Columbus, Ohio’s Tallest Building to be Inspected for Construction Defects
July 16, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFFox 28 news reported that “[t]he state of Ohio is going to spend more than $166,000 to inspect…the 40-year-old Rhodes Tower” in Columbus.
"They're going to look at the exterior of the building - [at] sealants between the joints, the condition of the panels, the window systems, how they're draining, how they're operating, and how they're sealed," Ned Thiell, of Ohio Facilities Construction Commission, told ABC 6/FOX 28 news.
A study completed last year declared there were “’deficiencies’ on the building’s stone covering” and there were “panels with severe fracture defects” that “will need to be replaced with new stone panels.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Are You Satisfying WISHA Standards?
October 23, 2018 —
Ceslie Blass - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC BlogMany general contractors and property management companies hand over project sites to subcontractors and have little, if anything, to do with the construction work that occurs. However, under RCW 49.17, the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA), general contractors and some property management companies/owners are still responsible for workplace safety for the employees of their subcontractors and independent contractors.
The Washington Supreme Court held in Stute v. PBMC that a general contractor could be held liable for injury to a subcontractor’s employee sustained as a result of a WISHA violation.[1] The Stute decision changed the landscape of workplace safety, imposing an expansive, per se liability on general contractors for workplace injuries. Stated differently, general contractors have a specific, non-delegable duty to ensure compliance with WISHA regulations, which extends to all employees on the project site.[2] Washington courts have held that such “expansive liability is justified because ‘a general contractor’s supervisory authority is per se control over the workplace.’”[3] Thus, the non-delegable duty requires general contractors to ensure care is exercised by anyone, even an independent contractor to whom the performance of the duty is entrusted.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ceslie Blass, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMs. Blass may be contacted at
ceslie.blass@acslawyers.com
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
Chinese Billionaire Sues Local Governments Over Project Payment
January 28, 2015 —
Bloomberg NewsThe billionaire founder of closely held China Pacific Construction Group sued six local governments in a bid to force payment of 900 million yuan ($144 million) his company is owed for infrastructure projects.
Yan Jiehe said today he was trying to prove a point and winning the lawsuits wasn’t his main goal. Courts in Hebei, Yunnan, Guizhou, Hunan and Shandong provinces accepted the cases, he said in an interview.
“We cannot let the governments work without any supervision anymore,” Yan said. “The results of the lawsuits are not that important to me and I care more about rule of law.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bloomberg News
Miller Act Statute of Limitations and Equitable Tolling
July 11, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen it comes to a Miller Act payment bond claim, there is a one-year statute of limitations—“The Miller Act contains a statute of limitations provision that requires actions to ‘be brought no later than one year after the day on which the last of the labor was performed or material was supplied by the person bringing the claim.’” U.S. f/u/b/o Techniquex Specialty Flooring, Inc., v. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co., 2022 WL 169070, *3 (M.D.Penn. 2022) (citing the Miller Act).
There is an argument, albeit a difficult one, to support an equitable tolling of the one-year statute of limitations. This would be an argument filed when the one-year statute of limitations expires, but there is reason for missing the statute of limitations caused typically by the overt misleading of the defendant (surety/bond-principal):
“Equitable tolling functions to stop the statute of limitations from running where the claim’s accrual date has passed.” “Equitable tolling is appropriate in three situations: (1) when the defendant has actively misled the plaintiff respecting the facts which comprise the plaintiff’s cause of action; (2) when the plaintiff in some extraordinary way has been prevented from asserting his rights; and (3) when the plaintiff has timely asserted his rights in the wrong forum.” The first ground for equitable tolling“appears to be the same, in all important respects” to equitable estoppel, which “excuses late filing where such tardiness results from active deception on the part of the defendant” and “what courts describe as ‘equitable tolling’ is encompassed by the latter two parts of our Circuit’s doctrine.” The extraordinary circumstances standard may be met “where the defendant misleads the plaintiff, allowing the statutory period to lapse; or when the plaintiff has no reasonable way of discovering the wrong perpetrated against her …”
Tehniquex, supra, at *5 (internal citations omitted).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Reservation of Rights Letter Merely Citing Policy Provisions Inadequate
February 14, 2023 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiIn an unpublished opinion, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that the insurers' reservation of rights letters did not provide a basis for denial of coverage. Stoneiedge At Lake Keowee Owners Ass'n Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2022 US. App. LEXIS 34292 (4th Dist. Dec. 13, 2022).
The Stoneledge AOAO sued the general contractor Marlick Home Builders, LLC and other defendants after construction of 37 units. The complaint alleged construction defects that resulted in water intrusion and other physical damage. Marlick notified its insurers, Cincinnati Insurance Company and Builders Mutual. Various reservation of rights letter were sent by the insurers.
In the underlying case, a judgment was entered against Marlick totalling approximately $1.6 million. As a judgment creditor of Marlickm, Stoneledge sued Cincinnati and Builders Mutual. The district court granted Stonelege's motion for summary judgment, primarily on the ground that the insurers failed to reserve the right to contest coverage.
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
Orion Group Holdings Honored with Leadership in Safety Award
October 09, 2023 —
Orion Group Holdings, Inc.HOUSTON, Oct. 06, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Orion Group Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: ORN) ("Orion" and "Company"), a leading specialty construction and engineering company today announced it received the Company Award for Leadership in Safety from the Council of Dredging and Marine Construction Safety (CDMCS). The award, presented at the 2023 CDMCS Annual Awards Dinner in Washington, D.C. on September 28, recognizes outstanding safety leadership in the dredging and marine construction industry.
Orion Group Holdings was recognized for advancing a safety-first culture through safety-conscious policies and procedures in the workplace, mentoring others in safety, training on identifying and properly controlling hazards, and placing high personal value on collaborative and proactive work toward improving safety. Travis Boone, President and Chief Executive Officer of Orion Group Holdings, accepted the award at the ceremony.
"I am honored to accept this award on behalf of our Orion team, who work collaboratively every day to meet exacting standards while safely delivering world-class marine construction and dredging services to our customers," said Orion Group Holdings CEO Travis Boone. "Our safety-through-leadership success is born out of a strong advocacy for accident prevention, innovative training and a commitment to exceeding regulatory compliance. Being responsible and accountable is a priority for every team member, with special emphasis on performing every task safely, every time."
About Orion Group Holdings
Orion Group Holdings, Inc., a leading specialty construction company serving the infrastructure, industrial and building sectors, provides services both on and off the water in the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Canada and the Caribbean Basin through its marine segment and its concrete segment. The Company's marine segment provides construction and dredging services relating to marine transportation facility construction, marine pipeline construction, marine environmental structures, dredging of waterways, channels and ports, environmental dredging, design, and specialty services. Its concrete segment provides turnkey concrete construction services including place and finish, site prep, layout, forming, and rebar placement for large commercial, structural and other associated business areas. The Company is headquartered in Houston, Texas with regional offices throughout its operating areas. https://www.oriongroupholdingsinc.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Seattle’s Newest Residential Developer
March 13, 2023 —
Michael J. Yelle - Ahlers Cressman & SleightOn February 14, 2023, Seattle voters passed Initiative 135, creating the “Seattle Social Housing Developer” (“Public Developer” or “PD”) and the initiative was signed into law by Mayor Bruce Harrel on March 1, 2023.
[1] With this initiative, voters created Seattle’s newest housing developer. The PD aims to develop, own, and maintain housing in the City of Seattle.
[2] In addition, the PD also intends to retrofit acquired properties to increase energy efficiency and bring them into compliance with accessibility standards.
[3] Contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers may see this as an opportunity to compete for and build everything from new multi-unit housing to handrail installation projects. This post will explore some of the basics of contracting with a public corporation like the Public Developer and what contractors may want to consider in their business planning.
What is the PD?
The Public Developer is a political subdivision of the State of Washington, like a port or fire district.
[4] The Public Developer is not an agency or department of the City of Seattle. In this way, it is like Seattle Public Schools (SPS) because both SPS and the PD operate within the City of Seattle, but have (or will have) their own staff, procurement rules, and standard contracts distinct from the City’s. Like SPS, the PD can also enter construction and supply contracts, sue, and be sued.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael J. Yelle, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
