California Ballot Initiative Seeks to Repeal Infrastructure Funding Bill
September 25, 2018 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogCalifornia voters will get to vote on November 6, 2018 on a ballot initiative to repeal an infrastructure funding bill signed by Governor Brown this past year that is estimated to raise more than $5 billion annually during the next ten years for road repairs and mass transit improvements in California.
In 2017, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, which increased the excise tax on gasoline in the state by 12 cents per gallon, to 30 cents per gallon, and increasing vehicle registration fees from $25 to $175 dollars depending on the value of the vehicle. The last time the state’s gas tax was increased was in 1994 and the last time the federal gas tax was increased was in 1993.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
Court Throws Wet Blanket On Prime Contractor's Attorneys' Fees Request In Prompt Payment Case
September 03, 2015 —
Steven M. Cvitanovic & Abigail E. Lighthart – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPPrompt payment penalty cases do not come around very often, but when they do, there is bound to be fireworks.
In James L. Harris Painting & Decorating, Inc. v. West Bay Builders, Inc., et al. (No. C072169, filed 8/27/15), the California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District upheld the trial court's discretion to not award prevailing party attorneys' fees to the party who won a prompt payment dispute. California Business and Professions Code §7108.5 and Public Contract Code §§7107 and 10262 are the mechanisms for obtaining prompt payment relief in California. As shown by the outcome, it is possible to win and lose at the same time.
West Bay Builders, Inc. (“West Bay”) was the prime contractor on a school construction project for Stockton Unified School District. West Bay entered into a subcontract agreement with James L. Harris Painting & Decorating, Inc. (“Harris”) on the project. During construction there were disagreements between West Bay and Harris regarding the contractual scope of work, and Harris performed work it believed was outside the contract, believing it would be paid for the additional work. After West Bay refused to pay for the additional work, Harris left the project, and West Bay hired another subcontractor to complete the work.
Reprinted courtesy of
Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Abigail E. Lighthart, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com
Ms. Lighthart may be contacted at alighthart@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
9th Circuit Plumbs Through the Federal and State False Claims Acts
January 16, 2024 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogYou may have heard of the False Claims Act and know that it penalizes companies and individuals in contract with the government who present false claims. The federal False Claims Act was signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863 to penalize profiteers during the Civil War who were selling the Union Army moth eaten blankets, boxes of sawdust instead of guns, and sometimes re-selling the Army calvary horses several times over. Since then, many states, including California, as well as municipalities, have enacted their own false claim statutes.
As currently written, the federal False Claims Act provides for statutory penalties against any person who:
- “[K]nowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval”;
- “[K]nowingly makes, uses or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim”;
- “[H]as possession, custody, or control of property or money used, or to be used, by the Government an knowingly delivers, or causes to be delivered, less than all of that money or property”;
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Federal Court Requires Auto Liability Carrier to Cover Suit Involving Independent Contractor Despite “Employee Exclusion”
August 30, 2017 —
H. Scott Williams & Brendan Holt - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.A recent federal court decision rendered in July of 2017 highlights the importance of worker classification in the transportation industry and the potential insurance implications. In Spirit Commercial Auto Risk Retention Grp., Inc. v. Kailey, 1 the court determined that an “employee exclusion” in a motor carrier’s automobile liability insurance policy did not exclude coverage for liability resulting from the bodily injury of an independent contractor operating the motor carrier’s tractor-trailer. In April of 2014, a team of two drivers hired by the motor carrier, Kailey Trucking Line (KTL), were involved in a collision while operating KTL’s truck. The passenger in the truck, who was not operating the vehicle at the time, was killed in the accident. Subsequently, the spouse of the decedent filed suit against KTL as well as the driver of the truck.
KTL sought coverage for the suit under its automobile liability insurance policy, issued by Spirit Commercial Auto Risk Retention Group, Incorporated (Spirit). However, Spirit took the position that it had no duty to defend or indemnify KTL, and ultimately filed a declaratory judgment action in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The policy issued to KTL provided coverage for damages due to bodily injury or property damage caused by an accident resulting from the ownership, maintenance, or use of a covered auto. However, the policy excluded from coverage any bodily injury to an employee or fellow employee of the insured arising out of and in the course of employment of the insured. Accordingly, to the extent that the decedent qualified as an “employee” of KTL, Spirit had no duty to indemnify KTL in the litigation.
Reprinted courtesy of
H. Scott Williams, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Brendan C. Colt, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Holt may be contacted at bch@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Williams may be contacted at hsw@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kahana Feld Partner Jeff Miragliotta and Senior Associate Rachael Marvin Obtain Early Dismissal of Commercial Litigation Cases in New York and New Jersey
August 26, 2024 —
Rachael Marvin - Kahana FeldKF attorneys Jeff Miragliotta and Rachael Marvin recently secured early dismissal for a commercial real estate client on pre-answer motions to dismiss for two cases involving disputes over commercial properties in Union County, New Jersey and Suffolk County, New York.
Plaintiff argued it was entitled to damages in excess of 50 million dollars, including punitive damages, for claims involving trade libel, defamation, conspiracy, and tortious interference with contract and prospective economic advantage for reports that were prepared in connection with the use of a commercial building in Union County, New Jersey. KF attorneys successfully argued that the statute of limitations had run for each of plaintiff’s claims by utilizing a decision from the Supreme Court of New Jersey in an underlying case filed against Union County.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rachel Marvin, Kahana FeldMs. Marvin may be contacted at
rmarvin@kahanafeld.com
In Texas, a General Contractor May be Liable in Tort to a Third-Party Lessee for Property Damage Caused by a Subcontractor’s Work
February 16, 2016 —
Michael L. DeBona – White and Williams LLPIn Zbranek Custom Homes, Ltd. v. Joe Allbaugh, et al., No. 03-14-00131-CV, 2015 WL 9436630 (Tex.App.-Austin Dec. 23, 2015), the Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin, considered the circumstances under which a general contractor can be held liable for injuries to a non-contracting party’s property. The court held that, because the general contractor, Zbranek Custom Homes, Ltd. (Zbranek), exercised control over the construction of the fireplace at issue, Zbranek owed a duty of care to the first lessees of the home that Zbranek built.
In Zbranek, Bella Cima Developments, L.P. (Bella Cima) hired Zbranek to act as the general contractor for the construction of a home. As the general contractor, Zbranek engaged various subcontractors to perform different aspects of the construction, including the framing, stucco and masonry work for an outdoor fireplace.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael L. DeBona, White and Williams LLPMr. DeBona may be contacted at
debonam@whiteandwilliams.com
Five Reasons to Hire Older Workers—and How to Keep Them
July 06, 2020 —
Charlie Kimmel - Construction ExecutiveThe economic downturn in 2008 created a black hole of talent in the construction industry. As a result, finding project managers between the ages of 28 and 33 and superintendents between the ages of 23 and 30 in today’s market can be difficult, if not impossible in some cases. To make up for this gap in available talent, construction executives are going to have to look to project managers and superintendents in the 58-to-64 age range. Fortunately, there are numerous benefits to hiring older workers.
1. OLDER WORKERS WANT TO MENTOR THE NEXT GENERATION.
This is their most significant benefit: the older generation truly enjoys teaching younger construction workers and passing on skills and knowledge, while also getting to do a job they’re good at. This means investing in one experienced worker today can pay dividends for the quality of a company’s workforce for decades to come, as mentorship programs have proven to increase the skills and loyalty of younger workers. If a company wants someone with deep knowledge and broad experience to help mold the next generation of construction workers, they should hire an older employee.
Reprinted courtesy of
Charlie Kimmel, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Texas Court of Appeals Conditionally Grant Petition for Writ of Mandamus to Anderson
April 25, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFThe Texas Court of Appeals conditionally grant mandamus relief to Anderson Construction Company and Ronnie Anderson (collectively “Anderson”)… from the trial court in a construction defect lawsuit filed by Brent L. Mainwaring and Tatayana Mainwaring. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.001-.007 (West 2000 & Supp. 2010). Relators contend the trial court abused its discretion by compelling discovery while the case was abated by operation of law.
The Court of Appeals opinion describes what led up to the proceedings: “The Mainwarings’ original petition identified certain defects in their Anderson-constructed home. Those defects concerned the roof trusses and framing, air conditioning, mortar and masonry, exterior doors and windows, and weep holes. With respect to the five areas of defects identified in their original petition, the Mainwarings gave Anderson the statutorily required notice on January 13, 2010. After implementing agreed extensions, Anderson made an offer of settlement for the defects the Mainwarings identified in their notice. Almost eight months later, the Mainwarings filed an amended petition adding defects they had not included in their original petition and notice. The additional defects the Mainwarings included in their amended petition had not been addressed by Anderson’s offer of settlement.”
Following these events, Anderson claimed the Mainwarings did not respond in writing to their settlement offer. “Anderson filed a verified plea in abatement on December 2, 2010. In the trial court, Anderson claimed that the Mainwarings failed to respond in writing to Anderson’s settlement offer, as required by Section 27.004(b) of the RCLA. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(b)(1). The Mainwarings moved to compel discovery responses from Anderson. The Mainwarings alleged that they rejected Anderson’s settlement offer, and that if their response was insufficient, they contend that Anderson’s offer was rejected by operation of law on the twenty-fifth day after the Mainwarings received it. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(i). The Mainwarings’ motion to compel was not supported by affidavit. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(d)(2). On January 13, 2011, Anderson filed a verified supplemental plea in abatement. Anderson alleged that the Mainwarings failed to provide written notice concerning the newly alleged defects and complained the Mainwarings were attempting to circumvent the inspection and resolution procedure of the RCLA. Over Anderson’s objection that the lawsuit had been abated, the trial court granted the Mainwarings’ motion to compel discovery.”
After listening to both sides, the Court of Appeals offered this reasoning for their opinion: “The parties do not dispute that Anderson inspected the property before the Mainwarings alleged the existence of additional defects in their amended pleading, nor do the Mainwarings claim that Anderson has been given an opportunity to inspect the additional defects the Mainwarings identified in their amended pleadings. We conclude the trial court did not have the discretion to deny or lift the abatement until the Mainwarings established their compliance with the statute. In other words, the Mainwarings are required to provide Anderson a reasonable opportunity to inspect the additional defects identified by their amended pleading, which will allow Anderson the opportunity to cure or settle with respect to the newly identified defects.”
The Court of Appeals spoke directly on the issue of mandamus relief: “The Mainwarings contend that mandamus relief is not available because the trial court’s ruling does not prevent Anderson from making settlement offers during the discovery process. ‘An appellate remedy is “adequate” when any benefits to mandamus review are outweighed by the detriments.’ In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004). The failure to abate a case is typically not subject to mandamus. See In re Allstate Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co., 85 S.W.3d 193, 196 (Tex. 2002) (citing Abor v. Black, 695 S.W.2d 564, 567 (Tex. 1985)). In this case, however, the case was abated by operation of law. By ignoring the statutory abatement, the trial court interfered with the statutory procedure for developing and resolving construction defect claims. See In re Kimball Hill Homes Tex., Inc., 969 S.W.2d 522, 525 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, orig. proceeding) (An appeal provides an inadequate remedy for the trial court’s failure to observe automatic abatement pursuant to the RCLA.). The benefits of mandamus review are not outweighed by the detriments of mandamus review in this case.“
In conclusion, “The trial court had no discretion to compel discovery while the case was abated, and Anderson, who has been compelled to respond to discovery during a period the case was under an automatic abatement, has no adequate remedy on appeal. Accordingly, we conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus. The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to vacate its order of February 3, 2011, and fails to refrain from proceeding with the case until a motion to reinstate is filed that establishes compliance with the notice and inspection requirements of the Residential Construction Liability Act.”
Read the trial court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
