Understanding the Details: Suing Architects and Engineers Can Get Technical
November 02, 2017 —
Steven M. Cvitanovic & Stephen M. Tye - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPBefore suing an architect or engineer for professional negligence, a plaintiff must obtain a “certificate of merit” (“Certificate”) under Code of Civil Procedure section 411.35. Boiled down to the basics, the Certificate declares that the attorney consulted with and received an opinion from an expert that a reasonable and meritorious case exists against said design professional. The Certificate must be filed before serving the complaint on any defendant, but can be filed within 60 days under certain circumstances. This rule was recently analyzed against another long-standing rule in California, known as the “relation-back doctrine.” Under the relation-back doctrine, a court will deem a later-filed pleading, such as an amended complaint, to be deemed filed at the time of an earlier complaint.
In Curtis Engineering Corp. v. Superior Court of San Diego County, No. D072046, (Cal. Ct. App. 10/23/17), the Fourth Appellate Court considered the interplay between section 411.35 and the relation-back doctrine, holding that a Certificate filed more than 60 days after filing the original pleading does not relate back to the filing of the original pleading.
Reprinted courtesy of
Steven Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Stephen Tye, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com
Mr. Tye may be contacted at stye@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Connecticut Court Clarifies a Limit on Payment Bond Claims for Public Projects
May 15, 2023 —
Bill Wilson - Construction Law ZoneIn All Seasons Landscaping, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co., No. DBD-CV21-6039074-S, 2022 WL 1135703 (Conn. Super. Ct. April 4, 2022) the plaintiff, a subcontractor on a state project, commenced a lawsuit against the surety who issued a payment bond on the project two years after the subcontractor last performed any original contract work on the project. The defendant surety moved to dismiss the action based on the one-year statute of limitation in Connecticut General Statute § 49-42. The plaintiff countered that it complied with that deadline because it also performed warranty inspection work after the contract was completed and within the limitation period in section 49-42. The issue of whether warranty work or minor corrective work can extend the limitations period in section 49-42 had not previously been addressed by a Connecticut court.
Section 49-42(b) governs the limitation period on payment bond claims on public projects. It provides in relevant part that “no … suit may be commenced after the expiration of one year after the last date that materials were supplied or any work was performed by the claimant.” Section 49-42 provides no guidance on what “materials were supplied or any work was performed” by the claimant means, nor is there any direct appellate-level authority in Connecticut on this issue. What is clear under well-established law in Connecticut is that the time limit within which suit on a payment bond must be commenced under Section 49-42 is not only a statute of limitation but a jurisdictional requirement establishing a condition precedent to maintenance of the action and such limit is strictly enforced. If a plaintiff cannot prove its suit was initiated within this time constraint, the matter will be dismissed by the court as untimely.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLPMr. Wilson may be contacted at
wwilson@rc.com
Hurricane Warning: Florida and Southeastern US Companies – It is Time to Activate Your Hurricane Preparedness Plan and Review Key Insurance Deadlines
November 01, 2022 —
Andrea DeField, Walter J. Andrews, Michael S. Levine, Lawrence J. Bracken II & Cary D. Steklof - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogHurricane Ian is rapidly approaching the west coast of Florida and is expected to make landfall as a Category 4 hurricane near the Tampa area within the coming days. While the exact track is still being determined, there is a chance the storm may also impact insureds in Georgia and South Carolina. Now is the time to activate your disaster plan and ensure that you have your relevant insurance policies in your possession and that you review them for critical deadlines.
We put together an
alert here with tips to help you and your business mitigate potential storm loss and maximize coverage.
Reprinted courtesy of
Andrea DeField, Hunton Andrews Kurth,
Walter J. Andrews, Hunton Andrews Kurth,
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth,
Lawrence J. Bracken II, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Cary D. Steklof, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Ms. DeField may be contacted at adefield@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Andrews may be contacted at wandrews@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Bracken may be contacted at lbracken@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Steklof may be contacted at csteklof@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Understanding the Real Estate and Tax Implications of Florida's Buyer Ban Law
July 16, 2023 —
Kelly Erb - White and Williams LLPLast month, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) of Florida signed a new law that would prohibit people who are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents and whose "domicile" is in China from purchasing certain real property in the state. Generally, the prohibition applies to agricultural land and other land within ten miles of restricted areas, including military bases and infrastructure like airports and wastewater treatment plants.
The law, which takes effect on July 1, 2023, would also impose criminal penalties on any person or real estate company that knowingly sells real estate in the Sunshine State to anyone impacted by the ban.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kelly Erb, White and Williams LLPMs. Erb may be contacted at
erbk@whiteandwilliams.com
Understand Agreements in Hold Harmless and Indemnity Provisions
June 06, 2022 —
Jeffrey Cavignac - Construction ExecutiveOne of the most important provisions in a construction contract is the indemnity provision. An indemnity provision, which usually includes a requirement to hold harmless and defend another party, is included in nearly all construction contracts. Generally speaking, the upstream party (a general contractor or owner, for example) is attempting to shift risk to a downstream party (the general contractor or a subcontractor). In simple terms, subject to certain parameters, the downstream party is agreeing to be responsible for the upstream parties’ mistakes.
DEFINING INDEMNIFICATION
Insurance brokers focused on development and construction businesses get asked frequently: “If we sign this, are we insured?” It would be great if this could be answered “yes” or “no,” but life is rarely that straightforward. To understand whether a specific indemnification is insurable, we have to drill down on the actual provision. Let’s look at a typical indemnification below:
“To the fullest extent permitted by law the Contractor shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the owner, architect, architect’s consultants and agents and employees of any of them from and against any claims, damages, losses and expenses, including but not limited to attorneys’ fees, arising out of or resulting from performance of the work whether caused in whole or in part by the contractor, a subcontractor, anyone directly or indirectly employed by them or anyone for whose acts they may be liable.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Jeffrey Cavignac, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Jersey Supreme Court Holding Impacts Allocation of Damages in Cases Involving Successive Tortfeasors
March 28, 2022 —
Thomas Regan & Karley Kamaris - Lewis BrisboisNewark, N.J. (March 21, 2022) - Late in 2021, the Supreme Court of New Jersey addressed the issue of allocating damages in personal injury cases in which the plaintiff asserts claims against successive tortfeasors, such as medical malpractice in the treatment of a slip and fall injury caused by negligence. The decision in Glassman v. Friedel, 249 N.J. 199 (2021) overruled and replaced the long-held principles established in Ciluffo v. Middlesex General Hospital, 146 N.J. Super. 478 (App. Div. 1977) regarding successive liability. Ciluffo held that, when an initial tortfeasor settles before trial, the non-settling defendants in a successive tort were entitled to a pro tanto credit for the settlement amount against any damages assessed against them. The Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division in 2020, and the Supreme Court of New Jersey last year, abandoned that framework for one more consistent with statutory contribution law in the Garden State.
In Glassman v. Friedel, 465 N.J. Super. 436 (App. Div. 2020), the Appellate Division held that the application of the principles in Ciluffo in a negligence case has no support in modern jurisprudence, thus limiting its application. It rejected the holding in Ciluffo in light of the state legislature’s enactment of the Comparative Negligence Act, which requires juries to apportion damages between successive events and apportion fault among the parties responsible for each event. The appellate division went on to hold that a non-settling, successive tortfeasor may present proofs at trial as to the negligence of the settling tortfeasor, and that the burden of proof as to the initial tortfeasor’s negligence being the proximate cause of the second causative event indeed lies on the non-settling defendant. In sum, the appellate division in Glassman established steps the jury can use to determine successive tortfeasor liability, but largely treated it as one, attenuated incident.
Reprinted courtesy of
Thomas Regan, Lewis Brisbois and
Karley Kamaris, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Regan may be contacted at Thomas.Regan@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Kamaris may be contacted at Karley.Kamaris@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Supreme Court Addresses “Good Faith” Construction Disputes Under Prompt Payment Laws
June 06, 2018 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIt’s been a rollercoaster. But the ride appears to be over.
In United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co., Case No. S231549 (May 14, 2018), the California Supreme Court addressed whether a direct contractor can withhold payment from a subcontractor based on the “good faith dispute” exception of the state’s prompt payment laws if the “dispute” concerns any dispute between the parties or whether the dispute must be directly relevant to the specific payment that would otherwise be due.
California’s Prompt Payment Laws
California has a number of construction-related prompt payment laws scattered throughout the state’s Civil Code, Public Contracts Code and Business and Professions Code. Their application depends on the type of construction involved, whether public or private; the type of payment involved, whether a progress payment or retention; and who is paying, whether it’s a private owner, public entity, direct contractor, or subcontractor.
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
Florida Federal Court to Examine Issues of Alleged Arbitrator Conflicts of Interests in Panama Canal Case
May 24, 2021 —
Sarah B. Biser & Philip Z. Langer - ConsensusDocsThe parties in a $238-million dispute over the construction of the third set of locks for the Panama Canal are raising issues concerning alleged conflicts of interest on the part of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) arbitrators in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.[2] The case may address rarely litigated issues concerning whether arbitrators who sit on multiple arbitration panels together or who support appointment of each other to lead arbitration panels have disabling conflicts of interest.
The case pits Grupo Unidos por el Canal, S.A. (“Grupo”), a consortium of Spanish, Italian, Belgian, and Panamanian construction firms, against Autoridad del Canal de Panama (“ACP”), the Panamanian entity that operates the Panama Canal and that sponsored the multi-billion-dollar, decade-long project to expand the Canal’s capacity by building a new set of locks (the “Project”). The current dispute (the “Panama 1 Arbitration”), which centers on the suitability of the rock coming from the excavations to be used to produce concrete aggregates for the Project, was arbitrated before a three-member ICC Tribunal and resulted in a $238-million award to ACP and against Grupo. The ICC Tribunal reversed a decision of the dispute review board established in the parties’ contract.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sarah B. Biser, Fox Rothschild LLP and
Philip Z. Langer, Fox Rothschild LLP
Ms. Biser may be contacted at sbiser@foxrothschild.com
Mr. Langer may be contacted at planger@foxrothschild.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
