Firm Claims Construction Defects in Hawaiian Homes
December 04, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Los Angeles law firm Girardi Keese has filed a lawsuit representing 10,000 homeowners in Hawaii. The class action suit claims that construction defects have left the homes unable to withstand the island’s winds. Graham B. LippSmith, who represents the homeowners said that “we’re seeing some homes where the straps have cracked all the way through, so there’s nothing holding the frame to the foundation.” Mr. LippSmith said that the developer should have used anchor bolts instead of hurricane straps, but “that would have cost more money.”
Mr. LippSmith says that his goal is to get the homes fixed. “It doesn’t do any good to give someone $50,000 and tell them go have their home fixed when what the community needs is to be made safe for the residents.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Jobs Keep Rising, with April Gain of 33,000
June 10, 2019 —
Tom Ichniowski - Engineering News-RecordThe construction employment picture continues to brighten, as the industry gained 33,000 jobs in April and its jobless rate improved, the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics has reported.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tom Ichniowski, ENRMr. Ichniowski may be contacted at
ichniowskit@enr.com
The Right to Repair Act Means What it Says and Says What it Means
December 18, 2022 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogA rather short case for a short week.
In Gerlach v. K. Hovnanian’s Four Seasons at Beaumont, LLC, 82 Cal.App.5th 303 (2022), the 4th District Court of appeals examined provisions of the Right to Repair Act (Civ. Code §§895 et. seq), also known as “SB 800” after its original bill number, as it applies to roofs.
The Gerlach Case
Lynn Gerlach and Lola Seals are homeowners who purchased their homes in the Four Seasons at Beaumont adult community, for those 55 year old and older, located in Beaumont, California. Gerlach purchased her home when it was built in 2006. Seals purchased her home from the original owners in 2015.
In 2015 and 2016, Gerlach and Seals served the developer, K. Hovnanian’s Four Seasons at Beaumont, LLC, with claim notices under the Right to Repair Act. The Right to Repair Act, as its name implies, provides notice requirements and repair rights by developers of new single-family homes. The Right to Repair Act also includes construction standards, the violation of which, provides homeowners with a statutory basis for bringing construction defect claims.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
The Goldilocks Rule: Panel Rejects Proposed Insurer-Specific MDL Proceedings for Four Large Insurers, but Establishes MDL Proceeding for the Smallest
November 16, 2020 —
Eric B. Hermanson & Konrad R. Krebs - White and WilliamsIt is an outcome few people expected. Back in August, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (Panel) refused plaintiffs’ requests to set up a single industry-wide multi-district litigation, which would have consolidated — in a single massive proceeding — all federal lawsuits seeking COVID-related business interruption coverage from insurers. The Panel acknowledged common legal issues, and potential benefits of coordinated management, but it balanced those benefits against the numerous factual differences between policies, carriers, and insureds, and noted that “[t]hese differences will overwhelm any common factual questions.”
Then, after lengthy argument, the Panel ordered further briefing as to whether separate, company-specific MDL proceedings might be appropriate against five specific insurance carriers: specifically, the five carriers against whom the largest numbers of federal claims were pending.
By choosing these five carriers and not others for further argument, the Panel seemed to be suggesting a formula: the larger the carrier, and the greater the number of claims against it, the greater the potential benefit from coordinated management, and the stronger the plaintiffs’ case for pre-trial consolidation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Eric Hermanson, White and WilliamsMr. Hermanson may be contacted at
hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com
The Brexit Effect on the Construction Industry
June 30, 2016 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFNow that the United Kingdom (UK) has voted to leave the European Union (EU)—commonly known as ‘Brexit’—much discussion has arisen on how it will affect the construction industry both in the UK and globally.
Brexit could impact the U.S. housing market in various ways, some negative and some positive. For instance, the mortgage refinancing industry is poised to receive a “glut of applications due to low interest rates,” Construction Dive reported. It’s also possible that the U.S. will receive an influx of foreign investors who may perceive the UK as being too isolationist, making the U.S. seem “more open to global business,” according to the Detroit Free Press. They also pointed out that the vote has already impacted the U.S. housing market, since it is most likely the reason the Federal Reserve decided against raising interest rates in June.
Furthermore, Construction Dive presented two different views of how home buying may be effected. On the one hand, investors who lost money in the stock market may be less inclined or able to purchase property at this time. But on the other hand, if Brexit causes home prices to decline, it may “be a relief to those homebuyers finding it difficult to come up with a down payment, particularly first-timers who are facing limited starter-home inventory in addition to steep price tags.”
Barron’s does not seem to believe that the stock market decline due to Brexit will affect the U.S. building industry. The publication maintained their “relatively favorable view of the home builders” industry for the following reasons: “1) Healthy demand trends seen in our monthly survey of real-estate agents; 2) 100% U.S. exposure and tailwinds from lower mortgage rates; and 3) Generally undemanding valuations. However, we are somewhat balanced by: 1) Rates have already been favorable, limiting incremental buyer urgency; 2) Risk that continued market volatility or broader economic fallout could hurt housing fundamentals; and 3) Industry gross margins face pressure from rising land and labor costs. We forecast accelerating order growth through the fourth quarter, driven by community count growth and easier second-half comps, and think improving trends would be a positive catalyst.”
Less positive are the predictions for the UK construction industry. CNBC reported that migrant workers currently make up twelve percent of the UK construction force, and Brexit could cause the labor shortage to worsen. According to Global Construction, Brian Berry, Chief Executive of the Federation of Master Builders agreed that the industry needs migrant workers, however, he also stated that the UK needs to begin investing in their own “home-grown talent” through increasing apprenticeships.
Another prediction is that infrastructure projects may be adversely effected. For instance, the Independent reported that an anonymous source alleged that international investors have already begun to delay future infrastructure projects in the UK due to the uncertainty of the UK and the EU parting terms negotiation. Current projects may also be in jeopardy, according to the source, since the projects are often contingent upon existing shipping trade rules—if smaller ships can no longer go straight into Europe, it could be enough to halt these projects.
According to the Architects’ Journal, projects will stop—and they have evidence that one already has been halted: “Within minutes of the Brexit news, Daniel Minsky, who works with a boutique investment and development agency in London, was told that a proposed land deal had been pulled. The buyer withdrew at 7.05am this morning because they felt the residential value ‘was too risky.’”
The Architects’ Journal also predicted that environmentally friendly projects may decline since many of the green initiatives were governed by the EU under the Energy Performance in Buildings Directive. However, James Shackleton of Eversheds LLP disagreed with the assessment. Shackleton believes that Brexit may not result in less regulation, giving the following examples: “The Construction Design and Management Regulations 2015 which essentially enact EU Directive 1992/57/EEC and require certain minimum health and safety requirements in design and construction, are unlikely to be swept away.” Furthermore, the “Energy Performance of Buildings (Certificates and Inspections) (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 enacting EU Directive 2002/91/EC requiring Energy Performance Certificates for buildings is unlikely to be repealed,” Shackleton claimed.
Read the full story, Construction Dive…
Read the full story, Detroit Free Press…
Read the full story, Barron’s…
Read the full story, CNBC…
Read the full story, Global Construction…
Read the full story, Independent…
Read the full story, The Architects’ Journal…
Read the full story, Eversheds LLP (Lexology)…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Discussion of History of Construction Defect Litigation in California
September 10, 2014 —
William M. Kaufman – Construction Lawyers BlogCalifornia literally wrote the book on construction defect litigation. Construction defects began to surface after World War II due to cheap track homes being constructed haphazardly on a large scale. Throughout the 1960s, developers began utilizing the services of subcontractors to build massive developments. Rather than having their own employees perform the work, developers began relying more heavily on the specialty subcontractors to perform quality control functions. In 1969, the California Supreme Court expanded liability for developers with respect to residential housing through the concept of strict liability for mass produced homes. Strict liability defendants in construction defect cases may include builders of mass-produced homes, building site developers, component part manufacturers, and material suppliers. Courts have noted that there is little distinction between the “mass production and sale of homes and the mass production and sale of automobiles, and the pertinent overriding policy considerations are the same.” Kriegler v. Eichler Homes, Inc. (1969) 269 Cal. App. 2d 224, 227 (1969). Accordingly, developers of mass-produced tract homes may be held strictly liable whether or not there is privity of contract. Ibid. Courts have held, however, that there is no strict liability against contractors or sub-contractors. See Ranchwood Communities v. Jim Beat Construction (1996) 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 386; La Jolla Village Homeowners’ Assn., Inc. v. Superior Court (1989) 261 Cal.Rptr. 146. Within ten years, attorneys in California were using strict liability theories to seek compensation for homeowners. The initial strict liability lawsuits in California in the 70s and 80s generally applied to condominium projects. The Construction defect “industry” began to take off in the 1980s due to the housing boom and the enforcement of strict liability claims by the courts.
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
Floors Collapse at Russian University in St. Petersburg
February 27, 2019 —
The Associated Press - BloombergSt. Petersburg, Russia (AP) -- Part of the roof and several floors of university building in Russia's second-largest city collapsed Saturday, but officials say there were no casualties.
The Emergencies Ministry said the collapse at the Saint Petersburg National Research University of Information Technologies, Mechanics and Optics took place as construction work was underway. An investigation into criminal violation of construction safety has been opened.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Associated Press, Bloomberg
Understanding California’s Pure Comparative Negligence Law
November 13, 2023 —
Yaron Shaham - Kahana FeldIn order for a plaintiff to prove a defendant is negligent, the plaintiff must prove the defendant (1) owed a duty to plaintiff, (2) breached that duty, (3) the breach was the actual and proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury, and (4) the resulting monetary damage. However, for both plaintiffs and defendants it is not an all or nothing game in California. This is because California is a pure Comparative Negligence state.
California’s Comparative Negligence law provides that even if a plaintiff is deemed 99% at fault, the plaintiff can still recover 1% in damages from a defendant. Thus, even if a plaintiff is deemed to be more than 50% (or even 99%) at fault for the incident, the plaintiff could still recover some monetary amount, or the defendant will still have to pay plaintiff, depending on how you see it. In most instances, a jury decides what percentage of fault to assign to each party.
Just as a plaintiff must prove he/she/its negligence case against a defendant, if the defendant claims plaintiff was partially responsible for the incident, the defendant must prove plaintiff was also negligent and said negligence contributed to plaintiff’s injuries. The total amount of monetary responsibility distributed among all defendants and plaintiffs must equal 100%. As crazy as it may sound, a plaintiff found to be 99.9% at fault, is still entitled to recover 0.01% from a defendant in California.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Yaron Shaham, Kahana FeldMr. Shaham may be contacted at
yshaham@kahanafeld.com
