THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THAT THE RIGHT TO REPAIR ACT (SB800) IS THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CLAIMS NOT INVOLVING PERSONAL INJURIES WHETHER OR NOT THE UNDERLYING DEFECTS GAVE RISE TO ANY PROPERTY DAMAGE in McMillin Albany LL
January 24, 2018 —
Chapman, Glucksman, Dean, Roeb, & BargerRICHARD H. GLUCKSMAN, ESQ.
GLENN T. BARGER, ESQ.
JON A. TURIGLIATTO, ESQ.
DAVID A. NAPPER, ESQ.
The Construction Industry finally has its answer. The California Supreme Court ruled that the Right to Repair Act (SB800) is the exclusive remedy for construction defect claims alleged to have resulted from economic loss, property damage, or both. Our office has closely tracked the matter since its infancy. The California Supreme Court’s holding resolves the split of authority presented by the Fifth Appellate District’s holding in
McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132, which outright rejected the Fourth Appellate District’s holding in
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98.
By way of background, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held in
Liberty Mutual that compliance with SB800’s pre-litigation procedures prior to initiating litigation is only required for defect claims involving violations of SB800’s building standards that have not yet resulted in actual property damage. Where damage has occurred, a homeowner may initiate litigation under common law causes of action without first complying with the pre-litigation procedures set forth in SB800. Two years later, the Fifth District Court of Appeal, in
McMillin Albany, held that the California Legislature intended that all claims arising out of defects in new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003 are subject to the standards and requirements of the Right to Repair Act, including specifically the requirement that notice be provided to the builder prior to filing a lawsuit. Thus, the Court of Appeal ruled that SB800 is the exclusive remedy for all defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003.
After extensive examination of the text and legislative history of the Right to Repair Act, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s ruling that SB800 preempts common law claims for property damage. The Complaint at issue alleged construction defects causing both property damage and economic loss. After filing the operative Complaint, the homeowners dismissed the SB800 cause of action and took the position that the Right to Repair Act was adopted to provide a remedy for construction defects causing only economic loss and therefore SB800 did not alter preexisting common law remedies in cases where actual property damage or personal injuries resulted. The builder maintained that SB800 and its pre-litigation procedures still applied in this case where actually property damages were alleged to have occurred.
The Supreme Court found that the text and legislative history reflect a clear and unequivocal intent to supplant common law negligence and strict product liability actions with a statutory claim under the Right to Repair Act. Specifically the text reveals “…an intent to create not merely
a remedy for construction defects but
the remedy.” Additionally certain clauses set forth in SB800 “…evinces a clear intent to displace, in whole or in part, existing remedies for construction defects.” Not surprisingly, the Court confirmed that personal injury damages are expressly not recoverable under SB800, which actually assisted the Court in analyzing the intent of the statutory scheme. The Right to Repair Act provides that construction defect claims not involving personal injury will be treated the same procedurally going forward whether or not the underlying defects gave rise to any property damage.
The Supreme Court further found that the legislative history of SB800 confirms that displacement of parts of the existing remedial scheme was “…no accident, but rather a considered choice to reform construction defect litigation.” Further emphasizing how the legislative history confirms what the statutory text reflects, the Supreme Court offered the following summary: “the Act was designed as a broad reform package that would substantially change existing law by displacing some common law claims and substituting in their stead a statutory cause of action with a mandatory pre-litigation process.” As a result, the Supreme Court ordered that the builder is entitled to a stay and the homeowners are required to comply with the pre-litigation procedures set forth in the Right to Repair Act before their lawsuit may proceed.
The seminal ruling by the California Supreme Court shows great deference to California Legislature and the “major stakeholders on all sides of construction defect litigation” who participated in developing SB800. A significant win for builders across the Golden State, homeowners unequivocally must proceed via SB800 for all construction defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003. We invite you to contact us should you have any questions.
Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys
Richard Glucksman,
Glenn Barger,
Jon Turigliatto and
David Napper
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Barger may be contacted at gbarger@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Turgliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Payment Bond Claim Notice Requires More than Mailing
August 04, 2015 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsIt’s been a while since I posted something new relating to Virginia’s “Little Miller Act” and its various notice requirements for a subcontractor to make a payment bond claim.
I have posted on the basics of a Virginia payment bond claim previously here at Musings. One of these basics is the 90 day notice requirement for suppliers or second tier subcontractors with no direct contractual relationship to the general contractor. A recent case from the Norfolk, Virginia Circuit Court examined when notice is “given” under the Little Miller Act.
In R T Atkinson Building Corp v Archer Western Construction, LLC the Court looked at the question of whether mailing of the notice of claim is enough to constitute notice being “given” in a manner that would satisfy the statutory requirements. In that case, the supplier mailed the notice within the 90 day window, but the defendant argued on summary judgment that it did not receive the notice until 2 days after the 90 day window had closed. In support of this contention, the defendant provided tracking information showing delivery by the USPS on the non-compliant date.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PCMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Client Alert: Release of Liability Agreement Extinguishes Duty of Ordinary Care
February 05, 2015 —
R. Bryan Martin and Whitney L. Stefko – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPOn January 27, 2015, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, in Eriksson v. Nunnink (Case No. E057158), held a release of liability between Decedent and Defendant was enforceable as a defense to the Decedent's Parents' wrongful death and negligent infliction of emotional distress ("NIED") claims. In Eriksson, the Court concluded that on the basis of the signed release agreement, Defendant did not owe a duty of care to Decedent and thus could only be liable for Decedent's death if caused by the Defendant's gross negligence. The Court held that Plaintiffs failed to establish gross negligence and affirmed the lower court's judgment.
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys
R. Bryan Martin and
Whitney L. Stefko
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Ms. Stefko may be contacted at wstefko@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 3: Standard Form Policy Exclusions
July 11, 2022 —
Scott P. DeVries & Yosef Itkin - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogEven when claims are within the scope of coverage, insurers often rely on exclusions in an attempt to avoid coverage for wildfire claims. In this post in the Blog’s Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, we discuss the interplay between coverage grants and exclusions, and the “anti-concurrent cause” provision.
Insurers may cite exclusions in an attempt to reduce or avoid liability. The insurance industry has long relied on the Insurance Services Office (ISO) to draft standard form policy language and secure approval as required by state regulatory agencies. ISO Form HO 00 03 10 00 (Section I—Exclusions, Part B) provides the following form exclusionary language:
We do not insure for loss to property described in Coverages A and B caused by any of the following. However, any ensuing loss to property described in Coverages A and B not precluded by any other provision in this policy is covered.
Reprinted courtesy of
Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Yosef Itkin, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Itkin may be contacted at yitkin@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
When Is an Arbitration Clause Unconscionable? Not Often
April 05, 2021 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsHere at Construction Law Musings, I have discussed the pros and cons of various forms of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), including arbitration. I am a fan of most ADR, but less of one for arbitration than for mediation. However, where the arbitration can be done under a good set of cost-containing rules and with an arbitrator that is experienced in construction, arbitration can help with the resolution of construction claims. Of course, arbitration provisions in construction contracts are routinely upheld by the courts of Virginia with limited exceptions. One of these exceptions is where the arbitration clause is unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. A recent case out of the Western District of Virginia, Marroquin v. Dan Ryan Builders Mid-Atlantic LLC, shows how high a hurdle it is to get a court to invalidate an arbitration provision.
In this case, the Marroquins purchased a new construction home from the Defendants. As is often the case in such purchase transactions, Defendant provided a limited warranty agreement (in this case provided by Quality Builders Warranty Corporation (“QBW”)) that along with the sales contract contained a mandatory arbitration provision. The parties executed the limited warranty and the sale proceeded with the Marroquins taking possession. Over the next year or so, the County inspector’s office issued several correction orders to Defendant, and the Marroquins, through counsel, identified numerous defects in construction, many of which they alleged to remain unremedied. Needless to say, they sued for breach of statutory warranty and for breach of the limited warranty. Defendant removed the case to Federal District Court and then moved to compel arbitration.
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
Contractor Sued for Contract Fraud by Government
December 11, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFA Canton, Ohio construction company, TAB Construction, has been sued by the federal government over claims that the company lied about its location in order to receive contracts from the U.S. government. According to the suit, TAB received about $13 million for contracts with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The firm had gained the contracts through a Small Business Administration program that allowed firms in certain areas to compete for contracts, however, the firm was not located in the appropriate area.
When the SBA found that TAB was not doing business out of an address that qualified for the SBA’s HUBZone program, the company claimed to be working from another address that qualified. Upon investigation, the SBA found this also was not true.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nevada’s Home Building Industry can Breathe Easier: No Action on SB250 Leaves Current Attorney’s Fees Provision Intact
June 21, 2017 —
Aaron Lovaas – Newmeyer & Dillion LLPConstruction and design professionals in Nevada’s home building industry breathed a collective sigh of relief on June 5, 2017 when the 79th Session of the Nevada Legislature adjourned without entertaining Senate Bill 250, which sought to reinstate homeowner plaintiffs’ nearly automatic right to recover attorneys’ fees, expert costs, and costs of investigation when bringing suit for alleged constructional defects.
Until 2015, homeowners’ recovery of such damages was the reality of the construction defect landscape in Nevada. While Chapter 40 of the Nevada Revised Statutes specifically allowed for recovery of “reasonable” attorneys’ fees, expert costs, and costs of investigation, the trend in Nevada was that plaintiffs were all but guaranteed awards of all such sums. Of course, this environment incentivized plaintiffs’ lawyers to bring claims of questionable or little repair value in cases where the attorney’s fees and expert costs often far exceeded the costs of repair.
HOW AB125 CHANGED THE LANDSCAPE
Such was the reality in Nevada until 2015 and the passage of Assembly Bill 125, which eliminated the nearly automatic award of attorneys’ fees and expert costs and overhauled Chapter 40 in many other respects. AB125 made over portions of Chapter 40 by:
- Placing awards of attorneys’ fees into the framework of offers of judgment, utilized extensively in other fields of civil litigation and available equally to homeowner plaintiffs as well as construction industry defendants; and
- Reworking expert costs and costs of investigation to allow for the award of those items only in the case of proven defects and only as to those costs directly related to the investigation and proof of those defects.
INTRODUCING SB250
The 2017 Legislative Session saw efforts to return Chapter 40 to its pre-2015 version through the introduction of SB250. Fortunately for construction and design professionals in the home building industry in Nevada, the State Senate Judiciary Committee did not act upon the bill and the effort died having never made it to a floor vote. Considering that Nevada’s Legislature meets biannually, the current framework of Chapter 40 is intact until at least 2019. The 2017 Legislative Session, however, is an illustration to how quickly those of the construction defect plaintiffs’ bar can move to initiate efforts to turn back the clock to a much riskier time for construction and design professionals.
Those in the industry should remain vigilant and monitor future legislative efforts to reinstate such awards or other clearly anti-builder measures. Such measures simply drive-up the overall cost and expense of home construction and, in turn, home ownership, which it is often said, is one of the cornerstones of the American dream.
Aaron Lovaas is a partner in the Las Vegas office of Newmeyer & Dillion. As a transactional attorney and business litigator, Aaron has the ability to evaluate legal issues from both points of view and help his clients understand their best option. He can be reached at aaron.lovaas@ndlf.com.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, Finds Wrap-Up Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage of Additional Insureds
February 18, 2020 —
Callie E. Waers - Florida Construction Law NewsThe United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, recently took a close look at the application of a “controlled insurance program exclusion” (wrap-up exclusion) to additional insureds on a commercial general liability policy. In Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 886 F.3d 366 (4th Cir. 2018), the Fourth Circuit examined the interplay of an enrolled party’s additional insured status on an unenrolled party’s commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy with a wrap-up exclusion. The court applied North Carolina law and found that pursuant to the policy’s own language, the exclusion only applied to the original named insured, not the additional insureds.
The case arose out of an injury incurred by an employee of a second-tier subcontractor during the construction of a hospital. On this particular project, the owner maintained a “rolling owner controlled insurance program” (wrap-up insurance program) in which all tiers of contractors were required to enroll, but enrollment was not automatic. The general contractor was enrolled in the owner’s wrap-up policy, but neither the steel manufacturer subcontractor nor its sub-subcontractor, the steel installation company, were enrolled. The underlying plaintiff was injured while he was an employee of the steel installation company, but he did not name his employer in his personal injury lawsuit.
The Cont’l Cas. Co. case was instituted by Continental Casualty Company (“Continental”) after it defended and settled the underlying plaintiff’s claims against its insured and additional insured, the steel manufacturer and general contractor, respectively. Continental sought to be reimbursed for the $1.7 million settlement and attorneys’ fees and costs incurred for the defense and indemnity of the underlying lawsuit.
Continental alleged that Amerisure Insurance Company (“Amerisure”) breached its duty to defend and Amerisure’s policy provided the primary coverage for both the general contractor and steel manufacturer, who were additional insureds on the Amerisure policy. Amerisure denied a duty to defend the additional insureds based on the presence of the wrap-up exclusion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ryan M. Charlson, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.Mr. Charlson may be contacted at
Ryan.Charlson@csklegal.com
