Design Professionals Owe a Duty of Care to Homeowners
July 09, 2014 —
Stephen A. Sunseri - Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLPToday, the California Supreme Court, in Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP (Jul. 3, 2014, S208173) __Cal.4th__ [2014 WL 2988058], held that architects owe a duty of care to future homeowners of residential buildings, particularly if they act as principal architects on a project, and are not subordinate to any other design professional. Until now, design professionals were rarely held liable, if at all, for third-party claims for design deficiencies.
In Beacon, architectural and engineering firms provided sole design services for The Beacon residential condominium project, a 595 unit project located in San Francisco. The condominiums were initially leased after construction, but were eventually sold to individual owners. The design firms claimed their role was limited to only providing design recommendations to the project's owner, who ultimately controlled and directed which design elements to construct. Not long after completion of the project, the homeowners' association sued the design firms (among others) for construction defects and damages related to alleged water infiltration, inadequate fire separations, structural cracks, and other purported safety hazards. The claims included allegations under SB 800 (the "Right to Repair Act," Civil Code §895, et seq.) and common law negligence theories.
The design firms demurred to the complaint, which the trial court sustained. On appeal, however, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's ruling, concluding that the design firms owed a duty of care to third parties. The Supreme Court affirmed.
Historically, liability for deficient goods and services hinged on whether there is a contractual relationship between a buyer and seller. However, the Supreme Court recognized that in certain circumstances a contractual relationship is not required. In its ruling, the Supreme Court relied on fifty year old precedent, Biankanja v. Irving (1958) 49 Cal.2d 647. In Biankanja, the California Supreme Court outlined several factors to determine whether a duty of care is owed to non-contracting third parties. Although Biankanja analyzes many factors, emphasis was placed placed on whether a purported harm was foreseeable by a defendant's conduct and how close of a connection there is between that conduct and an injury.
Here, the Court recognized that even though the design firms did not actually build the project, they did conduct weekly inspections, monitored contractor compliance, altered design elements when issues arose, and advised the owners of any nonconforming work. In applying the Biankanja factors to these circumstances, the Supreme Court determined the homeowners were intended beneficiaries of the design work and the design firms' primary role in the project bore a close connection to the alleged injuries. As a result, the Supreme Court held that the allegations in the complaint were sufficient and, if proven, establishes the defendants owed a duty of care to the homeowners' association.
Interestingly, the Supreme Court sidestepped the issue of whether SB 800 was intended to exclusively capture design defects in its scope, even though the Court indicated it may. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court's ruling is significant. The case will affect how design professionals allocate risk on future residential projects, perhaps by raising design prices or insuring around the liability exposure. The likely outcome, however, is that design professionals are now targets in construction defect lawsuits.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stephen A. Sunseri, Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLPMr. Sunseri may be contacted at
ssunseri@gdandb.com
Repairing One’s Own Work and the one Year Statute of Limitations to Sue a Miller Act Payment Bond
April 11, 2018 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen it comes to Miller Act payment bond claims, repairing one’s own work does NOT extend the one year statute of limitations to file suit on a Miler Act payment bond. Belonger Corp., Inc. v. BW Contracting Services, Inc., 2018 WL 704379, *3 (E.D. Wisconsin 2018) (“The courts that have considered this question tend to agree that, once a subcontractor completes its work under the subcontract, repairs or corrections to that work do not fall within the meaning of ‘labor’ or ‘materials’ and, as such, do not extend the Miller Act’s one-year statute of limitations.”).
Well, what if the subcontractor was repairing its own work due to an issue caused by another subcontractor?
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
North Carolina Exclusion j(6) “That Particular Part”
February 10, 2012 —
CDCoverage.comIn Alliance Mutual Insurance Co. v. Dove, 714 S.E.2d 782 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011), claimant Murphy-Brown hired insured Dove to repair a broken elevator belt in a grain elevator in Murphy-Brown’s feed mill. The elevator was inside a metal duct and, to access the broken belt, Dove had to cut out a section of the duct. After replacing the belt, Dove welded the metal section back to the duct. Immediately after Dove completed the welding, dust inside the duct ignited, causing an explosion in the elevator, resulting in property damage to the elevator and other property. Murphy-Brown sued Dove for negligence seeking damages for the repair and replacement of the elevator, repair and replacement of the other property, increased grain handling costs during the repairs, and loss of use.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
No Damage for Delay? No Problem: Exceptions to the Enforceability of No Damage for Delay Clauses
October 18, 2021 —
Chris Broughton, Jones Walker LLP - ConsensusDocsIntroduction:
Under a no-damage-for-delay clause, the owner is not liable for any monetary damages resulting from delays on the project. In lieu of monetary recovery, the contractor’s remaining remedy is a non-compensatory time extension. These clauses are common at the contractor-subcontractor interface as well.
While no-damage-for-delay clauses are enforced in most jurisdictions, some states, either by statute or case law, have limited the enforceability of no-damage-for-delay clauses. Other states have also limited the enforceability of these clauses on state government contracts, and a select few have outlawed them on all projects regardless if they are publicly or privately owned. Additionally, for subcontractors on federal projects, the Miller Act may provide a way to avoid no-damage-for-delay and recover against the general contractor’s payment bond.
This article provides an overview of no-damage-for-delay clauses and the exceptions to enforcement of these clauses. However, due to the consequences of a no-damage-for-delay clause, it is important to know the terms of your contract and the law that governs your project.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Chris Broughton, Jones Walker LLPMr. Broughton may be contacted at
cbroughton@joneswalker.com
TOP TAKE-AWAY SERIES: The 2023 Fall Meeting in Washington, D.C.
November 13, 2023 —
Marissa L. Downs & Jennifer M. Kanady - The Dispute ResolverOver 500 construction lawyers, experts, and consultants descended on Washington last week for the Forum’s 2023 Fall Meeting. Newly minted Forum Chair John Cook and Program Coordinators Catherine Delorey and Brian Zimmerman put together a stellar program focused on navigating government construction. For this installation of the post-meeting post, I'm teaming up with guest contributor, Jennifer Kanady, to bring you 10 of our top take-aways from this unique program.
10. Contracting with the government is replete with risk that could easily trap the unwary. Nobody likes to be taken advantage of. But hell hath no fury like the U.S. Government scorned. Erin Cannon-Wells and Aaron Silberman, gave a (truly) delightful, Indiana-Jones-inspired presentation on the regulations that can doom the unwitting contractor who is less than perfectly forthright in its dealings. The government has created financial incentives for members of the public to report your company’s violations as part of a qui tam action. When you consider the number of potential whistleblowers in the bidding process and the contracting chain, a qui tam action would seem more likely than not. Add to that the sanctions contractors might face for even innocent errors either by their own companies or their downstream subs, and government contracting begins to sound increasingly like the Temple of Doom. Oh, and in case you were only focused on affirmative claims, beware the “reverse false claim” which is concealing information that would rightfully entitle the government to a credit…
Reprinted courtesy of
Marissa L. Downs, Laurie & Brennan, LLP and
Jennifer M. Kanady, FAC Services, LLC
Ms. Downs may be contacted at mdowns@lauriebrennan.com
Ms. Kanady may be contacted at JKanady@facfin.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Consulting Firm Indicted and Charged with Falsifying Concrete Reports
August 17, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe New York Times reports that a company paid to inspect concrete at major public works projects in New York has been charged with falsifying results. They had been hired by the city three years ago after their predecessor was found to have falsified results.
According to the Times, investigators found nothing legitimate in nearly three thousand reports. The owner and five employees of American Standard Testing and Consulting Laboratories have been indicted on twenty-nine counts, including charges under New York’s racketeering law. Prison terms could be up to twenty-five years.
Prior to the city’s contract with American Standard, the city employed a firm called Testwell. Testwell was found in 2008 to have falsified its test results.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New York Court Holds Insurer Can Recover Before Insured Is Made Whole
October 24, 2023 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Tamagawa, Index No. 510977/2021, 2023 N.Y. Misc. Lexis 5434, the Supreme Court of New York considered whether an insurance carrier can settle its property subrogation lawsuit with the defendant, and discontinue the lawsuit, while the carrier’s insured still had pending claims with the carrier and claims for uninsured losses against the defendant. The court held that the carrier’s claims for the amount paid are divisible and independent of the insured’s claims and that the carrier’s settlement did not affect the insured’s right to sue for any unreimbursed losses. The court’s decision reminds us that, in New York, a carrier can resolve its subrogation claim before the insured is made whole.
In June 2018, a water loss occurred in an apartment owned by Malik Graves-Pryor (Graves-Pryor). Graves-Pryor reported a claim to his property insurance carrier, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (Carrier). Investigation into the water loss revealed that the water originated from failed plumbing pipes in another apartment unit owned by Taku Tamagawa (Tamagawa). Carrier paid its insured over $600,000 for repairs. In May 2021, Carrier filed a subrogation lawsuit against Tamagawa, alleging improper maintenance of the plumbing pipes.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and WilliamsMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
Encinitas Office Obtains Complete Defense Verdict Including Attorney Fees and Costs After Ten Day Construction Arbitration
May 23, 2022 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPPartner Vik Nagpal and Associate Attorney Tim McNulty of the Encinitas office recently obtained a substantial victory on behalf of BWB&O’s client after a 10-day binding construction arbitration before a three-arbitrator panel of the American Arbitration Association.
BWB&O’s client was sued by the Owner of a commercial office building related to a multimillion-dollar tenant improvement project in San Diego. The Owner asserted construction defect damages, delay damages, architectural negligence, fraudulent billing practices and consequential damages of $3.6 million dollars. BWB&O’s client claimed breach of contract damages against the owner for failure to pay invoices.
The Owner who had substantial financial resources and a personal spite against the general contractor, unreasonably pursued the case with an extensive team of lawyers and experts. At an earlier full-day mediation, the owner rejected a reasonable settlement offer which included a settlement payment to the Owner and the client’s agreement to dismiss their affirmative claim for damages.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
