Preliminary Notices: Common Avoidable But Fatal Mistakes
August 26, 2019 —
William L. Porter - Porter Law GroupIn the California building and construction industry, service of a “Preliminary Notice” is a prerequisite for Subcontractor and Supplier claims for payment through the Mechanics Lien, Stop Payment Notice and Payment Bond Claim process. Without proper drafting and service of a Preliminary Notice, these extremely valuable claims cannot be protected. Unfortunately, despite the vital importance of the Preliminary Notice, Subcontractors and Suppliers often make common self-defeating mistakes that make their Preliminary Notice efforts completely ineffective, resulting in loss of their claims rights. The purpose of this article is to list some of these common mistakes in the hope that the reader will avoid such mistakes, preserve the integrity of the Preliminary Notice, and protect the claims rights it makes available:
Not Sending out the Preliminary Notice Within 20 Days After Supplying Labor or Materials:
The protection of a Preliminary Notice begins 20 days before it sent out. This means that if a Subcontractor or Supplier claimant delivered $100,000 in materials on February 1, that same claimant must serve the Preliminary Notice on or before February 21 (the sooner the better), or the claimant will not be able to pursue an enforceable Mechanics Lien, Stop Payment Notice or Payment Bond claim for that $100,000. There are very few exceptions. Best practice: A Subcontractor or Supplier must send out the Preliminary Notice as soon as an agreement to provide work or materials to a California construction project is in place (See California Civil Code 8204).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Porter, Porter Law GroupMr. Porter may be contacted at
bporter@porterlaw.com
Insurer in Bad Faith For Refusing to Commit to Appraisal
October 08, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe court denied State Farm's motion for summary judgment on the insured homeowners' bad faith claim for State Farm's failure to agree to an appraisal. Currie v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 2014 WL 4081051 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 19, 2014).
Superstorm Sandy caused a tree to crash in the insureds' home. The loss was reported to State Farm. The State Farm adjuster verbally quoted the roof replacement at more than $100,000. State Farm eventually paid $60,000 for the roof replacement. The insureds' adjuster estimated the loss at $363,804.98.
The insureds demanded an appraisal. State Farm rejected the demand because the claim involved certain items for which State Farm did not admit liability, including damage to the interior hardwood floors. State Farm contended that since the dispute went beyond the amount of loss, an appraisal was not an appropriate method of resolution.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Cameron Pledges to Double Starter Homes to Boost Supply
March 05, 2015 —
Svenja O’Donnell – Bloomberg(Bloomberg) -- Prime Minister David Cameron pledged to double the number of homes built for first-time buyers by the end of the next parliamentary term in a bid to tackle Britain’s housing shortage.
In a speech in Colchester, Essex, on Monday setting out the final part of his Tory party’s six-point campaign platform for the May 7 election, Cameron said 200,000 properties will be built by 2020 under his starter-homes plan. Prices of the homes, only available to first-time buyers under the age of 40, will be capped at 450,000 pounds ($692,000) in London and 250,000 pounds outside the capital. Reduced planning constraints will make it easier for developers to cut building costs, allowing the homes to be sold at a 20 percent discount.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Svenja O’Donnell, BloombergMs. O’Donnell may be contacted at
sodonnell@bloomberg.net
A Subcontractor’s Perspective On California’s Recent Changes to Indemnity Provisions
September 10, 2014 —
William M. Kaufman – Construction Lawyers BlogGreat news for California subcontractors and suppliers! “Type I” Indemnity provisions in California construction contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2013 are not enforceable. This change in the law prevents owners and general contractors from shifting enormous exposure and costs of litigation downstream to the little guy, namely subcontractors and suppliers. In October 2011, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 474 into law, which represented a major legislative victory for subcontractors and suppliers. The new law also imposed exacting limitations on contractors that attempt to require their subcontractors and suppliers to cover their defense fees and costs in litigation.
New Law Prevents Indemnity or Cost of Defense for Active Negligence
Under a "Type I" indemnity provision, the downstream subcontractor agrees to indemnify the owner or contractor, even against liability caused by the upstream owner/contractor's own "active negligence." A “Type I” indemnity provision in general contractors’ subcontracts often require their subcontractors to defend and indemnify them from liability regardless of whether the general contractor is partially at fault. Subcontractors and suppliers historically have complained that they have little bargaining power when entering into these contracts and these types of provisions can result in ruinous liability for those in the construction industry that are most vulnerable-subcontractors and suppliers. Before this change, the law allowed a general contractor who is 99 percent at fault for an injury or damage to shift the entire risk to a subcontractor who is only one percent at-fault or a subcontractor who is not at fault at all, but tangentially involved in the claim. Subcontractors and suppliers joined forces and lobbied the legislature. The legislature and Governor Brown agreed. Under the new law, such "Type I" indemnity provisions will no longer be enforceable. SB 474 adds Civil Code section 2782.05 that precludes indemnity where the party to be indemnified is "actively negligent" and makes void and unenforceable these types of clauses.
Reprinted courtesy of
William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP
Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Five-Step Protocol to Reopening a Business
August 03, 2020 —
Amy R. Patton & Rana Ayazi - Payne & FearsOver the past few months, guidance on how to create a safer, low-risk workplace has frequently changed. Fortunately, the state of California has finally reached a point where comprehensive and concrete advice is now available.
On June 24, 2020, the California Statewide Industry Guidance to Reduce Risk website was updated. In addition to providing industry-specific guidance and opening checklists for approximately 40 different industries, the website now unambiguously requires all businesses—regardless of which “phase” they reopen—to follow a five-step protocol (as described in greater detail throughout this article):
- Perform a detailed risk assessment and create a site-specific protection plan.
- Train employees on how to limit the spread of COVID-19. This includes how to screen themselves for symptoms and when to stay home.
- Set up individual control measures and screenings.
- Put disinfection protocols in place.
- Establish physical distancing guidelines
Reprinted courtesy of
Amy R. Patton, Payne & Fears and
Rana Ayazi, Payne & Fears
Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com
Ms. Ayazi may be contacted at ra@paynefears.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Congratulations to San Diego Partner Alex Giannetto and Senior Associate Michael Ibach on Settling a Case 3 Weeks Into a 5-Week Trial!
April 15, 2024 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPPartner Alex Giannetto and Senior Associate Michael Ibach of BWB&O’s San Diego office started a trial in San Diego set to last at least five weeks. Plaintiffs alleged causes of action of negligence, trespass and nuisance against BWB&O’s client, arguing the owner/property manager did not properly handle alleged overwatering of the front yard, allegedly resulting in a landslide impacting 8 homes on a City slope in Carlsbad. Cross-Complainant City alleged independent negligence to fix the slope it owned and controlled as well as various indemnity-based causes of action against BWB&O’s client. Plaintiffs claimed over $24 million in damages, while Cross-Complainant placed sole blame for the incident on BWB&O’s client around $6 million.
Heading into trial, it was made clear that neither Plaintiffs nor Cross-Complainant would accept anything less than 7-figures to settle BWB&O’s client out of the case. In the first week of trial, BWB&O was able to leverage motions in limine, opening statements, and cross-examinations to secure a dismissal of three of the four causes of action alleged by Plaintiff that were associated with pain & suffering. In the second week of trial, BWB&O secured a dismissal of Cross-Complainant’s negligence cause of action paving the way for a settlement with Plaintiffs. Leveraging the threat of a non-suit when Plaintiffs rested, BWB&O secured resolution of Plaintiffs’ complaint for a fraction of what had previously been sought. Finally, BWB&O was able to secure a dismissal of the remaining indemnity-based causes of action in the cross-complaint and fully extract the client from the matter.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
BHA Has a Nice Swing: Firm Supports NCHV and Final Salute at 2017 WCC Seminar
May 03, 2017 —
CDJ STAFFBert L. Howe & Associates (BHA) is excited to announce the return of their very popular Sink a Putt for Charity at the 2017
West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar. This year, participant’s efforts on the green will help benefit both the
National Coalition for Homeless Vets and
Final Salute. As in years past, sink a putt in the BHA golf challenge and win a $25 Amazon gift card, and for every successful putt made, BHA will make a $25 cash donation in the golfer’s name to be distributed equally between these two worthy organizations.
While at the booth, don’t forget to test out BHA’s industry leading data collection and inspection analysis systems. BHA has recently added video overviews to their data collection process, as well as next-day viewing of inspection data via their secured BHA Client Access Portal. Discover meaningful cost improvements that translate to reduced billing while providing superior accuracy and credibility. Also learn about BHA’s expanding market presence and full range of services in Texas, Florida, and across the Southeast United States.
Attendees can also enter to win Dodger baseball tickets or a new iPad Pro! Other BHA giveaways include USB charging blocks, pocket tape measures, multi-tools, LED flashlights, and foam stress balls.
For more information on the National Coalition for Homeless Vets, please visit: http://nchv.org/
To learn more about how Final Salute provides homeless women Veterans with safe and suitable housing, please visit: http://www.finalsaluteinc.org/
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New York State Trial Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage” for Asbestos Claims and Other Coverage Issues
January 21, 2019 —
Paul Briganti - White and WilliamsOn November 21, 2018, the New York Supreme Court, Onondaga County, issued a summary-judgment ruling on a number of coverage issues arising from asbestos-related bodily injury claims against plaintiffs Carrier Corporation (Carrier) and Elliott Company (Elliott). See Carrier Corp., et al. v. Travelers Indem. Co., et al., Index No. 2005-EG-7032 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 21, 2018).
First, the court held that under New York’s “injury in fact trigger of coverage,” injury occurs from the first date of exposure to asbestos through death or the filing of suit. The court primarily relied on: (1) New York federal court decisions and the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in In re Viking Pump, Inc., 148 A.3d 633 (Del. 2016) holding that injury continues from first exposure through death or the assertion of a claim; and (2) medical and scientific evidence that the plaintiffs had submitted in support of their motion. The court specifically declined to follow Continental Cas. v. Wausau, 60 A.D.3d 128 (1st Dep’t 2008) (Keasbey), in which the New York Appellate Division found a question of fact whether injury occurs from exposure to asbestos through manifestation and that summary judgment was therefore inappropriate. The Carrier court stated that Keasbey was distinguishable because it “involved operations coverage, a non-product claim, and thus the [Keasbey] Court required a more stringent proof of injury in fact than is necessary here, in a products case.” Carrier, op. at 8. The Carrier court was also dismissive of affidavits offered by the defendant-insurer’s medical experts, finding that the affidavits did not create an issue of fact. See Op. at 2-9.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Paul Briganti, White and WilliamsMr. Briganti may be contacted at
brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com
