What You Need to Know About Home Improvement Contracts
July 30, 2019 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogGiven the variety of problems that can arise on a construction project, from defects to delays, it’s difficult to draft a construction contract that addresses every possible problem exactly right. However, so long as you adequately address the “big three” of scope, price and time, it’s also difficult to draft a construction contract wrong.
That is, with one exception.
And that one exception, in California, is home improvement contracts. In 2004, the California State Legislature enacted the state’s Home Improvement Business statute (Bus. & Prof. Code §§7150 et seq.). Section 7159 of the statute sets forth what must be included in home improvement contracts.
It’s a section that could have been written by Felix Unger of the Odd Couple. In addition to setting forth required language that must be included in a home improvement contract, it directs where that language is to be set forth in a home improvement contract, and even how it is to be presented, down to type sizes.
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
Bankruptcy on a Construction Project: Coronavirus Edition
May 25, 2020 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogExperts are warning of a wave of bankruptcies in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. In some industries, such as the hard hit retail sector, that rising tide has already begun as J. Crew and Neiman Marcus filed for bankruptcy protection this past week.
While the federal government’s stimulus package, including the $660 billion Paycheck Protection Program which is part of the larger 2.2 trillion CARES Act, may help to stem the tide of bankruptcies, Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings increased 26% in April over the same period last year.
How the pandemic will impact the construction industry is uncertain. Anecdotally, we’ve been hearing from clients that some project owners are stalling projects that are still in the planning stages as they evaluate the situation, which suggests long term impacts that can be ridden out rather than short term impacts that can devastate on-going construction projects.
Nevertheless, with 24-7 coverage of the pandemic, project owners, contractors, material suppliers, and equipment lessors are understandably concerned with the impact a bankruptcy might have on a construction project. So, here’s a primer on bankruptcies on a construction project.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Free Texas MCLE Seminar at BHA Houston June 13th
May 29, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThere are just two weeks remaining to sign up for Bert L. Howe & Associate’s next Texas MCLE seminar, THE RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION PROCESS & CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LITIGATION.
This activity will be presented on Friday, June 13th at noon, at BHA’s Houston offices, located at:
800 Town & Country Blvd.
Suite 300
Houston, TX 77024
There is no cost for attendance at this seminar and lunch will be provided.
This course has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of Texas Committee on MCLE in the amount of 1.0 credit hours, of which 0.0 credit hours will apply to legal ethics/professional responsibility credit. The seminar will be presented by Don MacGregor, general contractor and project manager.
Water intrusion through doors, windows and roofing systems, as well as soil and foundation-related movement, and the resultant damage associated therewith, are the triggering effects for the vast majority of homeowner complaints today and serve as the basis for most residential construction defect litigation. The graphic and animation-supported workshop/lecture activity will focus on the residential construction process from site preparation through occupancy, an examination of associated damages most often encountered when investigating construction defect claims, and the inter-relationships between the developer, general contractor, sub trades and design professionals. Typical plaintiff homeowner/HOA expert allegations will be examined in connection with those building components most frequently associated with construction defect and claims litigation.
The workshop will examine:
*Typical construction materials, and terminology associated with residential construction
*The installation process and sequencing of major construction elements, including interrelationship with other building assemblies
*The parties (subcontractors) typically associated with major construction assemblies and components
*An analysis of exposure/allocation to responsible parties.
Attendance at THE RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION PROCESS & CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LITIGATION seminar will provide the attendee with:
*A greater understanding of the terms and conditions encountered when dealing with common construction defect issues
*A greater understanding of contractual scopes of work encountered when reviewing construction contract documents
*The ability to identify, both quickly and accurately, potentially responsible parties
*An understanding of damages most often associated with construction defects, as well as a greater ability to identify conditions triggering coverage
Course #: 901290467 / Sponsor #: 14152. To register for the event, please email Don MacGregor at dmac@berthowe.com. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Don at (800) 482-1822 (office) or (714) 713-4956 (cell).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Developer’s Fraudulent Statements Are His Responsibility Alone in Construction Defect Case
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Texas Court of Appeals ruled on December 21 in the case of Helm v Kingston, a construction defect case. After purchasing what was described as “an extremely well-built” two-bedroom townhouse, Mr. Kingston made complaints of construction defects. Greenway Development did not repair the defects to Kingston’s satisfaction, and he filed notice of suit. In his suit, he claimed that GDI and its president, John Helm, had committed fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Kingston claimed that Helm “fraudulently induced Kingston to believe that the townhouse evidenced the highest quality of workmanship when in fact the quality of workmanship was atrocious.” Helms brought a counterclaim that Kingston’s suit was frivolous.
About four years after Kingston purchased the townhome, the suit proceeded to trial. The trial court determined that Helm was not “liable in his individual capacity,” but this was reversed at appeal.
A second trial was held ten years later on the question of whether Kingston’s unit was a townhome or an apartment. A jury found that Helm “engaged in a false, misleading or deceptive act or practice that Kingston relied on to his detriment.” Kingston was awarded $75,862.29 and an additional $95,000 in attorney fees by the jury. Helms made an unsuccessful appeal to the Appeals Court, after which Kingston was awarded an additional $10,000. Helms then made an unsuccessful appeal to the Texas Supreme Court, which lead to an additional $3,000 for Kingston. There was also a verdict of $48,770.09 in pre-judgment interest and “five percent post-judgment interest accruing from the date of the judgment until the time the judgment is paid. Helm appealed.
In his appeal, Helm raised seven issues, which the court reorganized into five Kingston raised one issue on cross-appeal.
Helms’ first claim was that Kingston “failed to satisfy the requirement of” Texas’s Residential Construction Liability Act and that by not filing under the RCLA, Kingston’s fraud and misrepresentation claims were preempted. Further Helms claimed that the RCLA limited Kingston’s damages. The court rejected this, as the RCLA deals with complaints made to a contractor and not only did Helm fail to “conclusively establish” his “status as a ‘contractor’ under the statutory definition,” Helm testified that he was “not a contactor” at the pre-trial hearing.
Helms’s second claim was that Kingston’s later claim of a misconstructed firewall should be barred, claiming that Kingston “‘had knowledge of a defect in the firewall’ as early as 1997 but did not assert them until 2007.” The court rejected this because Kingston’s claim was that “Helm ‘fraudulently induced Kingston to believe that the townhouse evidenced the highest quality of workmanship when in fact the quality of the workmanship was atrocious.’”
Helms also challenged whether his statements that the residence was of “good quality” constituted fraud and misrepresentation under Texas’s Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. The court concluded that Helm was in a position to make knowledgeable statements and further that “residential housing units are not artistic works for which quality is inherently a matter of subjective judgment.” Helm also claimed that Kingston could have avoided certain repair expenses through the “exercise of reasonable care.” Helms argued that the repairs could have been made for $6,400. The court disagreed, as these claims were cited only to invoke the DTPA, and that later petitions established additional defects.
Helms’s next claim was that he was not allowed to designate responsible third parties. The court rejected this because there GDI represented matters concerning the residence only through Helm’s statements. The court noted that “Helm is correct that?third parties may be liable for fraud if they ‘participated in the fraudulent transactions and reaped the benefits,’” but they note that “Helm never specifically alleged that GDI or CREIC participated in Helm’s alleged fraudulent transactions.
The final issue in the decision was about court costs, and here the court denied claims on both sides. Helm argued that the award of legal fees were excessive, as they exceeded the actual damages. The court noted that they “may not substitute our judgment for that of the jury,” and also that “the ratio between the actual damages awarded and the attorney’s fees is not a factor that determines the reasonableness of the fees.” But the court also rejected Kingston’s claim for post-judgment interest on $10,312.30 that Helm had deposited in the trial court’s registry. The court noted that the monies were to be paid out upon final judgment, but the mandate did not include any reference to interest.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gardeners in the City of the Future: An Interview with Eric Baczuk
July 08, 2019 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessI had the pleasure of interviewing Eric Baczuk, Designer at Google. We discuss his views on the future urban experience and design. We also touch on Sidewalk Labs of which Eric was a founding team member.
What are you working on currently?
I lead a design team imagining future of communication and thinking about possibilities for what–if anything–might replace the smartphone in our daily lives. What could be the next affordance or device that could offer us a more seamless interface with the digital world?
Can you be more specific about the interfaces?
It’s really just imagining a future with digital interfaces that might be a bit more natural and more humane than what is currently available. In many ways, I think the phone has monopolized social life. You see people standing on the street, for example, waiting for the bus, and 99 percent will have their noses glued to their phones. I think it’s quite anti-social, and in some ways, prevents the friendly, serendipitous encounters that used to be so characteristic of urban living.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
Can a Contractor be Liable to Second Buyers of Homes for Construction Defects?
November 05, 2014 —
Craig Martin - Construction Contractor AdvisorWhether a contractor will be liable to a second purchaser, even though the contractor never contracted with the second purchaser, varies state to state. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in Conway v. The Cutler Group, is the latest court to rule that a subsequent purchaser lacks privity and cannot pursue an action against the builder.
In that case, the Conways purchased a home from the original owner. After living in the home for about two years, the Conways discovered water leaking around the windows. The Conways sued the builder, alleging breach of the implied warranty of habitability.
The builder defended the claim, asserting that it had not contracted with the Conways and thus had not provided any warranties to the Conways. The trial court agreed and dismissed the claim. The first level of appellate court reversed the trial court, holding that the warranty of habitability was intended to level the playing field between the builder and purchaser of a home and it should be extended to subsequent purchasers. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court disagreed and refused to extend any warranties to subsequent purchasers.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
Construction Defect Specialist Joins Kansas City Firm
January 13, 2014 —
CDJ STAFFDavid Schatz, whose practice specializes in construction disputes and defects, has joined the Kansas City, Missouri firm Spencer Fane Britt & Brown LLP in their litigation practice group. Mr. Schatz’s expertise also includes banking and finance, banking litigation, commercial disputes, insurance, surety, employment, contract claims, and personal injury.
Pat Whalen, Chairman of Spencer Fane Britt & Brown, said that Schatz “brings great experience across a range of industries, but many of us in Kansas City are particularly pleased by his construction and general litigation credentials, which will fit will with the resources we’re building in those areas.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Clarifies Pennsylvania’s Strict Liability Standard
January 14, 2015 —
William Doerler and Edward Jaeger, Jr. – White and Williams LLPIn Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., -- A.3d --, 2014 WL 6474923 (Pa. Nov. 19, 2014), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania discussed the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s products liability law and, overturning prior precedent, clarified the law. In particular, the Court, overturned Azzarello v. Black Brothers Company, 480 Pa. 547, 391 A.2d 1020 (1978), clarified the role of the judge and the jury in products liability cases and settled the question of whether Pennsylvania would adopt the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability §§ 1, et. seq. (Third Restatement) as the standard for deciding Pennsylvania products liability cases. The Tincher decision makes clear that Pennsylvania will continue to apply § 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (Second Restatement) in products liability cases and that jurors, not the court, will decide the question of whether a product is in a defective condition. Plaintiffs may prove that a product is defective using either the consumer expectations test or the risk-utility test.
Background
The Tincher case arose out a fire that occurred at the home of Terrance and Judith Tincher on June 20, 2007. The Tinchers alleged that the fire started when a lightning strike near their home caused a small puncture in corrugated steel tubing (CSST) carrying natural gas to a fireplace located in their home. The defendant, Omega Flex, Inc. (Omega Flex) manufactured the CSST.
Reprinted courtesy of
William Doerler, White and Willams LLP and
Edward Jaeger, Jr., White and Williams LLP
Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Jaeger may be contacted at jaegere@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
