Happenings in and around the West Coast Casualty Seminar
April 02, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFFor those who are attending the West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar May 15th-16th, the Construction Defect Journal has compiled a list of concerts, sporting events, and museum exhibitions taking place in and around Anaheim that week. Whether you like to spend your personal time checking out a new band, or watching your favorite Angel slide into home, or perusing the local art museum, there is something to spark your interest.
CONCERT VENUES
THE HOUSE OF BLUES IN ANAHEIM
Blessthefall with Silverstein, The Amity Affliction, SECRETS and Heartist
Tuesday, May 13th, 2014 Doors Open at 6pm / Show Begins at 7pm
For More Information and to Purchase Tickets...
THE HOUSE OF BLUES IN ANAHEIM
Stephen "Ragga" Marley
Saturday, May 17th, 2014 Doors Open at 8pm / Show Begins at 9pm
For More Information and to Purchase Tickets...
THE GROVE OF ANAHEIM
Lindsey Stirling plus special guest Dia Frampton
Wednesday, May 14, 2014 Doors Open at 7pm / Show Begins at 8pm
For More Information and to Purchase Tickets...
THE GROVE OF ANAHEIM
Primal Fear
Thursday, May 15, 2014 Doors Open at 6:30pm / Show Begins at 7pm
For More Information and to Purchase Tickets...
THE GROVE OF ANAHEIM
Jillian Michaels 'Maximize Your Life' Tour
Friday, May 16, 2014 Doors Open at 6pm / Show begins at 8pm
For More Information and to Purchase Tickets...
SPORTING EVENTS
ANGEL’S STADIUM - BASEBALL
The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim v. Tampa Bay Rays
Thursday, May 15th at 7:05pm
Friday, May 16th at 7:05pm
Saturday, May 17th at 6:05pm
Sunday, May 18th at 12:35pm
For More Information and to Purchase Tickets...
MUSEUM EXHIBITIONS
MUZEO
Transcending Trash: The Art of Upcycling
Sat Apr 26 – Sun Aug 31, 2014
Museum Days/Hours: Tuesday – Sunday (Closed Mondays) / 10 am to 5 pm
For More Information and to Purchase Tickets...
BOWERS MUSEUM (Santa Ana)
BEETHOVEN: THE LATE GREAT
February 8, 2014 - May 18, 2014
Museum Days/Hours: Tuesday – Sunday (Closed Mondays) / 10 am to 4 pm
For More Information and to Purchase Tickets... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tenth Circuit Reverses District Court's Ruling that Contractor Entitled to a Defense
October 24, 2023 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiAfter the district court granted the insured contractor's motion for judgment on the pleadings on the duty to defend, the Tenth Circuit found there was no coverage and reversed. Owners Ins. Co. v. Greenhalgh Planning & Development, Inc., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 20137 (10th Cir. Aug. 4, 2023).
Greenhalgh remodeled a house and barn for Michelle and Steven Pickens. After completion of the project, the Pickens sold the property to Teague and Michelle Cowley. The Cowleys later sued the Pickenses asserting various fraud and breach of contract claims. The complaint alleged that the Pickenses misled them into reasonably believing that the barn was a habitable structure, even though it did not qualify as such under the applicable building code because it lacked a fire-sprinkler system.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Insurer's Appeal of Jury Verdict Rejected by Tenth Circuit
March 06, 2023 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiAfter a jury awarded damages related to the insurer's delayed payment under the claim and the insurer's post trial motions to set aside the verdict were denied, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. US General, LLC v. GuideOne Mut. Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 34066 (10th Cir. Dec. 12, 2022).
Crossroads American Baptist Church submitted a claim to GuideOne for hailstorm damage. Crossroads hired US General as the general contractor to perform the repairs and later assigned its interest in the insurance policy to US General.
Numerous disputes arose between Crossroads and GuideOne regarding the cost of the repairs. There were delayed payments and portions of the repairs were never paid for. The delayed payments meant GuideOne's ability to begin making the repairs was hindered because it was more expensive to start and stop a project.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Florida Governor Bans Foreign Citizens From Buying Land in Florida
May 29, 2023 —
Michael Gnesin - Lewis BrisboisFt. Lauderdale, Fla. (May 19, 2023) - Florida Governor Ron DeSantis recently signed a bill prohibiting Chinese citizens who are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents from purchasing any residential or commercial land or farmland in Florida.
Senate Bill 264, titled “Interests of Foreign Countries,” will prohibit Chinese nationals from buying land unless they are American citizens or permanent residents. The bill also imposes certain restrictions on Chinese citizens – and others, including Russians and Venezuelans – with non-tourist visas when it comes to buying land near a military base in Florida. For example, and in an exception to the new law, Chinese citizens with non-tourist visas would be limited to buying fewer than two acres of land that is at least five miles away from any military institutions.
Senate Bill 264 reads in pertinent part:
…A foreign principal may not directly or indirectly own, have a controlling interest in, or acquire by purchase, grant, devise, or descent agricultural land or any interest, except a de minimis indirect interest, in such land in this state….
…A foreign principal may not directly or indirectly own, or have a controlling interest in, or acquire by purchase, grant, devise, or descent any interest, except a de minimis indirect interest, in real property on or within 10 miles of any military installation or critical infrastructure facility in this state…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Gnesin, Lewis BrisboisMr. Gnesin may be contacted at
Michael.Gnesin@lewisbrisbois.com
When to Withhold Retention Payments on Private or Public Projects
August 29, 2018 —
Nicholas Karkazis - Gordon & Rees Construction Law BlogTo ensure that construction contractors and subcontractors receive timely progress and retention payments, the California Legislature enacted statutes that impose deadlines and penalties on owners and direct (general) contractors who delay payments. (Cal. Civ. Code, §§ 8800, 8802, 8812, 8814; Pub. Contract Code, §§ 7107, 10262.5; Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7108.5.) However, there is an exception to these deadlines and penalties on both private and public projects. The exception allows an owner or direct contractor to withhold payment1 when there is a good faith dispute between an owner and a direct contractor or between a direct contractor and a subcontractor. (Civ. Code, §§ 8800, subd. (b), 8802, subd. (b), 8812, subd. (c), 8814, subd. (c); Pub. Contract Code, §§ 7107, subds. (c), (e), 10262.5, subd. (a); Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7108.5, subd. (a).)
But the term “good faith dispute” has been a source of confusion where direct contractors owe subcontractors retention payments, but want to withhold the payment because of a dispute.2 California appellate courts were split, with one court finding that any type of bona fide dispute justified withholding, and another finding that only disputes related to the payment itself justified withholding. (Compare Martin Brothers Construction, Inc. v. Thompson Pacific Construction, Inc. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1401 [any bona fide dispute could justify withholding] with East West Bank v. Rio School Dist. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 742 [disputes related to the payment itself may justify withholding].) In May 2018, the California Supreme Court clarified that for a direct contractor to withhold a retention payment on a private project, the good faith dispute must somehow relate to the payment itself. (United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1082, 1097-1098.)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nicholas Karkazis, Gordon & Rees Scully MansukhaniMr. Karkazis may be contacted at
nkarkazis@grsm.com
Florida Decides Against Adopting Daubert
January 28, 2019 —
Rahul Gogineni - The Subrogation StrategistIn Delisle v. Crane Co., 2018 Fla. LEXIS 1883, 43 Fla. L. Weekly S 459, the Supreme Court of Florida reaffirmed that the appropriate test for admissibility of an expert opinion about new or novel scientific evidence is the “Frye” test, not the “Daubert” test.
As result of developing mesothelioma, Richard Delisle sued sixteen defendants, including Crane Company (Crane) and R.J. Reynolds, claiming that each exposed him to asbestos, which is a leading cause of mesothelioma. At trial, Crane and R.J. Reynolds sought to preclude the expert opinions of Mr. Delisle’s causation experts. The trial denied the motions and the jury awarded Mr. Delisle $8 million.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rahul Gogineni, White and WilliamsMr. Gogineni may be contacted at
goginenir@whiteandwilliams.com
Safeguarding History: Fire Risks in Renovating Historic Buildings
January 28, 2025 —
Birgitte Messerschmidt - Construction ExecutiveThe renovation of historic and unique buildings is both a labor of love and a huge responsibility. Rich in stories and architectural beauty, these structures link communities to their past. However, giving new life to these iconic buildings through renovation projects can place them in jeopardy, as fire-related risks remain a significant challenge. This is evidenced by the number of devasting fire tragedies that have happened during work on these structures, including at the
Glasgow School of Art in 2014 and 2018 and the
Notre-Dame Cathedral in 2019, showcasing how vulnerable these buildings are amid the status quo of renovation protocols.
Preventing these types of fire-related incidents during future historic building renovations, maintaining compliance with codes and standards such as NFPA 241, Standard for Safeguarding Construction, Alteration, and Demolition Operations, and NFPA 914, Code for the Protection of Historic Structures, must be a top priority for all workers on site. These resources provide workers with the proper tools and guidelines to address the intricate challenges that come with these operations.
Reprinted courtesy of
Birgitte Messerschmidt, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court Orders House to be Demolished or Relocated
April 26, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorezCDJ STAFFDecision Affirmed in Central Arkansas Foundation Homes, LLC v. Rebecca Choate
The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the decision by the trial court in Central Arkansas Foundation Homes, LLC v. Rebecca Choate. In the trial case, Central Arkansas Foundation Homes (CAFH) sought payment for a home built for Choate, while Choate alleged that the builders committed multiple construction defects including using the wrong foundation materials and positioning the house in the wrong direction.
After the house was built, CAFH contacted Choate regarding payment, however, Choate alleged that the finished product did not match the contract. “ After CAFH completed construction, it obtained permanent home financing for Choate and tried to contact her to close the transaction. Choate did not respond until October 2005, when she sent CAFH a list of alleged construction defects, including that the house was facing in the wrong direction; that it was not built on a slab; and that the fireplace, garbage disposal, driveway, and storage area were missing. CAFH replied to Choate in writing, telling her that she had until January 6, 2006, to close on the house or CAFH would sell it. The correspondence enclosed worksheets showing that the amount Choate would owe at closing exceeded $94,000, which included interest that had accrued on the as-yet unpaid construction loan.”
Initially, the court found in favor of CAFH. “On April 18, 2007, Choate’s attorney withdrew from representing her. Soon thereafter, CAFH’s attorney asked the court to set a final hearing on the case. The attorney purportedly sent Choate a letter by regular mail on May 15, 2007, advising her that the case was set for trial on July 9, 2007. Choate, however, did not appear. CAFH did appear, and its general manager, John Oldner, testified to events leading up to the case and the amount of damages claimed. According to Oldner, the interest on the construction loan had accrued to the point that CAFH now sought $104,965.88 from Choate. The court found in favor of CAFH and entered judgment for that amount, plus attorney fees, on July 18, 2007. The court ruled that CAFH could sell the house and either remit any excess to Choate or look to Choate for the deficiency if the sales price did not cover the judgment.”
However, Choate successfully argued that she did not receive notice of the trial. A new trial was ordered, and the outcome was quite different. “On June 6, 2008, the circuit court entered judgment for Choate, ruling that the house was not in substantial compliance with the parties’ contract and that the contract should be rescinded. The court found that the house suffered from numerous construction defects, that the contract contemplated a slab rather than a concrete-pier foundation, and that CAFH ignored Choate’s complaints that the house was facing the wrong way. The judgment directed CAFH to hold Choate harmless on the construction loan, to deed Choate’s two acres back to her, and to remove the house from Choate’s property.”
The Court of Appeals “found that Choate would be unjustly enriched by retaining the benefit of the septic systems and utility lines that CAFH installed on her land. The court therefore awarded $5340 to CAFH as a quantum-meruit recovery for the value of that work. CAFH contends that the award is not sufficient, but we see no clear error.” In the end, the Court of Appeals provided this reason for declining to reverse the trial court’s decision: “The court in this case apparently concluded that the house constructed by CAFH was so fundamentally at odds with Choate’s contractual expectations that she was not unjustly enriched and should simply be, as nearly as possible, returned to the status quo ante. Accordingly, the court ordered the house removed from her property and permitted CAFH to either relocate the house or salvage the house’s materials and unused appliances. We decline to reverse the court’s weighing of the equities in this manner.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
