Editorial: Qatar Is Champion of Safety Hypocrisy in Migrant Worker Deaths
December 26, 2022 —
ENR Editorial Board - Engineering News-RecordOnce the World Cup soccer tournament concludes, decency dictates that someone should put a wrecking ball to Qatar’s Al Bayt and Lusail stadiums, where the opening ceremonies and matches were held. There’s no polite way to say it: bulldozing the World Cup sports facilities is the only way to amplify to the world the cost in migrant construction workers lives in all that was constructed.
Reprinted courtesy of
ENR Editorial Board, 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
School Board Sues Multiple Firms over Site Excavation Problem
February 12, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFA West Virginia school board has filed a lawsuit against four companies over the construction of the Lewisburg Elementary School. The main allegation is that Carpenter Reclamation Inc. excavated the site deeper than was called for, which then incurred greater expenses for the subsequent contractors, and further that the liner installed by Carpenter Reclamation was defective. The suit also names Western Surety, which issued a performance bond for Carpenter Reclamation.
The school board claims that Carpenter’s failure to fix the problem, required $5,800 in evaluation, review, and testing. Further, the plumbing and lead contractors had additional expenses of $10,587 and $212,645 because of the deeper foundation. The school board has also named these firms, Dougherty Company, Inc. and Swope Construction, in the lawsuit. Ron Mallory, the president of Swope Construction said that the school board’s dispute was “with the site contractor, not with us,” noting that they did corrective work under a change order.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurer Wrongfully Denies Coverage When Household Member Fails to Submit to EUO
May 06, 2024 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court determined that coverage for a loss by fire could not be denied when the insured's son failed to appear for a examination under oath (EUO). Adekola v. Allstate Vehicle & Prop. Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27125 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 16, 2024).
Plaintiff had a homeowners policy with Allstate. Plaintiff - Michele Adekola - was the named insured under the policy. After the fire, Allstate provided payments for temporary housing. Allstate requested examinations under oath of Plaintiff and her son, Nico. Plaintiff and her son were examined by Zoom. Allstate then sought to examine Plaintiff's other son, Lemmeco, but these efforts were unsuccessful.
Allstate then stopped paying for Plaintiff's temporary housing and informed Plaintiff that Lemmeco's failure to participate in an EUO was a material breach of duties under the policy and the breach was prejudicial to Allstate. Allstate further contended that Lemmeco had a duty to submit to an EUO.
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
Policing Those Subcontractors: It Might Take Extra Effort To Be An Additional Insured
June 14, 2011 —
Douglas Reiser, Builders Council BlogI just came across a case that I think truly paints the insurance dilemma for contractors. Thanks to this recent Illinois case, I don’t have to make up any factual scenarios—so kudos to Attorney Robert Boylan for posting it.
In reading over my RSS feeds this weekend, I noticed a great writeup on long-time blogger Josh Glazov’s Construction Law Today. Attorney Robert Boylan’s post describes a recent Illinois case where a general contractor was denied its additional insured status on a second-tier subcontractor’s insurance. The reason for the denial: the general contractor failed to procure an agreement in writing with the second-tier subcontractor, requiring it to be listed as an additional insured.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Google Advances Green Goal With AES Deal for Carbon-Free Power
May 17, 2021 —
Mark Chediak - BloombergGoogle’s moving forward with its goal of becoming carbon-free by the end of the decade after AES Corp. agreed to supply the tech giant with renewable energy to power its data centers in Virginia.
AES, an international electricity company and power-plant developer, said the deal will result in the construction of 500 megawatts of solar, wind, small-scale hydroelectric and battery storage projects and supply will begin later this year, according to a statement Tuesday. AES and third-party developers will own the facilities.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mark Chediak, Bloomberg
Solar Energy Isn’t Always Green
August 27, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFIEEE Spectrum reported that photovoltaics, used in Solar Energy, “varies substantially by technology and geography” and some emit chemical pollution. However, IEE Spectrum stated that “the industry could readily eliminate many of the damaging side effects that do exist.”
One challenge is that “nearly half the world’s photovoltaics are manufactured in China” who, according to IEEE Spectrum, “typically [does] the worst job of protecting the environment and their workers.”
It is also difficult for consumers to make choices based upon photovoltaic manufacturer practices, since solar energy doesn’t have a formal ecolabel like Energy Star, IEEE Spectrum reported.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Final Nail: Ongoing Repairs Do Not Toll the Statute of Repose
November 07, 2022 —
Kyle Rice - The Subrogation StrategistIn Venema v. Moser Builders, Inc., 2022 PA Super. 171, 2022 Pa. Super. LEXIS 414, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Superior Court) upheld an award of judgment on the pleadings from the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County (Trial Court). The Superior Court found that Pennsylvania’s 12-year Statute of Repose for improvements to real property (Statute of Repose) began to run upon the issuance of the certificate of occupancy following original construction of the home in 2003—not from the completion of repairs to the home that continued through 2008.
The underlying cause of action involved a home constructed by Moser Builders, Inc. (Moser) in 2003. The certificate of occupancy for the home was issued on August 13, 2003. Matthew Venema and Liza Squires (collectively, Venema) purchased the property from the original owners in 2004.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kyle Rice, White and WilliamsMr. Rice may be contacted at
ricek@whiteandwilliams.com
Gillotti v. Stewart (2017) 2017 WL 1488711 Rejects Liberty Mutual, Holding Once Again that the Right to Repair Act is the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims
June 05, 2017 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq. & Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq. - Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger BulletinBackground
In Gillotti v. Stewart (April 26, 2017) 2017 WL 1488711, which was ordered to be published on May 18, 2017, the defendant grading subcontractor added soil over tree roots to level the driveway on the plaintiff homeowner’s sloped lot. The homeowner sued the grading subcontractor under the California Right to Repair Act (Civil Code §§ 895, et seq.) claiming that the subcontractor’s work damaged the trees.
After the jury found the subcontractor was not negligent, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the subcontractor. The homeowner appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly construed the Right to Repair Act as barring a common law negligence theory against the subcontractor and erred in failing to follow Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98. The Third District Court of Appeal disagreed and affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the subcontractor.
Impact
This is the second time the Third District Court of Appeal has held that Liberty Mutual (discussed below) was wrongly decided and held that the Right to Repair Act is the exclusive remedy for construction defect claims. The decision follows its holding in Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court (Hicks) (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 333, in which the Court of Appeal held that the Right to Repair Act’s pre-litigation procedures apply when homeowners plead construction defect claims based on common law causes of action, as opposed to violations of the building standards set forth in the Right to Repair Act. Elliott is currently on hold at the California Supreme Court, pending the decision in McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132, wherein Liberty Mutual was rejected for the first time by the Fifth District. CGDRB continues to follow developments regarding the much anticipated McMillin decision closely, as well as all related matters.
Discussion
The Right to Repair Act makes contractors and subcontractors not involved in home sales liable for construction defects only if the homeowner proves they negligently cause the violation in whole or part (Civil Code §§ 911(b), 936). As such, the trial court in Gillotti instructed the jury on negligence with respect to the grading subcontractor. The jury found that while the construction did violate some of the Right to Repair’s building standards alleged by the homeowner, the subcontractor was not negligent in anyway. After the jury verdict, the trial court found in favor of the grading subcontractor.
The homeowner moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial on the grounds that the trial court improperly barred a common law negligence theory against the grading subcontractor. The trial court denied the motions on the grounds that “[t]he Right to Repair Act specifically provides that no other causes of action are allowed. See Civil Code § 943.” The trial court specifically noted that its decision conflicted with Liberty Mutual, in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the Right to Repair Act does not eliminate common law rights and remedies where actual damage has occurred, stating that Liberty Mutual was wrongly decided and that the Liberty Mutual court was naïve in its assumptions regarding the legislative history of the Right to Repair Act.
In Gillotti, the Third District Court of Appeal stated that the Liberty Mutual court failed to analyze the language of Civil Code § 896, which “clearly and unequivocally expresses the legislative intent that the Act apply to all action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in, residential construction, except as specifically set forth in the Act. The Act does not specifically except actions arising from actual damages. To the contrary, it authorizes recovery of damages, e.g., for ‘the reasonable cost of repairing and rectifying any damages resulting from the failure of the home to meet the standards....’ ([Civil Code] § 944).”
The Court also disagreed with Liberty Mutual’s view that because Civil Code §§ 931 and 943 acknowledge exceptions to the Right to Repair Act’s statutory remedies, the Act does not preclude common law claims for damages due to defects identified in the Act. The Court stated: “Neither list of exceptions, in section 943 or in section 931, includes common law causes of action such as negligence. If the Legislature had intended to make such a wide-ranging exception to the restrictive language of the first sentence of section 943, we would have expected it to do so expressly.”
Additionally, the Court of Appeal rejected the argument that Civil Code § 897 preserves a common law negligence claims for violation of standards not listed in Civil Code § 986. It explained that the section of Civil Code § 897, which provides, “The standards set forth in this chapter are intended to address every function or component of a structure,” expresses the legislative intent that the Right to Repair Act be all-encompassing. Anything inadvertently omitted is actionable under the Act if it causes damage. Any exceptions to the Act are made expressly through Civil Code §§ 931 and 934. The Court concluded in no uncertain terms that the Right to Repair Act precludes common law claims in cases for damages covered by the Act.
The homeowner further argued that she was not precluded from bringing a common law claim because a tree is not a “structure,” and therefore the alleged tree damage did not fall within the realm of the Right to Repair. The Court of Appeal also rejected this argument, holding that while the tree damage itself was not expressly covered, the act of adding soil to make the driveway level (which caused the damage) implicated the standards covered by the Right to Repair Act. The Court explained that since under the Act a “structure” includes “improvement located upon a lot or within a common area” (Civil Code § 895(a)), as the driveway was an improvement upon the lot, the claim was within the purview of the Right to Repair Act. As the soil, a component of the driveway, caused damage (to the trees), it was actionable under the Act.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Chelsea L. Zwart, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
