WA Supreme Court Allows Property Owner to Sue Engineering Firm for Lost Profits
February 25, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFIn the Daily Journal of Commerce, Scott A. Smith and James H. Wendell discussed the recent Washington Supreme Court decision in Donatelli v D. R. Strong Consulting Engineers. The court’s ruling casts “doubt on a company's ability to limit its liability for economic losses arising out of a contract dispute.”
The Donatellis hired D. R. Strong Consulting Engineers to develop vacant land in King County, however, the “project did not go according to plan and the real estate market collapsed before the project was completed,” according to the Daily Journal of Commerce. The “Donatellis lost their property through foreclosure” and then “sued the engineering firm for more than $1.5 million in lost profits.”
D. R. Strong Consulting Engineers asked for the negligence claims to be dismissed “because the parties' contract contained a provision limiting the engineering firm's liability to the amount of its fee for ‘any injury or loss on account of any error, omission, or other professional negligence.’” However, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that “the case could proceed in the trial court on a theory that the engineers could be liable if they made negligent misrepresentations that induced the Donatellis to enter into the contract in the first place.”
Smith and Wendell stated that because of “this decision, engineering, architectural, construction, and other professional service companies may now face damage claims they thought they were contractually protected against.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A Homeowner’s Subsequent Action is Barred as a Matter of Law by way of a Prior “Right to Repair Act” Claim Resolved by Cash Settlement for Waiver of all Known or Unknown Claims
February 26, 2015 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq., Jon A. Turigliatto, Esq., and David A. Napper, Esq. – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger BulletinDavid Belasco v. Gary Loren Wells et al. (2015) B254525
OVERVIEW
In a decision published on February 17, 2015, the Second District Court of Appeal made clear that settlement agreements containing waivers of unknown claims in connection with a construction of a property, absent fraud or misrepresentation, will be upheld. In brief, the homeowner plaintiff had made a claim against the builder pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 896 (“Right to Repair”) and settled for a cash payment and obtained a Release of all Claims including for all known and unknown claims. The court held that homeowner’s subsequent construction defect claim was barred pursuant to the terms and conditions of the earlier release.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff and Appellant, David Belasco ("Belasco"), purchased a newly construction home in Manhattan Beach from builder Gary Loren Wells ("Wells"). Two years after purchasing the property, Belasco filed a Complaint for construction defects, which eventually resulted in settlement between the parties. The settlement agreement included a California Civil Code Section 1524 waiver of all known or unknown claims with the word "claims" defined in part as “any and all known and unknown construction defects." Six years later in 2012, Belasco filed a Complaint alleging a claim, amongst others, that the defective and leaky roof breached the statutory warranty on new construction under California Civil Code section 896 ("Right to Repair Act").
Relying on San Diego Hospice v. County of San Diego (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1048, Wells and Wells' surety, American Contractors Indemnity Company (collectively "Wells"), filed a motion for summary judgment contending that the 2012 action was barred by the settlement of Belasco’s prior Complaint against Wells for construction defects to his home. When the trial court ruled in favor of Wells, Belasco appealed. Belasco, a patent attorney, made the following contentions:(1) the general release and section 1542 wavier in the settlement agreement for patent construction defects is not a "reasonable release" of a subsequent claim for latent construction defects within the meaning of section 929 and the “Right to Repair” Act; (2) a reasonable release can only apply to a "particular violation" and not to a latest defect under the language of section945.5, subdivision (f), and the settlement was too vague to be valid because it does not reference a "particular violation;" (3) section 932 of the California Civil Code specifically authorizes an action on "[s]subsequently discovered claims of unmet standards;" (4) public policy prohibits use of a general release and section 1542 waiver to bar a subsequent claim for latent residential construction defects; and (5) a genuine issue of material fact exists concerning Belasco's fraud and negligence claims that would have voided the settlement pursuant to section 1668.
Pursuant to the "Right to Repair Act" Section 929 subsection (a), a builder can make a cash offer in lieu of a repair and the homeowner is free to accept or reject such offer. Section 929subsection (b) goes on to state that
"[t]he builder may obtain a reasonable release in exchange for the cash payment. The builder may negotiate the terms and conditions of any reasonable release in terms of scope and consideration in conjunction with a cash payment under this chapter."
The Second District Court of Appeal ruled that the prior cash settlement, with a release and section 1524 wavier, was a "reasonable release" under the language of California Civil Code Section 929.
On multiple occasions, the Court noted that Belasco is an attorney and was represented by an attorney during the negotiation of the settlement agreement. By executing the agreement with express language regarding what claims were to be release, Belasco released Wells of "any and all claims" due to "any and all known and unknown construction defects." The Court reasoned that because Belasco is an attorney in his own right, he should have understood the import of the Section 1542 waiver and had the opportunity to reject or revise the settlement agreement prior to binding himself to it. The Court further found that the agreement "could not have been more clear" regarding the waiver of all unknown and known construction defect claims and therefore was not vague. Belasco's additional contentions were found to be without merit because Belasco availed himself of the statutory remedy of a cash settlement in lieu of repairs and voluntarily entered into a negotiated settlement agreement. Lastly, Belasco failed to present any evidence regarding his misrepresentation claim.
When a homeowner files a "Right to Repair Act" claim, often it seems that only two options exist: either repair the alleged defects or go to court. However, Belasco is a reminder to builders that the "Right to Repair Act" does offer an avenue for settlement. The Second District Court of Appeal presented a clear, unqualified opinion regarding the validity and enforceability of settlement agreements releasing all known or unknown construction defects in a single family home case. The Court will hold parties to the settlements they agree to. This is especially so when one of the parties is an attorney and provides deposition testimony expressly acknowledging that he understood the scope of the agreement. Attorneys for builders should always include a waiver of all known and unknown claims, which pursuant to Belasco and San Diego Hospice, will ensure that any future claims at the property will be effectively barred by the terms of the settlement agreement.
Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys
Richard H. Glucksman,
Jon A. Turigliatto and
David A. Napper
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Torrey Pines Court Receives Funding for Renovation
August 06, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFSan Diego Source reported that “CIT Real Estate Finance provided…$60 million…to refinance existing debt and fund the renovations at Torrey Pines Court,” a five-building Class A office campus located in La Jolla, California. The 206,128 square foot complex, which resides on 9.24 acres, is adjacent to the Torrey Pines Golf Course. CIT has funded the project in partnership with Rockwood Capital and The Muller Company.
"We are excited to begin renovations that will complete our repositioning of Torrey Pines Court with state-of-the-art office space and amenities,” David Streicher, Partner at Rockwood Capital, stated according to a press release in the Wall Street Journal. “We expect that the renovations, coupled with the project's picturesque setting, will solidify Torrey Pines Court's position as the preferred office destination in the submarket. We thank CIT for working with us to create a sound financing package that will take this project to the next level."
Read the full story, San Diego Source...
Read the full story, Wall Street Journal... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Colorado Court of Appeals to Rule on Arbitrability of an HOA's Construction Defect Claims
November 20, 2013 —
W. Berkeley Mann, Jr. — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCOn October 24, 2013 the Colorado Court of Appeals granted a rare interlocutory appeal in a multi-family residential construction defect case. The Court of Appeals accepted the case ofTriple Crown at Observatory Village Association, Inc. v. Village Homes of Colorado, Inc.(2013 WL 5761028) as an interlocutory appeal after the parties briefed and obtained rulings from the trial court that compelled the case to binding arbitration in lieu of a jury trial on all issues. The appellate decision of October 24, 2013 did not decide the merits of the case, but discussed the issues to be decided in the eventual merits decision. The significance of the issues presented and the interlocutory nature of this appeal both make this case worth watching for further appellate proceedings.
The core issue in this appeal was the applicability of Colorado’s Uniform Arbitration Act (C.R.S. § 13-22-201, et seq.), based on recorded Declarations filed by the developer. The Declarations mandated that the HOA arbitrate any design/construction disputes with the developer. Immediately prior to suit, the Association sought to amend the Declarations in order to avoid the arbitration process for these claims. The interlocutory appellate issues resulted from the trial court’s order compelling the arbitration over the objections of the Association.
The trial court’s decision was based on a reading of the Colorado Revised Non-Profit Corporation Act (“CRNPC,” at C.R.S. § 7-127-107), which was found applicable to the Association.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
W. Berkeley Mann, Jr.W. Berkeley Mann, Jr. can be contacted at
mann@hhmrlaw.com
Kumagai Drops Most in 4 Months on Building Defect: Tokyo Mover
June 11, 2014 —
Kathleen Chu and Kevin Buckland - BloombergKumagai Gumi Co. (1861), a Japanese construction company, fell the most in four months after saying an apartment complex it had built has defects.
The shares dropped 5.7 percent to 264 yen at the close of trading in Tokyo, the biggest decline since Feb. 4. Construction flaws in supporting pillars were found in the building completed in March 2003 in Yokohama City, south of Tokyo, the company said in a statement through the stock exchange today. The residents have been asked to relocate to temporary shelters and further investigation is required, it said.
“This is a big negative for Kumagai’s reputation and it may hurt the company’s future earnings,” said Yoji Otani, an analyst at Deutsche Bank AG in Tokyo.
The latest defect comes after Mitsubishi Estate Co. (8802) said in March it will rebuild a residential complex, constructed by Kajima Corp. (1812), in central Tokyo, after defects were found. Mitsui Fudosan Co. (8801) said it would repair some parts of an apartment building in Kawasaki City after the builder Shimizu Corp. (1803) found cracks in the concrete of some columns in April.
Ms. Chu may be contacted at kchu2@bloomberg.net; Mr. Buckland may be contacted at kbuckland1@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kathleen Chu and Kevin Buckland, Bloomberg
Haight has been named a Metropolitan Los Angeles Tier 1 “Best Law Firm” and Tier 2 for Orange County by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” in 2023
November 21, 2022 —
Haight Brown & BonesteelHaight Brown & Bonesteel LLP is listed in the U.S. News – Best Lawyers® (2023 Edition) “Best Law Firms” list with metro rankings in the following areas:
Los Angeles
- Metropolitan Tier 1
- Insurance Law
- Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
Orange County
- Metropolitan Tier 2
- Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Haight Brown & Bonesteel
Harmon Towers to Be Demolished without Being Finished
October 02, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFEngineering.com looks at why the Harmon Tower in Las Vegas will be coming down at some point in the future. Construction stopped, unfinished in 2008. Taking the building down will cost about $400 million, which the building’s owner feels that the developer should pay.
Inspectors concluded that the building did not meet the earthquake specifications for Las Vegas. The contractor claimed that the fault was due to the design specifications and that the supports were further weakened during destructive testing.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Deleted Emails Cost Company $3M in Sanctions
January 13, 2017 —
Grace V. Hebbel - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. BlogRecently, the Federal District Court for the District of Delaware imposed $3 million in punitive sanctions in order to redress harms caused by a company’s bad faith deletion of tens of thousands of emails during the course of litigation. The sanctions were ordered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, which was amended effective December 1, 2015 to permit sanctions for the failure to preserve electronically stored information (“ESI”).
In GN Netcom, Inc. v. Plantronics, Inc.,1 the plaintiff, GN Netcom, brought an antitrust suit alleging that the defendant company, Plantronics, interfered with distributors to stop GN Netcom from marketing its product. Upon receipt of GN Netcom’s demand letter, Plantronics issued a litigation hold and began providing training sessions to its employees to ensure compliance. Upon filing of GN Netcom’s suit, Plantronics issued an updated litigation hold and continued training sessions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Grace V. Hebbel, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Hebbel may be contacted at
gvh@sdvlaw.com
