Construction Defect Litigation in Nevada Called "Out of Control"
February 04, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFKXNT Las Vegas's Trevor Smith reports that Las Vegas alone has more than 500 pending construction defect cases. The issue of construction defects in Nevada will be taken up by the Nevada Legislature. Smith spoke with Mike Dillon, the executive director of the Builders Association of Northern Nevada. BANN is supporting legislation that Dillon says will "protect homeowners and secondly it's going to put people back to work." Dillon noted that "construction is the second largest industry in the state." Dillon attributed some of the construction defect litigation to the state's building codes.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Angelo Mozilo Speaks: No Regrets at Countrywide
September 03, 2014 —
Max Abelson – BloombergSix years after he lost control of the largest mortgage lender in the U.S., and days after news that the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles plans to sue him, the Countrywide Financial Corp. founder is baffled by a new effort to punish him, proud of past triumphs and incensed by criticism.
“You’ll have to ask those people, ‘What do you have against Mozilo, what did he do?’” he said in a 30-minute call with Bloomberg News before Labor Day, one of his few interviews since the firm’s downfall. “Countrywide didn’t change. I didn’t change. The world changed.”
Interviews with Mozilo, 75, and three friends show what retirement looks like for a chief executive officer linked to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Remaining out of public view like Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s Richard Fuld or Jimmy Cayne of Bear Stearns Cos., Mozilo has submitted plans for Old West-style offices in California, taught students in Italy about finance, invested in a building in the Arizona desert that houses a Taco Bell and written about his life so that his grandchildren will “know the truth.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Max Abelson, BloombergMr. Abelson may be contacted at
mabelson@bloomberg.net
Don’t Kick the Claim Until the End of the Project: Timely Give Notice and Preserve Your Claims on Construction Projects
December 10, 2015 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsFor this week’s Guest Post Friday, we welcome
Tara L. Chadbourn. Tara is an attorney with
ReavesColey PLLC in Chesapeake, VA, where she concentrates her practice on construction law, litigation and commercial litigation. Tara counsels owners, contractors, subcontractors and materials suppliers in various government and commercial construction matters. Tara can be reached at tara.chadbourn@reavescoley.com.
You may have experienced and have certainly heard of the scenario in which a contractor waits to address a claim as part of project closeout, only to realize the applicable deadline has already passed. While there may have been discussions about claims during the course of the project, contractors cannot rely upon oral conversations about outstanding claims. Instead, contractors must be vigilant in satisfying notice requirements and preserving claims. While entitlement must still be proven, a contractor’s chances of recovery increase greatly if the contractor abides by notice requirements and consciously preserves claims in the following ways.
Contractors Must Acquaint Themselves with Contractual Notice Provisions:
Many prime and subcontract agreements contain stringent notice provisions that require the contractor to give notice within a certain time period or else the claim is expressly waived. The deadline for notice is often only a few days after the occurrence giving rise to the claim or the contractor becoming aware of the claim. To avoid waiver, contractors must carefully review their contracts for provisions requiring notice of a claims for adjustment for a variety of situations to include unforeseen site conditions, trade sequencing changes, project delay or scope of work changes.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PCMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
The OFCCP’s November 2019 Updated Technical Assistance Guide: What Every Federal Construction Contractor Should Know
March 23, 2020 —
Sarah K. Carpenter - Smith CurrieThe Department of Labor (“DOL”) Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) issued its 148-page Updated Construction Contractor Technical Assistance Guide (the “Guide”) on November 13, 2019. A complete copy of the Guide can be found
here, but the below provides a summary of what every Federal Construction Contractor should know regarding the OFCCP’s November 2019 update to its prior 2006 publication.
The DOL has identified the Guide as a “self-assessment tool” to assist contractors in meeting “their legal requirements and responsibilities for equal employment opportunity by preventing violations before they occur.” However, the Guide does not create or impose new requirements for Federal Construction Contractors. Instead, the Guide provides an overview of anti-discrimination and affirmative action requirements and obligations under existing laws and regulations, and suggests best practices and guidance. Specifically, the Guide provides:
- A concise summary of Federal Construction Contractors’ legal obligations under the three main laws enforced by the OFCCP: Executive Order 11246, Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974;
- A detailed explanation of requirements for written Affirmative Action Plans;
- A clear schedule of Standard Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Construction Contract Specifications;
- A reorganized recap of the sixteen affirmative action steps Federal Construction Contractors are required to implement in good-faith; and
- A user-friendly roadmap of what to expect during an OFCCP audit, including a discussion of record keeping requirements.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sarah K. Carpenter, Smith CurrieMs. Carpenter may be contacted at
skcarpenter@smithcurrie.com
Construction Professionals Could Face More Liability Exposure Following California Appellate Ruling
December 17, 2024 —
Jamison Rayfield & Brian Slome - Lewis BrisboisSan Diego/San Francisco, Calif. - The California Court of Appeal
recently reversed a summary judgment ruling in favor of a geotechnical engineering firm that had conducted a brief inspection of a residential construction project's footing trench for $360. The case arose when homeowner Cheryl Lynch experienced significant property damage after her home's foundation failed and the structure began subsiding into a slope. Lynch sued Peter & Associates for professional negligence and nuisance, despite having no direct contractual relationship with the firm, which had been hired by her contractor to perform the geotechnical inspection.
The court distinguished this case from Bily v. Arthur Young & Co. (1992) 3 Cal.4th 370, which had limited auditors' professional duty to third parties, noting that Bily dealt with purely economic damages, whereas Lynch involved physical property damage, making Bily's policy concerns about unlimited liability inapplicable. The court emphasized that construction professional negligence cases, particularly those involving residential property damage, warrant a different analysis than cases involving economic loss.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jamison Rayfield, Lewis Brisbois and
Brian Slome, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Rayfield may be contacted at Jamison.Rayfield@lewisbrisbois.com
Mr. Slome may be contacted at Brian.Slome@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Product Defect Allegations Trigger Duty To Defend in Pennsylvania
August 31, 2020 —
Stacy M. Manobianca - Saxe Doernberger & VitaThe Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently concluded, in Nautilus Insurance Co. v. 200 Christian Street Partners, LLC., that a duty to defend is triggered when product-related allegations are pled in connection with a claim for defective construction.
In Nautilus, the coverage dispute arose out of two independent underlying lawsuits in which homeowners alleged that the homes built by 200 Christian Street Partners (“Christian Street”) were defectively constructed. Christian Street tendered the claim to its insurer, Nautilus Insurance Co. (“Nautilus”), for defense and indemnity.1
Nautilus filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeking a declaration that it was not obligated to defend Christian Street in the underlying actions.2 Specifically, Nautilus asserted that it was not required to provide a defense in the underlying actions because Pennsylvania law does not consider faulty workmanship to constitute an “occurrence” and, therefore, to trigger the policy’s insuring agreement and the insurer’s duty to defend.3
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stacy M. Manobianca, Saxe Doernberger & VitaMs. Manobianca may be contacted at
smm@sdvlaw.com
Late Filing Contractor Barred from Involving Subcontractors in Construction Defect Claim
March 01, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Colorado Court of Appeals looked at that state’s Construction Defect Action Reform Act in determining if a general contractor could add subcontractors as third-party defendants to a construction defect lawsuit. Shaw Construction, LLC was the general contraction of the Roslyn Court condominium complex, and was sued by the homeowners’ association in a construction defect case. United Builder Services was the drywall subcontractor on the project. MB Roofing had installed roofs, gutters, and downspouts. The certificate of occupancy for the last building was issued on March 10, 2004. The project architect certified completion of all known remaining architectural items in June, 2004.
The HOA filed a claim against the developers of the property on January, 21, 2009. A week later, the HOA amended its complaint to add Shaw, the general contractor. Shaw did not file its answer and third-party complaint until March 29, 2010, sending its notice of claim under the CDARA on March 30.
The subcontractors claimed that the six-year statute of limitations had ended twenty days prior. Shaw claimed that the statute of limitations ran until six years after the architect’s certification, or that the HOA’s suit had tolled all claims.
The trial court granted summary judgment to the subcontractors, determining that “substantial completion occurs ‘when an improvement to real property achieves a degree of completion at which the owner can conveniently utilize the improvement of the purpose it was intended.’”
The appeals court noted that “Shaw correctly points out that the CDARA does not define ‘substantial completion.’” The court argued that Shaw’s interpretation went against the history and intent of the measure. “Historically, a construction professional who received a complaint responded by ‘cross-nam[ing] or add[ing] everybody and anybody who had a part to play in the construction chain.’” The court concluded that the intent of the act was to prevent unnamed subcontractors from being tolled.
The court further rejected Shaw’s reliance on the date of the architect’s certification as the time of “substantial completion,” instead agreeing with the trial court that “the architect’s letter on which Shaw relies certified total completion.”
The appeals court upheld the trial court’s determination that the statute of limitation began to run no later than March 10, 2004 and that Shaw’s complaint of March 29, 2010 was therefore barred. The summary judgment was upheld.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court Slams the Privette Door on Independent Contractor’s Bodily Injury Claim
May 06, 2019 —
Brett G. Moore, Michael C. Parme, Lindsey N. Ursua & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Johnson v. The Raytheon Company, Inc., Case No. B281411 (2019) WL 1090217, plaintiff Laurence Johnson (Johnson) was a maintenance engineer employed by an independent contractor that provided control room staff to defendant Raytheon Company, Inc. (“Raytheon”). Johnson was monitoring the computers in the control room when he received low water level alarms pertaining to the water cooling towers. Johnson went to the cooling tower wall in order to look over the wall and verify the water level. Johnson saw the upper half of an extension ladder leaning against the cooling tower’s wall. The ladder had a warning sign which said, “CAUTION” and “THIS LADDER SECTION IS NOT DESIGNED FOR SEPARATE USE.” Despite these warnings, Johnson used the ladder. As he was climbing the ladder it slid out causing him to fall and suffer injuries.
Johnson sued Raytheon, the hirer of the independent contractor, arguing the ladder, among other things, was unsafe and lead to Johnson’s injuries. Johnson believed that Raytheon’s course of conduct of leaving a platform ladder (as opposed to the extension ladder) at the wall constituted an implied agreement to always have one present, on which the independent contractor’s employees relied. Johnson further argued that Raytheon was negligent in providing a dangerous extension ladder, as opposed to a platform ladder, at the wall on the night of the accident.
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys
Brett G. Moore,
Michael C. Parme,
Lindsey N. Ursua and
Lawrence S. Zucker II
Mr. Moore may be contacted at bmoore@hbblaw.com
Mr. Parme may be contacted at mparme@hbblaw.com
Ms. Lindsey may be contacted at lursua@hbblaw.com
Mr. Lawrence may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
