Pa. Contractor Pleads No Contest to Prevailing-Wage Charges, Pays Workers $20.7M
September 20, 2021 —
Tom Ichniowski - Engineering News-RecordPennsylvania construction contractor Glenn O. Hawbaker Inc. has pleaded no contest to counts of theft of worker pay—in alleged violation of state prevailing-wage laws—and will pay 1,267 workers restitution of $20.7 million in unpaid wages, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro said.
The company entered its plea to four felony counts of “theft by failure to make required disposition of funds received” on Aug. 3 before President Judge Pamela A. Ruest of the Centre County Court of Common Pleas in Bellefonte, Pa.
Reprinted courtesy of
Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Defect or Just Punch List?
December 11, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFA couple in Dickinson, North Dakota have put big, green “buyer beware” signs on their home. They’re not planning on selling, but just trying to warn prospective neighbors of the problems they’ve had since moving into their new home. Andrea Thermes said her problems included leaking windows and uneven floors. “I absolutely love my house,” she said. “If we didn’t have the issues, I would be the happiest girl in the world.”
One problem was a leaking picture window in her living room. The builder replaced it, but the first window that arrived was the wrong size. The new home is still under a warranty and the builder has been fixing issues as they arise. “They are upset with some of the problems they have had,” said William Henry, president of B-Dev, the builder of the home. Since Ms. Thermes’s window wasn’t repaired in time for Thanksgiving, Mr. Henry sent wine and beer to her home. “Not that that makes up for not having their window, but we’re trying to make this work and trying to appease them,” he said.
But Mr. Henry said that some of the problems “are not really material defects,” characterizing them as “punch-list and warranty items.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
SFAA Commends Congress for Maintaining Current Bonding Protection Levels in National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
December 20, 2021 —
The Surety & Fidelity Association of AmericaDecember 15, 2021 (WASHINGTON, DC) – The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA), a nonprofit, nonpartisan trade association representing all segments of the surety and fidelity industry, commends the U.S. Senate and House for passing the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2022, and including Section 877, which exempts the Miller Act from periodic indexing for inflation. SFAA would like to thank Miller Act exemption bill sponsors, Representatives Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) and Byron Donalds (R-FL), as well as Senators Robert Portman (R-OH), Gary Peters (D-MI) and Mazie Hirono (D-HI), for their leadership and commitment on the passage of this bill.
Exempting the Miller Act from periodic indexing for inflation ensures essential payment protections remain in place for subcontractors, suppliers, and workers on all federal construction contracts subject to the Miller Act. The exemption also ensures performance protections for taxpayers will remain in place on federal construction contracts of $150,000 and more.
For over 80 years, the federal Miller Act has protected taxpayers against risk of loss by requiring payment and performance bonds on federal construction contracts. President Biden is expected to sign the NDAA into law in the coming days.
The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan trade association representing all segments of the surety and fidelity industry. Based in Washington, D.C., SFAA works to promote the value of surety and fidelity bonding by proactively advocating on behalf of its members and stakeholders. The association’s more than 450 member companies write 98 percent of surety and fidelity bonds in the U.S. For more information visit www.surety.org.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ambiguity Kills in Construction Contracting
February 15, 2018 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsWell, I’m back and hope to have a more consistent publishing schedule moving forward. I appreciate the continued readership through what has been a busy time for
my solo construction practice over the last couple of months. Now, back to our program. . .
Here at Construction Law Musings, I have often beaten the drum of
a solid contract that leaves as little as possible to chance or the dreaded “grey areas” where we construction lawyers like to make money. An example of the issues that can arise from ambiguity can be found in a case from 2017 in the
Western District of Virginia, W.C. English, Inc. v. Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP et al
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill – The Law Officeof Christopher G. Hill, PC
Texas School District Accepts Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case
October 08, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe Pine Tree ISD Board of Trustees “voted to accept a mediated settlement agreement to end litigation concerning the District’s middle school and its construction issues,” according to KETK News. Pine Tree ISD, located in Longview, Texas, “sued a number of defendant companies for construction and design defects at that campus.”
The school district “will receive the total sum of $820,500,” which “will cover the District’s costs in remediating the campus to repair the construction problems, as well as implementing new systems designed to prevent future issues, both of which came out of the District’s general fund.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New California Construction Laws for 2020
March 09, 2020 —
Smith CurrieThe California Legislature introduced more than 3,033 bills in the first half of the 2019-2020 session. This article summarizes some of the more important bills affecting contractors in their roles as contractors, effective January 1, 2020, unless otherwise noted. Not addressed here are many other bills that will affect contractors in their roles as businesses, taxpayers, and employers. Each of the summaries is brief, focusing on what is most important to contractors. Because not all aspects of these bills are discussed, each summary’s title is a live link to the full text of the referenced bills for those wanting to explore the details of the new laws.
BIDDING & PREQUALIFICATIONS
Disabled Veteran Preferences Strengthened (AB 230, Brough)
The California Legislature intends that every state procurement authority meet or exceed a DVBE participation goal of a minimum of 3% of total contract value. State departments must require prime contractors to certify at the completion of each contract the amount each DVBE received from the prime contractor, among other information. This new law requires the prime contractor to provide upon request proof of the amount and percentage of work the prime contractor committed to provide to one or more DVBEs under the contract in addition to proof of payment for work done by the DVBE. Additionally, prime contractors must now obtain permission before they may replace a listed DVBE.
County of San Joaquin Now Authorized to Establish Bid Preferences (AB 1533, Eggman)
This new law extends to the County of San Joaquin existing law that authorizes local agencies to establish preferences for small businesses, disabled veteran businesses, and social enterprises in facilitating contract awards.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Smith Currie
Life After McMillin: Do Negligence and Strict Liability Causes of Action for Construction Defects Still Exist?
January 24, 2018 —
Thomas Balestreri and Amanda Crawley - Balestreri, Potocki, & HolmesThe ruling is in but the battle will likely continue over the practical application of SB 800. On January 18, 2018 the California Supreme Court issued its decision in
McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (Van Tassel) (January 18, 2018, S229762) __ Cal.4th __, holding that the statutory prelitigation scheme in The Right to Repair Act (“the Act”) that provides for notice and an opportunity for the Builder to repair defects applies to all claims for construction defects in residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003, regardless whether the claim is founded on a violation of the Act’s performance standards or a common law claim for negligence or strict liability. (
McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (Van Tassel) (January 18, 2018, S229762) __ Cal.4th __.) With this holding, has the Court ruled that common law causes of action for construction defect still survive? If so, what will they look like and what standards will be applied?
The short answer is that it appears that common law causes of action still survive, at least for now, but it is not clear from this decision what they will look like and what standards will apply.
Portions of the decision seem to suggest that the Act is the sole and exclusive remedy for construction defect claims: “…even in some areas where the common law had supplied a remedy for construction defects resulting in property damage but not personal injury, the text and legislative history [of the statute] reflect a
clear and unequivocal intent to supplant common law negligence and strict product liability actions under the Act.” (
McMillin (January 18, 2018, S229762) __Cal.4th.__ [p. 6].) (Italics added for emphasis) However, at the end of the decision, the Court seems to be saying that there may still be a place for common law claims for negligence and strict liability alongside the Act but that these causes of action may be subject to the performance standards in the Act.
The
McMillin case went up to the Supreme Court on a procedural issue: whether a common law action alleging construction defects resulting in both economic loss and property damage is subject to the Act’s prelitigation notice and cure procedures. The Van Tassels had dismissed their claims under the Act opting to proceed solely on their common law claims including negligence and strict liability. McMillin sought a stay to force the Van Tassels to comply with the Act’s prelitigation procedures. The Supreme Court held that the Van Tassels must comply with the statutory procedures and affirmed the stay issued by the trial court. But the question remained: now that the Van Tassels were left only with common law claims, how would they proceed under the Act?
To understand how the Court dealt with this question, one must first understand how the Court dealt with the narrow procedural question presented by the case. The Court provides a very detailed, clear explanation of the reasons why it felt the Legislature intended for all construction defect claims involving residential construction must comply with the prelitigation requirements of the Act. In summing up its conclusions the Court makes three definitive holdings.
First, for claims involving economic loss only—the kind of claims involved in
Aas—the Court holds that the Legislature intended to supersede
Aas and provide a statutory basis for recovery. (
McMillin (January 18, 2018, S229762) __Cal.4th.__ [p. 10].) In other words, the Court clearly agrees that the Act was meant to allow recovery of damages based solely on economic damages. No surprise there. Second, the Court held for personal injuries, the Legislature made no changes to existing law that provides common law remedies for the injured party. (Id.) Nobody has ever contested that. Finally, the Court held that for construction defect claims involving property damage and not just economic loss “the Legislature replaced the common law
methods of recovery with the new statutory scheme.” (
Id.,) (Italics added for emphasis.)
In other words, the Court is not saying that negligence and strict liability are not permitted causes of action. The Court is merely stating that these causes of action must comply with the Act’s statutory scheme just as the same as a claim for economic loss. Here the Court is focusing on the procedure that must be followed. “The Act, in effect, provides that construction defect claims not involving personal injury will be treated the same procedurally going forward whether or not the underlying claims gave rise to any property damage.” (
Id.)
Having laid out its fundamental premise, the Court then deals with Plaintiff’s arguments regarding the intent of the Legislature and makes light work of them all. In the process, the Court disapproves
Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal. App. 4th 98, and
Burch v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 1411, to the extent they are inconsistent with the views expressed in the
McMillin opinion.
This is where the decision gets interesting. The Court reminds us that the Van Tassels had dismissed their statutory causes of action for violation of the performance standards under Section 896. One would think at that point that Plaintiffs had to be wondering if they had any claims left given that the Court had ruled that the Act was the sole means of recovery for construction defects. Not so fast. The Court points out that the complaint still rests on allegations of defective construction and that the suit remains an “ ‘action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in, the residential construction’ of the plaintiffs’ homes (§896)
and McMillin’s liability under the Van Tassels’ negligence and strict liability claims depends on the extent to which it [McMillin] violated the standards of sections 896 and 897.” (
McMillin (January 18, 2018, S229762) __Cal.4th.__ [p. 19].) (Emphasis added.) WHAT DID THE COURT JUST SAY? Did the Court just say that a plaintiff could bring a common law cause of action for negligence or strict liability based on a violation of the performance standards under Section 896? What exactly would that claim look like? What would be the elements of such a cause of action?
To answer these questions, the Court states in the very next paragraph, which also happens to be the last paragraph in the decision: “In holding that claims seeking recovery for construction defect damages are subject to the Act’s prelitigation procedures regardless of how they are pleaded,
we have no occasion to address the extent to which a party might rely upon common law principles in pursuing liability under the Act.” (
McMillin (January 18, 2018, S229762) __Cal.4th.__ [p. 19].) (Italics added for emphasis) Is the Court answering “No” to the questions posed above? Probably not. It is simply following the age old rule that an appellate court will
not rule on an issue that is not specifically presented by an appeal, leaving that question for another day.
All we know for sure from
McMillin is that every claim for construction defects falling within the scope of the Act must follow the prelitigation procedure. There are no hall passes for negligence and strict liability. The larger question posed by the last two paragraphs in the decision, is whether the law recognizes a cause of action for negligence and strict liability for construction defects based on the standards in Section 896. The answer will have to be worked out by judges and trial attorneys in courtrooms across the State! The parameters of this hybrid cause of action that the Court seems to have posited will need more careful consideration than can be offered on first reading of
McMillin v. Superior Court.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Balestreri, Potocki, & Holmes
No Retrofit without Repurposing in Los Angeles
October 21, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Los Angeles Times has continued its series on the seismic safety of buildings in downtown Los Angeles. According to the article, Los Angeles only requires seismic retrofits of buildings if their purpose is being changed. One investor, Izak Shomof, bought a residential hotel and kept it as one to avoid retrofitting the building. He converted an office building to upscale residences and so the building was strengthened.
His son, Eric Shomof, keeps an office in the unreinforced building. He said if more retrofitting were required, “you’d see a lot more vacant buildings down here,” describing the process as “not cheap.”
Depending on whether or when a building has changed its use, the concrete buildings of downtown Los Angeles may or may not be protected against failure in an earthquake.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
