Former Superintendent Sentenced in Rhode Island Tainted Fill Case
July 05, 2023 —
James Leggate - Engineering News-RecordA federal judge sentenced a contractor’s former superintendent June 20 for misleading officials about the source of fill and quality of contaminated fill used on the $410 million Route 6/10 interchange project in Rhode Island.
Reprinted courtesy of
James Leggate, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Cybersecurity on Your Project: Why Not Follow National Security Strategy?
August 28, 2018 —
Rick Erickson - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogIn its recent Cybersecurity Strategy, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) defined “cyberspace” as “the independent network of information technology infrastructure, including the Internet, telecommunications networks, computers, information and communications systems, and embedded processors and controllers.” To DHS, protecting cyberspace includes threats against “federal and nonfederal information systems.” In other words, both private and public interests are at risk. In his 2018 National Defense Strategy, U.S. Department of Defense Secretary, Jim Mattis, essentially concurred in declaring cyberspace a “warfighting domain” and promising to “invest in cyber defense, resilience, and the continued integration of cyber capabilities into the full spectrum of military operations.”
The construction industry is a key player in cybersecurity because contractors, designers and owners are responsible for building and delivering projects providing critical public services like national defense, health care, law enforcement, transportation, and utilities. Like any business reckoning with risks in cyberspace, moreover, everyone on a construction project has valuable data and confidentialities to protect. Cyber breaches on a project may also compromise electrical power, physical safety and, inevitably, a lot more than the critical path schedule and profit margins. Cybersecurity insurance is not very affordable or comprehensive, either, and it usually excludes any property damage or bodily injury resulting from a cyber event.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rick Erickson, Snell & WilmerMr. Erickson may be contacted at
rerickson@swlaw.com
The California Legislature Passes SB 496 Limiting Design Professional Defense and Indemnity Obligations
November 21, 2017 —
Mark Himmelstein & Jenny Guzman – Newmeyer & Dillion LLPOriginally published by CDJ on June 15, 2017
Since 2008 when the California legislature limited subcontractor indemnity obligations, the design professional community has been shouting “what about us?” Well, the legislature finally responded and a new law that limits design professional’s defense and indemnity obligations to their percentage of fault goes into effect on January 1, 2018.
THE NEW LAW – SB 496
SB 496 amends California Civil Code section 2782.8 and states that indemnity agreements must be limited to the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the indemnitee (i.e. no more Type I indemnity with design professionals). The amendment also provides that “in no event shall the cost to defend charged to the design professional exceed the design professional’s proportionate percentage of fault”, with a limited opportunity for reallocation in the event another defendant is judgment proof.
However, the duty to defend still remains and still arises at the time of the tender of the defense (both issues that were unsuccessfully targeted by the design professional lobbyists).
Reprinted courtesy of
Mark Himmelstein, Newmeyer & Dillion LLP and
Jenny Guzman, Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
Mr. Price may be contacted at mark.himmelstein@ndlf.com
Ms. Zucker may be contacted at jenny.guzman@ndlf.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (05/11/22)
May 30, 2022 —
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogThe supply of homes for sale is on the uptick, the White House releases a plan to improve the permitting process for infrastructure projects, cryptocurrency opens the door to a new class of property owners, and more.
- Though the number of active listings is still down 67% from pre-pandemic levels, the supply of homes for sale is finally showing signs of improvement. (Diana Olick, CNBC)
- Large corporations and institutional investors are flocking to buy digital real estate, with parcels being bought faster than they can be created. (Dan Patterson, CBS News)
- London-based company, Admix, has been purchasing real estate in various Metaverse platforms and leasing them to companies interested in becoming involved in the online virtual space. (Nate Berg, Fast Company)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team
Formal Opinion No. 2020-203: How A Lawyer Is to Handle Access to Client Confidential Information and Anticipation of Potential Security Issues
December 07, 2020 —
Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPRecently, the California Bar Association (“CBA”) published Formal Opinion No. 2020-203[1] concerning a lawyer’s ethical obligations with respect to unauthorized access to electronically stored client information. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic greatly accelerated the growing trend of storing and maintaining data and information online so that employees and clients can access the data from anywhere in the world at any time. Now, in today’s working world, the reality is nearly all information and data is stored and shared digitally online for ease of access, use, and dissemination.
Unfortunately, a major draw-back of this switch to a cyber paradigm is serious exposure to data breaches as a result of hacking, inadvertence, or theft. Formal Opinion No. 2020-203 outlines how a lawyer is to handle access to client confidential information and anticipation of potential security issues. This article will briefly cover the key aspects addressed in Formal Opinion No. 2020-203.
What is the duty owed by a lawyer to his or her client regarding the use of technology?
At the outset, the CBA reminds lawyers of the ongoing duty of competence (Rule 1.1) and the duty to safeguard clients’ confidences and secrets (Rule 1.6; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6068(e)) which impose the requirement that a lawyer must have a basic understanding of the risks posed when using a given technology and (if necessary) obtain help from appropriate experts to assess those risks and take reasonable steps to prevent data breaches.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Significant Victory for the Building Industry: Liberty Mutual is Rejected Once Again, This Time by the Third Appellate District in Holding SB800 is the Exclusive Remedy
December 15, 2016 —
Richard H. Glucksman & Ravi R. Mehta – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Bulletin I. Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court (Certified for Publication, Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016
The California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District recently elaborated on the scope of the Right to Repair Act, commonly known as SB-800 (“Act”). In
Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (Kevin Hicks, et al.) (certified for publication, Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016), the Court considered whether the Act (and specifically the Act’s pre-litigation procedure) applies, when homeowners plead construction defect claims based only on common law causes of action, as opposed to violations of the building standards set forth in the Act (
Civil Code §896). The Court answered this question affirmatively.
The homeowners of seventeen (17) single-family homes filed a Complaint against the builder of their homes, Elliott Homes, Inc. (“Elliott”), alleging common law causes of action for construction defects. Elliott filed a motion to stay the litigation on the ground that the homeowners failed to comply with the pre-litigation procedure set forth in the Act. The trial court denied the motion, agreeing with the homeowners that this pre-litigation procedure did not apply because the homeowners had not alleged a statutory violation of the Act. Elliott appealed. The Court of Appeal purely considered the question of whether the Act, including its pre-litigation procedure, applies when a homeowner pleads construction defect claims based on common law causes of action, and not on statutory violations of the Act’s building standards.
To answer this question, the Court analyzed a recent case decided by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District:
Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98. In this subrogation case, a builder’s insurer asserted common law causes of action (but not statutory building standard violations) alleging construction defects against the builder to recover amounts paid to the homeowner after a sprinkler system failure caused extensive damage to the subject property. The trial court sustained the builder’s demurrer to the Complaint on the ground that it was time-barred under the Act. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order, holding that common law construction defect claims arising from actual damages are not covered by the Act because “the Act does not provide the exclusive remedy in cases where actual damage has occurred.” (
Liberty Mutual, 219 Cal.App.4th 98, 109).
The
Elliott Court declined to follow
Liberty Mutual, finding that that Court failed to properly analyze the language of the Act. The
Elliott Court analyzed both the statutory scheme and the legislative history of the Act to arrive at the conclusion that common law causes of action for construction defects do indeed fall within the purview of the Act.
According to the
Elliott Court, the Act “broadly applies to
any action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in…residential construction and in such an action, a homeowner’s claims or causes of action shall be limited to violation of the standards set forth in the Act, except as specified.” Further, the Act expressly provides that “no other cause of action for a claim covered by this title or for damages recoverable under Section 944 is allowed.”
Civil Code §943(a). In turn,
Civil Code §944 allows for a recovery for the cost of repairing a building standard violation, or for the cost of repairing any damage caused by such a violation, among other things.
The limited exceptions to the Act’s applicability concern the enforcement of a contract, or any action for fraud, personal injury, or violation of a statute. Civil Code §943(a). Additionally, the Act does not apply to condominium conversions. Civil Code §896.
The Elliott Court explains that apart from these exceptions, the Legislature intended the Act to apply to all construction defect claims (regardless of damage) relating to the construction of residential properties whose sales contracts are signed after January 1, 2003. There is no exception in the Act, express or implied, for common law causes of action.
Next, the Court turns to the Act’s legislative history to buttress this conclusion. This history makes clear that the Act is a legislative response to the California Supreme Court’s holding in
Aas v. Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal.4th 627, that construction defects in residential properties are only actionable in tort when actual property damage manifests. Senate Judiciary Committee hearings indicate that the Act was the product of protracted negotiations between varying interested parties, including construction industry trade groups and consumer protection groups. The Legislature intended (1) to promulgate building standards, violations of which would be actionable, even without damage, and (2) to allow homeowners to recover for actual damage caused by construction defects not covered by the building standards. In other words, the Act was intended to provide homeowners redress regardless of whether damage had manifested.
Therefore, the Court concluded that common law causes of action for construction defects, regardless of damage, are subject to the pre-litigation procedure set forth in the Act. The Court issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its earlier order, and to enter a new order granting Elliott’s motion to stay the litigation until the homeowners (and Elliott) have satisfied the pre-litigation procedure of the Act.
II. McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132
Similar to the Third Appellate District Court’s ruling in
Elliott, the Fifth Appellate District Court also rejected the holding of
Liberty Mutual in a matter now pending before the California Supreme Court:
McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132 (review granted and opinion superseded sub nom.
Albany v. Superior Court 360 P.3d 1022). Also similar to
Elliott, in
McMillin a group of homeowners filed common law construction defect claims against the builder of their homes. The builder,
McMillin, moved to stay the litigation pending compliance with the Act’s pre-litigation procedure. The trial court denied the motion, holding that the Act does not apply because the homeowners have not asserted statutory building standard violations contained within the Act.
In reasoning substantially similar to that of
Elliott, the
McMillin Court rejected Liberty Mutual’s holding that the Act is not the exclusive remedy for pursuing construction defect claims, with or without damage. Thus, the
McMillin Court issued a writ of mandate to vacate the trial court’s earlier order and to enter a new order granting McMillin’s motion to stay.
On November 24, 2015, the California Supreme Court granted the homeowners’ petition for review. In August of 2016, briefing was completed and the matter is now awaiting the scheduling of arguments. CGDRB will continue to closely monitor the pending appeal of this matter to the California Supreme Court, as well as all related developments.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Ravi R. Mehta, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Mehta may be contacted at rmehta@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Forecast Sunny for Solar Contractors in California
June 06, 2018 —
Amy Pierce - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogOn May 9, the California Energy Commission announced that it has “adopted building standards that require solar photovoltaic systems starting in 2020.” The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are expected to “reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an amount equivalent to taking 115,000 fossil fuel cars off the road.” California will be the first in the nation to require solar. The new standards take effect on January 1, 2020.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Amy L. Pierce, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLPMs. Pierce may be contacted at
amy.pierce@pillsburylaw.com
Safeguarding the U.S. Construction Industry from Unfair Competition Abroad
November 07, 2022 —
Ric Macchiaroli - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogIn April 2015, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issued an exclusion order prohibiting the importation of certain foreign-made crawler cranes into the United States for a period of at least 10 years. That order was the result of a 20-month investigation by the ITC, initiated by a Wisconsin-based crane manufacturer based on allegations of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation by a China-based company. Defined by powerful injunctive remedies, unique rules, and a lightning-fast docket, the ITC can help protect American industry from unfair acts in the importation of articles into the United States. This post explores the traits that make the ITC an attractive venue for potential complainants.
ITC Site Plan
The ITC is a specialized trade court located in Washington, D.C., that has broad authority to investigate and remedy unfair trade practices. One of the ITC’s primary functions is to conduct unfair import investigations, also known as “section 337” investigations, after the authorizing statute. A section 337 investigation can be instituted based on any number of unfair acts, including, but not limited to, patent infringement (utility and design), registered and common law trademark infringement, copyright infringement (including violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act), trade dress infringement, and trade secret misappropriation. Business torts such as passing off, false advertising, and tortious interference with business relations have also formed the bases of investigations.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ric Macchiaroli, PillsburyMr. Macchiaroli may be contacted at
ric.macchiaroli@pillsburylaw.com
