Australians Back U.S. Renewables While Opportunities at Home Ebb
March 16, 2020 —
Natalia Kniazhevich & Matthew Burgess - BloombergSome of Australia’s biggest funds are pouring money into U.S. clean-energy projects as they butt up against a shortage of green opportunities at home.
AustralianSuper, the country’s largest pension fund, recently joined Queensland Investment Corporation in a $1 billion funding round for Generate, a San Francisco-based green-finance company. And Construction and Building Unions Superannuation, another pension giant, made its first U.S. clean-power investments last year.
The investments come as the wildfires that charred an area about the size of New York State have put increasing pressure on funds to do more to fight global warming. The problem, investors say, is the Australian government isn’t promoting clean-energy development, leaving the nation without enough sizable projects to back.
“At this point the platforms of scale don’t exist in Australia,” said Nik Kemp, head of infrastructure at AustralianSuper. “The size of the U.S. market makes for a much larger market and much better long-term growth opportunities.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Natalia Kniazhevich & Matthew Burgess, Bloomberg
Significant Victory for the Building Industry: Liberty Mutual is Rejected Once Again, This Time by the Third Appellate District in Holding SB800 is the Exclusive Remedy
December 15, 2016 —
Richard H. Glucksman & Ravi R. Mehta – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Bulletin I. Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court (Certified for Publication, Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016
The California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District recently elaborated on the scope of the Right to Repair Act, commonly known as SB-800 (“Act”). In
Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (Kevin Hicks, et al.) (certified for publication, Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016), the Court considered whether the Act (and specifically the Act’s pre-litigation procedure) applies, when homeowners plead construction defect claims based only on common law causes of action, as opposed to violations of the building standards set forth in the Act (
Civil Code §896). The Court answered this question affirmatively.
The homeowners of seventeen (17) single-family homes filed a Complaint against the builder of their homes, Elliott Homes, Inc. (“Elliott”), alleging common law causes of action for construction defects. Elliott filed a motion to stay the litigation on the ground that the homeowners failed to comply with the pre-litigation procedure set forth in the Act. The trial court denied the motion, agreeing with the homeowners that this pre-litigation procedure did not apply because the homeowners had not alleged a statutory violation of the Act. Elliott appealed. The Court of Appeal purely considered the question of whether the Act, including its pre-litigation procedure, applies when a homeowner pleads construction defect claims based on common law causes of action, and not on statutory violations of the Act’s building standards.
To answer this question, the Court analyzed a recent case decided by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District:
Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98. In this subrogation case, a builder’s insurer asserted common law causes of action (but not statutory building standard violations) alleging construction defects against the builder to recover amounts paid to the homeowner after a sprinkler system failure caused extensive damage to the subject property. The trial court sustained the builder’s demurrer to the Complaint on the ground that it was time-barred under the Act. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order, holding that common law construction defect claims arising from actual damages are not covered by the Act because “the Act does not provide the exclusive remedy in cases where actual damage has occurred.” (
Liberty Mutual, 219 Cal.App.4th 98, 109).
The
Elliott Court declined to follow
Liberty Mutual, finding that that Court failed to properly analyze the language of the Act. The
Elliott Court analyzed both the statutory scheme and the legislative history of the Act to arrive at the conclusion that common law causes of action for construction defects do indeed fall within the purview of the Act.
According to the
Elliott Court, the Act “broadly applies to
any action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in…residential construction and in such an action, a homeowner’s claims or causes of action shall be limited to violation of the standards set forth in the Act, except as specified.” Further, the Act expressly provides that “no other cause of action for a claim covered by this title or for damages recoverable under Section 944 is allowed.”
Civil Code §943(a). In turn,
Civil Code §944 allows for a recovery for the cost of repairing a building standard violation, or for the cost of repairing any damage caused by such a violation, among other things.
The limited exceptions to the Act’s applicability concern the enforcement of a contract, or any action for fraud, personal injury, or violation of a statute. Civil Code §943(a). Additionally, the Act does not apply to condominium conversions. Civil Code §896.
The Elliott Court explains that apart from these exceptions, the Legislature intended the Act to apply to all construction defect claims (regardless of damage) relating to the construction of residential properties whose sales contracts are signed after January 1, 2003. There is no exception in the Act, express or implied, for common law causes of action.
Next, the Court turns to the Act’s legislative history to buttress this conclusion. This history makes clear that the Act is a legislative response to the California Supreme Court’s holding in
Aas v. Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal.4th 627, that construction defects in residential properties are only actionable in tort when actual property damage manifests. Senate Judiciary Committee hearings indicate that the Act was the product of protracted negotiations between varying interested parties, including construction industry trade groups and consumer protection groups. The Legislature intended (1) to promulgate building standards, violations of which would be actionable, even without damage, and (2) to allow homeowners to recover for actual damage caused by construction defects not covered by the building standards. In other words, the Act was intended to provide homeowners redress regardless of whether damage had manifested.
Therefore, the Court concluded that common law causes of action for construction defects, regardless of damage, are subject to the pre-litigation procedure set forth in the Act. The Court issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its earlier order, and to enter a new order granting Elliott’s motion to stay the litigation until the homeowners (and Elliott) have satisfied the pre-litigation procedure of the Act.
II. McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132
Similar to the Third Appellate District Court’s ruling in
Elliott, the Fifth Appellate District Court also rejected the holding of
Liberty Mutual in a matter now pending before the California Supreme Court:
McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132 (review granted and opinion superseded sub nom.
Albany v. Superior Court 360 P.3d 1022). Also similar to
Elliott, in
McMillin a group of homeowners filed common law construction defect claims against the builder of their homes. The builder,
McMillin, moved to stay the litigation pending compliance with the Act’s pre-litigation procedure. The trial court denied the motion, holding that the Act does not apply because the homeowners have not asserted statutory building standard violations contained within the Act.
In reasoning substantially similar to that of
Elliott, the
McMillin Court rejected Liberty Mutual’s holding that the Act is not the exclusive remedy for pursuing construction defect claims, with or without damage. Thus, the
McMillin Court issued a writ of mandate to vacate the trial court’s earlier order and to enter a new order granting McMillin’s motion to stay.
On November 24, 2015, the California Supreme Court granted the homeowners’ petition for review. In August of 2016, briefing was completed and the matter is now awaiting the scheduling of arguments. CGDRB will continue to closely monitor the pending appeal of this matter to the California Supreme Court, as well as all related developments.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Ravi R. Mehta, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Mehta may be contacted at rmehta@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Surviving a Tornado – How to Navigate Insurance Claims in the Wake of the Recent Connecticut Storm
May 24, 2018 —
Geoffrey Miller - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Five minutes after I parked my car, a tree fell on it.
On Tuesday, May 15th I pulled into my driveway, in my small Connecticut neighborhood, under a grey sky. As soon as I walked in the house, the lights flickered. And then suddenly there was a loud “Crack!” and “Crash!” and the sound of breaking glass. I looked out the window and trees were bent 90 degrees, then snapping, and then flying up instead of falling down.
As quickly as it came, it passed. When I stepped outside, my first thought was that my car has seen better days.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Geoffrey Miller, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Miller may be contacted at
gjm@sdvlaw.com
Electrical Subcontractor Sues over Termination
November 13, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFMillennium Plus, Inc. has sued the contractor for the Efrain A. Duran Water Treatment Plant Facility and Rio Grande City for failing to pay money due to them and terminating the contract. According to the lawsuit, Millennium is claiming that they are owed $161,781 for their work on the water treatment facility.
According to the city, the project’s contractor was “very unsatisfied with Millennium’s work.” Although the city disclaims any involvement, Millennium claims it was a “joint enterprise.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The ALI Restatement – What Lies Ahead?
July 30, 2018 —
Adam M. Berardi & Sara C. Tilitz - Complex Insurance Coverage ReporterThe American Law Institute voted on May 22, 2018 to approve the final draft of its “Restatement of the Law of Liability Insurance.” This was the culmination of an eight-year project that evolved through 29 drafts resulting in a nearly 500-page final product. At least nine courts cited to the Restatement while it was still in draft form. On June 28, 2018, White and Williams LLP had the privilege of hosting a seminar about the Restatement, chaired by the Reporter for the Restatement, University of Pennsylvania Law Professor Tom Baker, and Randy Maniloff of White and Williams, author of “General Liability Insurance Coverage, Key Issues In Every State.” The seminar was geared toward assisting members of the liability insurance community in navigating the key provisions of the Restatement, including how they compare and contrast with existing case law and the role the Restatement may play in courts’ decision-making processes going forward.
Reprinted courtesy of
Adam M. Berardi , White and Williams, LLP and
Sara C. Tilitz, White and Williams, LLP
Mr. Berardi may be contacted at berardia@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Tilitz may be contacted at tilitzs@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Serving the 558 Notice of Construction Defect Letter in Light of the Statute of Repose
November 06, 2018 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesFlorida Statutes Chapter 558 requires a Notice of Construction Defect letter (“558 Notice”) to be served before a construction defect lawsuit is commenced. This is a statutory requirement unless contractually waived for a completed project when latent defects or post-completion construction or design defects are pursued.
A recent Florida case held that this statutory requirement is NOT intended to bar a lawsuit based on Florida’s ten-year statute of repose for construction defects IF the 558 Notice is timely served within the statute of repose period. After the expiration of the statute of repose period, a construction defect lawsuit can no longer be commenced.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Gordie Howe Bridge Project Team Looks for a Third Period Comeback
September 26, 2022 —
Jeff Yoders - Engineering News-RecordThe late Detroit Red Wings hockey great Gordie Howe was beloved in his native Canada and in his adopted U.S. home. A new international bridge connecting both places is trying to create similar goodwill for border traffic, but the project’s public-private partnership team and the Canadian government authority it is working for will have to join together to shift lines and mount a comeback in the third period of its construction.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jeff Yoders, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Yoders may be contacted at yodersj@enr.com
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Arizona Court of Appeals Awards Attorneys’ Fees in Quiet-Title Action
September 20, 2017 —
Kevin Walton - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogIn Arizona, a party successfully quieting title to property may recover its attorneys’ fees if it satisfies three requirements: (1) the party requests a quitclaim deed from the party adversely claiming title twenty days before bringing the quiet-title action; (2) the party tenders five dollars for the execution and delivery of the deed; and (3) the adverse party fails to comply. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1103(B). Recently, in McCleary v. Tripodi, No. 2 CA-CV 2016-0145, 2017 WL 3723472 (Ariz. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2017), the Arizona Court of Appeals awarded attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party under this statute.
In McCleary v. Tripodi, Mrs. Tripodi, who became the administrator of her husband’s estate upon his death, wrongfully recorded three deeds purporting to transfer property to herself. After unsuccessfully attempting to get Mrs. Tripodi to quitclaim the property, the plaintiffs filed a quiet-title action. The trial court agreed that the plaintiffs were the legal and rightful owners, granted summary judgment in plaintiffs’ favor, and awarded attorneys’ fees to the plaintiffs.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kevin Walton, Snell & Wilmer
