Deck Police - The New Mandate for HOA's Takes Safety to the Next Level
November 18, 2019 —
Joseph Ferrentino – Newmeyer DillionA recent California law will hold homeowners’ associations accountable for the safety of their decks. SB326 now mandates all homeowners' associations to have decks inspected at least once every nine years by an architect or structural engineer to determine whether the decks are safe and waterproof. This law (Civil Code section 5551) follows SB721 which was passed in 2018 and requires a similar inspection every six years for other multifamily dwelling units. Failure to comply can result in paying the enforcement costs of local building agencies.
DETAILS ON THE MANDATE:
More specifically, the 2019 law requires inspections of wood “decks, balconies, stairways, and their railings” more than six feet off of the ground and designed for human use. Additionally, the engineer or architect must (1) certify that he or she has inspected for safety and waterproofing, and (2) certify the remaining useful life of the system. Further, the inspector must inspect a random sample of enough units to provide 95% confidence that “the results are reflective of the whole.” In other words, in addition to the inspector, the association will have to hire a statistician.
The nine-year timetable for inspection is no coincidence. After all, the statute of limitations for construction defects is ten years. In fact, associations are required to give notice to their members before filing a suit against a builder. However, under the new law, the association can delay giving notice to its members “if the association has reason to believe that the statute of limitations will expire.” Also, recent case law held that builders could add requirements to CC&R’s to limit a board’s authority to file lawsuits – i.e. adding a supermajority vote by members. Under SB326, any such provisions are now void. Hence, “supermajority” voting provisions are now invalid.
IMPACT ON CONSTRUCTION LITIGATION
These recent laws are clearly a reaction to the tragic collapse of an apartment balcony in Berkley in 2015 that resulted in the death of six college students. While it is imperative that decks be structurally safe, the requirements of SB326 will fuel more construction defect litigation.
Joseph Ferrentino is a Partner in Newmeyer Dillion's Newport Beach office. With 25 years of experience, Joe guides clients through construction law issues, among other areas. For more information on how Joe can help, contact him at joe.ferrentino@ndlf.com
ABOUT NEWMEYER DILLION
For 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that align with the business objectives of clients in diverse industries. With over 70 attorneys working as an integrated team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers tailored legal services to propel clients’ business growth. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California and Nevada, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Beyond the COI: The Importance of an Owner's or Facilities Manager's Downstream Insurance Review Program
March 15, 2021 —
Hugh D. Hughes, Eric M. Clarkson & Mollie H. Levy - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.The risk of bodily injury lawsuits is an unavoidable reality for property owners and facilities managers (“FMs”) of large commercial sites such as universities, malls, office buildings, or stadiums. Any person who steps foot on the property is a potential plaintiff, including students, tenants, customers, contractors, and vendors.
Insurance mitigates these risks, but a property owner’s or FM’s risk transfer strategy should include more than their own suite of general liability and other third-party policies. Ensuring additional insured status on a vendor’s or contractor’s policy is also essential to a comprehensive risk transfer strategy. In a functional risk transfer program, a vendor’s or contractor’s general liability insurer should defend and indemnify property owners or FMs as additional insureds (“AIs”) for liability for bodily injury caused, in whole or in part, by the vendor’s or contractor’s operations. When this works as intended, it effectively transfers costs associated with such a lawsuit from the owner or FM to the vendor’s or contractor’s insurer. It also increases the insurance limits available for a loss.
Reprinted courtesy of
Hugh D. Hughes, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.,
Eric M. Clarkson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Mollie H. Levy, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Hughes may be contacted at HHughes@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Clarkson may be contacted at EClarkson@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Levy may be contacted at MLevy@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The DOL Claims Most Independent Contractors Are Employees
August 04, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contract AdvisorOn July 15, 2015, the Department of Labor issued an Administrator’s Interpretation asserting that most independent contractors are actually employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The DOL claims that the FLSA’s broad definition of employment and “suffer to work” standard under the FLSA requires that most workers be treated as employees. The certainly appears to be the DOL’s warning shot over the bow and companies using independent contractors should take heed.
The most startling aspect of the Administrative Interpretation is the application of the economic realities test in concluding that workers who are economically dependent on the company, regardless of skill level, are employees under the FLSA’s broad definition of employee.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
Second Circuit Brings Clarity To Scope of “Joint Employer” Theory in Discrimination Cases
May 02, 2022 —
Kevin J. O’Connor, Aaron C. Schlesinger & Lauren R. Davis - ConsensusDocsThe “joint employer” doctrine has been used with increasing frequency by the plaintiffs’ bar to broaden the scope of target defendants in discrimination cases beyond those who would be traditionally regarded as the employer. This is true even in the construction industry, which has seen a rise in cases where general contractors (“GC”) or construction managers (“CM”) are being targeted when discrimination is alleged on a construction project, even when the GC or CM is far removed from the underlying events and had no control over the employees in question.
Examples of this phenomenon are where a claim of harassment or discrimination originates in the lower tier ranks of subcontractors, or even where there is a claim involving an independent contractor on a project and a discrimination lawsuit ensues.
Until now, the Courts in the federal circuit which includes New York City (the Second Circuit) have been left to decipher a patchwork of case law to ascertain the scope and extent of joint employer liability in discrimination cases. In a move that is certainly welcomed by contractors, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Felder v. United States Tennis Association, et al., 19-1094, recently issued a comprehensive decision which provides a helpful summary of what must be pled and proven to broaden liability under the joint employer theory in discrimination cases. Felder provides a roadmap for risk mitigation by contractors looking to limit such claims in the future or to meet them head on when they do arise.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kevin J. O’Connor, Peckar & Abramson (ConsensusDocs),
Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson (ConsensusDocs) and
Lauren R. Davis, Peckar & Abramson (ConsensusDocs)
Mr. O'Connor may be contacted at koconnor@pecklaw.com
Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com
Ms. Davis may be contacted at ldavis@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurer Sued for Altering Policies after Claim
January 13, 2014 —
CDJ STAFFA lawsuit alleges that Fidelity National Property & Casualty Insurance Co. retroactively cancelled policies, substituting policies that covered less after claims were made due to damages from Hurricane Sandy. Insurance Journal reports that Dayton Towers Corp., which owns seven high-rises in Queens, New York City, has sued the insurer.
According to Dayton, the policies covered the buildings for amounts from $2.5 to $2.7 million. The total coverage for all seven buildings was $18.5 million. Under new policies, the buildings were covered for $250,000 each, for a total of $1,750,000, which is the amount that Fidelity paid Dayton.
The lawsuit alleges that the policy does not allow for the terms to be rewritten when claims are pending.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Quick Note: Unenforceable Language in Arbitration Provision
November 06, 2018 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesAlthough arbitration is a dispute resolution provision provided for in a contract, the scope of judicial review of an arbitrator’s award is still governed by law. There are limited circumstances in which an arbitrator’s award can be challenged under the law. One of those circumstances is not because a party believes that an arbitrator applied the incorrect law.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Can You Really Be Liable For a Product You Didn’t Make? In New Jersey, the Answer is Yes
December 14, 2020 —
James Burger & Robert Devine - White and Williams LLPNew Jersey has recently expanded liability for product distributors and manufacturers to products that the distributor/manufacturer did not make or sell. This alert discusses this new law and steps that distributors and manufacturers may consider to reduce their potential liability.
In Whelan v. Armstrong International, Inc., the New Jersey Supreme Court held that distributors and manufacturers can be strictly liable for injuries caused by replacement parts added after the point of sale which had not been manufactured or sold by any of the defendants in the case. In Whelan, the defendants’ products had originally been sold with asbestos-containing parts. Mr. Whelan, the plaintiff, argued that asbestos-containing replacement parts were required to repair and maintain the products. The court found that because the products were designed with asbestos-containing parts, “[d]efendants had a duty to provide warnings given the foreseeability that third parties would be the source of asbestos-containing replacement components.” (Emphasis added).
This reasoning, based on “foreseeability,” should give pause to all product distributors and manufacturers—even those who do not make or sell products that contain asbestos. Certainly distributors and manufacturers of products with asbestos-containing parts must take heed that they may now be liable for replacement parts that they neither manufactured nor sold. This alone is a significant holding that expands potential liability.
Reprinted courtesy of
James Burger, White and Williams LLP and
Robert Devine, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Burger may be contacted at burgerj@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Devine may be contacted at deviner@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Are Construction Contract Limitation of Liability Clauses on the Way Out in Virginia?
March 11, 2024 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsRemember BAE Systems and Fluor? This post is the third here at Construction Law Musings relating to this case which is a seemingly never-ending source for content. In the prior post discussing this case, the Court found that Va. Code 1-4.1:1 which bars waiver of a right to payment before work is performed did not apply because Fluor had provided work before execution of the contract or any change orders.
In the most recent opinion in this long-running litigation, and after a motion to reconsider by Fluor that was granted, the Court re-examined this finding along with the contractual language found in the Limitation of Damages (LOD) clause and came to the opposite conclusion regarding certain change orders that remained unpaid by BAE.
The Court first looked to the language of the contract itself and specifically the language in the LOD provision that states “Except as otherwise provided in this Subcontract.” The Court then looked at the change order provision and its typical equitable adjustment language and the mandatory nature of the equitable adjustment language. The Court found that the LOD provisions did not apply to change orders both because price increases due to change orders are not “damages” and because of the exception language in the LOD provision itself.
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
