reason, and otherwise affirming the ruling of the lower court.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
ISO Proposes New Designated Premises Endorsement in Response to Hawaii Decision
October 27, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Insurance Services Office (ISO) has issued a Circular advising it will submit to Insurance Departments in various states proposed changes to the Designated Premises Endorsement. The changes are due in part to the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision in C. Brewer & Co. v. Marine Indem. Ins., 135 Haw. 190, 347 P. 3d 163 (Haw. 2015). (Full Disclosure - our office represented C. Brewer before the Hawaii Supreme Court).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Top 10 Hurricane Preparedness Practices for Construction Sites
September 25, 2018 —
Andrew Gilbert - Construction ExecutiveLast year, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) recorded that the North Atlantic saw the third highest number of major hurricanes to date. North America alone saw three tropical storms and four hurricanes make landfall, the most since 2005.
As the 2018 hurricane season takes shape (running from June 1 to Nov. 30), it’s imperative to begin construction site hurricane planning efforts early and to be as prepared as possible prior to any storm. Preparing for a storm can help ensure the safety of not only project and onsite teams, but also of the surrounding communities.
1. DEVELOP AND REVIEW A HURRICANE PREPAREDNESS AND SAFETY PLAN
Prior to hurricane season, make sure the project contractor has provided the team with a hurricane preparedness and safety plan. Review this plan with the entire team and the owner. This document outlines the exact timeline and steps the contractor will take to safely secure the project site in the event of a storm. The integrated process is especially important when dealing with renovation projects, exterior upgrades or projects that connect new construction to existing facilities.
Reprinted courtesy of
Andrew Gilbert, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Gilbert may be contacted at
andrew.gilbert@cbre.com
Blackstone to Buy Cosmopolitan Resort for $1.73 Billion
May 19, 2014 —
Hui-yong Yu – BloombergDeutsche Bank AG (DBK) agreed to sell the Cosmopolitan of Las Vegas hotel and casino to Blackstone Group LP (BX) for $1.73 billion in cash, ending a six-year money-losing venture into casino development.
“The bank is committed to reducing its non-core legacy positions in a capital-efficient manner which benefits shareholders,” Pius Sprenger, head of the Frankfurt-based lender’s non-core operations unit, said in a statement today. The division is selling and winding down assets that Deutsche Bank doesn’t consider to be central to its business.
Germany’s largest lender foreclosed on the Cosmopolitan after developer Ian Bruce Eichner defaulted on a construction loan in January 2008, and has labeled it a temporary investment. The company was seeking more than $2 billion for the property, a person familiar with the situation said last month. Two others said it was valued at closer to $1.5 billion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hui-yong Yu, BloombergHui-yong Yu may be contacted at
hyu@bloomberg.net
Second Circuit Affirms Win for General Contractor on No Damages for Delay Provision
September 02, 2024 —
Bill Wilson - Construction Law ZoneIn NASDI, LLC v. Skanska Koch Inc. Kiewit Infrastructure Co. (JV), 2024 WL 1270188 (2d Cir. Mar. 26, 2024), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing a subcontractor’s delay claim against a general contractor on a public project in New York state. The Court enforced a typical no-damages-for-delay provision to bar the subcontractor’s breach of contract claim. The no-damages-for-delay provision in the subcontract at issue provided:
NO DAMAGE FOR DELAY. Except as otherwise provided …, Subcontractor agrees that it shall have no Claim against Contractor for any loss or damage it may sustain through delay, disruption, suspension, stoppage, interference, interruption, compression, or acceleration of Subcontractor’s Work (‘Delay Damages’) caused or directed by Contractor for any reason, and that all such Claims shall be fully compensated for by Contractor’s granting Subcontractor such time extensions as it is entitled to as a result of any of the foregoing.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLPMr. Wilson may be contacted at
wwilson@rc.com
