California Court of Appeal Holds a Tenant Owes No Duty to Protect a Social Guest From a Defective Sidewalk Leading to a Condominium Unit
May 22, 2023 —
Garrett A. Smee & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPOn May 5, 2023, the California First District Court of Appeal, Division One, issued an opinion in Moses v. Roger-McKeever (A164405), holding that a condominium tenant owes no duty to a social guest using a walkway that leads to the unit.
Eleanor Moses fell on a walkway outside a condo rented by Pascale Roger-McKeever. Moses would not have used the walkway but for Roger-McKeever’s invite to a small gathering for members of a political activist group. Upon entering the condo for the event that night, Moses brought to Roger-McKeever’s attention the poor lighting in the entryway. Roger-McKeever apologized, and stated that her landlord had delayed repairing the porch light. The accident supposedly happened on a short walkway that had three steps leading away from a street sidewalk. Supposedly, Moses tripped on the second step while leaving the social gathering because of the poor lighting.
Reprinted courtesy of
Garrett A. Smee, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and
Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel
Mr. Smee may be contacted at gsmee@hbblaw.com
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurer Has Duty to Defend Despite Construction Defects
January 06, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFIn a case the judge attributed to “shoddy masonry work,” the US District Court of Illinois has rendered a decision in AMCO Insurance Company v. Northern Heritage Builders. Northern Heritage built a home in Chicago for Michael McGrath (who joined Northern Heritage as a defendant). According to the decision, “seven months after he moved into the house, McGrath noticed water coming in the house and warped millwork.” This was attributed to porous block, installed by the mason with Northern Heritage’s knowledge.
McGrath sued National Heritage for both the damage to his house and its contents. The court rejected his claim for the contents. For the damages to his house, he was awarded $601,570.50 in damages. He also sued his homeowner’s insurance carrier for damages not covered in his suit against National Heritage. There he was awarded $1,130,680.16.
AMCO informed National Heritage that it had neither duty to defend nor duty to indemnify. The judge considered whether AMCO had a duty to defend. Under Illinois law, “damage to a construction project resulting from construction defects is not an ‘accident’ or ‘occurrence’ because it represents the natural and ordinary consequence of faulty construction.” However, it is noted that while if the defects lead only to damage to the project itself, there is no occurrence, “if the building owner asserts damages to other property besides the construction itself, there is an ‘occurrence’ and ‘property damage.’” The judge further noted that were construction defects an occurrence, “shoddy work” would be rewarded by double pay, once by the homeowner and a second time by the insurer. Judge Kendall concluded that as McGrath had alleged damage to the contents of his house, AMCO had a duty to defend National Heritage.
She then looked at the issue of whether AMCO had a duty to indemnify. Should they pay the $601,570.50? Judge Kendall noted that “the duty to indemnify is narrower than the duty to defend.” The key point here was that once McGrath’s insurance carrier covered him for the damage to the contents of his house, “AMCO’s duty to defend ended.” Once McGrath “only sought damages for the natural consequences of faulty workmanship” there was no occurrence, hence nothing for AMCO to cover.
Judge Kendall granted a summary dismissal of AMCO’s claim that they had no duty to defend while upholding their claim that they had no duty to indemnify.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Check The Boxes Regarding Contractual Conditions Precedent to Payment
August 21, 2023 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesRemember this: complying with contractual conditions precedent to payment is important. There is a reason why construction contracts include contractual conditions precedent to payment. The contract does not include this language for sh*ts and giggles. This language is included to establish what is required of the payee before payment becomes due. There may be conditions precedent to the payment of progress payments. There may be conditions precedent to the payment of final payment. Payment is not due until the conditions precedent have been satisfied. Do yourself a favor and consider this language in the construction contract, particularly if a dispute arises. If the condition precedent has not or cannot be satisfied, game plan as to the factual reason. The best thing to do is be prepared – check the boxes regarding conditions precedent to ensure you have considered this contractual language.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Waive Not, Want Not: Waivers and Releases on California Construction Projects
February 18, 2015 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogCalifornia is one of a handful of states (12 to be exact) which have statutory mandated waiver and release forms for construction projects.
So here’s what you need to know before you sign one (or two, or three).
What are California’s statutory waiver and release forms?
California has four statutory waiver and release forms for construction projects.
Which form applies depends on two things: (1) whether it is for progress payments or final payment; and (2) whether it is provided before or after you have been paid.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
Updated 3/13/20: Coronavirus is Here: What Does That Mean for Your Project and Your Business?
March 16, 2020 —
Alexander Gorelik, Joshua E. Holt, Brian N. Krulick, Shoshana E. Rothman, A. Michelle West, & Brian S. Wood - Smith CurrieThe outbreak of COVID-19 (“coronavirus”) has wreaked a considerable human toll of death, physical suffering, fear, and anxiety internationally. Much of the fear and anxiety results from a lack of information or a full understanding about the spread of the disease, protection against infection, and treatment. At Smith, Currie & Hancock, we urge our clients, friends, and colleagues to take seriously, but calmly and prudently, the threat of this disease to protect yourselves, your loved ones, and your businesses. The first step in that process is to inform yourselves with reliable information. Toward that end, we direct your attention to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Coronavirus Disease 2019 website: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html
In addition to the human toll, coronavirus has caused substantial disruptions to economies worldwide. In that regard, the adage “a picture is worth a thousand words,” is particularly foreboding. Satellite images taken by the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) of China at the outset of the coronavirus outbreak and approximately a month later show a dramatic decline in air pollution, signifying and illustrating a sharp decline in industrial activity and transportation caused by the disease.
Reprinted courtesy of Smith Currie attorneys
Alexander Gorelik,
Joshua E. Holt,
Brian N. Krulick,
Shoshana E. Rothman,
A. Michelle West, and
Brian S. Wood
Mr. Gorelik may be contacted at agorelik@smithcurrie.com
Mr. Holt may be contacted at jeholt@smithcurrie.com
Mr. Brian may be contacted at bnkrulick@smithcurrie.com
Ms. Shoshana may be contacted at serothman@smithcurrie.com
Ms. West may be contacted at amwest@smithcurrie.com
Mr. Wood may be contacted at bswood@smithcurrie.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Montrose III: Vertical Exhaustion Applies in Upper Layers of Excess Coverage
May 18, 2020 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Montrose Chemical Corp. of Cal. v. Superior Court (No. S244737, filed 4/6/20) (Montrose III), the California Supreme Court held that, as between excess insurers at differing levels of coverage, a rule of “vertical exhaustion” or “elective stacking” applies, whereby the insured may access any excess policy once it has exhausted other excess policies with lower attachment points in the same policy period. The Court limited the rule to excess insurance, stating that “[b]ecause the question is not presented here, we do not decide when or whether an insured may access excess policies before all primary insurance covering all relevant policy periods has been exhausted.”
Montrose manufactured the insecticide DDT in Torrance from 1947 to 1982. In 1990, the state and federal governments sued Montrose for environmental contamination and Montrose entered into partial consent decrees agreeing to pay for cleanup. Montrose claimed to have expended in excess of $100 million doing so, and asserted that its future liability could exceed that amount.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Differing Site Conditions Produce Differing Challenges
February 18, 2019 —
Sarah E. Carson - Smith CurrieThe saying “The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry” can too often apply in the construction industry. A contractor may receive a description of site conditions that is ultimately found flawed or misleading. The costs associated with addressing these surprise conditions often fall on the contractor to pay. The following article details proactive steps to avoid costly obstacles that may cause a project’s success to go awry.
What are Differing Site Conditions?
There are generally two recognized types of differing site conditions. The first, often referred to as a “Type I Changed Condition,” exists when a specification in the conditions indicated in the contract documents varies from what is represented. The second category, generally referred to as a “Type II Changed Condition,” is a variance so unusual in its nature that it materially differs from conditions ordinarily encountered in performing the type of work called for in the geographic area where the project is located.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sarah E. Carson, Smith CurrieMs. Carson may be contacted at
secarson@smithcurrie.com
More Fun with Indemnity and Construction Contracts!
June 04, 2024 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsWell, I’m back. It’s been quite a while since my last post due to some busy family times and running my law practice. Hopefully, you will hear from me more often in the future.
Now. . . on with the post:
I have often discussed indemnity provisions here at Construction Law Musings. I’ve posted on a range of things relating to indemnity from when those
sticky clauses are unenforceable to
what to look out for in such a clause when reviewing your construction contract. A recent case out of Fairfax examines another wrinkle in these indemnity clauses. In
Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, LLC v. Paramount Constr. Servs., LLC, the Court examined the language of a fairly typical indemnity clause in a construction contract.
The general facts of the case are as follows. The Plaintiff alleged that it owns the property at 6129 Leesburg Pike, that it entered into a contract with Paramount Construction Services LLC to install clothes washers and dryers in individual units at the property, and that, in the process, Paramount (or one of its subcontractors) negligently severed a water pipe, which caused significant damage to the property. The plaintiff’s property insurance carrier agreed to pay the plaintiff $2,598,918.41. But the actual damages exceeded that payment by $952,020.90. The plaintiff sued Paramount for $952,020, pursuant to an indemnity provision in the contract. Paramount demurred to the Complaint arguing that the indemnity clause did not apply to create liability for Paramount.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
