Mobile Home Owners Not a Class in Drainage Lawsuit
March 01, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFComparing it to a “complex construction defect action,” the California Court of Appeals for Orange County has rejected the claims of a group of mobile home owners that they should be certified as a class in their lawsuit against Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park. The Appeals court sustained the judgment of the lower court. The court issued a decision in the case of Criswell v. MMR Family LLC on January 17, 2012.
The claims made by the group were that the owners and operators of the mobile home park had known of an “on-going and potentially worsening shallow groundwater condition on the property” and had “exacerbated the problem by changing ‘the configuration and drainage related to the hillside that abuts’ the park.” The homeowners claimed that the class should consist of “any past or current homeowner during the same time frame” who had experienced “the accumulation of mold, fungus, and/or other toxins,” “property damage to his/her mobilehome and/or other property resulting from drainage problems, water seepage, water accumulation, moisture build-up, mold, fungus, and/or other toxins,” emotional distress related to drainage problems or mold, and finally health problems “resulting from exposure to drainage problems, water seepage, water accumulation, moisture build-up, mold, fungus, and/or other toxins, in or around one’s home, lot, or common areas of the park.”
The lower court concluded that while the limits of the class were identifiable, they failed to constitute a class in other ways. First, the people affected were small enough in number that they could be brought together. They “are not so numerous that it would be impracticable to bring them all before the Court.”
The court noted that while many of the homeowners would have issues in common, they did not find “a well-defined community of interest among the class members.” The Appeals Court wrote that “the individual issues affecting each mobile home and homeowner will predominate over the common issue of the presence of standing or pooling water in and around the park.” The court noted that each home would be affected differently by water and “the ‘accumulation of mold, fungus, and/or other toxins.’”
While the court conceded that there would be common issues, such as the “defendants’ alleged concealment of excess moisture conditions and their allegedly negligent roadwork and landscaping,” they noted that “these common issues would be swamped by the swarm of individual determinations of property damage, emotional distress, and personal injury.” The Appeals Court cited an earlier case that ruled against certification “if a class action ‘will splinter into individual trials.’” The court affirmed the judgment of the lower court that they could not proceed as a class.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Final Thoughts on New Pay If Paid Legislation in VA
August 15, 2022 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsThis past General Assembly session, and after a governor’s amendment and with the convening of a study group, a new statute banning so-called “pay-if-paid” clauses from enforcement was passed. Some of the key features of the legislation are as follows:
It does not take effect until January 1, 2023, and,
For those construction contracts in which there is at least one general contractor and one subcontractor:
- It requires payment within 60 days of receipt of an invoice following the satisfactory performance of the work or within 7 days of receipt of payment by the Owner
- It allows for retainage
- It allows the higher-tier contractor to withhold money for improper performance
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
Public Projects in the Pandemic Pandemonium
September 07, 2020 —
Ashlynn E. Hutton, Michael J. Crook & Christian F. Torgrimson - Construction ExecutiveDespite the ongoing pandemic, states are opening up for business and establishing a new normal. This determination to move forward includes pushing public transportation projects full steam ahead. While this may be good news for certain industries, it may not be for commercial property owners hoping to see a slow down to public projects and avoid a taking of private property. As many grapple with new economic realities, we examine the approaches employed by states in the southeast to manage construction of public projects in this unprecedented time.
GEORGIA
The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) is moving forward with all of its previously funded public projects, including the massive I-285 Top-End Project, designated as a “Major Mobility Project” for the Atlanta metro region. Affecting approximately 260 property owners along I-285 and Georgia Highway 400, environmental review of the project continues. GDOT anticipates a contract let date in 2022 and construction start in 2023. Like ocean liners, these projects don’t turn on a dime. Under the 2015 Transportation Funding Act, the budgeted funds cannot be shifted to other needs or projects due to economic shutdown. Once environmental review is complete, GDOT will approve the final design and move toward acquiring right-of-way from affected property owners.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ashlynn E. Hutton, Michael J. Crook & Christian F. Torgrimson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Make Sure to Properly Perfect and Preserve Construction Lien Rights
December 07, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIf you recording a construction lien (referred to as a claim of lien) and looking to perfect your construction lien foreclosure rights, it is imperative that you work with counsel to ensure your rights are properly preserved. This is good practice!
A claim of lien must be served on an owner within 15 days after recording. Florida Statute s. 713.08(4)(c) says: “The claim of lien shall be served on the owner. Failure to serve any claim of lien in the manner provided in s. 713.18 before recording or within 15 days after recording shall render the claim of lien voidable to the extent that the failure or delay is shown to have been prejudicial to any person entitled to rely on the service.”
Florida Statute s. 713.18, hyperlinked for your review, includes the statutory ways to serve “notices, claims of lien, affidavits, assignments, and other instruments permitted or required under [Florida Statutes Chapter 713].”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Reasonable Expectations – Pennsylvania’s Case by Case Approach to the Sutton Rule
February 12, 2024 —
Melissa Kenney - The Subrogation StrategistIn Mutual Benefit Ins. Co. a/s/o Michael Sacks v. Koser, No. 1340 MDA 2023, 2023 Pa. Super. LEXIS 574, 2023 PA Super 252 (Mutual Benefit), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania discussed whether a landlord’s property insurer could file a subrogation action against tenants that had negligently damaged the landlord’s property. Despite there being more than one clause in the lease holding the tenants liable for the damages, the court held that because there was a provision requiring the landlord, not the tenants, to insure the leased building, the insurer could not subrogate against the tenants.
In Pennsylvania, a tenant’s liability for damage to a leased premises in a subrogation action brought by a landlord’s insurer is determined by the reasonable expectation of the parties to the lease agreement. Under this approach, to determine if subrogation is permitted, the court considers the circumstances of the case and examines the terms of the lease agreement.
In Mutual Benefit, the tenants leased and resided in a residential home pursuant to a lease agreement. The lease specifically addressed insurance, stating that landlord was responsible for obtaining insurance on the dwelling and the landlord’s personal property, and tenants were encouraged to procure separate insurance for their personal property. The lease also addressed liability for damage to the leased property, stating generally that the tenants were responsible for damage caused by the tenants’ negligence.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Kenney, White and WilliamsMs. Kenney may be contacted at
kenneyme@whiteandwilliams.com
California Builders’ Right To Repair Is Alive
March 19, 2014 —
David J. Byassee - Ulich & Terry LLPThe California Supreme Court surprised everyone on December 11, 2013 when it denied Brookfield Homes’ request for review of the ruling in the case of Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC (2014) 219 Cal.App.4th 98, which was decided by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District Division Three (Orange County). In that case the Court of Appeal held that the Right to Repair Act aka SB800 is not the exclusive remedy for a homeowner seeking damages for construction defects that have resulted in property damage. Under the ruling, homeowners may choose to sue builders under common law theories of liability such as strict liability and negligence, in addition to liability under the Act. This ruling made homeowners' compliance with the prelitigation requirements of the Act optional and thereby put builders' “right to repair” in jeopardy. The ruling undermined the expectations of California's homebuilders who, for the past decade, understood that their liability is limited by the Act and that they have a right to repair.
Since the Liberty Mutual case was handed down, the topic has become a hotbed item with several divisions of the Court of Appeal. On February 19, 2014, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District Division Three (Los Angeles County) issued a ruling against Premier Homes in the case of Burch v. Superior Court 2014 Cal.App.LEXIS 159 that, without independent analysis, simply adopted the holding in the Liberty Mutual case.
But on February 21, 2014, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District Division Four (Los Angeles County) ruled in the case of KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc. v.Superior Court 2014 Cal.App.LEXIS 167 that a homeowner's failure to give the builder an opportunity to inspect and repair a construction defect excused the builder's liability under the Act. Additionally, the Court of Appeal went out of its way to state it had ruled earlier in that case that the Act is the exclusive remedy.
The various rulings lay a foundation for ultimate intervention by the California Supreme Court. In the meantime, these opposing cases will be cited by counsel for homeowners and builders alike for opposing positions as they continue to navigate construction defect disputes.
Mr. Byassee is a strategic litigator specializing in representation of builders and developers. For more information regarding dispute resolution procedures under SB800, Mr. Byassee may be contacted at (949) 250-9797 or by email at dbyassee@ut-law.com.
Published courtesy of
David J. Byassee, Ulich & Terry LLP
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
NJ Court Reaffirms Rule Against Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Claims and Finds Fraud Claims Inherently Intentional
September 20, 2021 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia & Frank J. Perch, III - White and Williams LLPAwarding summary judgment to an insurer under both liability and directors & officers (D&O) coverage parts, a New Jersey trial court reaffirmed the principle that claims of defective workmanship without resulting “property damage” are not covered under a general liability policy, and further dismissed claims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, finding that such claims were inherently intentional and do not state a covered “occurrence.”
In Velez v. AR Management Company, et al., 2021 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1675 (Law Div. Bergen Co. Aug. 10, 2021), owners of a condominium unit rebuilt after a fire sued the condominium association, several association board members, the association’s property management company and the general contractor for the reconstruction work. The owners’ suit alleged faulty workmanship and incomplete repairs. In addition, the owners asserted fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claims against the management company, alleging conflicts of interest and self-dealing between the management company and the general contractor, which had common ownership.
In a third-party complaint, the management company sought coverage from the condo association’s liability and D&O insurer. The court dismissed the D&O coverage claim, noting that the management company was not a director or officer or otherwise entitled to insured status for the D&O coverage part.
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and
Frank J. Perch, III, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Perch may be contacted at perchf@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Can a Non-Signatory Invoke an Arbitration Provision?
February 02, 2017 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesAs you know from prior postings, arbitration is a creature of contract. Hence, if you want your disputes to be resolved through arbitration, as opposed to litigation, make sure to include an arbitration provision in your agreement that covers all disputes arising out of or relating to the agreement.
Under certain circumstances, a non-signatory to an agreement wants to invoke an arbitration clause in the agreement. The non-signatory will move to compel a signatory to the agreement (with an arbitration provision) to arbitrate a dispute with the non-signatory. Can a non-signatory do this? Yes, under certain circumstances.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
