Condo Owners Suing Bank for Failing to Disclose Defects
January 17, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe Option Owners Association Inc., Condo Owners in Lincoln, Nebraska, filed suit against Security First Bank, “alleging the bank failed to disclose ‘hidden defects,’” reported the Lincoln Journal Star. Alleged defects include defective siding, improperly installed siding, and defective flashing. The condo owners are seeking at least $644,000 which they claim is the “fair market value of the repairs needed to fix the alleged construction defects.”
When the Lincoln Journal Star asked Jim Wefso, general counsel for Security First Bank, to comment, he stated, “The bank doesn't feel it has any liability in the case.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kiewit Selected for Rebuild of Collapsed Baltimore Bridge
September 02, 2024 —
Jim Parsons - Engineering News-RecordKiewit Infrastructure Co. has been tapped to rebuild Baltimore’s I-695/Francis Scott Key Bridge under a progressive design-build procurement announced Aug. 29 by the Maryland Transportation Authority (MDTA). Work on the expected four-year reconstruction effort is scheduled to begin next year.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jim Parsons, 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
Partners Jeremy S. Macklin and Mark F. Wolfe Secure Seventh Circuit Win for Insurer Client in Late Notice Dispute
November 12, 2019 —
Jeremy S. Macklin & Mark F. Wolfe - Traub Lieberman PerspectivesIn a written decision dated August 12, 2019, authored by Chief Judge Diane P. Wood, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled in favor of Traub Lieberman’s insurer client, affirming the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in the insurer’s favor. Partners, Jeremy S. Macklin and Mark F. Wolfe, represented the insurer client in the District Court and before the Seventh Circuit. Macklin argued the case before the Seventh Circuit on behalf of the insurer on May 28, 2019.
The insurer client issued an excess liability policy to Deerfield Construction, a telecommunications construction company, which incorporated the notice requirements of the primary liability insurance policy issued by American States Insurance Company. The insured’s employee was involved in an automobile accident in 2008, during the effective dates of the excess liability policy. A lawsuit arising from the accident was filed and served in 2009. While Deerfield Construction, through its retained insurance intermediary, provided immediate notice of the accident and lawsuit to the primary liability insurer, the insurer client did not receive notice of either the accident or the lawsuit from any source until December 2014, approximately six weeks before trial.
Following a $2.3 million judgment, the insurer client filed a complaint for declaratory judgment seeking a finding that Deerfield Construction materially breached the excess liability policy by not providing reasonable notice of the accident or the lawsuit, as required by the policy. The District Court found that the notice given to the insurer client was unreasonable as a matter of law. The District Court rejected Deerfield Construction’s argument that an insurance broker involved in the purchase of the excess liability policy, Arthur J. Gallagher, was the insurer client’s apparent agent for purposes of accepting notice. The District Court also rejected Deerfield Construction’s argument that the insurer client’s acts of requesting discovery, reviewing trial reports, and participating in settlement discussions raised equitable estoppel concerns.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman and
Mark F. Wolfe, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Wolfe may be contacted at mwolfe@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anchoring Abuse: Evolution & Eradication
October 09, 2023 —
Tim Capowski & Chris Theobalt - Kahana FeldOver the past few years, the plaintiff bar has expanded its use of improper anchoring tactics. Historically, improper anchoring was seen as a risky tactic in which a plaintiff’s counsel would suggest an outrageous figure for pain and suffering during summation in the hope that the lay jury would either award it or split the difference (cut the suggested figure by half) and, either way, return an excessive or runaway verdict. Plaintiff counsel deployed the tactic infrequently through the turn of the century for fear of alienating the jury by appearing greedy.
Two interrelated factors happened to change this dynamic. First, the plaintiff bar worked extremely hard in the intervening years with great success to shed its “ambulance chaser” stereotype by marketing itself as the “protector of the vulnerable”. Second, with the rise in Reptile and punitive tactics spawned in part by the publication of the Reptile handbook, the plaintiff bar also discovered that juries were not alienated by outrageous anchors as long as they were preceded by Reptile commentary essentially to “prime” the jury to punish the defendant rather than compensate the plaintiff with its award.
This is not speculation. I recall sitting outside a courtroom with one of New York’s top plaintiff attorneys in 2006 during deliberations on a catastrophic personal injury trial, during which he conceded to me that he was worried he had asked the jury for too large a figure (it was not even eight figures). A decade later in 2016, that same attorney felt no trepidation in requesting nearly $100 million for a comparable injury. He fed the jurors a steady diet of Reptile tactics from start to finish and they dutifully awarded the requested figure. Our research confirms that this two-step strategy (Reptile + improper anchor) preceded every New York nuclear verdict returned from 2010-2022. The same is almost certainly true of most nuclear verdicts in other jurisdictions.
Reprinted courtesy of
Tim Capowski, Kahana Feld and
Chris Theobalt, Kahana Feld
Mr. Capowski may be contacted at tcapowski@kahanafeld.com
Mr. Theobalt may be contacted at ctheobalt@kahanafeld.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Expansion of Statutes of Limitations and Repose in K-12 and Municipal Construction Contracts
March 27, 2019 —
Henry Bangert - Colorado Construction LitigationThe purpose of this whitepaper is to bring attention to a trend in K-12 and municipal construction contracts, which expands the time periods for law suits against construction professionals.
Introduction and Background
Under Colorado statute, the period of time within which a legal action for construction defects may be brought against a construction professional in Colorado is two years from when the claimant (or its predecessor in interest) discovers or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered the physical manifestations of a defect (the “Statute of Limitations”), but in no case may an action be brought more than six years after substantial completion of the improvement, unless the claim arises in the fifth or sixth year after substantial completion, in which event the action may be brought within two years of such date, i.e., up to eight years after substantial completion (the “Statute of Repose”). See C.R.S. § 13-80-104. While the triggering events differ for the Statute of Limitations and Statue of Repose, the periods are intended to run concurrently to limit the period of time an action may be brought against construction professionals for construction defects to, at most, eight years after substantial completion. Importantly, these limitations periods may be expanded by agreement.
Prior to 1986, Colorado law provided for a 10-year Statute of Repose. However, in 1986, Colorado’s legislature shortened the Statute of Repose time limit to the current six (or up to eight) year period. In 1986, Colorado also redefined the date the claim arises from the date the defect was discovered or should have been discovered to the date the physical manifestation of a defect was discovered or should have been discovered. Therefore, after 1986, the two-year limitations period could begin to run when a claimant should have discovered the manifestation of a defect, even if the claimant did not recognize that a defect existed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Proposed Law Protecting Tenants Amended: AB 828 Updated
June 08, 2020 —
Rhonda Kreger – Newmeyer DillionOn May 18, 2020, AB 828 was amended and is currently on its second reading in the Senate Rules Committee. This legislation proposes a temporary moratorium on foreclosures and unlawful detainers while Governor Newsom's COVID-19 emergency order is in effect. In addition to the moratorium, AB 828 also required landlords to reduce rent by 25% under certain circumstances. AB 828 was amended to remove the provision that required landlords to reduce rent by 25% for 12 months. The new provision requires landlords to allow tenant to remain in possession, and requires tenants to start paying rent the month following the end of the emergency order. Tenants must timely pay monthly rent plus 10% of any rent due and owing when the emergency order ended.
Under AB 828, a tenant may stipulate to the entry of an order in response to a residential unlawful detainer action filed by the landlord. Upon a hearing, the court determines if the tenant's inability to pay rent is the result of increased expenses or a reduction in income due to COVID-19. The court must also make a determination that there is no material economic hardship for the landlord. Upon making such determinations, the court will issue an order that permits the tenant to remain in possession, and requires tenant to commence rental payments the month following the end of the COVID-19 emergency order. Tenant's payment would include the monthly rent plus 10% of an unpaid rent during the COVID-19 emergency order, but excludes any late charges or other fees or charges. The tenant would be required to make timely payments, and if tenant fails to do so, after a 48 hour notice from landlord, the landlord can file for an immediate writ of possession in favor of the landlord and money judgment for any unpaid balance, court costs and attorneys' fees.
Newmeyer Dillion continues to follow COVID-19 and its impact on your business and our communities. Feel free to reach out to us at NDcovid19response@ndlf.com or visit us at www.newmeyerdillion.com/covid-19-multidisciplinary-task-force/.
Rhonda Kreger is Senior Counsel on Newmeyer Dillion's transactional team at our Newport Beach office. Her practice focuses on all aspects of commercial real estate law, with a particular emphasis on the representation of residential developers, merchant builders and institutional investors. You can reach Rhonda at rhonda.kreger@ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Right to Repair Reform: Revisions and Proposals to State’s “Right to Repair Statutes”
April 01, 2015 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Jon A. Turigliatto, and David A. Napper – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger BulletinVirtually all of the states in the country have "Right to Repair" statutes. We follow the various states legislatures to determine what trends or developments are occurring. For years, Chapman, Glucksman, Dean, Roeb, and Barger has prepared a compendium that provides the salient points of these Right to Repair statutes. In this extended BULLETIN we provide a discussion of important and very recent developments that are occurring in
Nevada,
Arizona,
Florida, and
Colorado.
In Nevada, Governor Brian Sandoval very recently signed The Homeowner Protections Act of 2015, representing a massive transformation to Nevada's Right to Repair Act in the builder's favor, including but not limited to removal of the attorney fees provision as part of claimant's damages.
In Arizona, Governor Doug Ducey signed House Bill 2578 in March 2015, amending Arizona Revised Statutes § 12-1361 et. Seq. by eliminating a homeowner’s statutory opportunity to recover attorney and expert fees and providing a builder the right to repair the alleged defects.
In Florida, Bill 87 proposes to shorten the statute of limitations, requires more detail in the Homeowner's notice of defects, and allows a builder to use a prior settlement in lieu of repair as an affirmative defense against subsequent claims.
In Colorado, lawmakers are proposing to place additional conditions in front of an HOA board before filing suit and require alternative dispute resolution for HOA Condominium Defect Claims even if the requirement no longer exists at the time the claim is brought.
NEVADA: GOVERNOR SIGNIFICANTLY MODIFIES NEVADA'S RIGHT TO REPAIR ACT WITH THE SIGNING OF ASSEMBLY BILL 125
Nevada's Right to Repair Act has been extensively modified by the signing of Assembly Bill 125 also known as the Homeowner Protections Act of 2015. The Act considerably revises Chapter 40 of the Nevada Revised Statute ("NRS") governing construction defect actions. According to Governor Brian Sandoval, the signing of the first major bill of the legislative session in Nevada "discourages frivolous litigation and strengthens Nevada's rebounding housing market."1 Among other provisions, the Homeowner's Protection Act removes a claimant's ability to recover reasonable attorney fees as part of the claimant's damages, shortens the statutes of repose, defines the duty to defend, and prohibits a claimant from filing a notice of construction defects unless the claimant has submitted a claim under the homeowner's warranty and the insurer has denied the claim. Only claims that have been denied under the homeowner's warranty may be claimed.
Additionally, the term "construction defect" is now defined as a defect "(1) which presents an unreasonable risk of injury to a person or property; or (2) which is not completed in a good and workmanlike manner and proximately causes physical damage to the resident or appurtenance."
Critically, the Act now requires that the notice of construction defects (1) state in "specific detail" rather than reasonable detail, each defect, damage, and injury to each residence or appurtenance that is subject to the notice; (2) state the exact location of each defect, damage, and injury, rather than describe in reasonable detail the location of the defect; and (3) include a statement signed by the owner of the residence or appurtenance in the notice that the owner verifies that each defect, damage and injury exists in the residence or appurtenance.
Although not every revision is set forth above, the passing of The Homeowner's Protection Act appears to be a colossal victory for builders as the majority of the revisions to NRS Chapter 40 are favorable to the builder while additional or heightened requirements have been placed upon homeowners who wish to bring a claim. The following two Right to Repair updates concern proposed bills that also seek to radically change the pre-claim construction defect landscape.
ARIZONA: BUILDERS NOW HAVE THE RIGHT TO REPAIR INSTEAD OF AN OPPORTUNITY TO REPAIR WHILE HOMEOWNERS NO LONGER HAVE A STATUTORY RIGHT TO ATTORNEY FEES AND EXPERT FEES
In March 2015, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey signed into law House Bill 2578, revising key portions of the Right to Repair pursuant to the Purchaser Dwelling Act (Arizona Revised Statute ("A.R.S.") Section 12-1361 et. seq. Important categories of the Act affected by the new law include the builder's right to repair or replace, the process of repair or replacement, dwelling actions, and homeowners' association dwelling actions. Most notably, prior to filing a construction defect suit, or a "dwelling action" as defined in A.R.S. Section 12-1361 et. seq., a homeowner must provide written notice detailing the basis of a dwelling action and must allow the builder to repair or replace the alleged construction defects.
Another significant revision includes the elimination of the prevailing homeowner's statutory right to reasonable attorney fees, witness fees and taxable costs in a dwelling action. Bill 2578 also revised the definitions of "Construction Codes," "Construction Defect," "Construction Professional," and "Material Deficiency." Homeowner Associations now must disclose additional information regarding the claim to its members and must show compliance with procedures set forth in the community documents. Clearly, Arizona's legislature is seeking to reduce the amount of frivolous construction defects suits with the elimination of a prevailing homeowner's right to reasonable attorney fees and expert fees. Moreover, the Legislature now provides builders in Arizona with the right to make repairs to alleged construction defects if they so choose.
FLORIDA: FLORIDA GENERAL CONTRACTORS SEEK AGGRESSIVE AMENDMENT TO PRE-CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DEFECT PROCESS WITH BILL 87
Florida's Right to Repair Act, Chapter 558 of the Florida Statutes, may be extensively revised in the near future. With the help of the South Florida Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America, House of Representatives Bill 87 will be presented as an amendment to the Pre-Claim Construction Defect requirements set forth in Chapter 558.
The proposed bill is aggressive and seeks to address issues in the current statute. These deficiencies have seemingly prevented construction defect claims from being resolved without the filing of a civil suit. Notably, the statute of limitations period for a property owner to file suit for construction defects would be shortened based upon the revision of the term "completion of a building or improvement" to include issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy. Additionally, property owners would be subject to additional requirements for issuing a notice of claim, including specific identification of locations of each alleged construction defect as well as the specific provisions of the building code, project plans, project drawings, project specifications, or other documentation, information or authority that serve as the basis of the claim for each alleged construction defect.
Perhaps most importantly, the bill provides that if a construction defect is settled by repairs offered by the contractor during the Chapter 558 claims process but the repairs fail to fully correct the defects and the owner or association then files suit because the issue was not resolved, the defendant may claim that the issue was previously resolved and the plaintiff owner may face sanctions. Even if the bill as proposed does not pass in its current form, on the heels of Nevada's Right to Repair Act overhaul, it may serve to encourage other states, including California, to take another look at their Right to Repair Act procedures.
COLORADO: UPDATE FROM CGDRB SEPTEMBER 2014 BULLETIN: COLORADO PROPOSED LEGISLATION RE: HOA CONDOMINIUM DEFECT CLAIMS
In September 2014, we provided an important discussion of potential significant tort reform legislation presented in Colorado regarding construction claims by homeowner associations for condominiums. This Bulletin serves as an update to that discussion as intense debate over legislative reform to provide condominium builders in Colorado more legal protections has heated up again.
On October 13, 2014, the city of Lakewood became the first Colorado municipality to pass a “right to repair” measure with respect to common interest communities. The Lakewood measure gives builders a right to repair construction defects before homeowner associations take legal action and requires a homeowner majority approval before legal action is taken.
On February 10, 2015, two bipartisan Senators introduced Senate Bill 177, a bill proposing changes to the prerequisites for a homeowner association to file a construction defect action under the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act. SB 177, if passed in its current form, would require:
- That when the governing documents of a common interest community require mediation or arbitration of a construction defect claim and the requirement is later amended or removed, mediation or arbitration is still required for a construction defect claim;
- That the mediation or arbitration take place in the judicial district in which the common interest community is located;
- That the arbitrator (1) be a neutral third party; (2) make certain disclosures before being selected; and (3) be selected as specified in the community's governing documents or, if not specified, in accordance with the Uniform Arbitration Act;
- That before a construction defect claim is filed on behalf of the homeowner association: (1) the parties must submit the matter to mediation; and (2) the board must give advance notice to all unit owners, together with a disclosure of the projected costs, duration, and financial impact of the construction defect claim, and must obtain the written consent of a majority of the unit owners.
- That the disclosures required prior to the purchase and sale of property in a common interest community a notice that the community's governing documents may require binding arbitration of certain disputes.
As explained in our previous Bulletin, currently, in Colorado, homeowner association boards are only required to obtain two condominium owners’ consent to file a construction defect suit. Similar to SB 220, which proposed a number of the same requirements, SB 177 would likely have the potential effect of reducing the number of lawsuits filed against builders and decrease the treat of frivolous claims; and allow the parties an opportunity to resolve their issues short of litigation.
On March 18, 2015, the Colorado Senate Committee on Business, Labor, and Technology voted 6-2 to forward SB-177 to the full Senate with four minor amendments. The amendments provide:
- The homeowner association’s attorney can prepare the disclosures that must be presented to unit owners prior to filing a construction defect claim;
- Voting may be done by proxy;
- The parties must agree on an arbitrator. If they cannot agree, they may petition the court to appoint one. Preference will be given to the arbitrator designated in the community’s governing documents; and
- A different list of disclosure topics is required.
Also introduced this year is SB 091, a bill to shorten the Colorado’s construction defect statute of repose to a homeowner from bringing an action after three years. On March 16, 2015, the Colorado Senate Committee on State, Veterans & Military Affairs voted to pass SB 091 to the full Senate with two substantive amendments. The first amendment excludes any multifamily developments from being effected by the shortened statute of repose. The second amendment proposes the statute of repose only be shortened to five years, plus an additional year if the defect manifests in year five. Currently, in Colorado, if a homeowner does not discover a construction defect within six years of a house’s completion, the homeowner may forfeit all legal rights to seek repair. Again, SB 091 would protect builders from frivolous or untimely claims by homeowners.
We will continue to monitor development of these bills and others that may be proposed in the future. If we can provide any further information concerning these developments or you are interested in receiving our compendium of the various right repair statutes please let us know.
1 As reported by KTVN-TV in Reno, Nevada: http://www.ktvn.com/story/28163519/senate-passes-constructiondefect-bill-sends-to-governor-sandoval.
Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys
Richard H. Glucksman,
Jon A. Turigliatto and
David A. Napper
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court of Appeal Holds Only “Named Insureds” May Sue for Bad Faith Under California FAIR Plan Policy
May 10, 2021 —
Valerie A. Moore & Kathleen E.M. Moriarty - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Wexler v. California Fair Plan Association (No. 303100, filed 4/14/21), Brooke Wexler’s parents insured their residence, which was located in a mountainous high-fire risk area, with a California FAIR Plan Association owner-occupied dwelling policy. The policy only listed Wexler’s parents and did not name Wexler, their adult child, under the policy’s “Insured Name” section. The FAIR Plan expressly disclaimed coverage for “unnamed people,” referred to by the court as the “no-coverage-for-unnamed-persons clause.”
FAIR Plan was created by the Legislature in 1968 and is a joint reinsurance association created to give homeowners in high risk areas access to basic property insurance and is a self-described “insurer of last resort.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Kathleen E.M. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moriarty may be contacted at kemoriarty@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
