Recent Supreme Court Decision Could Have Substantial Impact on Builders
January 23, 2023 —
Cassidy Ingram - Ahlers Cressman & SleightOn October 27, 2022, the Washington State Supreme Court issued a decision which could have a substantial impact on the enforceability of contract clauses that require litigation to be commenced within a stated period of time from project completion. In Tadych v. Noble Ridge Construction, Inc.,the Supreme Court held that the contractual one-year statute of limitations for bringing claims against the contractor was substantively unconscionable and reversed the Court of Appeals.
In Tadych, plaintiff owners (the Tadychs) contracted with defendant contractor (Noble Ridge Construction, Inc., or NRC) for the construction of a custom home in 2012. The contract included a one-year claim limitations clause that required claims to be raised within a one year period from project completion and that any claims not raised during the one-year period would be waived. In December 2013, as the project neared completion, the Tadychs met with NRC to identify any outstanding project issues. The Tadychs noted several, including rainwater pools at the landing at the bottom of the stairs and several nicks and cracks on the stucco exterior walls.
The Tadychs moved into the home on April 8, 2014, and the City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development conducted its final site inspection on April 15 and approved the residence for occupancy on April 23. In January or February of 2015, the Tadychs began to notice a shift in their home. In February of 2015, the Tadychs engaged the Construction Dispute Resolution (CDR) to review NRC’s work. CDR raised concerns about the adequacy of the home’s construction and prepared a written report in March 2015 indicating several deviations from the architectural plans and building codes. The Tadychs sent this report to NRC, who assured the Tadychs that NRC’s work followed all requirements and rejected any claims that there were deviations from the plans. The Tadychs continued to notice issues with the home through October 2016.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Cassidy Ingram, Ahlers Cressman & SleightMs. Ingram may be contacted at
cassidy.ingram@acslawyers.com
Don't Count On a Housing Slowdown to Improve Affordability
June 13, 2022 —
Conor Sen - BloombergAs mortgage rates continue to rise, all eyes are fixed on the housing market for signs of a potential slowdown. But any slowdown that does materialize won't affect the industry equally because it isn't going to be about fundamental problems with the housing market. Rather, it will be the result of the Federal Reserve intentionally increasing borrowing costs to cool off inflation.
The Fed's efforts are happening in the context of a supply-constrained market where homebuilders have been struggling to complete as many homes as they would like. Any negative impact of rising mortgage rates would be felt disproportionately where affordability problems already are the worst — high-cost coastal markets — and then in materials for the early part of the construction cycle, such as lumber.
Understanding the nature of the housing challenge is important so that you aren’t tempted to compare the situation with past downturns. For now, at least, there is no broad industry downturn as we’ve seen before in oil and gas or the technology sector that would lead to the housing market suffering in places like Houston or the San Francisco Bay Area. Homeowners haven't taken on too much debt, and there's no inventory glut — quite the opposite, in fact — that would lead to a broad-based downturn.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Conor Sen, Bloomberg
Traub Lieberman Partner Katie Keller and Associate Steven Hollis Obtain Summary Judgment Based on Plaintiff’s Failure to Comply with Policy Conditions
June 12, 2023 —
Kathryn Keller & Steven A. Hollis - Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman Partner Katie Keller and Associate Steven Hollis obtained summary judgment on behalf of a major homeowners’ insurer in a breach of contract action in the Circuit Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Osceola County, Florida. The underlying claim involved a water loss in the kitchen of the Plaintiff’s property allegedly resulting in substantial damage to the home necessitating renovations throughout the residence. The claim was reported seventeen days after the reported date of loss by Plaintiff’s counsel. The Plaintiff had retained counsel and two vendors before giving notice to the insurer. In addition, the insurer’s field adjuster was not provided the opportunity to inspect the plumbing materials which had been allegedly damaged. Specifically, the bottom panel of the sink kitchen cabinet box had been removed. The insurer retained an engineer, who concluded that the removal of the damaged property hindered the ability of the engineer to determine their conditions prior to removal or whether exposure from waste arm leakage occurred. It was later learned that the damaged plumbing fixtures and the bottom of the cabinets had been thrown out by the contractors, which all happened before the claim was reported to the insurer. The insured also failed to provide a signed, sworn proof of loss within sixty days after the loss.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kathryn Keller, Traub Lieberman and
Steven A. Hollis, Traub Lieberman
Ms. Keller may be contacted at kkeller@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Hollis may be contacted at shollis@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Contracts and Fraud Don’t Mix (Even for Lawyers!)
August 24, 2020 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIn prior posts here at Construction Law Musings, I have discussed how fraud and contracts are often like oil and water. While there are exceptions, these exceptions are few and far between here in Virginia. The reason for the lack of a mix between these two types of claims is the so-called “source of duty” rule. The gist of this rule is that where the reason money is owed from one party to another (the source of the “duty to pay”) is based in the contract, Virginia courts will not allow a fraud claim. The rule was created so that all breaches of contract, claims that are at base a failure to fulfill a prior promise and could, therefore, be considered to be based on a prior “lie,” would not be expanded to turn into tort claims. This rule has been extended to claims that most average people (read, non-lawyers) would consider fraud because there was no intent to fulfill the contract at the time it was signed.
Just so you don’t think that lawyers are exempt from this legal analysis, I point you to a recent case where a law firm sued a construction client of theirs for failure to pay legal fees. In EvansStarrett PLC v. Goode & Preferred General Contracting, the Fairfax County Circuit Court considered a motion by the Plaintiff law firm seeking to add a count of fraud to its breach of contract lawsuit. The Court considered the following facts.
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
It Has Started: Supply-Chain, Warehouse and Retail Workers of Essential Businesses Are Filing Suit
June 22, 2020 —
Robert G. Devine, James Burger & Douglas Weck - White and Williams LLPSupply-chain businesses that are appropriately characterized as “essential” have remained open for the delivery of critical supplies while everyone else has been told to close up shop and stay home. Now essential-business employees are contracting COVID-19 and filing suit. Following up on our earlier piece — “Is a Violation of a COVID-19 Order the Basis For Civil Liability?” — it is important to recognize that government directives, oftentimes couched as “recommendations,” can come to define what it means to provide a reasonably safe workplace that protects employees from COVID-19. While common law negligence defenses consider the reasonableness of conduct, these directives will likely become the standard.
The cases that have been filed are overwhelmingly premised upon the timeless negligence construct. The negligence construct, simply put, imposes a duty to act as a reasonable person would under the circumstances. Nonetheless, while the negligence construct lives in the ordinary world of “reasonableness,” infection-control guidance lives in the rapidly developing world of the science of COVID-19. Guidance on seemingly basic questions, such as the methods of transmission (e.g., personal contact, mucus membrane only, airborne transmission) or even the virus’s shelf life on different surfaces, of particular interest packaging and material handling equipment, can change by the day. All of this provides challenges for the supply-side business looking to protect its workforce.
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys
James Burger,
Robert Devine and
Douglas Weck
Mr. Burger may be contacted at burgerj@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Devine may be contacted at deviner@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Weck may be contacted at weckd@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Fifth Circuit Finds Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case
March 14, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiReversing the judgment of the district court, the Fifth Circuit found the insurer owed a defense in a construction defect case. Siplast, Inc. v. Emplrs Mut. Cas. Co., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 795 (5th Cir. Jan. 11, 2022).
The Archdiocese of New York sued various parties for a roofing project at a high school in the Bronx. Siplast, the roofing manufacturer, was included as a defendant. The underlying lawsuit arose from the Archdiocese purchase of a roof membrane system from Siplast. Siplast guaranteed that the roof membrane system would remain "in a watertight condition for a period of 20 years . . . or Siplast will repair the Roof Membrane System at its own expense."
After installation of the roof, school officials noticed water damage in the ceiling tiles throughout the school after a rain storm. Siplast attempted to repair the damage, but was unsuccessful. Siplast later informed the Archdiocese that the guarantee would not be honored regarding any permanent improvements of the roof. The Archdiocese filed suit against Siplast and the installing contractor. The cause of action against Siplast was for breach of the guarantee.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Want to Use Drones in Your Construction Project? FAA Has Just Made It Easier.
March 01, 2017 —
Masaki J. Yamada – Ahlers & Cressman PLLCThe new Part 107 FAA Rules took effect on Monday, August 29, 2016. Unlike the previous requirements for flying a drone commercially, the new rules are much more simplistic and permissive of a broad amount of commercial drone usage.
The following is the basic knowledge you need to legally use a drone on your future projects. To fly a drone commercially, there are now four major requirements:
- You must be at least sixteen years old;
- You must register your drone online;
- You must pass an aviation knowledge test administered at an FAA-approved testing center; and
- You must pass review by the Transportation Security Administration.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Masaki J. Yamada, Ahlers & Cressman PLLCMr. Yamada may be contacted at
myamada@ac-lawyers.com
Toxic Drywall Not Covered Under Homeowner’s Policy
March 28, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Duphuys of Baton Rouge Louisiana found themselves needing to argue both sides of an issue, according to the judge in Duphuy v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company. The Duphuys alleged that the drywall in their home “emits odorous gases that cause damage to air-condition and refrigerator coils, copper tubing, electrical wiring, computer wiring, and other household items.” Additionally, they reported damage to “their home’s insulation, trimwork, floors, cabinets, carpets, and other items” which they maintained were “covered under the ‘ensuing loss’ portion of their policy.”
Their insurer declined coverage, stating that the damages were not a “direct, physical loss,” and even if they were “four different exclusions independently exclude coverage, even if such loss occurred.” The policy excludes defective building materials, latent defects, pollutants, and corrosion damage. The court noted that “ambiguities in policy exclusions are construed to afford coverage to the insured.”
The court did determine that the Duphuys were not in “a situation where the plaintiffs caused the risk for which they now seek coverage.” The judge cited an earlier case, In re Chinese Drywall, “a case with substantially similar facts and construing the same policy” and in that case, “property damage” was determined to “include the loss of use of tangible property.” The court’s conclusion was that the Duphuys “suffered a direct, physical loss triggering coverage under their policy.”
Unfortunately for the Duphuys, at this point the judge noted that while they had a “direct, physical loss,” the exclusions put them “in the tough predicament of claiming the drywall is neither defective nor its off-gassing corrosive or a pollutant, but nonetheless damage-causing.”
In the earlier Chinese Drywall case, the judge found that “faulty and defective materials” “constitutes a physical thing tainted by imperfection or impairment.” The case “found the drywall served its intended purpose as a room divider and insulator but nonetheless qualified under the exclusion, analogizing the drywall to building components containing asbestos that courts have previously determined fit under the same exclusion.” In the current case, the judge concluded that the drywall was “outside the realm of coverage under the policy.”
The court also found that it had to apply the corrosion exclusion, noting that the plaintiffs tried to evade this by stating, “simplistically and somewhat disingenuously, that the damage is not caused by corrosion but by the drywall itself.” The plaintiffs are, however, parties to another Chinese drywall case, Payton v. Knauf Gips KG, in which “they directly alleged that ‘sulfides and other noxious gases, such as those emitted from [Chinese] drywall, cause corrosion and damage to personal property.’” As the court pointed out, the Duphuys could not claim in one case that the corrosion was caused by gases emitted by the drywall and in another claim it was the drywall itself. “They hope their more ambiguous allegations will be resolved in their favor and unlock the doors to discovery.”
The court quickly noted that “the remaining damage allegations are too vague and conclusory to construe” and permitted “exploration of the latent defect and pollution exclusions.”
The judge concluded that the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient facts to establish coverage under the ensuing loss provision, stating that the “plaintiffs must allege, at the very least, how the drywall causes damage to the trimwork, carpet, etc., not simply that it does so.” Given the court’s determinations in the case, the plaintiffs’ motion was dismissed.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
