Texas Considers a Quartet of Construction Bills
April 03, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFAmong the issues the Texas legislature is taking up is a measure that would require builders to buy back homes if they could not fix defects after three tries, but the law would only apply if the homeowner was a veteran. Some supporters of the bill, however, think it should be applied to all homeowners.
Additionally, the state is also considering a measure that would adopt a new definition of “construction defect” and require contractors who bought homes back to disclose all construction defects and how they were remediated. Another measure would require builders to provide construction documents, including blueprints, to buyers of new homes. A final measure would create a standardized contract for the sale of new homes.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patagonia Will Start Paying for Homeowners' Solar Panels
October 15, 2014 —
Caroline Winter – Bloomberg BusinessweekPatagonia plans to use state and federal tax credits to invest $13 million in the construction of solar panels on 1,000 homes in Hawaii, turning the eco-conscious retailer into the financial backer of a green electrical utility.
With the announcement on Wednesday, Patagonia hopes companies across America will follow suit with similar efforts. “Any U.S. public or private company who pays their fair share of taxes can use this strategy to speed up the development of new energy infrastructure,” Rose Marcario, Patagonia’s chief executive, said in an interview. “And they can make money doing it and create jobs.”
Patagonia is joining forces with a tiny solar-financing company, Kina’ole Capital Partners, as well as a local Hawaiian bank to create a $27 million fund to pay for rooftop installation and upkeep. Starting in Hawaii makes sense because of its abundant sunshine and sky-high electrical rates; Hawaiians currently pay three times the U.S. average for electricity.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Caroline Winter, Bloomberg BusinessweekMs. Winter may be contacted at
cwinter10@bloomberg.net
The Golden State Commits to Going Green – Why Contractors Will be in High Demand to Build the State’s Infrastructure
November 28, 2018 —
Karla Pascarella & Alexa Magrath - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.On September 10, 2018 California’s Governor took an ambitious stance on environmental policy and signed Senate Bill 100 (“SB100”). The bill accelerates several Renewables Portfolio Standards (“RPS”) deadlines previously established by former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The bill’s most notable effect—it requires that 100 percent of California’s electricity come from renewable and zero-carbon sources by 2045. California is the second state in the nation to pass such legislation; Hawaii passed a similar bill in 2015.
The passage of this bill could not be timelier as wildfires, drought, and record high temperatures continue to make national headlines. California, as it often does, has taken a contrarian position as the federal government attempts to reinvigorate the coal mining industry in America. Coal and other fossil fuels used to produce energy increase air pollution and deplete necessary ozone. California has been experimenting and utilizing renewable energy technology since as early as 1997. According to the California Energy Commission, by the end of 2017 California generated approximately 32 percent of its energy from renewable sources.
Reprinted courtesy of
Karla Pascarella, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Alexa Magrath, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Ms. Pascarella may be contacted at kpascarella@pecklaw.com
Ms. Magrath may be contacted at amagrath@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
How California’s Construction Industry has dealt with the New Indemnity Law
October 22, 2014 —
Mark S. Himmelstein, Esq. - Newmeyer & DillionIt has been almost two years since the California legislature enacted changes to the state’s indemnity law affecting commercial construction contracts. Although we do not yet have any court opinions analyzing the new statutes, the attorneys at
Newmeyer & Dillion now have real world experience in negotiating such indemnity provisions. It is time to evaluate how the construction community has reacted to the changes. In this article, we examine the practical applications of the new law to various construction agreements.
Enacted on January 1, 2013, the new legislation was the latest in a series of efforts by subcontractors and their insurers to eliminate “Type I” indemnity clauses. Under a Type I provision, a subcontractor has a duty to indemnify the developer or general contractor for the negligence of the developer or general contractor or other subcontractors, in addition to the negligence of the subcontractor itself. In 2006, the law was changed to preclude Type I provisions regarding “For Sale” residential construction defect claims. At that time, there was no such restriction enacted for commercial construction contracts. However, since then, commercial subcontractors have been seeking similar legislation. Their efforts culminated in the 2013 revisions regarding commercial contracts.
Commercial Subcontracts
Pursuant to the new indemnity statute — Civil Code section 2782.05 — we have revised our clients’ commercial subcontracts to:
(a) Eliminate the requirement that the subcontractor indemnify the general contractor for the general contractor’s “active negligence;” and
(b) Include the subcontractor’s options for defending claims for which they have an indemnity obligation.
Many subcontractors have responded: “Hey, wait a minute, the new legislation eliminated Type I indemnity so you (general contractor) cannot still require any indemnification for the general contractor’s negligence”. Well, that might be the rumor in subcontractor circles, but the new statute does not eliminate indemnity for the general contractor’s passive fault. In addition, the Civil Code lists 13 instances where the new indemnity restrictions do not apply.
Residential Subcontracts
The legislature did not make anyone’s job easier by drafting a different indemnity provision for commercial subcontracts than for residential subcontracts. In fact, the residential and commercial statutes are different in several critical respects. First, the restrictions on indemnity in the residential statute apply only to construction defect claims in newly constructed “For Sale” houses. The statute does not preclude Type I indemnity provisions for any other claims arising out of residential subcontracts. In contrast, the indemnity restrictions in the commercial statute apply to all claims arising out of commercial subcontracts. In addition, the commercial statute allows indemnity for the general contractor’s passive fault. Since some subcontractors on “residential” projects perform off-site “commercial” work as well, we have amended even residential subcontracts to address the subcontractors’ various indemnity obligations for different parts of their work (e.g., residential work versus commercial work).
Owner-Contractor Agreements
The January 1, 2013 new indemnity provisions apply not only to subcontracts, but also to owner-contractor agreements. Civil Code section 2782(c)(1) precludes indemnity for an owner’s active negligence. Interestingly, the exclusions contained in Civil Code section 2782.05 for subcontracts do not apply, and the statute does not provide contractors with the option of defending claims set forth in the sections concerning subcontracts. Therefore, we have revised the indemnity provisions in owner-contractor agreements to exclude indemnity for the owner’s active negligence.
Design Professional Agreements
The 2007 revisions with respect to “For Sale” residential contracts (discussed above), and the 2013 revisions for commercial contracts do not apply to design professionals. The new indemnity statute concerning commercial subcontracts specifically excludes design professionals from the “anti-indemnity” benefits provided to subcontractors. Therefore, Type I indemnity provisions are fair game and can still be included in design professional contracts.
Conclusion
In sum, Civil Code sections 2782 et seq. now contain an increasingly complex framework for indemnity rules in construction contracts. For example, there is one set of rules for “For Sale” residential construction defect claims (no indemnity for the developer’s active or passive negligence), another for any other claims arising out of residential construction (Type I indemnity is permitted), another for commercial subcontracts (no indemnity for the general contractor’s active negligence, but indemnity for the general contractor’s passive negligence unless any of the exceptions apply, in which case Type I indemnity is permitted), and yet another for commercial owner contractor agreements (no indemnity for the owner’s active negligence, but indemnity for the owner’s passive negligence with no exceptions).
California’s indemnity laws are complex, and rumors as to the impact of the new legislation have made it even more difficult to negotiate these provisions. It is imperative that indemnity clauses in construction contracts clearly delineate the obligations for the specific type or types of work contemplated by the contract. The legislature’s attempt to simplify indemnity obligations has actually made such provisions lengthier and more cumbersome. As experienced construction attorneys, our task is to draft indemnity provisions that comply with the laws, address potential claims, and are understandable.
Mr. Himmelstein is a partner in the Newport Beach office of Newmeyer & Dillion and practices in the areas of construction, real estate, business and insurance litigation. He also specializes in drafting and negotiating construction and real estate contracts. Mark can be reached at mark.himmelstein@ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Connecticut Supreme Court Finds Faulty Work By Subcontractor Constitutes "Occurrence"
July 31, 2013 —
Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiThe U.S. District Court in Alabama certified a question to the Connecticut Supreme Court: Is damage to a project caused by faulty workmanship "property damage" resulting from an "occurrence"? With some qualification, the Connecticut Supreme Court answered in the affirmative. Capstone Building Corp. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., SC 18886 (Conn. June 11, 2013).
Captsone Development agreed to coordinate and supervise construction on a building at the University of Conneticut. Capstone Building was the general contractor. UConn secured an OCIP policy from American Motorist Insurance Company ("AMICO"). More than three years after completion, UConn notified the insureds of alleged defects in the project, including elevated levels of carbon monoxide. The source of the leak was the individual hot water heaters in residential units and insufficient draft of exhaust from the heater.Other defects were found during an investigation.
The insureds tendered to AMICO. Coverage was denied because the liability arose out of the insureds' own work.The insureds settled with UConn, paying $1 million each. The insureds then sued AMICO in Alabama and the question was certified to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred EyerlyTred Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
The G2G Year in Review: 2019
February 03, 2020 —
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogAs we kick off the new decade, we wanted to share the top five most-read articles of 2019 from Gravel2Gavel. The most-read blog posts covered 2019 real estate and construction industry trends ranging from affordable housing to the new State Bill 35 (SB 35) to sustainability in modern real estate. Our posts provided deep insight and detailed case studies, and summarized hot topics that addressed the legal implications and exciting disruptions that are affecting the industry. We hope you enjoy the roundup:
- Assessing SB 35—Success or Failure? by Robert Howard, Alexander Walker and Matt Olhausen
Robert, Alex and Matt examined the newly implemented SB 35 and highlighted real examples of SB 35 in action.
- Update Your California Release Provisions to Include Amended Section 1542 Language by William S. Hale, P.E.
Bill Hale encouraged readers to update their California release provisions to include Amended Section 1542 Language, which ensures that the releasing party is consciously releasing both known and unknown claims that may be later discovered.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team
Three Attorneys Elevated to Partner at Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP
February 26, 2016 —
Newmeyer & Dillion, LLPNewmeyer & Dillion, LLP, a premier business and real estate law firm in California and Nevada, is pleased to announce the promotion of three of its attorneys to partnership.
“Clay Tanaka, Eric Rollins, and Jonathan King have proven their ability to provide the highest quality legal services to our clients while embracing the core values of the Firm which make it unique,” said Jeff Dennis, managing partner of Newmeyer & Dillion. “We are proud to welcome them as our new partners.”
The new partners share extensive legal and trial experience, demonstrating quick and creative solutions for their clients.
Newport Beach
Clayton Tanaka
Clay Tanaka is an experienced trial lawyer practicing in both California and Nevada, focusing on construction, real estate, business, insurance disputes and appellate law. As a licensed civil engineer in California, Clay has extensive knowledge of construction practices as well as vast experience in the designs of both residential subdivisions and commercial developments. He has represented developers and general contractors in numerous complex real estate and construction matters through trial, including disputes involving grading, design, boundary and easement disputes, water intrusion and insurance coverage issues. Clay has also represented a variety of businesses in actions involving breach of contract, fraud, and copyright and trademark infringements. He is also fluent in Japanese.
Eric Rollins
Eric Rollins’ practice focuses on the litigation and arbitration covering a broad range of business, real estate, construction, insurance, and land use disputes. Within the construction arena, he regularly handles complex construction matters and insurance coverage issues arising out of construction claims for both residential and commercial builders. In his business and land practice, Eric has litigated a variety of claims in state and federal courts involving breach of contract, negligence, unfair business practices, fraud, business formation, eminent domain, and inverse condemnation. He has experience with all phases of business litigation, including arbitration, mediation, and trial preparation.
Walnut Creek
Jonathan King
Jonathan King’s practice focuses on the representation of developers, builders, and general contractors in construction litigation and has extensive experience defending personal injury allegations in industrial and construction settings. His business cases include litigation of intellectual property infringement, and general business litigation. Jonathan has successfully resolved and defended complex matters in both mediation and binding arbitration settings. Jonathan also obtains federal trademark protection and negotiates licensing agreements for clients.
About Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
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
HOA Foreclosure Excess Sale Proceeds Go to Owner
August 15, 2022 —
Ben Reeves - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogOver the last few years, the Arizona Court of Appeals wrestled with the question of who should receive the excess proceeds from a foreclosure sale. We’ve blogged about some these past unreported decisions
here and
here. Those decisions, somewhat inexplicably, required excess sale proceeds to be paid to senior creditors. As we noted at the time, these unreported (and non-precedential) decisions did not seem to make much sense in the context of debtor/creditor rights. Thankfully, a reported opinion finally sets the record straight. Excess sale proceeds should be paid downstream.
In
Tortosa Homeowners Assoc. v. Garcia, et al., No. 2 CA-CV 2021-0114 (Ct. App. Aug. 1, 2022), the Court of Appeals held that after the foreclosing lienholder is paid in full, then the excess sale proceeds should be paid to claimants in the order of their priority after the foreclosing lienholder. In other words, if a junior lienholder forecloses, then any creditors behind (i.e., junior to) the foreclosing creditor should be paid, and if all such creditors are paid, then the rest should be given to the owner. Creditors senior to the foreclosing creditor should not be paid anything from the foreclosure sale. This makes sense from a policy perspective, because the senior creditor retains its lien against the property and the bidder presumably took the presence of the senior lien into account when it made its bid for the foreclosed property.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ben Reeves, Snell & WilmerMr. Reeves may be contacted at
breeves@swlaw.com
