California Contractors: New CSLB Procedure Requires Non-California Corporations to Associate All Officers with Their Contractor’s License
April 19, 2021 —
Amy Pierce, Mark Oertel & John Lubitz - Lewis BrisboisAs of July 1, 2020, “[e]very person who is an officer, member, responsible manager, or director of a corporation or limited liability company seeking licensure under this chapter shall be listed on the application as a member of the personnel of record,” and they must match those officers listed on California Secretary of State’s (SOS) records. (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 7065 (b)(1)). This is a deviation from the Contractors State License Board’s (CSLB) past practice of requiring foreign corporations to associate as personnel of record only their president, in contrast to requiring domestic corporations to associate their president, secretary, and treasurer.
Beware that the CSLB may discover that the licensee’s personnel of record are incomplete or incorrect when reviewing a license renewal application, because it will compare the SOS’s records to the license renewal application. A license renewal application requires the licensee to list its qualifier and personnel of record. If the SOS and CSLB records do not match, this could delay approval of the license renewal application until the missing personnel are added and fingerprinted.
Reprinted courtesy of
Amy Pierce, Lewis Brisbois,
Mark Oertel, Lewis Brisbois and
John Lubitz, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Pierce may be contacted at Amy.Pierce@lewisbrisbois.com
Mr. Oertel may be contacted at Mark.Oertel@lewisbrisbois.com
Mr. Lubitz may be contacted at John.Lubitz@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
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
You Have Choices (Litigation Versus Mediation)
December 14, 2020 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsAs I sit here thinking about an impending trial in the Goochland County General District Court, it hit me that I also serve as a mediator in that court from time to time. Coincidentally, I will be “wearing both hats” (litigator and mediator) this week on back to back days. It will be interesting to have to switch roles so quickly on back to back days.
While I don’t have the results of this thought experiment as I sit here typing this post, the timeline does bring into focus the two possible avenues to resolve a dispute. Neither is perfect and either works in the proper situation. Both lend a final “result” and closure to the dispute, they just each do so in a different manner and with a different role for me, the construction attorney/construction mediator.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
EPA Issues Interpretive Statement on Application of NPDES Permit System to Releases of Pollutants to Groundwater
May 27, 2019 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelOn Tuesday, April 23, 2019, in a development of interest to practically anyone who operates a plant or business, EPA published its Interpretive Statement in the Federal Register. (See 84 FR 16810 (April 23, 2019).) After considering the thousands of comments it received in response to a February 20, 2018, Federal Register notice, EPA has concluded that “the Clean Water Act (CWA) is best read as excluding all releases of pollutants from a point source to groundwater from a point source from NPDES program coverage, regardless of a hydrological connection between the groundwater and jurisdictional surface water.”
Acknowledging that its past public statements have not been especially consistent or unambiguous on this important matter, EPA states that this interpretation “is the best, if not the only reading of the CWA, is more consistent with Congress’ intent than other interpretations of the Act, and best addresses the question of NPDES permit program applicability for pollutant releases to groundwater within the authority of the CWA.” Indeed, the absence of “a dedicated statement on the best reading of the CWA has generated confusion in the courts, and uncertainly for EPA regional offices and states implementing the NPDES program, regulated entities, and the public.” The recent and contrary interpretations of this issue by the Ninth Circuit (Hawaii Wildlife Fund v. County of Maui, 886 F.3d 737) and the Fourth Circuit (Upstate Forever v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, LP, 887 F.3d 637) will be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, which will now have the benefit of the agency’s official position. In addition, EPA discloses that it will be soliciting additional public “input” on how it can best provide the regulated community with “further clarity and regulatory certainly”; these comments will be due within 45 days (June 7, 2019).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
2024 Update to CEB’s Mechanics Liens Now Available
October 15, 2024 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogFor a number of years we have had the honor to serve as update authors for several publications of California’s Continuing Education of the Bar (CEB).
I didn’t realize it until now but the CEB, a program of the University of California, was started
more than 75 years ago following WWII to provide veterans who were attorneys with practical guidance on changes to the law as they returned to their practices following the war. Pretty cool!
Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
CDJ’s #8 Topic of the Year: California’s Board of Equalization Tower
December 31, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFImagine a workplace where bats fly, floors flood, and glass panels randomly pop out of the building to shatter on the sidewalk. Add to that repairs that could total more than twice the purchase price, and you have a story. Especially when it involves a California government facility. Jon Ortiz of the Sacramento Bee shared the story on Insurance News.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
OSHA Issues Guidance on Mitigating, Preventing Spread of COVID-19 in the Workplace
February 22, 2021 —
Amy R. Patton & Blake A. Dillion - Payne & FearsOn January 29, 2021, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) issued new employer guidance on mitigating and preventing the spread of COVID-19 in the workplace. This guidance is intended to help employers and workers outside the healthcare setting to identify risks of being exposed to and of contracting COVID-19 and to determine any appropriate control measures to implement. While this guidance is largely duplicative of prior OSHA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) guidance and recommendations, it contains a few new and updated recommendations that employers should note:
Face Coverings
OSHA recognizes that face coverings, either cloth face coverings or surgical masks, are simple barriers that help prevent the spread of COVID-19, and are beneficial for the wearer as well as others. OSHA recommends that employers should provide all workers with face coverings, unless their work task requires a respirator. These face coverings should be provided at no cost and should be made of at least two layers of tightly woven breathable fabric, and should not have exhalation valves or vents. Employers should also require any other individuals at the workplace (i.e., visitors, customers, non-employees) to wear a face covering unless they are under the age of 2 or are actively consuming food or beverages on site. Wearing a face covering does not eliminate the need for physical distancing of at least six feet apart.
Employers must discuss the possibility of “reasonable accommodations” for any workers who are unable to wear or have difficulty wearing certain types of face coverings due to a disability. In workplaces with employees who are deaf or have hearing deficits, employers should consider acquiring masks with clear coverings over the mouth.
Reprinted courtesy of
Amy R. Patton, Payne & Fears and
Blake A. Dillion, Payne & Fears
Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com
Mr. Dillion may be contacted at bad@paynefears.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hawaii Construction Defect Law Increased Confusion
August 27, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFHawaii’s Act 83 put into the law that in determining if a construction defect was due to an occurrence, the courts needed to ignore any case law that arose after the insurance policy was taken out. The hope, according to Bibeka Shrestha, writing at Law360, was to provide certainty to builders. The effect, however, “further muddled the litigation landscape.”
Carl Shapiro said of the Hawaii legislature that “instead of solving the problem, they’ve created an even bigger miss.” Tred Eyerly, an insurance attorney says that the state “needs a decision from the Hawaii Supreme Court.”
One result is that now the state court and the federal courts have different views on how to look at prior cases. The state courts are holding that “the uncertainly should be resolved in favor of the policyholder,” while the federal courts “pointed to earlier case law that nixed coverage for these types of claims.
The legislature seems unlikely to resolve this confusion on its own. One legislative liaison said that “nobody knew how to pass a law saying ‘you will grant coverage.’” Brian Yamane also told Law360 that “there has been no attempt by anybody to introducte legislation to amend the law.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
