White House Hopefuls Make Pitches to Construction Unions
May 20, 2019 —
Bruce Buckley - Engineering News-RecordAs the 2020 presidential election draws nearer, many Democratic hopefuls are beginning to seek construction unions’ support. Eight declared candidates made their pitches to members of the North America’s Building Trades Unions at the group’s legislative conference April 9-10 in Washington, D.C. Several promised a major infrastructure package of $1 trillion or more, which aligns with the trades’ legislative agenda. But many seeking endorsement will wrestle with balancing calls for a green economy and unions’ demand for traditional oil and gas sector jobs.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bruce Buckley, ENRENR may be contacted at
ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Six Reasons to Use Regular UAV Surveys on Every Construction Project
October 14, 2019 —
Dustin Price - Construction ExecutiveUAVs are the future of the construction industry. From accurate 3D modeling simulations to regular safety and maintenance checks, UAVs can improve construction projects in many ways—and the value and applications for UAVs is consistently growing. Drones are agile, cost-effective and safe.
Here are some reasons why UAV surveys should be part of any construction project.
1. UAV scans are much faster than human inspections
Drones can cover large territory much faster than human inspectors can. They can also be used over more difficult terrain, and they can survey areas that are otherwise inaccessible. A drone survey can be completed in a day; not only does this mean that the territory is well-surveyed each time, but it also means surveys can be done more frequently.
Construction projects need to be inspected regularly and on time if the project is to meet its deadlines. Delayed construction projects can cost a company millions of dollars, as construction projects need to be completed stage by stage, usually on a strict timeline. Drones will improve the consistency of the project and, in turn, this will improve the reputation of the company itself.
Reprinted courtesy of
Dustin Price, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Partner Vik Nagpal is Recognized as a Top Lawyer of 2020
June 29, 2020 —
Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPPlease join us in congratulating San Diego Partner
Vik Nagpal for being recognized as a Top Lawyer of 2020 by San Diego Magazine! San Diego Magazine works with Martindale-Hubbell to choose top lawyers who have reached the highest level of ethical standards and professional excellence. Vik Nagpal was evaluated and given the highest ratings by the colleagues using a peer reviewed
Vik Nagpal is the managing partner of Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara LLP’s San Diego offices, as well as directing the firm’s business development.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Homebuilding Held Back by Lack of Skilled Workers
June 28, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFHome construction in Michigan could surge by thirty-seven percent this year, if the workers are there to build these houses. Aaron Rigozzi, the owner of Semper Fi Construction, told the Detroit Free Press that at the height of the boom he had fourteen employees whose wages reached $25 an hour. Now his firm has filed for bankruptcy and has only three employees. The top wage is $16 an hour. He also has the problem of people whose skills are less than what they claim. “You can hire people and they say they can do this or that, but they really can’t.”
The Home Builders Association of Michigan says that this is stretching out the time to complete a new house by months, and leading homeowners who are looking for a contractor stranded for weeks. In 2012, more home permits were taken out than in any year since 2008.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Boston Contractor Faces More OSHA Penalties
February 21, 2022 —
Scott Van Voorhis - Engineering News-RecordThe head of a Boston-based construction company that lost two workers in a
fatal accident at a downtown Boston worksite last year now faces nearly $2 million in total fines after safety violations on a new project.
Reprinted courtesy of
Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gordon & Rees Ranks #5 in Top 50 Construction Law Firms in the Nation
June 29, 2020 —
Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani has been ranked the #5 construction law firm in the nation by Construction Executive in the magazine’s 2020 ranking of The Top 50 Construction Law Firms. Gordon & Rees is the only California-based law firm to rank in the Top 25.
The firm was ranked in the Top 10 in more specific areas as well.
- #1 in the Top 10 Law Firms Ranked by Most Locations
- #2 in the Top 10 Law Firms Ranked by Number of Construction Attorneys
- #6 in the Top 10 Law Firms Ranked by Number of States Admitted to Practice
“With offices throughout the nation and outstanding construction attorneys in many of those offices, we are able to offer our construction clients a diverse range of legal services wherever they do business,” said
Ernie Isola partner and co-chair of the firm’s construction practice group.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Gillotti v. Stewart (2017) 2017 WL 1488711 Rejects Liberty Mutual, Holding Once Again that the Right to Repair Act is the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims
June 05, 2017 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq. & Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq. - Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger BulletinBackground
In Gillotti v. Stewart (April 26, 2017) 2017 WL 1488711, which was ordered to be published on May 18, 2017, the defendant grading subcontractor added soil over tree roots to level the driveway on the plaintiff homeowner’s sloped lot. The homeowner sued the grading subcontractor under the California Right to Repair Act (Civil Code §§ 895, et seq.) claiming that the subcontractor’s work damaged the trees.
After the jury found the subcontractor was not negligent, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the subcontractor. The homeowner appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly construed the Right to Repair Act as barring a common law negligence theory against the subcontractor and erred in failing to follow Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98. The Third District Court of Appeal disagreed and affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the subcontractor.
Impact
This is the second time the Third District Court of Appeal has held that Liberty Mutual (discussed below) was wrongly decided and held that the Right to Repair Act is the exclusive remedy for construction defect claims. The decision follows its holding in Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court (Hicks) (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 333, in which the Court of Appeal held that the Right to Repair Act’s pre-litigation procedures apply when homeowners plead construction defect claims based on common law causes of action, as opposed to violations of the building standards set forth in the Right to Repair Act. Elliott is currently on hold at the California Supreme Court, pending the decision in McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132, wherein Liberty Mutual was rejected for the first time by the Fifth District. CGDRB continues to follow developments regarding the much anticipated McMillin decision closely, as well as all related matters.
Discussion
The Right to Repair Act makes contractors and subcontractors not involved in home sales liable for construction defects only if the homeowner proves they negligently cause the violation in whole or part (Civil Code §§ 911(b), 936). As such, the trial court in Gillotti instructed the jury on negligence with respect to the grading subcontractor. The jury found that while the construction did violate some of the Right to Repair’s building standards alleged by the homeowner, the subcontractor was not negligent in anyway. After the jury verdict, the trial court found in favor of the grading subcontractor.
The homeowner moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial on the grounds that the trial court improperly barred a common law negligence theory against the grading subcontractor. The trial court denied the motions on the grounds that “[t]he Right to Repair Act specifically provides that no other causes of action are allowed. See Civil Code § 943.” The trial court specifically noted that its decision conflicted with Liberty Mutual, in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the Right to Repair Act does not eliminate common law rights and remedies where actual damage has occurred, stating that Liberty Mutual was wrongly decided and that the Liberty Mutual court was naïve in its assumptions regarding the legislative history of the Right to Repair Act.
In Gillotti, the Third District Court of Appeal stated that the Liberty Mutual court failed to analyze the language of Civil Code § 896, which “clearly and unequivocally expresses the legislative intent that the Act apply to all action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in, residential construction, except as specifically set forth in the Act. The Act does not specifically except actions arising from actual damages. To the contrary, it authorizes recovery of damages, e.g., for ‘the reasonable cost of repairing and rectifying any damages resulting from the failure of the home to meet the standards....’ ([Civil Code] § 944).”
The Court also disagreed with Liberty Mutual’s view that because Civil Code §§ 931 and 943 acknowledge exceptions to the Right to Repair Act’s statutory remedies, the Act does not preclude common law claims for damages due to defects identified in the Act. The Court stated: “Neither list of exceptions, in section 943 or in section 931, includes common law causes of action such as negligence. If the Legislature had intended to make such a wide-ranging exception to the restrictive language of the first sentence of section 943, we would have expected it to do so expressly.”
Additionally, the Court of Appeal rejected the argument that Civil Code § 897 preserves a common law negligence claims for violation of standards not listed in Civil Code § 986. It explained that the section of Civil Code § 897, which provides, “The standards set forth in this chapter are intended to address every function or component of a structure,” expresses the legislative intent that the Right to Repair Act be all-encompassing. Anything inadvertently omitted is actionable under the Act if it causes damage. Any exceptions to the Act are made expressly through Civil Code §§ 931 and 934. The Court concluded in no uncertain terms that the Right to Repair Act precludes common law claims in cases for damages covered by the Act.
The homeowner further argued that she was not precluded from bringing a common law claim because a tree is not a “structure,” and therefore the alleged tree damage did not fall within the realm of the Right to Repair. The Court of Appeal also rejected this argument, holding that while the tree damage itself was not expressly covered, the act of adding soil to make the driveway level (which caused the damage) implicated the standards covered by the Right to Repair Act. The Court explained that since under the Act a “structure” includes “improvement located upon a lot or within a common area” (Civil Code § 895(a)), as the driveway was an improvement upon the lot, the claim was within the purview of the Right to Repair Act. As the soil, a component of the driveway, caused damage (to the trees), it was actionable under the Act.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Chelsea L. Zwart, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
End of an Era: Los Angeles County Superior Court Closes the Personal Injury Hub
October 24, 2022 —
Elizabeth A. Evans & Angela S. Haskins - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPOn September 21, 2022, the Los Angeles County Superior Court announced that it would start a gradual shutdown of the Personal Injury Hub, currently located at the Spring Street Courthouse. This closure will see the return of personal injury cases being venued in the district where they occurred.
The Personal Injury Hub was established in 2012 as a means of consolidating personal injury cases after several civil courtrooms around the County were closed due to significant budget cuts. It first began as two courtrooms in Stanley Mosk Superior Court, then moved to the Spring Street Courthouse and ballooned to six courtrooms, each handling a case load of reportedly over 9,000 cases at times. Case Management Conferences were abolished and the parties were largely left to their own devices to move cases along. At times, slow chaos ensued. With a new and increased budget, Los Angeles Superior Court has now decided that enough is enough.
Effective October 10, 2022, new personal injury cases will be filed and handled from start to finish in independent calendar courtrooms in the districts where the events giving rise to the claims occurred. Any cases properly filed in the Central District will continue to be heard in the Personal Injury Hub for now. A new Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum that reflects this change will be available on the Los Angeles County Superior Court website for use as of October 10th.
Reprinted courtesy of
Elizabeth A. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Angela S. Haskins, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Evans may be contacted at eevans@hbblaw.com
Ms. Haskins may be contacted at ahaskins@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
