Follow Up on Continental Western v. Shay Construction
March 28, 2012 —
Brady Iandiorio, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCWriting in Construction Law Colorado, Brady Iandiorio revisits the case Continental Western v. Shay Construction. He promises to continue to follow cases dealing with Colorado HB 10-1394.
Recently the Court ruled on two Motions to Reconsider filed by Defendants Milender White and Shay Construction.
Procedurally, the Motions to Reconsider were ruled on by the Honorable William J. Martinez, because the day after the motions were filed the action was reassigned to Judge Martinez. In the short analysis of the Motion to Reconsider, the court leaned on Judge Walker D. Miller’s ruling on the summary judgment and his analysis of the (j)(5) and (j)(6) exclusions.
As a quick refresher regarding the grant of summary judgment, Judge Miller agreed with Continental Western’s argument that the asserted claims were excluded under the “damage to property” exclusion. The policy’s exclusions state: “(j) Damage to Property . . . (5) that particular part of real property on which you or any contractors or subcontractors working directly or indirectly on your behalf are performing operations, if the ‘property damage’ arises out of those operations; or (6) that particular part of any property that must be restored, repaired or replaced because ‘your work’ was incorrectly performed on it.” Judge Miller found that both exclusions (j)(5) and (6) applied to both Shay’s allegedly defective work.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Brady Iandiorio of Higgins, Hopkins, McClain & Roswell, LLC. Mr. Iandiorio can be contacted at iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Were Quake Standards Illegally Altered for PG&E Nuclear Power Plant?
October 29, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAn environmental group has brought a lawsuit alleging that “[f]ederal regulators secretly and illegally revised the license for California’s last nuclear power facility — PG&E’s Diablo Canyon — to mask the aging plant’s vulnerability to earthquakes,” according to SF Gate.
Friends of the Earth’s “suit claims that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Pacific Gas and Electric Co. last year changed a key element of the plant’s license related to seismic safety without allowing public input as required by law — or even notifying the public at all.”
However, spokesman Blair Jones claimed that “Friends of the Earth continues to mischaracterize the facts regarding seismic safety at Diablo Canyon. The facts are Diablo Canyon was built with earthquake safety at the forefront, is a seismically safe facility, and is in compliance with NRC licensing requirements.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Reporting Requirements for Architects under California Business and Professions Code Section 5588
December 22, 2019 —
Jordan Golden - Gordon & Rees Construction Law BlogBelow is an overview of the changes to California Business and Professions Code Section 5588 and its effect on the reporting requirements, for architects, in the construction industry.
Section 5588 Prior to 2005 Legislative Changes
Section 5588 of the California Business and Professions Code sets forth the reporting requirements for many business professionals including architects. Since 1979, Section 5588 has required architects and their insurers to report to the California Architect Board (the Board) “any settlement or arbitration award in excess of five thousand dollars ($ 5,000) of a claim or action for damages caused by the license holder’s fraud, deceit, negligence, incompetency, or recklessness in practice.”1
The language of the code section left open for interpretation the question of what types of settlement claims must be reported to the Board. Thus, in 2004, the Attorney General of the State of California published an opinion stating that a reportable settlement includes “any agreement resolving all or part of a demand for money which is based upon an insured architect’s alleged wrongful conduct.”2 He then went on to conclude that the only qualifications placed on the term “claim” for purposes of Section 5588 is that “(1) the demand be premised on the license holder’s alleged ‘fraud, deceit, negligence, incompetency, or recklessness in practice,’ and (2) the value of the claim, as measured by the settlement amount or arbitration award, exceeds $5,000.”3
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jordan Golden, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
Construction Litigation Roundup: “Tear Down This Wall!”
September 06, 2023 —
Daniel Lund III - LexologyIf you enter a contract to do that in Louisiana, you had better have Louisiana contractor’s license!
It is now axiomatic in Louisiana that when a Louisiana contractor’s license is required, the contract for work performed by an unlicensed contractor is an “absolute nullity,” such that the contract is deemed never to have existed. While Louisiana does not prohibit (as would be the case in certain other states) that contractor from quantum meruit/unjust enrichment recovery, who wants to rely on those noncontractual bases for recovery?
After any hurricane in Louisiana, out-of-state contractors swoop in. In the case of a water mitigation company from Texas working on a property that was water damaged by Hurricane Ida, the customer refused to pay for services rendered and then defended against payment by urging that work performed by the mitigation firm required a Louisiana contractor’s license – which the mitigation firm lacked.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
Construction Contract Clauses Only a Grinch Would Love – Part 4
November 30, 2016 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogScope, time and cost provisions may be the most important clauses in your construction contract but they’re not the only ones which can impact your bottom line. The fourth and final part in a multi-part series, here are some other important construction contract clauses that can put a damper on your holidays.
Provision: Warranty Provisions
- Typical Provision: “Subcontractor warrants to Contractor that all materials and equipment furnished shall be new unless otherwise specified and that all Work performed shall be performed in a good and workmanlike manner, of good quality and free from defects, and in conformance with industry standards, manufacturer’s recommendations and the Contract Documents. All work not conforming to these requirements, including substitutions not properly approved, shall be considered defective. Subcontractor agrees to promptly make good any and all defects due to faulty workmanship, materials and/or equipment which may appear within the Contract Documents, and if no such period is stipulated in the Contract, then for a period of one year from the date of acceptance by the Owner. Nothing herein shall shorten or limit any applicable periods of limitations including, but not limited to, those set forth in Civil Code, Part 2, Title 2, Chapter 3.”
- What it Means: Warranty periods are subject to the agreement of the parties. However, warranties are different than limitations periods, such as California’s 4 year statute of repose for patent defects and 10 year statute of repose for latent defects (note: a statute of repose is different than a statute of limitation. A statute of repose sets a deadline based on an event. So, for example, under the 10 year statute of repose for latent defects a claimant must bring a latent defect claim within 10 years following substantial completion even if the latent defect wasn’t discovered until 10 years and 1 month following substantial completion. A statute of limitation, in contrast, sets a deadline based on the occurrence of an injury or damage. So, for example, California has a 2 year statute of limitation for personal injuries, which sets a deadline of 2 years from the date of injury to bring a personal injury claim). Warranty periods are also different from limitations periods because most warranties require work to be corrected at no cost, and because many contracts include attorney’s fee provisions, breach of a warranty can give rise to claim for attorney’s fees as well.
- What You Can Do: Lower-tiered parties should examine warranty provisions to see if they are reasonable, and if not reasonable, should seek to either eliminate or limit those provisions, such as by reducing the warranty period or providing different warranty periods for different components of work, etc.
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
Expert Medical Science Causation Testimony Improperly Excluded under Daubert; ID of Sole Cause of Medical Condition Not Required
April 15, 2014 —
R. Bryan Martin & Whitney L. Stefko - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPOn April 4, 2014, in Messick v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Defendant Pharmaceutical Corporation because the district court improperly excluded expert testimony. The three-judge panel held that the district court erred by excluding causation testimony offered by Plaintiff's expert it found to be irrelevant and unreliable.
Plaintiff was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2000. In response to her development of osteoporosis after chemotherapy, Plaintiff treated with the drug Zometa for several months in 2002. Zometa is a bisphosphonate, a class of drug commonly used to treat multiple myeloma. Such drugs are generally used to reduce or eliminate the possibility of skeletal-related degeneration and injuries to which cancer patients are particularly susceptible. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation produces Zometa, which was approved by the FDA in 2001 and 2002. In 2005 after encountering issues with her jaw, it was discovered that Plaintiff had osteonecrosis near three of her teeth. The oral specialists treating Plaintiff did so under the assumption that she was suffering from bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw ("BRONJ"), a condition recognized by the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons ("AAOMS"). Plaintiff's BRONJ healed in 2008 - three years after beginning treatment.
Thereafter, Plaintiff brought suit against Novartis for strict products liability, negligent manufacture, negligent failure to warn, breach of express and implied warranty, and loss of consortium. In support of her claims, Plaintiff offered her expert's testimony on ONJ and BRONJ, and on the causal link between plaintiff's bisphosphonate treatment and later development of BRONJ. Novartis filed a Daubert motion to exclude the specific causation testimony of Plaintiff's experts and a motion seeking summary judgment. The district court granted both motions on the basis that Plaintiff's expert testimony was irrelevant and unreliable.
Reprinted courtesy of
R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Whitney L. Stefko, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Ms. Stefko may be contacted at wstefko@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Is Privity of Contract with the Owner a Requirement of a Valid Mechanic’s Lien? Not for GC’s
July 05, 2021 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsAs any reader of this construction law blog knows, mechanic’s liens make up much of the discussion here at Construction Law Musings. A recent case out of Fairfax County, Virginia examined the question of whether contractual privity between the general contractor and owner of the property at issue is necessary. As a reminder, in most situations, for a contract claim to be made, the claimant has to have a direct contract (privity) with the entity it sues. Further, for a subcontractor to have a valid mechanic’s lien it would have to have privity with the general contractor or with the Owner.
The Fairfax case, The Barber of Seville, Inc. v. Bironco, Inc., examined the question of whether contractual privity is necessary between the general contractor and the Owner. In Bironco, the claimant, Bironco, performed certain improvements for a barbershop pursuant to a contract executed by the two owners of the Plaintiff. We wouldn’t have the case here at Musings if Bironco had been paid in full. Bironco then recorded a lien against the leasehold interest of The Barber of Seville, Inc., the entity holding the lease. The Plaintiff filed an action seeking to have the lien declared invalid because Brionco had privity of contract with the individuals that executed the contract, but not directly with the corporate entity.
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
Idaho Supreme Court Address Water Exclusion in Commercial Property Exclusion
March 09, 2020 —
James M. Eastham - Traub LiebermanIn ABK, LLC v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 2019 WL 7046393 (Idaho Dec. 23, 2019) an insured gas station owner sued its property insurance carrier for breach of contract and bad faith after the carrier denied coverage for loss caused by water contamination of the insured’s underground storage tanks. Mid-Century had denied coverage because the underground storage tanks were damaged by water -- which was an excluded peril under the policy. Mid-Century issued Business Owners Special Property Coverage to the insured which provided all-risk coverage for physical loss or damage. The policy contained a number of exclusionary provisions including a water exclusion which provided that the policy did not pay for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by:
- Flood, surface water, waves, tides, tidal waves, overflow or any body of water, or their spray, all whether driven by wind or not; ...
- Water under the ground surface pressing on, or flowing or seeping through:
- Foundations, walls, floors or paved surfaces:
- Basements, whether paved or not; or
- Doors, windows or other openings.
In upholding the District Court’s ruling in favor of Mid-Century, the Idaho Supreme Court held that a clear reading of the unambiguous policy provides damage caused by surface water or water under the ground when flowing or seeping through other openings is excluded from coverage.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James M. Eastham, Traub LiebermanMr. Eastham may be contacted at
jeastham@tlsslaw.com
