Reports of the Death of SB800 are Greatly Exaggerated – The Court of Appeal Revives Mandatory SB800 Procedures
September 03, 2015 —
Steven M. Cvitanovic & David A. Harris – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn a 20 page opinion, the Court of Appeal for the Fifth District repudiated the holding of Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98 (“Liberty Mutual”), and held that plaintiffs in construction defect actions must comply with the statutory pre-litigation inspection and repair procedures mandated by SB800 (the “Act”) regardless of whether they plead a cause of action for violation of the Act. The Case, McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (Carl Van Tassell), (Ct. of Appeal F069370) breathes new life into the Act’s right to repair requirements, and reinforces the Act’s stated purpose of seeking to limit the number of court cases by allowing a builder to resolve construction defect claims by agreeing to repair the homeowners’ residence.
In McMillin, 37 homeowners filed a lawsuit against McMillin, the builder of their homes, alleging eight causes of action, including strict products liability, negligence, and breach of express and implied warranty. Plaintiffs’ third cause of action alleged violations of the Act. The plaintiffs did not follow the Act’s notification procedures and filed their lawsuit without providing McMillin with an opportunity to repair the alleged defects. Plaintiffs and McMillin attempted to negotiate a stay of the lawsuit to complete the Act’s prelitigation procedures. When talks broke down, plaintiffs dismissed the third cause of action and contended they were no longer required to follow the Act’s prelitigation procedures. McMillin filed a motion to stay with the trial court. The trial court denied McMillin’s motion concluding that under Liberty Mutual, “[plaintiffs] were entitled to plead common law causes of action in lieu of a cause of action for violation of the building standards set out in [the Act], and they were not required to submit to the prelitigation process of the Act when their complaint did not allege any cause of action for violation of the Act.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
David A. Harris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com
Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
One More Thing Moving From California to Texas: Wildfire Risk
June 19, 2023 —
Patrick Sisson - BloombergIn early January, Keith Elwell was doing one of the things he does best, swinging chainsaws to help save forests from wildfire. Amid groves of junipers and white oak trees, Elwell led a team of a half-dozen volunteers, clearing brush and dead limbs in Twin Springs Preserve in Williamson County, Texas, a 170-acre county preserve a 40-minute drive north of downtown Austin.
Set on the northeastern edge of Hill Country, a rolling, rocky landscape of natural springs and wild grasses, it’s also adjacent to Georgetown, the fastest-growing city in the United States according to US Census Bureau data. Once a small farming town, it’s now an Austin suburb of more than 75,000 people with 60 subdivisions under construction.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick Sisson, Bloomberg
Georgia Appellate Court Supports County Claim Against Surety Company’s Failure to Pay
August 30, 2017 —
David R. Cook Jr. - Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLPIn 2015, Hall County (Georgia) brought legal action against Selective Insurance Company of America, Inc., the surety company for contractor Ruby Forrest. Hall County had contracted Ruby Forrest to complete and maintain sidewalk systems within three residential subdivisions that Ruby Forrest owned and was developing. Ruby Forrest did not complete the work as promised, and Hall County brought action against the contractor’s surety to recover under performance / maintenance bonds for uncompleted work and to assert bad faith claim for punitive damages and attorney fees.
Selective Insurance did not dispute that it had issued the bonds, that Ruby Forrest did not complete the sidewalk systems within the bond periods or their extensions, or that Hall County provided Selective Insurance with timely notice of Ruby Forrest’s failure to complete the work. Instead, Selective Insurance asserted that the original claim by Hall County was time-barred under a provision in the bonds that stated that “the Issuer will have no more liability after” the expiration date of the bond.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David R. Cook, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLPMr. Cook may be contacted at
cook@ahclaw.com
Staying the Course, Texas Supreme Court Rejects Insurer’s Argument for Exception to Eight-Corners Rule in Determining Duty to Defend
April 27, 2020 —
John C. Eichman, Sergio F. Oehninger, Grayson L. Linyard & Leah B. Nommensen - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogIn responding to a certified question from the Fifth Circuit in Richards v. State Farm Lloyds, the Texas Supreme Court held that the “policy-language exception” to the eight-corners rule articulated by the federal district court is not a permissible exception under Texas law. See Richards v. State Farm Lloyds, 19-0802, 2020 WL 1313782, at *1 (Tex. Mar. 20, 2020). The eight-corners rule generally provides that Texas courts may only consider the four corners of the petition and the four corners of the applicable insurance policy when determining whether a duty to defend exists. State Farm argued that a “policy-language exception” prevents application of the eight-corners rule unless the insurance policy explicitly requires the insurer to defend “all actions against its insured no matter if the allegations of the suit are groundless, false or fraudulent,” relying on B. Hall Contracting Inc. v. Evanston Ins. Co., 447 F. Supp. 2d 634, 645 (N.D. Tex. 2006). The Texas Supreme Court rejected the insurer’s argument, citing Texas’ long history of applying the eight-corners rule without regard for the presence or absence of a “groundless-claims” clause.
The underlying dispute in Richards concerned whether State Farm must defend its insureds, Janet and Melvin Richards, against claims of negligent failure to supervise and instruct after their 10-year old grandson died in an ATV accident. The Richardses asked State Farm to provide a defense to the lawsuit by their grandson’s mother and, if necessary, to indemnify them against any damages. To support its argument that no coverage under the policy existed, and in turn, it had no duty to defend, State Farm relied on: (1) a police report to prove the location of the accident occurred off the insured property; and (2) a court order detailing the custody arrangement of the deceased child to prove the child was an insured under the policy. The federal district court held that the eight-corners rule did not apply, and thus extrinsic evidence could be considered regarding the duty to defend, because the policy did not contain a statement that the insurer would defend “groundless, false, or fraudulent” claims. In light of the extrinsic police report and extrinsic custody order, the district court granted summary judgment to State Farm.
Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth attorneys
John C. Eichman,
Sergio F. Oehninger,
Grayson L. Linyard and
Leah B. Nommensen
Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Linyard may be contacted at glinyard@HuntonAK.com
Ms. Nommensen may be contacted at leahnommensen@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
DOD Contractors Receive Reprieve on Implementation of Chinese Telecommunications Ban
September 14, 2020 —
Lori Ann Lange & Sabah Petrov - Peckar & AbramsonIn our previous
alert, we discussed the expansion on the Section 889(a)(1)(B) ban on certain Chinese telecommunications equipment and services to contractors and subcontractors who use the equipment and services in their internal operations. Effective August 13, 2020, federal agencies were prohibited from procuring, obtaining, extending, or renewing a contract with a contractor that uses equipment, systems, or services that use covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component or as critical technology, unless an exception applies or a waiver is granted. Since then we have received feedback from contractors, complaining about the difficulties in determining whether their internal operations use covered telecommunications equipment and services and the need for additional time to become compliant or even obtain enough information to submit a waiver request.
Now it seems that Department of Defense (DoD) contractors and subcontractors may be getting a temporary reprieve. The DoD Under Secretary for Acquisition and Sustainment requested a waiver that would allow DoD to continue to execute procurement actions providing supplies, equipment, services, food, clothing, transportation, care, and support necessary to execute the DoD mission. The Director of National Intelligence granted the temporary waiver until September 30, 2020 pending a further review of waiver request. Depending upon the outcome of this additional review, the temporary waiver may be continued beyond September 30, 2020 if it is in the national security interests of the United States.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lori Ann Lange, Peckar & Abramson and
Sabah Petrov, Peckar & Abramson
Ms. Lange may be contacted at llange@pecklaw.com
Ms. Petrov may be contacted at spetrov@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Indemnity and Defense Construction Law Changes for 2013
April 03, 2013 —
William L. Porter, Esq. - Porter Law GroupDeath of “Type 1” Indemnity in California Construction
For many years the prevalence of the “Type 1” indemnity clause has been the subject of fierce debate within the construction industry. Subcontractors have complained that they are saddled with indemnity obligations that require them to indemnify contractors from construction-related claims for which these subcontractors are truly not responsible. In defense, contractors have argued that they must be entitled to the freedom to set contractual terms to best protect themselves and they point out that subcontractors are certainly free to negotiate better terms or turn down work.
After many years of debate and small legislative inroads in prohibiting Type 1 indemnity in residential projects and where it concerns the “sole negligence”, “willful misconduct” or the “design defects” of others, the California legislature has finally spoken broadly and definitively on the issue of Type 1 indemnity clauses in construction contracts. Under new Civil Code section 2782, beginning with contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2013, broad “Type 1” indemnity clauses shall be void and unenforceable in the context of both private and public construction projects in California. Civil Code section 2782 now makes it clear that subcontractors can no longer be required to indemnify against another’s active negligence in connection with construction contracts, whether public or private.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Porter, Esq.William L. Porter, Esq. can be contacted at
bporter@porterlaw.com
Insurers' Motion to Knock Out Bad Faith, Negligent Misrepresentation Claims in Construction Defect Case Denied
August 27, 2013 —
Tred Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiHaving previously decided that construction defect claims did not arise from an occurrence and were consequently not covered under Hawaii law, the Hawaii Federal District Court refused to dismiss the insured's second amended counterclaim alleging various claims for relief. Ill. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Nordic PCL Construc., Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108932 (D. Haw. July 31, 2013).
In earlier proceedings, the court determined that the Nordic's allegedly deficient performance on construction contracts was not an "occurrence." The court also rejected Nordic's argument that the Hawaii legislature's Act 83 required the court to deviate from the Ninth Circuit's opinion in Burlington Ins. Co. v. Oceanic Design & Constr., Inc., 383 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2004) or the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals' decision in Group Builders, Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 123 Haw. 142, 231 P.3d 67 (Haw. Ct. App. 2010).
Admiral now moved for summary judgment on its complaint and for dismissal of Nordic's second amended counterclaim, alleging bad faith and negligent misrepresentation, among other counts. Summary judgment as to the Safeway claim was denied.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred EyerlyTred Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Construction is the Fastest Growing Industry in California
May 20, 2015 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogWe wrote earlier about why construction workers are the happiest employees on Earth, and pointed to one possible factor: That construction, which was one of the hardest hit industries during the 2008 real estate collapse, has since bounced back.
This past month, the California Employment Development Department (“EDD”) released data putting some numbers to that hypothesis. And the result: According to the EDD, over the past 12 months, construction was the fastest growing industry in California, adding more than 46,000 jobs within the last year, an increase of 6.9% from 667,000 workers in March 2014 to 713,000 workers in March 2015.
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
