Court of Appeal Confirms Privette Doctrine as Applied to Passive Conduct of Property Owner
March 22, 2018 —
Bruce Cleeland and Frances Ma – Publications & InsightsIn
Delgadillo v. Television Center, Inc., 2018 No. B270985, the California Court of Appeal examined and refined the
Privette doctrine.
Mr. Delgadillo worked as a supervisor/window cleaner for a company named Chamberlin Building Services (CBS). Television Center, Inc. (TCI) purchased an existing building and thereafter contracted with CM Cleaning Solutions, Inc. (CMC) to provide cleaning and janitorial services. CMC, on behalf of TCI, solicited a proposal from CBS to wash the building’s windows. CBS and its employees made all decisions about how the window washing would be accomplished. The window washing equipment used on the job was owned, inspected and maintained by CBS. In violation of CBS’ policy, Mr. Delgadillo, attached a safety line to a single connector which was not an acceptable anchor point. The bracket failed and Mr. Delgadillo fell 50 feet to his death.
Survivors of Mr. Delgadillo filed suit against TCI for negligence and negligence per se, alleging that Mr. Delgadillo was fatally injured because TCI failed to install structural roof anchors, as required by several statutes.
Reprinted courtesy of
Bruce Cleeland, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Frances Ma, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Cleeland may be contacted at bcleeland@hbblaw.com
Ms. Ma may be contacted at fma@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Keep it Simple with Nunn-Agreements in Colorado
June 28, 2021 —
Jean Meyer - Colorado Construction LitigationOn May 24, 2021, the Colorado Supreme Court published its decision in Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Ass'n.[1] There, the Colorado Supreme Court was tasked with answering whether an insurer, who is defending its insured under a reservation of rights, is entitled to intervene as of right under C.R.C.P. 24(a)(2) where the insured enters into a Nunn agreement with a third-party claimant, but rather than entering into a stipulated judgment, agrees with the third party to proceed via an uncontested trial to determine liability and damages. Interestingly, however, while the Court ultimately answered the above question in the negative, the real lesson from the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision is that Colorado litigants should not seek a trial court’s blessing as to liability and damages through non-adversarial proceedings when using Nunn-Agreements. Or, as articulated in Justice Carlos Samour’s vociferous dissenting opinion, Colorado litigants desiring to enter into a Nunn-Agreement should not proceed with a non-adversarial hearing, as doing so is “offensive to the dignity of the courts,” constitutes a “bogus,” “faux,” “sham” and “counterfeit” proceeding, and the hearing provides “zero benefit.”
By way of background, the case arrived in front of the Colorado Supreme Court based on the following fact pattern. A homeowner association (Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Association, Inc.) (“Association”) brought construction defect claims against a variety of prime contractors and those contractors subsequently brought third-party construction defect claims against subcontractors. One of the prime contractors assigned their claims against a subcontractor by the name Sierra Glass Co., Inc. (“Sierra”) to the Association. The other claims between the additional parties settled. On the eve of trial involving only the Association’s assigned claims against Sierra, the Association made a settlement demand to Sierra for $1.9 million. Sierra asked its insurance carrier, Auto-Owners Insurance, Co. (“AOIC”), which had been defending Sierra under a reservation of rights letter, to settle the case for that amount, but AOIC refused. This prompted Sierra to enter into a “Nunn-Agreement” with the Association whereby the case would proceed to trial, Sierra would refrain from offering a defense at trial, the Association would not pursue any recovery against Sierra for the judgment, and Sierra would assign any insurance bad faith claims it may have had against AOIC to the Association.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jean Meyer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. Meyer may be contacted at
meyer@hhmrlaw.com
Bad Faith Claim for Inadequate Investigation Does Not Survive Summary Judgment
May 20, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe insured's claim for bad faith investigation regarding their hail damage claim did not survive the insurer's motion for summary judgment. Amarillo Hospitality Tenant, LLC v. Mass. Bay Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56228 (N. D. Tex. April 29, 2015).
A hailstorm caused damage to the Courtyard Marriot. The day after the storm, the insured inspected the roof of the hotel and observed damage to a sign and some aluminum vent tubes. No damage to the roof itself was observed. Subsequently, leaks were found on the tenth floor of the hotel. A public adjuster concluded that the roof had sustained damage during the hailstorm.
The insured filed a claim with Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company. The insurer paid for the cost of repairing the damaged sign. To determine whether the damage to the roof was caused by the hailstorm, the insurer hired Donna Engineering, who conducted two inspections of the roof. Both inspections concluded that the hailstorm did not cause damage to the roof. Consequently, the claim was denied.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
California Complex Civil Litigation Superior Court Panels
December 31, 2014 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq., Jon A. Turigliatto, Esq., and David A. Napper, Esq. – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger BulletinThe Complex Civil Litigation Program is relatively new as it has only existed in California
since 2000. Complex divisions dedicate courtrooms solely for litigation of complex civil
cases that require exceptional judicial management including construction defects, antitrust,
securities, toxic torts, mass torts, and class actions. Complex civil courtrooms help the trial
court operate in a more efficient, expeditious, and effective manner. A complex court
reduces costs for litigants by streamlining motion practice and expeditiously resolving
discovery disputes.
Not all counties have dedicated complex civil divisions. For those that do, each county has
its own local rules, and some complex divisions have their own particular set of rules. The
Judicial management of complex cases begins early, and is applied continuously and actively
with the idea that final resolution be expedited as much as possible. In focusing on
cooperation amongst the parties to achieve these goals, often requiring joint statements to
the court and a prohibition on discovery motions until after the parties have formally metand-
conferred on the issues. Moreover, complex cases are centralized and are assigned to
one highly skilled Judge for all purposes.
The first six California counties to create a Complex Civil division include Alameda, Contra
Costa, Los Angeles, Orange, San Francisco, and Santa Clara. Riverside County Superior
Court is the most recent California County to add a Complex division, effective January 2015.
Riverside county Superior Court’s Complex department consists of ten civil judges, seven of
which are in the main courthouse with Riverside. Riverside county expects to consolidate all
complex civil litigation into one courtroom by January 2015. Riverside county Judge Sharon
Waters state that "[i]t's been something that I personally have felt has been long overdue"
and that "[t]he idea is that put it with one judge and let him or her develop the expertise."
Judge Waters believes "[t]he potential value of establishing a complex litigation courtroom
[is that] it allows the judge to focus on the cases full time."1
As of October 2014, Riverside county had about 450 to 500 pending cases designated as
complex, over fifty percent (50%) of which involved construction defect matters. The sole
Judge who will preside over the complex cases has not yet been named.
1 Jolly, Vik. "Riverside to Shift Complex Civil Cases to 1 Courtroom." Los Angeles Daily Journal (October 13,
2014)
Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys
Richard H. Glucksman,
Jon A. Turigliatto and
David A. Napper
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com;
Mr. Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com;
and Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Housing Market Is Softening, But Home Depot and Lowe's Are Crushing It
February 26, 2015 —
Patrick Clark – BloombergTwo monthly reports that track the strength of the U.S. housing market offered dour assessments this week. And yet the companies that sell homeowners appliances, building materials, and power tools are thriving.
Home Depot reported strong sales growth yesterday, and Lowe’s did the same today. That follows news that existing home sales dropped 4.9 percent in January, according to the National Association of Realtors, and results from the S&P Case/Shiller index that showed the growth of home prices is slowing in major U.S. cities.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick Clark, BloombergMr. Clark may be contacted at
jclark185@bloomberg.net
Sometimes It’s Okay to Destroy Evidence
August 17, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled in the case of Miller v. Lankow that Mr. Miller was within his rights to remediate his home, even though doing so destroyed the evidence of water intrusion.
Linda Lankow built a home in 1992. In 2001 or 2002, Lankow discovered a stucco problem at the garage which she attributed to moisture intrusion. She asked the original contractor to fix the wall. In 2003, Lankow attempted to sell her home, but the home inspection revealed fungal growth in the basement. Lankow made further repairs, including alterations to the landscaping.
In 2004, Lankow put her house on the market once again and entered into an agreement with David Miller. Miller declined to have an independent inspection, as the home had been repaired by professional contractors.
In 2005, Miller put the house on the market. A prospective buyer requested a moisture inspection. The inspection firm, Private Eye, Inc. found “significant moisture intrusion problems.”
Miller hired an attorney who sent letters to the contractors and to Lankow and her husband. Lankow’s husband, Jim Betz, an attorney, represented his wife and sent a letter to Miller’s attorney that Miller had declined an opportunity to inspect the home.
In 2007, Miller’s new attorney sent letters to all parties that Miller had decided to begin remediation work on the house. All stucco was removed. Miller then filed a lawsuit against the prior owners, the builders, and the realtors.
Two of the contractors and the prior owners moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Miller had spoliated evidence by removing the stucco. They requested that Miller’s expert reports be excluded. The district court found for the defendants and imposed sanctions on Miller.
The Minnesota Supreme court found that “a custodial party’s duty to preserve evidence is not boundless,” stating that “it may be particularly import to allow remediation in cases such as the one before us.” Their reasoning was that “remediation of the moisture intrusion problem in the home may be necessary, even essential, to address immediate health concerns.”
Given that Miller needed to remediate the problem in order to continue living there, and that he had given the other parties a “full and fair opportunity to inspect,” the court found that he was within his rights. The court reversed the judgment of the lower court and remanded it to them for review.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Forum Selection Provisions Are Not to Be Overlooked…Even On Federal Projects
September 16, 2024 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesForum selection provisions are NOT to be overlooked. Ever. Treat them seriously. Even on federal projects where there is a Miller Act payment bond. Consider forum selection provisions on the front end when negotiating your contract.
In a recent opinion, U.S. f/u/b/o Timberline Construction Group, LLC vs. Aptim Federal Services, LLC, 2024 WL 3597164 (M.D.Fla. 2024), a joint venture prime contractor was hired by the federal government to build a temporary housing site. The joint venture prime contractor obtained a Miller Act payment bond. The joint venture then entered into a subcontract with one of its joint venture members and the member-subcontractor then engaged a sub-subcontractor. The sub-subcontractor claimed it was owed $3.5 Million and sued the member-subcontractor, as well as the prime contractor’s Miller Act payment bond, in the Middle District of Florida. The member-subcontractor and the Miller Act payment bond sureties moved to transfer venue to the Middle District of Louisiana pursuant to a forum selection clause in the contract between the sub-subcontractor and the member-subcontractor. The contract provided that the exclusive venue would be a United States District Court located in Louisiana.
Forum selection provisions are analyzed in federal court under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a): “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.” U.S. f/u/b/o Timberline, supra at *2. A forum selection provision is presumptively valid and given controlling weight. Id. (quotations and citations omitted).
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
2021 Construction Related Bills to Keep an Eye On [UPDATED]
March 08, 2021 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsEach year here at Musings, I try and highlight some key construction industry-related bills that are winding their way through the Virginia General Assembly. This year is no different, though this year does not have the action level that prior years have had.
Without further ado, here are those that I spotted and which I will be “Tracking” as they move through the sausage-making process:
HB2288–
Virginia Public Procurement Act; construction contracts; requirement to submit list of subcontractors. Requires bidders or offerors on contracts for construction of $250,000 or more to submit along with their bid or proposal a list of all subcontractors, regardless of tier, that the bidder or offeror intends at the time of submitting the bid or proposal to use on the contract to perform work valued at $50,000 or more, including labor and materials. The bill requires such list to include certain information about each contractor. This bill also includes a re-passage provision that requires that it be re-enacted in the 2022 session to become effective. Finally, the Senate General Laws and Technology committee has continued this to the First Special Session.
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
