Background Owner of Property Cannot Be Compelled to Arbitrate Construction Defects
November 07, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFIn Truppi v. Pasco Engineering, John Quattro sued Property Management Contractors, Inc. over construction defects in William Truppi’s home. All parties are named in the suit. The California Court of Appeals ruled that Property Management Contractors, Inc. (PMCI) could not compel Mr. Quattro to arbitration.
The background of the case involves two houses built in Encinitas, California by PCMI: one for Mr. Truppi at 560 Neptune, and one for Mr. Quattro at 566 Neptune. Both contracts contained an arbitration provision. Mr. Quattro signed the contract for his residence and Mr. Truppi signed the other. Mr. Quattro then sued PCMI and its principal, William Gregory. Mr. Quattro claimed to be the true contracting party for the 560 Neptune residence and a third party beneficiary of the contract Mr. Truppi signed, and stated that PCMI was aware of this.
PCMI in a demurrer stated that Quattro “had only a ‘prospective beneficial interest in the property upon its eventual sale or lease.’” Mr. Quattro amended his complaint to account for the issues raised by PCMI. The court rejected PCMI’s demurrer to the amended complaint.
Finally, PCMI and Gregory asserted that Quattro was “not the real party in interest” and could not sue. PCMI continues to assert that Quattro lacks standing, but their attorney sent Quattro an e-mail stating, “While my client disputes that you are a party, and that you lack standing to assert the claim, to the extent you do so I believe you are obligated to proceed by way of arbitration.”
The court did not cover the issue of Quattro’s standing in the case, only if he could be compelled to arbitration. The court affirmed the lower court’s finding that Quattro could not be compelled to arbitrate the construction defect claim as neither he nor Gregory signed the contract in an individual capacity. Further, the court noted that PCMI and Gregory “denied the existence of an agreement between themselves and Quattro on the 560 contract,” and cannot compel arbitration on a non-existent agreement. And while non-signatories can, in some situations be compelled to arbitrate, the court found that “these cases are inapplicable because here they seek to have the alleged third party beneficiary (Quattro) compelled by a nonsignatory (Gregory).” The arbitration clause in question “expressly limited its application to persons or entities that signed the 560 contract.”
As Mr. Quattro was not a signatory to that agreement, the court found that he could not be held to its arbitration provision.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Claim Against Broker for Failure to Procure Adequate Coverage Survives Summary Judgment
April 15, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe broker's motion for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss negligence claims for failure to obtain adequate coverage, was denied by the court in Voss v. The Netherlands Ins. Co., 2014 N.Y. LEXIS 384 (N.Y. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2014).
The insured met with a representative of CH Insurance Brokerage Services Co., Inc. (CHI) to discuss coverage for the premises and her two companies. At CHI's request, the insured shared information on sales figures for calculating business interruption coverage. The broker represented that CHI would reassess and revisit the coverage needs as her business grew.
CHI recommended $75,000 per incident in coverage for business interruption losses. The insured questioned whether the $75,000 limit was adequate, but the broker assured her that it was sufficient. The insured then accepted the recommendation. Subsequently, the insured's business grew, but CHI renewed the policy with the same $75,000 business interruption limit.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Indemnity: What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You!
September 19, 2022 —
Caitlin Kicklighter & Bill Shaughnessy - ConsensusDocsRisk allocation between the parties is a critical component of any construction contract. Indemnity obligations can be some of the important risk-shifting provisions of any design or construction contract. Indemnity provisions typically require one party, the Indemnitor, to agree to “hold harmless,” and/or reimburse another party, the indemnitee, from claims and liability arising out of the party’s work. Considering the financial consequences that an indemnity provision can have on a construction project, it is critical that all parties to a construction contract know the legal implications of the contract indemnity provisions and understand any limitations in enforcing the indemnity provisions depending on the controlling jurisdiction. While most indemnity clauses and obligations are enforceable, many states have enacted anti-indemnity statutes prohibiting or restricting specific indemnification provisions. These anti-indemnity statutes afford protection to contractors and subcontractors not generally in a position to protect themselves from overly extensive indemnity obligations.
This article highlights several examples of indemnity provisions typically seen in construction contracts, the measures are taken by a growing number of states to protect parties with less bargaining power in the form of anti-indemnity statutes, and offers practical considerations when negotiating or drafting indemnity provisions.
[1]
Reprinted courtesy of
Caitlin Kicklighter, Emory Law Student (2024 Graduate), (ConsensusDocs) and
Bill Shaughnessy, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Mr. Shaughnessy may be contacted at bshaughnessy@joneswalker.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Bars Coverage for Collapse of Building
July 31, 2013 —
Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiThe court rejected the insured's argument that there was coverage for the collapse of a building caused by water leakage (a covered peril) and landslide (an uncovered peril). Stor/Gard, Inc. v. Strathmore Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. LEXIS App. 11015 (1st Cir. May 31, 2013).
A severe rain storm caused soil to slide down a hill and over a retaining wall, thereby damaging a building owned by the insured. Investigators hired by Strathmore Insurance Company determined that rain had soaked into the soil, causing the landslide. Although the investigators found some water leakage, they determined the leakage was not a cause or contributing factor, and was negligible compared to the rain amount.
The insured's policy with Strathmore was an all-risk policy. Loss caused by a landslide was excluded. Further, loss caused by collapse was excluded from coverage except as set forth in the policy's "additional coverage for collapse" section. This section provided coverage for a collapse caused by water damage or a leakage of water. Another exclusion barred coverage for loss caused by weather conditions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred EyerlyTred Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Ackman Group Pays $91.5 Million for Condo at NYC’s One57
April 15, 2015 —
David M. Levitt and Oshrat Carmiel – BloombergA group including billionaire investor Bill Ackman paid $91.5 million for a duplex penthouse at Extell Development Co.’s One57 condominium tower, one of New York City’s most expensive home purchases ever.
The purchase of unit 75 in the luxury skyscraper overlooking Central Park closed on March 27, according to property records filed Thursday. The buyer was listed as 57157 Co. LLC, a single-purpose entity that Ackman controls.
The 13,554-square-foot (1,259-square-meter), six-bedroom home spans the 75th and 76th floors of the 90-story skyscraper. Ackman last year told the New York Times it was “the Mona Lisa of apartments.” Monthly common charges on the unit were estimated at $23,595, according to documents Extell filed with the state attorney general’s office.
Reprinted courtesy of
David M. Levitt, Bloomberg and
Oshrat Carmiel, Bloomberg Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
COVID-19 Business Interruption Lawsuits Begin: Iconic Oceana Grill in New Orleans Files Insurance Coverage Lawsuit
April 20, 2020 —
Jeffrey J. Vita & William S. Bennett - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.On Monday, the iconic New Orleans restaurant, Oceana Grill, filed the first Coronavirus-related business interruption insurance coverage lawsuit in a US jurisdiction. The declaratory judgment action styled Cajun Conti, LLC, et. al. d/b/a Oceana Grill v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London was filed in Louisiana state court for the Parish of Orleans. As a direct result of the government-mandated closures and restrictions on public gatherings implemented by the City of New Orleans and State of Louisiana, Oceana Grill’s petition anticipates a significant loss of business income.
Based on allegations in the petition, there are several aspects of Oceana Grill’s policy that make this a good test case for business interruption coverage stemming from the Coronavirus. Although the specific policy language is not quoted in the petition, coverage provisions are categorically identified throughout.
As a preliminary matter, the policy at issue appears to be written on an “all risks” basis, meaning the insuring agreement of the policy would likely be triggered generally by all risks of “physical loss or damage” unless specifically excluded. This basis for coverage, which is common in property policies, is advantageous to policyholders, as it limits the insured’s burden of proof to establishing that there was physical loss or damage while leaving the burden of applying any more specific exclusion to the insurance company.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Vita may be contacted at jjv@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Bennett may be contacted at wsb@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Language California Construction Direct Contractors Must Add to Subcontracts Beginning on January 1, 2022, Per Senate Bill 727
December 20, 2021 —
William L. Porter - Porter Law GroupSenate Bill No. 727, Imposing Liability on Contractors for Wage Claims of Subcontractor Employees:
California Senate Bill 727 was approved by the Governor on September 27, 2021. The new Act amended Labor Code Section 218.7 and added a new section 218.8 to the Labor Code. Both Labor Code sections impose on “direct contractors” in the construction industry (defined by Civil Code 8018 as “a contractor that has a direct contractual relationship with an owner”) liability for the wage violations of their subcontractors and sub-subcontractors at any tier when working on California private construction projects.
Specifically, new Section 218.8 expands the liability of direct contractors for wage claims of the employees of subordinate subcontractors on projects for contracts executed beginning on January 1, 2022. The liability of the direct contractor under Labor Code 218.8 will include “any debt owed to a wage claimant or third party on the wage claimant’s behalf, incurred by a subcontractor at any tier acting under, by, or for the direct contractor.” Specifically included as listed liabilities of the direct contractor are: “any unpaid wage, fringe or other benefit payment or contribution, penalties or liquidated damages, and interest owed by the subcontractor on account of the performance of the labor.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Porter, Porter Law GroupMr. Porter may be contacted at
bporter@porterlaw.com
California Supreme Court Holds that Prevailing Wages are Not Required for Mobilization Work, for Now
October 18, 2021 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIn the midst of the Great Depression the federal government enacted the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. section 32141 et seq.) to help workers on federal construction projects. Under the Davis-Bacon Act, minimum wages must be paid to workers on federal public works projects based on local “prevailing” wages. At the time, the goal of the law was to help curb the displacement of families by employers who were recruiting lower-wage workers from outside local areas. A darker history suggests that it was also intended to discourage minority workers from competing with unionized white workers.
Fast forward to today. Many states, including California, adopted “Little Davis-Bacon” laws applying similar requirements on state and local public works projects. California’s prevailing wage law (Labor Code section 1720 et seq.) requires contractors on state and local public works projects pay their workers the general prevailing rate of per diem wages based on the classification or type of work performed by the employee in the locality where the project is located.
Over the years, labor unions have sought to expand the definition of what constitutes a “public works project” from private residential developments receiving public funding (generally, prevailing wages required) to off-site fabrication of materials at permanent facility for a public works project (no prevailing wages required) to enforcement mechanisms such as making a general contractor liable for prevailing wage violations of its subcontractors (yes, indeedy, see Labor Code section 1775).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
