New Case Law Alert: Licensed General Contractors Cannot Sue Owners to Recover Funds for Work Performed by An Unlicensed Subcontractor
May 30, 2022 —
Michele A. Ellison & Samantha R. Riggen - Gibbs GidenThe opinion in Kim v. TWA Construction, Inc. (2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 412) issued by the Court of Appeal of California Sixth Appellate District, on May 13, 2022, makes it clear that a properly licensed general contractor cannot bring an action for compensation from an owner for work performed by an unlicensed subcontractor.
California licensing law has long made explicit that an unlicensed contractor cannot bring or maintain any action to collect or recover compensation for work that contractor performed unless they were duly licensed at all times during the performance of that work. This new ruling extends the scope of this restriction to licensed contractors who hired unlicensed subcontractors.
The Underlying Dispute
The case involved a dispute between property owners and their former general contractor and its principal (collectively “TWA”). The property owners hired TWA to construct a home, and during the early stages of the project, TWA hired an unlicensed subcontractor to perform tree trimming services and to remove a large eucalyptus tree. The subcontractor partially removed the eucalyptus tree, but was stopped by a neighbor, and it was discovered that the tree was partly located on the neighbor’s property. The neighbor brought suit against the property owners, and eventually TWA, for the damage. The property owners subsequently filed a cross-complaint against TWA, and TWA in turn filed a cross-complaint against the property owners.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michele A. Ellison, Gibbs Giden and
Samantha R. Riggen, Gibbs Giden
Ms. Ellison may be contacted at mellison@gibbsgiden.com
Ms. Riggen may be contacted at sriggen@gibbsgiden.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurer Must Pay for Matching Siding of Insured's Buildings
December 02, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Seventh Circuit found that the insurer was obligated to pay for siding of a building that was not damaged by hail so that it matched the replaced damaged portions of the siding. Windridge of Naperville Condominium Association v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. App. 23607 (7th Cir. Aug. 7, 2019).
A hail and wind storm damaged buildings owned by Windridge. The storm physically damaged the aluminum siding on the buildings' sought and west sides. Philadelphia Indemnity, Windridge's insurer, contended that it was only required to replace the siding on those sides. Windridge argued that replacement siding that matched the undamaged north and east elevations was no longer available, so Philadelphia had to replace the siding on all four sides of the buildings to that all of the siding matched.
Windridge sued and moved for summary judgment. The district court ruled that matching was required. The only sensible result was to treat the damage as having occurred to the building's siding as a whole.
The policy was a replacement-cost policy. Philadelphia promised to "pay for direct physical 'loss' to 'Covered Property' caused by or resulting from" the storm, with the amount of loss being "the cost to replace the lost or damaged property with other property . . . of comparable material and quality . . . and . . . used for the same purpose." The loss payment provision offered four different measures for loss, leaving Philadelphia free to choose the least expensive: (1) pay the value of the lost or damaged property; (2) pay the cost of repairing or replacing the lost or damaged property; (3) take all or any part of the property at an agreed or appraised value; or (4) repair, rebuild or replace the property with other property of like kind and quality.
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
Prospective Additional Insureds May Be Obligated to Arbitrate Coverage Disputes
September 07, 2020 —
Danielle S. Ward - Balestreri Potocki & HolmesThe Court of Appeal closed out 2019 by ruling that an additional insured can be bound to the arbitration clause in a policy when a coverage dispute arises between that additional insured and the carrier. (Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. SMG Holdings, Inc. (2019) 44 Cal. App. 5th 834, 837.)
In 2009, Future Farmers of America (“Future Farmers”) entered into a license agreement with SMG Holdings Incorporated (“SMG”) to use the Fresno Convention Center. As part of the agreement, Future Farmers was required to secure comprehensive general liability (“CGL”) coverage and name SMG and the City of Fresno as additional insureds (“AI”) on its policies.
Future Farmers purchased a general liability policy from Plaintiff Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (“Philadelphia”). Neither SMG nor the City of Fresno were added as AIs, but the policy contained a “deluxe endorsement” which extended coverage to lessors of premises for “liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that part of the premises leased or rented” to the named insured. The policy also contained an endorsement that extended coverage where required by a written contract for liability due to the negligence of the named insured. Philadelphia’s policy also stated that if the insurance company and insured “do not agree whether coverage is provided . . . for a claim made against the insured, then either party may make a written demand for arbitration.”
A patron to Future Farmer’s event at the Fresno Convention Center was seriously injured after he tripped over a pothole in the parking lot and hit his head. He sued both Fresno and SMG. In turn, Fresno and SMG tendered their defense to Philadelphia. Philadelphia denied coverage finding that the incident did not arise out of Future Farmer’s negligence, and that SMG had the sole responsibility for maintaining the parking lot. Consequently, Philadelphia concluded that neither Fresno nor SMG qualified “as an additional insured under the policy” for the injury in the parking lot.
The coverage dispute continued, and in 2016, Philadelphia issued a demand for arbitration which was rejected by SMG. Philadelphia then petitioned the state court to compel arbitration arguing that SMG could not avoid the burdens of the policy while seeking to obtain policy benefits. SMG used Philadelphia’s conclusion that it did not qualify as an AI under the policy to argue that Philadelphia was “estopped from demanding arbitration”. In other words, SMG argued that it could not be held to the burdens of the policy without being provided with the benefits of the policy.
The trial court sided with SMG finding that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties. The court noted that while third party beneficiaries can be compelled to arbitration there was no evidence that applied here, and Philadelphia could not maintain its inconsistent positions on the policy as its respects SMG.
Disagreeing with the trial court, the Court of Appeal concluded that SMG was a third-party beneficiary of the policy. The AI obligations in the license agreement and the deluxe endorsement in the Philadelphia policy collectively establish an intended beneficiary status. The Court saw SMG’s tender to Philadelphia as an acknowledgement of that status.
Relatedly, the Court found that SMG’s tender to Philadelphia – its demand for policy benefits – equitably estopped them from avoiding the burdens of the policy. The Court stated it defied logic to require a named insured to arbitrate coverage disputes but free an unnamed insured demanding policy coverage from the same requirement. Conversely, the Court found no inconsistency in Philadelphia’s denial of coverage to SMG and its subsequent demand for arbitration. Philadelphia did not outright reject SMG’s status as a potential insured, but rather concluded that there was no coverage because the injury occurred in the parking lot. In other words, the coverage determination turned on the circumstances of the injury not SMG’s status under the policy.
In short, the Court concluded that the potential insured takes the good with the bad. If one seeks to claim coverage as an additional insured, they can be subject to the restrictions of the policy including arbitration clauses even if they did not purchase the policy.
Securing additional insurance has become increasingly more difficult and limited over the years, and this holding presents yet another hurdle to attaining AI coverage. For those seeking coverage, it is important to note that the Court’s ruling may have turned out differently had the carrier outright denied SMG’s AI status, rather than concluding that the injury was not covered.
Your insurance scenario may vary from the case discussed above. Please contact legal counsel before making any decisions. BPH’s attorneys can be reached via email to answer your questions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Danielle S. Ward, Balestreri Potocki & HolmesMs. Ward may be contacted at
dward@bph-law.com
Construction Attorneys Tell DBR that Business is on the Rise
October 08, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe Daily Business Review reported that Florida “attorneys anticipate lawsuits over construction defects, workmanship, change orders and warranties.”
"We construction lawyers know this wave of litigation is coming, and we are getting ready," said attorney Jason Kellogg, a partner at Levine Kellogg Lehman Schneider + Grossman in Miami, told the Daily Business Review.
Kellogg also stated that “there is a shortage of skilled workers in areas such as plumbing, electrical and other specialities that almost inevitably will lead to subpar work and defect litigation.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Jersey Judge Found Mortgage Lender Liable When Borrower Couldn’t Pay
August 06, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to the New Jersey Law Journal, Freedom Mortgage Corporation has to pay treble damages and legal fees after Bergen County Superior Court Judge Gerald Escala found the company “liable under New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act for providing a home refinance loan to a 70-year-old borrower it should have known would be unable to make the payments.”
“Escala further ruled that Freedom Mortgage must hold off on obtaining a foreclosure judgment for a year to allow an opportunity for borrower Mamie Major to look for someone to buy the property or to obtain refinancing elsewhere,” the New Jersey Law Journal reported.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Court Invokes Equity to Stretch Anti-Subrogation Rule Principles
June 18, 2019 —
Gus Sara & William L. Doerler - The Subrogation StrategistIn Western Heritage Ins. Co. v. Frances Todd, Inc. 2019 Cal. App. Lexis 299, the Court of Appeals of California, First Appellate District, addressed whether a commercial condominium association’s carrier could subrogate against the tenants (aka lessees) of one of its member unit owners. After examining the condominium association’s declarations, as well as the lease terms between the owner and the lessees, the court held that the association’s carrier could not subrogate against the lessees because they were implied co-insureds on the policy. To reach its decision, the court explained that an insurer steps into the shoes of its insured, not the party with whom it is in privity. Although the first-party property portion of the association’s insurance policy did not, as required by the association’s declarations, have the owner listed as an additional named insured, the court held that it would be inequitable to treat the association as the sole insured for purposes of determining Western Heritage’s right to bring a subrogation action.
In Western Heritage, William R. de Carion d/b/a Surfwood Properties (de Carion or Lessor), owned a commercial unit within a multi-unit commercial building. The building was managed by the East Shore Commercial Condominiums Owners’ Association (the Association). As a unit owner, de Carion was a member of the Association. The Association’s Declarations of Codes, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) required the Association to procure fire insurance for the commercial units by adding the unit owners as additional named insureds. The CC&Rs also prohibited owners and their “tenants” from procuring their own fire insurance policies for the premises. In 2013, de Carion leased his commercial space to Frances Todd, Inc. d/b/a The Wooden Duck, Eric Todd Gellerman and Amy Frances Feber (Lessees).
Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP and
William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Disaster Remediation Contracts: Understanding the Law to Avoid a Second Disaster
August 30, 2017 —
Todd Colvard – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.In the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, consumers and contractors should be aware of protections prescribed by the Texas Legislature for Disaster Remediation Contracts. Chapter 58 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code includes several important consumer protections. Consumers should be aware of these protections, and contractors should take care to avoid inadvertent violations.
This statute applies to a contractor engaged in “disaster remediation,” in a county subject to a disaster declaration. Those contracts are subject to certain notice provisions and limitations. A violation of Chapter 58 is considered a Deceptive Trade Practice and could subject a violator to both public and private remedies. The full text of Chapter 58 is found here: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/BC/htm/BC.58.htm.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Todd Colvard, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Mr. Colvard may be contacted at
tcolvard@pecklaw.com
California Supreme Court Declines to Create Exception to Privette Doctrine for “Known Hazards”
September 13, 2021 —
Tracy D. Forbath - Lewis BrisboisIn Gonzalez v. Mathis (Aug. 19, 2021, S247677) __ Cal.5th___, the California Supreme Court reversed an appellate decision holding that a landowner may be liable to an independent contractor, or the contractor’s workers, for injuries resulting from “known hazards,” as running contrary to the Privette doctrine.
In Gonzalez, the contractor, who specialized in washing skylights, slipped and fell while accessing the landowner’s particularly hard to reach skylight from a narrow retaining wall that was allegedly covered in loose gravel and slippery. (Slip opn., p. 3.) While the trial court initially granted the landowner summary judgment pursuant to the Privette doctrine, the appellate court reversed and held that the landowner had a responsibility to take reasonable safety precautions where there was a known safety hazard on the landowner’s premises. (Id. at p. 6.) Whether the landowner could have taken various safety precautions also raised disputed issues of material fact precluding summary judgment. (Ibid.)
However, the California Supreme Court concluded that no broad, third exception to the Privette doctrine lies; “unless a landowner retains control over any part of the contractor’s work and negligently exercises that retained control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the injury [citation], it will not be liable to an independent contractor or its workers for an injury resulting from a known hazard on the premises.” (Slip opn., p. 2.)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tracy D. Forbath, Lewis BrisboisMs. Forbath may be contacted at
Tracy.Forbath@lewisbrisbois.com
