Construction Law Client Alert: California Is One Step Closer to Prohibiting Type I Indemnity Agreements In Private Commercial Projects
June 15, 2011 —
Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLPOn June 1, 2011 by majority vote, the California Senate passed Senate Bill 474, which would amend Civil Code section 2782, and add Civil Code section 2782.05. The passage of this new law is a critical development for real estate developers, general contractors and subcontractors because it will affect how these projects are insured and how disputes are resolved.
Civil Code section 2782 was amended in 2007 to prohibit Type I indemnity agreements for residential projects only. Since 2007, various trade associations and labor unions have lobbied to expand those very same restrictions to other projects. These new provisions apply to contracts, entered into after January 1, 2013, that are not for residential projects, and that are not executed by a public entity. The revisions provide that any provision in a contract purporting to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend another for their negligence or other fault is against public policy and void. These provisions cannot be waived.
A provision in a contract requiring additional insured coverage is also void and unenforceable to the extent it would be prohibited under the new law. Moreover, the new law does not apply to wrap-up insurance policies or programs, or a cause of action for breach of contract or warranty that exists independently of the indemnity obligation.
The practical impact of this new law is that greater participation in wrap-up insurance programs will likely result. While many wrap-up programs suffer from problems such as insufficient limits, and disputes about funding the self-insured retention, the incentive for the developer or general contractor to utilize wrap-up insurance will be greater than ever before because they will no longer be able to spread the risk of the litigation to the trades and the trade carriers.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Steve Cvitanovic of Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Subsequent Owners of Homes Again Have Right to Sue Builders for Construction Defects
October 07, 2016 —
Mark L. Parisi – White and Williams LLPOwners of homes with damage from construction defects have long had the standing to sue the builders of their homes using the legal theories of 1) breach of contract, 2) breach of implied warranty, and 3) breach of Pennsylvania’s consumer fraud statute, the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL).
Before the 2014 decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Conway v. Cutler, even owners who were not the original purchasers of their homes, so-called subsequent owners, had a right to sue the builder of their homes using implied warranty as the legal theory. But the Supreme Court in Conway said in 2014 that even though an implied warranty theory is not based on a written contract, it is a quasi contract theory and because subsequent owners never had a contractual relationship with the builder of their home, the implied warranty cause of action was not available. Subsequent purchasers were thus left without a remedy for damage from defective construction in their homes and builders had a second safe harbor from claims regarding homes they built. The first safe harbor is Pennsylvania’s Statute of Repose. If the home was completed more than 12 years before a lawsuit was filed, the Statute of Repose bars the claim. But after Conway, if the home was sold, this also cut off a builder’s potential liability for construction defects in the home.
ENTER THE UTPCPL
On July 26, 2016 the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the case of Adams v. Hellings Builders issued a non-published (and therefore non-precedential) decision in a stucco construction defect case that held that subsequent purchasers could sue their home’s builder under the UTPCPL because the Act had no requirement that the purchaser of a product, or home, be the original purchaser. The decision cites several other appellate cases not involving construction defect claims that held that the UTPCPL was a valid legal theory for claims regarding products purchased second hand by the plaintiffs in those other cases. The court in Adams held that there was no reason that a suit regarding construction defects in a home should be treated any differently.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mark L. Parisi, White and Williams LLPMr. Parisi may be contacted at
parisim@whiteandwilliams.com
CDJ’s Year-End Review: The Top 10 CD Topics of 2014
December 31, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFConstruction Defect Journal’s year-end review presents the top ten most popular topics featured in the journal in 2014. Some of the topics involved analysis of important construction defect cases, while others covered current events such as proposed state legislation. Most issues were heavily discussed on CDJ as well as in board rooms and during teleconferences. We hope you enjoy the look-back at 2014 interspersed throughout the issue, and we wish you and yours a prosperous 2015!
CDJ’s #1 Topic of the Year: Indalex Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 2013 Pa. Super 311 (Dec. 3, 2013)
According to Darrin J. McMullen of Anderson Kill, “[t]he Indalex decision reverses a nearly decade-long trend of Pennsylvania decisions narrowing the scope of insurance coverage for construction and defect-related claims under commercial general liability insurance policies. Equally important, the Indalex ruling dealt a blow to the insurance industry’s continual efforts to win overbroad expansion of the rulings in Kvaerner Metals Div. of Kvaerner U.S., Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., Millers Capital Ins. Co. v. Gambone Bros. Dev. Co., and Erie Ins. Exchange v. Abbott Furnace Co., which found that claims of faulty workmanship in some circumstances may not constitute coverage-triggering ‘occurrences.’”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Follow Up on Continental Western v. Shay Construction
March 28, 2012 —
Brady Iandiorio, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCWriting in Construction Law Colorado, Brady Iandiorio revisits the case Continental Western v. Shay Construction. He promises to continue to follow cases dealing with Colorado HB 10-1394.
Recently the Court ruled on two Motions to Reconsider filed by Defendants Milender White and Shay Construction.
Procedurally, the Motions to Reconsider were ruled on by the Honorable William J. Martinez, because the day after the motions were filed the action was reassigned to Judge Martinez. In the short analysis of the Motion to Reconsider, the court leaned on Judge Walker D. Miller’s ruling on the summary judgment and his analysis of the (j)(5) and (j)(6) exclusions.
As a quick refresher regarding the grant of summary judgment, Judge Miller agreed with Continental Western’s argument that the asserted claims were excluded under the “damage to property” exclusion. The policy’s exclusions state: “(j) Damage to Property . . . (5) that particular part of real property on which you or any contractors or subcontractors working directly or indirectly on your behalf are performing operations, if the ‘property damage’ arises out of those operations; or (6) that particular part of any property that must be restored, repaired or replaced because ‘your work’ was incorrectly performed on it.” Judge Miller found that both exclusions (j)(5) and (6) applied to both Shay’s allegedly defective work.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Brady Iandiorio of Higgins, Hopkins, McClain & Roswell, LLC. Mr. Iandiorio can be contacted at iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Teaching An Old Dog New Tricks: The Spearin Doctrine and Design-Build Projects
October 30, 2018 —
John Castro - Gordon & Rees Construction Law BlogThe United States District Court for the Southern District of California has now held that the Spearin doctrine applies to design-build subcontractors where the subcontractor is expected to design a portion of their work. The case is United States for the use and benefit of Bonita Pipeline, Inc., et al. v. Balfour Beatty Construction, LLC, et al. (“Bonita Pipeline”) (Case No. 3:16-cv-00983-H-AGS).
In Bonita Pipeline, a subcontractor sued the general contractor and its sureties alleging breach of contract, breach of implied warranty, declaratory relief, and recovery under the Miller Act. The subcontractor then filed a motion for partial summary judgment against the general contractor on its declaratory relief cause of action, seeking a finding that the general contractor could not shift legal responsibility for its defective plans and specifications to the subcontractor.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John Castro, Gordon & Rees Scully MansukhaniMr. Castro may be contacted at
jcastro@grsm.com
Why A.I. Isn’t Going to Replace Lawyers Anytime Soon
April 18, 2023 —
Amir Kahana - Kahana FeldIn a recent article entitled, “A.I. Is Coming for Lawyers, Again” the New York Times explored the longstanding idea that the legal profession is most at risk of being disrupted by A.I. The article claimed that: “There are warnings that ChatGPT-style software, with its humanlike language fluency, could take over much of legal work.” And that: “Law is seen as the lucrative profession perhaps most at risk from the recent advance in A.I. because lawyers are essentially word merchants.”
The problem with these predictions is that they are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what lawyers do, which is primarily to provide sound advice and formulate sophisticated strategy. All the wordsmithing in the world won’t make a bad case good, or vice versa. Lawyers do not have a Jedi mind trick. We analyze the facts, we make the best arguments possible under the circumstances, we advise our clients on their prospects, and we come up with a strategy for an optimal outcome, which almost always includes a path towards settlement. We are strategists and trusted advisors. Not wordsmithers.
This is not anything ChatGPT or current A.I. can do, or even come close to doing. And how do I know that? Because in a recent Wall Street Journal article, experts on self-driving cars explain that A.I. is nowhere close to being able to drive a car autonomously. In an article entitled “When Will Cars Be Fully Self-Driving?” the experts explain that the main impediment to fully autonomous vehicles is how dumb A.I. is. As one of the leading experts explains, fully autonomous cars “would require human-level artificial intelligence, and there is no commonly accepted theory on how to get there. As long as there is no human-level AI, autonomous mobility will be limited.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Amir Kahana, Kahana FeldMr. Kahana may be contacted at
akahana@kahanafeld.com
Supreme Court of Kentucky Holds Plaintiff Can Recover for Stigma Damages in Addition to Repair Costs Resulting From Property Damage
August 15, 2018 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn Muncie v. Wiesemann, 2018 K.Y. LEXIS 257, the Supreme Court of Kentucky considered whether stigma damages[1] in a property casualty case are recoverable in addition to the costs incurred to remediate the actual damage. The court held that stigma damages are recoverable in addition to repair costs, but the total of the stigma damages and repair costs cannot exceed the diminution in the fair market value of the property. The court’s decision establishes that if the repair costs are insufficient to make the plaintiff whole, a recovery for stigma damages up to the amount of the diminution in the market value of the home is appropriate.
Appellants Cindy and Jim Muncie incurred significant property damage to their home as a result of an oil leak originating from a neighboring property owned by the Estate of Martha Magel. In 2011, Auto Owners Insurance Company (Auto Owners), the liability carrier for the Estate’s testatrix, Patricia Weisman, filed an impleader complaint in federal court to discharge its obligation to settle the third-party liability claims on behalf of Ms. Weisman. Auto Owners reached a settlement with the Muncies for $60,000 which represented the remediation costs for the actual damage to the property. The settlement release reserved the Muncies’ right to pursue a claim for stigma damages associated with the oil leak.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and Williams LLPMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
Surviving a Tornado – How to Navigate Insurance Claims in the Wake of the Recent Connecticut Storm
May 24, 2018 —
Geoffrey Miller - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Five minutes after I parked my car, a tree fell on it.
On Tuesday, May 15th I pulled into my driveway, in my small Connecticut neighborhood, under a grey sky. As soon as I walked in the house, the lights flickered. And then suddenly there was a loud “Crack!” and “Crash!” and the sound of breaking glass. I looked out the window and trees were bent 90 degrees, then snapping, and then flying up instead of falling down.
As quickly as it came, it passed. When I stepped outside, my first thought was that my car has seen better days.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Geoffrey Miller, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Miller may be contacted at
gjm@sdvlaw.com
