Take Advantage of AI and Data Intelligence in Construction
May 06, 2019 —
Nick Carter - Construction ExecutiveFor consumers, AI and data intelligence are daily activities. Purchase recommendations from Amazon simplify holiday shopping. Music options from Spotify helps employees focus during the workday and relax at night. Car-sharing apps remove the stress from post-happy hour transport.
It is time for this kind of data-driven ease to hit the construction industry. Building is booming, yet despite the good times, the industry still lags in terms of data intelligence and AI. With them, construction providers can transform document and jobsite information into intelligent insights, reduce errors, keep projects on schedule and predict and prevent costly inefficiencies. Artificial intelligence is the “connective tissue” that construction is missing--if it is used wisely.
Why Construction is Ready for AI
With its endless stream of owners, architects, engineers, contractors, subcontractors and suppliers, the construction industry manages more critical information on a day-to-day basis than nearly any other business. As a result, there are dozens of potential miscommunications just waiting to happen every day.
Reprinted courtesy of
Nick Carter, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Firm Sues Town over Claims of Building Code Violations
November 06, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFParadigm Development and Construction LLC has sued Bristol Township, Pennsylvania over the allegation that town building officials colluded with their clients to issue building code violations after Paradigm prepared to sue the clients. John and Patricia Conard hired Paradigm to construct an addition to their home. During the process, the work went through nine inspections before Paradigm stopped work over a payment dispute.
Some months later, Bristol Township issued a notice that Paradigm had 37 violations of the building code. Paradigm alleges that the source was a set of photographs provided by the Conards to the building officials. The lawsuit states that Paradigm “was not notified of any construction deficiencies at the Conard property, and was not provided with an opportunity to discuss, defend or refute the allegations of the Municipal Defendants that Plaintiff has violated the Bristol Building code.”
The violation notice was withdrawn a few months later.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurer Must Defend Where Possible Continuing Property Damage Occurred
January 13, 2017 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe California Court of Appeal overturned the trial court's issuance of summary judgment based upon the possibility of continuing property damage during the insurer's policy period. Tidwell Enters. v. Fin. Pac. Ins. Co., 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 1038 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2016).
Financial Pacific insured Greg Tidwell, Tidwell Enterprises, Inc. and Tidwell Enterprises Fireplace Division (Tidwell) under CGL policies issued between March 2003 and March 2010. In 2006 or 2007, Tidwell installed a fireplace in a home. On November 11, 2011, 20 months after the end of the last policy period of Financial Pacific's coverage, the home owned by Kendall Fox, was damaged by fire. Fox was insured by State Farm. State Farm's attorney advised Tidwell of the fire, and Tidwell forwarded the information to Financial Pacific.
State Farm hired an investigator who reported that the fire was caused by the installation of an "unlisted shroud at the top of the chimney chase". This prevented the fireplace from drafting properly, resulting in overheating of the fireplace and heat transfer to the surround wood framing members. This resulted in the ignition of the framing members at the sides, top and bottom of the fireplace. State Farm sent the report to Financial Pacific.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Significant Victory for the Building Industry: Liberty Mutual is Rejected Once Again, This Time by the Third Appellate District in Holding SB800 is the Exclusive Remedy
December 15, 2016 —
Richard H. Glucksman & Ravi R. Mehta – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Bulletin I. Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court (Certified for Publication, Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016
The California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District recently elaborated on the scope of the Right to Repair Act, commonly known as SB-800 (“Act”). In
Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (Kevin Hicks, et al.) (certified for publication, Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016), the Court considered whether the Act (and specifically the Act’s pre-litigation procedure) applies, when homeowners plead construction defect claims based only on common law causes of action, as opposed to violations of the building standards set forth in the Act (
Civil Code §896). The Court answered this question affirmatively.
The homeowners of seventeen (17) single-family homes filed a Complaint against the builder of their homes, Elliott Homes, Inc. (“Elliott”), alleging common law causes of action for construction defects. Elliott filed a motion to stay the litigation on the ground that the homeowners failed to comply with the pre-litigation procedure set forth in the Act. The trial court denied the motion, agreeing with the homeowners that this pre-litigation procedure did not apply because the homeowners had not alleged a statutory violation of the Act. Elliott appealed. The Court of Appeal purely considered the question of whether the Act, including its pre-litigation procedure, applies when a homeowner pleads construction defect claims based on common law causes of action, and not on statutory violations of the Act’s building standards.
To answer this question, the Court analyzed a recent case decided by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District:
Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98. In this subrogation case, a builder’s insurer asserted common law causes of action (but not statutory building standard violations) alleging construction defects against the builder to recover amounts paid to the homeowner after a sprinkler system failure caused extensive damage to the subject property. The trial court sustained the builder’s demurrer to the Complaint on the ground that it was time-barred under the Act. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order, holding that common law construction defect claims arising from actual damages are not covered by the Act because “the Act does not provide the exclusive remedy in cases where actual damage has occurred.” (
Liberty Mutual, 219 Cal.App.4th 98, 109).
The
Elliott Court declined to follow
Liberty Mutual, finding that that Court failed to properly analyze the language of the Act. The
Elliott Court analyzed both the statutory scheme and the legislative history of the Act to arrive at the conclusion that common law causes of action for construction defects do indeed fall within the purview of the Act.
According to the
Elliott Court, the Act “broadly applies to
any action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in…residential construction and in such an action, a homeowner’s claims or causes of action shall be limited to violation of the standards set forth in the Act, except as specified.” Further, the Act expressly provides that “no other cause of action for a claim covered by this title or for damages recoverable under Section 944 is allowed.”
Civil Code §943(a). In turn,
Civil Code §944 allows for a recovery for the cost of repairing a building standard violation, or for the cost of repairing any damage caused by such a violation, among other things.
The limited exceptions to the Act’s applicability concern the enforcement of a contract, or any action for fraud, personal injury, or violation of a statute. Civil Code §943(a). Additionally, the Act does not apply to condominium conversions. Civil Code §896.
The Elliott Court explains that apart from these exceptions, the Legislature intended the Act to apply to all construction defect claims (regardless of damage) relating to the construction of residential properties whose sales contracts are signed after January 1, 2003. There is no exception in the Act, express or implied, for common law causes of action.
Next, the Court turns to the Act’s legislative history to buttress this conclusion. This history makes clear that the Act is a legislative response to the California Supreme Court’s holding in
Aas v. Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal.4th 627, that construction defects in residential properties are only actionable in tort when actual property damage manifests. Senate Judiciary Committee hearings indicate that the Act was the product of protracted negotiations between varying interested parties, including construction industry trade groups and consumer protection groups. The Legislature intended (1) to promulgate building standards, violations of which would be actionable, even without damage, and (2) to allow homeowners to recover for actual damage caused by construction defects not covered by the building standards. In other words, the Act was intended to provide homeowners redress regardless of whether damage had manifested.
Therefore, the Court concluded that common law causes of action for construction defects, regardless of damage, are subject to the pre-litigation procedure set forth in the Act. The Court issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its earlier order, and to enter a new order granting Elliott’s motion to stay the litigation until the homeowners (and Elliott) have satisfied the pre-litigation procedure of the Act.
II. McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132
Similar to the Third Appellate District Court’s ruling in
Elliott, the Fifth Appellate District Court also rejected the holding of
Liberty Mutual in a matter now pending before the California Supreme Court:
McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132 (review granted and opinion superseded sub nom.
Albany v. Superior Court 360 P.3d 1022). Also similar to
Elliott, in
McMillin a group of homeowners filed common law construction defect claims against the builder of their homes. The builder,
McMillin, moved to stay the litigation pending compliance with the Act’s pre-litigation procedure. The trial court denied the motion, holding that the Act does not apply because the homeowners have not asserted statutory building standard violations contained within the Act.
In reasoning substantially similar to that of
Elliott, the
McMillin Court rejected Liberty Mutual’s holding that the Act is not the exclusive remedy for pursuing construction defect claims, with or without damage. Thus, the
McMillin Court issued a writ of mandate to vacate the trial court’s earlier order and to enter a new order granting McMillin’s motion to stay.
On November 24, 2015, the California Supreme Court granted the homeowners’ petition for review. In August of 2016, briefing was completed and the matter is now awaiting the scheduling of arguments. CGDRB will continue to closely monitor the pending appeal of this matter to the California Supreme Court, as well as all related developments.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Ravi R. Mehta, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Mehta may be contacted at rmehta@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Watch Your Step – Playing Golf on an Outdoor Course Necessarily Encompasses Risk of Encountering Irregularities in the Ground Surface
May 08, 2023 —
Kaitlyn A. Jensen & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPOn April 27, 2023, the First District Court of Appeal issued an opinion in Walter Wellsfry, et al. v. Ocean Colony Partners, LLC (A165175, April 27, 2023) affirming summary judgment for a golf course owner on the grounds that the injured golfer’s lawsuit was barred by the primary assumption of risk doctrine. In doing so, the Court of Appeal found that outdoor golfers assume the risks associated with the topographical features of the course, including the risk of stepping on an inconspicuous tree root.
Recreational golfer Walter Wellsfry was walking from a tee box back to his golf cart when he allegedly stepped on a small tree root concealed by grass, causing him to fall into his golf cart in immediate pain. The ground consisted of mixed terrain, including a combination of grass, dirt, and sand. The tree root was estimated to be approximately 1.5 inches high by 1.5 inches wide. Believing he may have only sprained an ankle, Wellsfry continued the course and reported the incident to management. He later sued the golf course owner Ocean Colony Partners for negligence, claiming that the tree root was a “hidden obstruction” creating an unreasonable risk of harm to anyone who traversed the area.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kaitlyn A. Jensen, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Jensen may be contacted at kjensen@hbblaw.com
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Managing Once-in-a-Generation Construction Problems – Part II
April 03, 2023 —
Jeffrey S. Wertman - Construction ExecutivePart I of this series discussed the benefits of construction participants using alternative project delivery methods and properly addressing change order issues, rising costs and payment structure issues to manage construction during these uncertain times. Part II below explores the possibility that higher prices and steady consumer demand could lead to an increase in unscrupulous contractor practices—and how owners can mitigate that risk, managing the challenges posed by the unforeseen labor shortage and turnover in the industry and evolving your construction team for short-term and long-term success.
Higher Prices and Steady Demand
With the demand for construction projects relatively stable, contractors remaining in high demand and a surge in prices for construction materials and components, owners are under great pressure to accept less favorable construction terms. This has presented unscrupulous contractors with perceived leverage over owners and new opportunities to engage in questionable business practices and fraud. Although some contractors may seek to stretch the boundaries of a construction contract, other contractors are more deliberate. Falsifying payment applications and invoices to inflate labor or materials costs, billing for work not yet performed or materials not yet delivered to the project site and manipulating change orders are examples of illicit and fraudulent practices by contractors.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jeffrey S. Wertman, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
When Is an Arbitration Clause Unconscionable? Not Often
April 05, 2021 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsHere at Construction Law Musings, I have discussed the pros and cons of various forms of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), including arbitration. I am a fan of most ADR, but less of one for arbitration than for mediation. However, where the arbitration can be done under a good set of cost-containing rules and with an arbitrator that is experienced in construction, arbitration can help with the resolution of construction claims. Of course, arbitration provisions in construction contracts are routinely upheld by the courts of Virginia with limited exceptions. One of these exceptions is where the arbitration clause is unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. A recent case out of the Western District of Virginia, Marroquin v. Dan Ryan Builders Mid-Atlantic LLC, shows how high a hurdle it is to get a court to invalidate an arbitration provision.
In this case, the Marroquins purchased a new construction home from the Defendants. As is often the case in such purchase transactions, Defendant provided a limited warranty agreement (in this case provided by Quality Builders Warranty Corporation (“QBW”)) that along with the sales contract contained a mandatory arbitration provision. The parties executed the limited warranty and the sale proceeded with the Marroquins taking possession. Over the next year or so, the County inspector’s office issued several correction orders to Defendant, and the Marroquins, through counsel, identified numerous defects in construction, many of which they alleged to remain unremedied. Needless to say, they sued for breach of statutory warranty and for breach of the limited warranty. Defendant removed the case to Federal District Court and then moved to compel arbitration.
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
CA Senate Report States Caltrans ‘Gagged and Banished’ its Critics
August 06, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to the Sacramento Bee, the California Senate’s latest report said that “at least nine top experts for the new $6.5 billion San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge” were “’gagged and banished’” after complaining “about substandard work by the Shanghai, China, firm that built much of the span.”
According to the report, reported by the Sacramento Bee, Tony Anziano, Caltrans’ chief executive of the project, “removed or demoted quality-assurance and fabrication engineers who tried to force the contractor to fix cracked roadway welds.”
The report did not evaluate the bridge’s quality or safety, however, it “called for greater openness in large construction projects, a review of the weld problems by independent experts, and an investigation of allegations that engineering decisions were made by non-engineers.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
