Ex-Corps Worker Pleads Guilty to Bribery on Afghan Contract
July 26, 2017 —
Tom Ichniowski - Engineering News-RecordA former Army Corps of Engineers contracting official has pleaded guilty to a federal charge that he took $320,000 in bribes from a contractor in exchange for help on a U.S. road contract in Afghanistan, the Dept. of Justice says.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tom Ichniowski, ENRMr. Ichniowski may be contacted at
ichniowskit@enr.com
Late Notice Bars Insured's Claim for Loss Caused by Hurricane
October 24, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court found that the failure to provide prompt notice of damage caused by Hurricane Irma barred plaintiff's claim for coverage. Garcia v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149312 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 18, 2022).
On September 10, 2017, plaintiff's property allegedly suffered damage due to Hurricane Irma. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff observed a water stain on the ceiling of the bedroom which was painted over. She did not take any pictures of the water stain before repainting. Plaintiff reported to her experts that she observed other water stains in various areas in 2017, 2018 and 2019, and that she painted over them each time. She again observed water stains in several rooms in 2020, at which time she became aware of the magnitude of the problem and went to an attorney. Plaintiff did not report her claim until May 27, 2020.
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
CSLB Joint Venture Licenses – Providing Contractors With The Means To Expand Their Businesses
April 28, 2016 —
David A. Harris – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPCalifornia’s Business and Professions Code requires contractors to be licensed by the Contractors State License Board (“CSLB”). The CSLB issues licenses in 44 different classifications which are separated into three categories: “A” licenses are for general engineering contractors, “B” licenses are for general building contractors, and “C” licenses are specialty licenses that cover everything from installing boilers to installing ornamental metal.
Performing construction work without a license or without the requisite license is a misdemeanor and can lead to the imposition of fines and in certain instances, jail time. (California’s Business and Professions Code Section 7028(a).) While potential imprisonment is unlikely, contractors are frequently fined, or prohibited from filing suit to collect money for their work. Perhaps most onerous, a contractor who is unlicensed, or working with a suspended license or the wrong license, can be forced to return all of the money it was paid for its work. (See our alert:Performing Work with a Suspended CSLB License Costs Big: Subcontractor Faces $18,000,000 Disgorgement.)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David A. Harris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPMr. Harris may be contacted at
dharris@hbblaw.com
Insurer’s “Failure to Cooperate” Defense
November 14, 2018 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThe “failure to cooperate” defense is a defense an insurer may raise when its insured fails to cooperate with it in the defense of the claim against the insured. If an insurer takes this position, it will typically be denying both defense and indemnification obligations, meaning the insured could be forfeiting coverage that otherwise exists through his/her/its failure to cooperate with the insurer. This defense by the insurer is not absolute as recently explained by the Fourth District in Barthelemy v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D2379a (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) discussing the elements of this failure to cooperate defense.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Construction Litigation Roundup: “That’s Not How I Read It”
June 05, 2023 —
Daniel Lund III - LexologyA general contractor seeking to litigate with its subcontractor concerning a construction project in Indiana found itself fighting in court against assertions by the sub that arbitration of the dispute was required.
The GC was already in litigation in federal court with the project owner. The GC filed a third-party demand against the sub, which was met with a motion to stay and to compel arbitration.
At the crux of the sub’s argument was this clause in its subcontract: “Subcontractor agrees that the dispute resolution provisions of the Prime Contract between [GC] and Owner, if any, are incorporated by reference as part of this Subcontract so as to be binding as to disputes between Subcontractor and [GC] that involve, in whole or in part, questions of fact and/or law that are common to any dispute between [GC] and Owner or others similarly bound to such dispute resolution procedures... ."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
Third Circuit Holds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Despite Insured’s Expectations
November 21, 2018 —
Brian Margolies - TLSS Insurance Law BlogIn its recent decision in Frederick Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hall, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31666 (3d Cir. Nov. 8, 2018), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit had occasion to consider Pennsylvania’s doctrine of reasonable expectations in the context of a faulty workmanship claim.
Hallstone procured a general liability policy from Frederick Mutual to insure its masonry operations. Notably, when purchasing the policy through an insurance broker, Hallstone’s principal stated that he wanted the “maximum” “soup to nuts” coverage for his company. Hallstone was later sued by a customer for alleged defects in its masonry work. While Frederick agreed to provide a defense, it also commenced a lawsuit seeking a judicial declaration that its policy excluded coverage for faulty workmanship. The district court agreed that the business risk exclusions applied, but nevertheless found in favor of Hallstone based on the argument that Hallstone had a reasonable expectation that when applying for an insurance policy affording “soup to nuts” coverage, it this would include coverage for faulty workmanship claims.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brian Margolies, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLPMr. Margolies may be contacted at
bmargolies@tlsslaw.com
Appeals Court Affirms Civil Engineer Owes No Duty of Care to General Contractor
August 20, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to Shareholder Karen Holmes and Law Clerk Justin Reid of Balestreri Potocki & Holmes, in Atlas-Allied v. SD Community College District, the California Court of Appeal “confirmed that a civil engineer owes no duty of care to the General Contractor absent privity of contract.” The Appellate court considered Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP to reach that conclusion.
Holmes and Reid commented that the Atlas-Allied decision “can assist in clarifying the extent liability is owed when no contract exists. Here, while unpublished, the 4th District clearly refused to extend a duty by the civil engineer to the general contractor on a public works project, giving counsel guidance on the application of Beacon and prior decisions on design professionals’ liability.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
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
