The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), which is responsible for determining the chemicals that are included on its list of chemicals known to be carcinogenic or to cause reproductive harm, thereby requiring businesses to comply with the rules accorded under California’s Proposition 65, has announced the beginning of a 45-day public comment period on five chemicals:
- Nickel
- Pentachlorophenol
- Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
- Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)
- Tetrachloroethylene
Reprinted courtesy of Lee Marshall, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Jeffrey A. Vinnick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Marshall may be contacted at lmarshall@hbblaw.com
Mr. Vinnick may be contacted at jvinnick@hbblaw.com
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
California Court of Appeal Affirms Trial Court’s Denial of anti-SLAPP Motion in Dispute Over Construction of Church Facilities
March 27, 2023 — Garrett A. Smee & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
On February 28, 2023, the California Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division One, issued an opinion in Billauer v. Escobar-Eck (D079835), affirming the trial court’s denial of an anti-SLAPP motion stemming from a public debate over a Church construction project.
The Appellant (Billauer) ran several social media sites as a “neighborhood activist.” The Respondent (Escobar-Eck) ran a land use and strategic planning firm in San Diego. The “All People’s Church” had hired Escobar-Eck’s company in 2019 to obtain City approval for a Church campus. During a Zoom presentation by Escobar-Eck to a Church planning group on November 11, 2020, Billauer, as a participant in the meeting sent a chat to Escobar-Eck stating: “I’m going to make sure you get sent back to where you came from.” Over the span of the next six months, from November 11, 2020 to April 8, 2021, Billauer continued the onslaught through a series of five posts on Instagram and Facebook, attacking Escobar-Eck. On December 10, 2020, Escobar-Eck fired back with a Twitter post to Billauer’s employer, Wells Fargo, labeling Billauer as a cyberbullying racist.
Reprinted courtesy of Garrett A. Smee, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Smee may be contacted at gsmee@hbblaw.com
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Prevailing HOAs Not Entitled to Attorneys’ Fees in Enforcement Actions Brought Under Davis-Stirling
August 30, 2017 — Lawrence S. Zucker II & Michael C. Parme – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Retzloff v. Moulton Parkway Residents’ Ass’n, (2017) Cal. App. LEXIS 727, the Fourth District Court of Appeal considered the novel question of whether attorneys’ fees can be included as part of the cost award to a ‘prevailing association’ under Cal. Civ. Code §5235(c).
Plaintiffs were former board members of Moulton Parkway Residents’ Association, No. One (“the Association”) who sued the Association for alleged violations of the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (Civ. Code §4000 et. seq.) which regulates the governance of common interest developments such as condominium communities and homeowners associations. Plaintiffs’ suit alleged that the Association regularly conducted business outside of scheduled board meetings and failed to make certain records available for inspection.
Reprinted courtesy of Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Michael C. Parme, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Mr. Parme may be contacted at mparme@hbblaw.com
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
BHA Expands Construction Experts Group
October 28, 2011 — Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc. - Corporate Offices
Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc., one of the nation’s leading construction forensics firms is pleased to announce the expansion of the company’s civil and structural engineering capabilities.
JERRY M. MILES, PE - Mr. Miles has been a licensed civil engineer in California since 1987 and has served as the lead civil engineer on many projects in several states. His experience includes contract administration services as the owner’s representative on a variety of projects including mastered planned communities, residential subdivisions, shopping centers and multi-family residential projects. He has also been involved in providing water quality management plans and storm water pollution prevention plans. Mr. Miles has also served on the Town of Apple Valley’s Building Department Dispute Resolution Board.
His more than 26 years of engineering experience includes geotechnical evaluations, structural design of wood-framed, masonry, and concrete tilt-up buildings, small and large subdivision engineering construction/improvements plans, hydrology/hydraulic reports and design, forensic investigation and expert witness testimony. Mr. Miles has qualified as an expert in numerous jurisdictions and Federal court. He has been called upon to provide deposition testimony on more than twenty-five occasions and has successfully testified at arbitration and trial. Click here to view Mr. Miles’ Current CV.
MATTHEW J. STIEFEL, PE - With a background that spans a multitude of design and new construction projects to catastrophic claims analysis, Mr. Stiefel brings a unique set of credentials and experience to the construction experts group at Bert L. Howe & Associates. Mr. Stiefel has more than 13 years’ experience in civil, structural, and geotechnical engineering; providing design and construction consulting services on a variety of projects that include multi-family and single family dwellings, commercial buildings, transportation facilities, industrial facilities, storm drain channels, water and wastewater pipelines. His engineering experience encompasses multiple disciplines of civil engineering including geotechnical design and evaluation, foundation design, structural design of wood-framed buildings, preparation of grading plans and site drainage analysis. He has provided cause and origin analysis for insurance adjusters on many residential and commercial sites related to issues involving moisture intrusion and mold, foundation movement, site drainage, soil movement, wind damage, and other various losses. Click here to view Mr. Stiefel’s Current CV.
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment in Landis v. Fannin Builders
April 20, 2011 — Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFF
The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in Landis v. William Fannin Builders. Landis contracted Fannin Builders to build their home. The case involved staining problems on the T1-11 siding chosen by the plaintiffs.
After a year and a half of discussion on how to resolve the problem of uneven staining on the siding, Landis filed suit “against Fannin Builders, alleging claims for breach of contract, breach of the express limited warranty, and violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (“OCSPA”). Fannin Builders, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against 84 Lumber, alleging claims for breach of contract and indemnification. With the trial court’s leave, Fannin Builders also later amended its answer to add a counterclaim against appellees for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. In the counterclaim, Fannin Builders alleged that appellees still owed it $3,908.98 for the construction of appellees’ home.”
“In its decision, the trial court found in appellees’ favor on their breach of contract claim and against appellees on their claims for breach of the express limited warranty and violation of the OCSPA. Additionally, the trial court found in Fannin Builders’ favor on its counterclaim for breach of contract and against Fannin Builders on its third-party claims for breach of contract and indemnity. The trial court determined that appellees’ damages amounted to $66,906.24, and after setting off the $3,908.98 that appellees owed Fannin Builders under the construction contract, the trial court awarded appellees $62,997.26. The trial court reduced its decision to judgment on May 18, 2010.”
Fannin Builders appealed this judgment and assigned the following errors:
[1.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant Breached its Contract with Appellees when it provided a Semi-Transparent Oil-Based Stain that Simply did not Meet their Approval.
[a.] The Contract does not Contain a Satisfaction Clause.
[b.] Even if the Court Implies a Satisfaction Clause, the Court Should Apply an Objective Standard.
[2.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Failing to Consider Appellant’s Right to Cure.
[3.] The Trial Court committed Reversible Error by not Assessing Damages Using “Diminished Value Standard,” and by Creating a Remedy that Constitutes Economic Waste.
[4.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant is Barred from Seeking Indemnification When 84 [Lumber] Never Fulfilled its Obligations Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement Entered on August 2, 2005.
In response to the first assigned error, the Court of Appeals stated: “Because the failure to provide siding of a uniform color, not appellees’ displeasure, breached the contract, we reject Fannin Builders’ contention that the trial court implied a satisfaction clause into the contract and found a breach of that clause. Accordingly, we overrule Fannin Builders’ first assignment of error.”
The Court of Appeals overruled the second assignment of error and provided the following reasoning: “Although Fannin Builders depends upon a term of the limited warranty for its right to cure, the trial court concluded that no breach of the limited warranty occurred. Fannin Builders breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIA’s Quality Standards. Consequently, the limited warranty does not apply to this case, and thus, it does not prevent appellees’ recovery of damages.”
The Appeals Court found “the trial court’s award of damages” was “both reasonable and supported by competent, credible evidence,” and therefore concluded “that the trial court did not err in setting appellees’ damages at $62,997.26.” The Fannin Builders third assignment of error was overruled.
The fourth and final assignment of error was also overruled by the Court of Appeals. “While Fannin Builders correctly asserts that 84 Lumber never installed the replacement siding, it ignores the fact that it ordered 84 Lumber to remove the replacement siding from appellees’ property. Thus, Fannin Builders precluded 84 Lumber from completely performing under the August 2, 2005 letter agreement. […] Consequently, Fannin Builders cannot now claim that the letter agreement is unenforceable or that it is entitled to indemnification from 84 Lumber. Because Fannin Builders assumed all liability for the defective siding in the letter agreement, it is responsible for appellees’ damages.”
James A. Zitesman, Columbus, Ohio Business Attorney, compared the case to Jones v. Centex (Ohio App. 2010), which had a different verdict:
“The common thread is the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the Jones case, the Court found that the buyers had in fact waived all implied warranties, including the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the contract between Jones and Centex, the builder stated that it “…would not sell the property to Purchasers without this waiver.” Probably should have been a sign to the buyers.
In the Landis case, the Court stated, “Contracts for the future construction of a residence include a duty, implied by law, that the builder must perform its work in a workmanlike manner.” The Court gave significant weight to the concept of the implied warranty of good workmanship. The builder relied upon the BIA Warranty which limits builders’ liability and exposure to legal issues. The trial court concluded there was no breach of the limited warranty, rather the builder “breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIAs Quality Standards.”
The Supreme Court of Ohio has accepted the Jones v. Centex Homes case for review.
Read the full story...
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Eleventh Circuit’s Noteworthy Discussion on Bad Faith Insurance Claims
November 01, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal’s opinion in Pelaez v. Government Employees Insurance Company, 2021 WL 4258821 (11th Cir. 2021) is a non-construction case that discusses the standard for pursuing a bad faith claim against an insurer. This case dealt with an automobile accident. While the facts of the case are interesting and will be discussed, the takeaway is the Eleventh Circuit’s noteworthy discussion on the standard for bad faith claims and how they should be evaluated. This discussion is included below–with citations–because while the term “bad faith” is oftentimes thrown around when it comes to insurance carriers, there is indeed an evaluative standard that is applied to determine whether an insurance carrier acted in bad faith.
In Pelaez, a high school student driving a car crashed with a motorcycle. The motorcycle driver was seriously injured and airlifted to the hospital. The accident was reported to the automobile liability insurer of the driver of the car. The insurer through its investigation initially believed the motorcycle driver was contributory negligent. Eleven days after the crash, after learning additional information, the insurer tendered its bodily injury policy limits of $50,00 to the motorcycle driver even though it never received a settlement demand. The insurer sent a tender package to the motorcycle driver’s lawyer that included a $50,000 check for the bodily injury claim and a proposed release. The accompanying letter told the attorney to contact the insurer with any questions about the release and to edit the proposed release with suggested changes. The insurer also wanted to inspect the motorcycle in furtherance of adjusting the property damage claim which also had a policy limit of $50,000. A location of where the motorcycle could be inspected was never provided. 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
Detroit Craftsmen Sift House Rubble in Quest for Treasured Wood
March 19, 2015 — Chris Christoff and Alexandra Mondalek – Bloomberg
(Bloomberg) -- Detroit’s 70,000 abandoned homes are proving to be a trove for entrepreneurs who recycle century-old lumber, glass and brick into everything from terrariums to $4,500 guitars.
“It’s like a treasure hunt,” said Craig Varterian, executive director of Reclaim Detroit, a nonprofit group that’s stripped and sold materials from almost 70 demolished homes. Floorboards and joists of early 20th century maple, walnut, hickory, fir and even chestnut are prized for their density and fine grain.
As Detroit ramps up demolitions of vacant dwellings, Mayor Mike Duggan plans a reclamation center in a city-owned building to keep tons of rubble out of landfills and create jobs and merchandise. Recycling would become a centerpiece of the city’s blight-removal effort, which is struggling to maintain funding.
Reprinted courtesy of Chris Christoff, Bloomberg and Alexandra Mondalek, Bloomberg
Mr. Christoff may be contacted at cchristoff@bloomberg.net
Ms. Mondalek may be contacted at amondalek@bloomberg.net
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Determining Duty to Defend in Wisconsin Does Not Include Extrinsic Evidence
September 22, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The policyholder's attempt to extend the duty to defend analysis beyond the complaint's allegations and the four-corners of the policy failed before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Water Well Solutions Service Group Inc. v. Consolidated Ins. Co., 2016 Wisc. LEXIS 163 (Wis. Sup. Ct. June 30, 2016). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com
