CSLB “Fast Facts” for Online Home Improvement Marketplaces
August 20, 2018 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogAs more and more online home improvement marketplaces like Angie’s List come online, questions have arisen as to whether such online marketplaces must hold a contractor’s license. The California Contractor’s State License Board has put together a “Fast Facts” sheet to help online home improvement marketplaces navigate the ins and outs of contractor’s license requirements, salesperson requirements, and advertising requirements. The short answer is that these marketplaces do not need a contractor’s license as long as the customer is contracting directly with the listed contractors (not the marketplace). Here’s the slightly longer explanation:
July 20, 2018 CSLB #18-10
CSLB Hopes to Clear Up Confusion about License and Contracting Requirements for Online Home Improvement Marketplace Companies
SACRAMENTO – Over the past few months, the Contractors State License Board (CSLB) has been addressing emerging issues involving online marketplaces and contractor referral websites. In its most basic form, online marketplaces are e-commerce websites that link consumers to products and/or services that are provided by multiple third parties. In these situations the e-commerce operator processes the transactions. Many referral websites charge contractors for leads.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
Breaking the Impasse by Understanding Blame
January 13, 2020 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsFor this week’s Guest Post Friday (on a Thursday) here at Construction Law Musings, Victoria Pynchon (@vickiepynchon) joins us for the 4th time. Victoria is an attorney-mediator with ADR Services, Inc. in Century City; an arbitrator with the American Arbitration Association in Los Angeles, California; and, a negotiation consultant and trainer world-wide. Victoria co-founded She Negotiates Training and Consulting in 2010 and writes for ForbesWoman at its She Negotiates blog. She is the author of one of my favorite books on conflict resolution, A is for A*@!#, the Grownups’ ABC’s of Conflict Resolution reviewed at Musings here.
First Let’s Talk About Anger
Please raise your hand if your clients — corporate clients — are angry about the burdens of litigation. Irritated with the document “demands” and interrogatories. Frustrated about the e-discovery. Ticked off at the way opposing counsel asks them questions as if they’re lying. Hot under the collar about the mounting attorneys’ fees and the distance between the day suit was filed and the probable day on which a trial might eventually be scheduled. Simmering about the time the litigation consumes, time they’d prefer to be spending doing their actual jobs — planning for and implementing business strategies for a profitable future instead of fighting about the unprofitable past.
And we’re not even talking about your clients’ anger at the defendant who has stolen their intellectual property or stopped worked at the construction site or refused to release the remaining funds in the construction loan account. And if you believe that powerful people in highly successful and profitable businesses do not fear that litigation might hurt their careers, think again.
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
ASCE Statement on Passage of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2022
December 26, 2022 —
Maria Lehman - American Society of Civil EngineersWASHINGTON, D.C. – ASCE applauds Congress for passing the bipartisan Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) for 2022, which was included in the National Defense Authorization Act. The legislation authorizes construction for 25 new and existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) water infrastructure projects, including those related to dams, ports and inland waterways, flood risk management, and storm risk reduction. We are encouraged that the biannual reauthorization of WRDA continues to be a congressional priority.
ASCE applauds Congress for WRDA 2022 authorizing and establishing several programs dedicated to ensuring that our nation's water resources infrastructure benefits communities across the country. These accomplishments include reauthorizing the National Levee Safety Program; authorizing dredging activity in underserved community harbors; authorizing the USACE to recruit individuals more actively for careers in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM); and enhancing infrastructure resilience, such as allowing the USACE to incorporate resilience measures into federally authorized hurricane or shore protection projects when performing emergency repairs. ASCE is also pleased to see that WRDA 2022 makes the current federal cost share formula for Inland Waterways Trust Fund projects permanent, with 65 percent coming from the general fund and 35 percent from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF). ASCE strongly supports this provision, as it was a key recommendation to raise the nation's "D+" inland waterways grade in the 2021 Report Card for America's Infrastructure.
Additionally, ASCE strongly supports provisions in WRDA 2022 that will enhance the safety of the nation's dams and levees, which each received a "D" grade in the 2021 report card. The bill requires the Corps to establish a new National Low-Head Dam Inventory to account for the nation's low-head dams, which can pose significant public hazards. Identifying and monitoring these types of dams nationwide will contribute to the overall safety of the nation's dams and help to save lives.
Finally, the reauthorization of WRDA works hand-in-hand with the additional investments made in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. This reauthorization shows that infrastructure remains a bipartisan priority. We thank Congress for passing this legislation and look forward to translating these investments to critical water infrastructure system improvements nationwide.
ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS
Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 150,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Berger: FIGG Is Slow To Hand Over All Bridge Collapse Data
November 12, 2019 —
Richard Korman - Engineering News-RecordThe Florida International University Tragedy
About half an hour before the almost-completed pedestrian bridge collapsed onto a busy Miami-area road last year, killing six people, Denney Pate, the bridge’s engineer-of-record, sent a text to Linda Figg, the chief executive of FIGG Bridge Engineers.
Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Third Circuit Limits Pennsylvania’s Kvaerner Decision; Unexpected and Unintended Injury May Constitute an “Occurrence” Under Pennsylvania Law
December 22, 2019 —
Michael S. Levine & Michelle M. Spatz - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogThe Third Circuit ruled on Friday that differing “occurrence” definitions can have materially different meanings in the context of whether product defect claims constitute an “occurrence” triggering coverage under general liability insurance policies. The Court held in Sapa Extrusions, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, that product claims against Sapa may be covered under policies that define an “occurrence” as an accident resulting in bodily injury or property damage “neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured.” However, the Court affirmed that coverage was not triggered under policies lacking the “expected” or “intended” limitation, reasoning that, under those policies, there was no question that the intentional manufacturing of Sapa’s product was too foreseeable to amount to an “accident.”
The coverage dispute arose from an underlying action in which Marvin, a window manufacturer, alleged that, between 2000 and 2010, Sapa sold it roughly 28 million defective aluminum window extrusions. Marvin alleged that the extrusions, which are metal frames that hold glass window panes in place, began to oxidize and break down shortly after they were installed, causing Marvin to incur substantial costs to fix and replace them.
Marvin sued Sapa in 2010 in Minnesota federal court, and the parties settled in 2013. Sapa sought coverage for the settlement from its eight general liability insurers for the period implicated by Marvin’s allegations. The insurers denied coverage and Sapa brought suit in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Michelle M. Spatz, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Ms. Spatz may be contacted at mspatz@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Reconstructing the Francis Scott Key Bridge Utilizing the Progressive Design-Build Method
June 04, 2024 —
Lisa D. Love - The Dispute ResolverHaving awakened on the morning of March 26 to the devastating news of the collapse of Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge after being struck by the Dali, a 984 length /52 beam foot cargo container ship, I thought of the many times I crossed the bridge as a child growing up in Washington, D.C. I also recalled Montgomery Schyler’s comments on the opening of the Brooklyn Bridge, when he stated that “the work which is likely to be our most durable monument, and to convey some knowledge of us to the most remote posterity, is a work of bare utility; not a shrine, not a fortress, not a palace, but a bridge.”
I thought of the beauty of New York’s Mario Cuomo Bridge, a 3.1-mile cable-stayed twin-span bridge with eight traffic lanes, bicycle and pedestrian paths, six lookout points and room for future rapid transit. It was completed in 2018 and constructed under a design-build procurement model[i] at a cost of $3.98 billion. Accelerated bridge construction (ABC) techniques were utilized in its construction. ABC techniques employ innovative planning, design, materials, and construction methods in a safe and cost-effective manner to reduce the on-site construction time that occurs when building new bridges or replacing and rehabilitating existing ones. ABC techniques improve site constructability, total project delivery time, work-zone safety for the traveling public and traffic impacts, on-site construction time, and weather-related time delays.[ii]
I also thought of the gracefulness of Boston’s Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Memorial Bridge, a 0.27-mile hybrid cable-stayed steel and concrete bridge with pedestrian and bicycle access that holds 10 lanes of traffic. The Zakim Bridge was completed in 2004 at a cost of approximately $100 million as part of the $24.3 billion Big Dig.[iii] Despite its elegant, streamlined appearance, the bridge was designed to be exceptionally strong, withstand winds over 400 miles per hour and endure a magnitude 7.9 earthquake.[iv]
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lisa D. Love, JAMS
TARP Funds Demolish Homes in Detroit to Lift Prices: Mortgages
March 07, 2014 —
Brian Louis and Jeff Green - BloombergIn Flint, once a thriving auto-industry hub, excavators with long metal arms and shovels have begun tearing down 1,500 dilapidated homes in an attempt to lift the housing market.
The demolitions in this Michigan city of about 100,000 people are part of the stepped up efforts by officials in several Midwestern states to rid their blighted neighborhoods of decayed housing that’s depressing prices. The funding for the excavator work comes from a surprising source -- the Hardest Hit Fund of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, created in 2008 to stabilize to the financial system.
The $7.6 billion Hardest Hit Fund was intended to help troubled property owners avoid foreclosure and keep their homes. As foreclosures fall in most parts of the country, the fund is using the unspent $3.2 billion to remedy the crisis of abandoned homes. In Detroit alone, 70,000 dwellings, or about 19 percent of the total, may need to be torn down, according to the city.
Mr. Louis may be contacted at blouis1@bloomberg.net. Mr. Green may be contacted at jgreen16@bloomberg.net.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brian Louis and Jeff Green, Bloomberg
Arizona Court of Appeals Decision in $8.475 Million Construction Defect Class Action Suit
May 09, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFIn the case of Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011), which involved an $8.475 million settlement in a construction defect class action suit, the question put forth to the Appeals court was “whether an insured and an insurer can join in a Morris agreement that avoids the primary insurer’s obligation to pay policy limits and passes liability in excess of those limits on to other insurers.” The Appeals court provided several reasons for their decision to affirm the validity of the settlement agreement as to the Non-Participatory Insurers (NPIs) and to vacate and remand the attorney fee awards.
First, the Appeals court stated, “The settlement agreement is not a compliant Morris agreement and provides no basis for claims against the NPIs.” They conclude, “Appellants attempt to avoid the doctrinal underpinnings of Morris by arguing that ‘the cooperation clause did not prohibit Hancock from assigning its rights to anyone, including Appellants.’ This narrow reading of the cooperation clause ignores the fact that Hancock did not merely assign its rights — it assigned its rights after stipulating to an $8.475 million judgment that neither it nor its Direct Insurers could ever be liable to pay. Neither Morris nor any other case defines such conduct as actual ‘cooperation’—rather, Morris simply defines limited circumstances in which an insured is relieved of its duty to cooperate. Because Morris agreements are fraught with risk of abuse, a settlement that mimics Morris in form but does not find support in the legal and economic realities that gave rise to that decision is both unenforceable and offensive to the policy’s cooperation clause.”
The Appeals court further concluded that “even if the agreement had qualified under Morris, plaintiffs did not provide the required notice to the NPIs.” The court continued, “Because an insurer who defends under a reservation of rights is always aware of the possibility of a Morris agreement, the mere threat of Morris in the course of settlement negotiations does not constitute sufficient notice. Instead, the insurer must be made aware that it may waive its reservation of rights and provide an unqualified defense, or defend solely on coverage and reasonableness grounds against the judgment resulting from the Morris agreement. The NPIs were not given the protections of this choice before the agreement was entered, and therefore can face no liability for the resulting stipulated judgment.”
Next, the Appeals court declared that “the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees under A.R.S § 12-341.” The Appeals court reasoned, “In this case, the NPIs prevailed in their attack on the settlement. But the litigation did not test the merits of their coverage defenses or the reasonableness of the settlement amount. And Plaintiffs never sued the NPIs, either in their own right or as the assignees of Hancock. Rather, the NPIs intervened to test the conceptual validity of the settlement agreement (to which they were not parties) before such an action could commence. In these circumstances, though it might be appropriate to offset a fee award against some future recovery by the Plaintiff Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011) class, the purposes of A.R.S. § 12-341.01 would not be served by an award of fees against them jointly and severally. We therefore conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding fees against Plaintiffs ‘jointly and severally.’”
The Appeals court made the following conclusion: “we affirm the judgment of the trial court concerning the validity of the settlement agreement as to the NPIs. We vacate and remand the award of attorney’s fees. In our discretion, we decline to award the NPIs the attorney’s fees they have requested on appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A).”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
