CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Professional Liability Alert: California Appellate Courts In Conflict Regarding Statute of Limitations for Malicious Prosecution Suits Against Attorneys

April 28, 2014 — David W. Evans & Stephen J. Squillario – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In conflict with an earlier decision by a different division within the same District, and with a prior decision of another District which followed the earlier case, Division Three of the Second Appellate District has concluded, contrary to established precedent, that the general two-year limitations period set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1 (“Section 335.1”) applies to malicious prosecution claims against attorneys, rather than the specific one-year statute of limitations for claims against attorneys codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 (“Section 340.6”). In Roger Cleveland Golf Co., Inc. v. Krane & Smith, APC (filed April 15, 2014, Case No. B237424, consolidated with Case No. B239375), Roger Cleveland Golf Co., Inc. (“Cleveland Golf”), filed a malicious prosecution action against Krane & Smith (“the Attorneys”), who had unsuccessfully prosecuted the underlying breach of contract matter for their client against Cleveland Golf. In that action, on April 26, 2010, the trial court entered its order granting a motion for nonsuit and dismissing the complaint in favor of Cleveland Golf. On May 24, 2011, or approximately 13 months after the trial court had dismissed the underlying complaint, Cleveland Golf commenced a malicious prosecution action against the Attorneys. In the interim, the Attorneys initiated an appeal of the underlying judgment, which was eventually dismissed approximately seven months later. In response to the complaint, the Attorneys filed a special motion to strike, commonly referred to as an anti-SLAPP motion, which included the argument that the malicious prosecution claim was time-barred under the one-year limitations period of Section 340.6. The trial court granted the Attorneys’ motion based on the statute of limitations (and Cleveland Golf’s failure to demonstrate a probability of success on the merits) and dismissed the case. Cleveland Golf’s appeal followed. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com, Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Hirer Liable for Injury to Subcontractor’s Employee Due to Failure to Act, Not Just Affirmative Acts, Holds Court of Appeal

December 11, 2018 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
The Privette doctrine, named after the court case Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, provides that a higher-tiered party such as an owner or general contractor is not liable for injuries sustained by employees of a lower-tiered party such as a subcontractor on a construction project. There are, however, exceptions to the Privette doctrine. One of these exceptions is known as the “retained control doctrine.” Under the retained control doctrine, a higher-tiered party cannot avoid liability under the Privette doctrine if the higher-tiered party: (1) retains control over the conditions of the work; (2) negligently exercises control over such conditions; and (3) its negligent exercise of control contributes to the injuries sustained by the employee of the lower-tiered party. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---

Case-Shiller Redo Shows Less Severe U.S. Home-Price Slump

September 03, 2014 — Lorraine Woellert – Bloomberg
The collapse in U.S. home prices that stoked the worst recession since the Great Depression wasn’t quite as severe as initially estimated, according to data from S&P/Case-Shiller. Property values nationally fell 26 percent from the February 2007 peak to the December 2011 trough, not 34 percent as previously reported, revised data showed last week. The index will now be issued monthly rather than quarterly. The change is the result of CoreLogic Inc. (CLGX)’s $6 million purchase of the S&P/Case-Shiller index from technology company Fiserv Inc. in March 2013. Case-Shiller has spent more than a year retrofitting its model with CoreLogic’s bigger, higher-quality data set, leading to a change in how the index looks. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lorraine Woellert, Bloomberg
Ms. Woellert may be contacted at lwoellert@bloomberg.net

---

California Supreme Court Rules Developers can be Required to Include Affordable Housing

June 17, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Los Angeles Times reported that in a unanimous decision, the California Supreme court justices declared that “cities and counties” can “require developers to sell some housing at below-market rates.” Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye wrote, “It will come as no surprise to anyone familiar with California’s current housing market that the significant problems arising from a scarcity of affordable housing have not been solved over the past three decades,” as quoted in the Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti applauded the decision: “This gives Los Angeles and other local governments another possible tool to use as we tackle our affordable housing crisis.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Negligent Construction an Occurrence Says Ninth Circuit

June 30, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

One June 27, the US Court of Appeals has rejected an appeal from Mid-Continent Casualty Company. Mid-Continent had appealed a summary judgment granted to Titan Construction Company.



Titan Construction had built condominiums for the Williamsburg Condominium Association, which later filed a construction defect lawsuit against Titan and other defendants. Titan settled with the developer, Kennydale, assigning its rights against Mid-Continent to Kennydale. Mid-Continent filed suit, claiming that “it had no obligation to indemnify or defend Titan, Kennydale, or various other defendants.” The district court found in favor of Mid-Continent, granting a summary judgment, concluding that Titan’s insurance covered “occurrences,” and none had taken place.



On appeal, the court found that the negligent construction of the condominiums constituted an “occurrence” The case was remanded and the district court this time found in favor of Titan, “concluding that Mid-Continent failed to raise a triable issue as to the applicability of the remaining policy exclusions.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has now affirmed that decision and Titan’s summary judgment stands.

Read the court’s decision…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Unlocking the Hidden Power of Zoning, for Good or Bad

October 21, 2024 — David Zipper - Bloomberg
No longer dismissed as an insomnia-curing corner of local governance, zoning is having a moment. It’s at the heart of the pro-housing Yes In My Backyard — or YIMBY — movement, which seeks to reform the rules that mandate the construction of single-family homes across much of the US, and the arcane details of land use policy are being debated in national outlets and city councils across the US. In much of this discourse, zoning is the clear villain, blamed for feeding societal ills ranging from housing costs to racial discrimination to greenhouse gas emissions. In her new book Key to the City, Sara Bronin examines zoning with a critical but sympathetic eye. Bronin brings deep experience to the topic, having studied zoning as an architect and lawyer before overhauling the land use regulations of Hartford, Connecticut. A professor of architecture and planning at Cornell University (and an occasional Bloomberg CityLab contributor), she is currently on leave to chair the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Zipper, Bloomberg

---

Hybrid Contracts for The Sale of Goods and Services and the Predominant Factor Test

February 15, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Florida’s Uniform Commercial Code (also known as the UCC) applies to transactions for goods. “Goods” is defined by Article II of the UCC as “all things (including specially manufactured goods) which are movable at the time of identification to the contract for sale other than the money in which the price is to be paid, investment securities (chapter 678) and things in action.” Fla. Stat. s. 672.105(1). The UCC does NOT apply to transactions for services. Transactions for services are governed by common law. Oftentimes, transactions or contracts include BOTH goods and services. In this scenario, referred to as a hybrid contract, does the UCC or common law apply? In this scenario, courts apply the predominant factor test to determine whether the UCC or common law governs the transaction:

Whether the UCC or the common law applies to a particular hybrid contract depends on “whether the[ ] predominant factor, the [ ] thrust, the[ ] purpose [of the contract], reasonably stated, is the rendition of service, with goods incidentally involved (e.g., contract with artist for painting) or is a transaction of sale, with labor incidentally involved (e.g., installation of a water heater in a bathroom).” In such instances, the determination whether the “predominant factor” in the contract is for goods or for services is a factual inquiry unless the court can determine that the contract is exclusively for goods or services as a matter of law. Allied Shelving & Equipment, Inc. v. National Deli, LLC, 154 So.3d 482, 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (citations omitted).

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

California Court of Appeal Holds That the Right to Repair Act Prohibits Class Actions Against Manufacturers of Products Completely Manufactured Offsite

February 06, 2019 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Kohler Co. v. Superior Court, 29 Cal. App. 5th 55 (2018), the Second District of the Court of Appeal of California considered whether the lower court properly allowed homeowners to bring class action claims under the Right to Repair Act (the Act) against a manufacturer of a plumbing fixture for alleged defects in the product. After an extensive analysis of the language of the Act, the court found that class action claims under the Act are not allowed if the product was completely manufactured offsite. Since the subject fixture was completely manufactured offsite, the Court of Appeal reversed the lower court’s decision. The court’s holding establishes that rights and remedies set forth in the Right to Repair Act are not available for class action claims alleging defects in products completely manufactured offsite. In Kohler Co., homeowners instituted a class action against Kohler, the manufacturer of water pressure and temperature regulating valves that were installed into their homes during original construction. The class action was filed on behalf of all owners of residential dwellings in California in which these Kohler valves were installed as part of original construction. The complaint asserted, among other claims, a cause of action under the Act. Kohler filed a motion for anti-class certification on the ground that causes of actions under the Act cannot be certified as a class action. The trial court denied the motion with respect to the Act but certified its ruling for appellate review. Kohler filed a petition with the Court of Appeals, arguing that certain sections of the Act explicitly exclude class action claims under the Act. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

---