Defective Stairways can be considered a Patent Construction Defect in California
September 24, 2014 —
William M. Kaufman – Construction Lawyers BlogStairs are not safe! At least the Court of Appeal in the Second Appellate District of California doesn’t think so.
A rail station in Los Angeles was completed by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”) in 1993. The rail station was part of the development of the Southern California Rapid Transit District Metro Rail Project. In 2011, the plaintiff fell on a stairway at the station. In August 2012, Plaintiff sued the MTA for dangerous condition of public property, statutory liability, and negligence. Among other defects, plaintiff alleged the banister of the stairwell was “too low” and the stairwell “too small” given the number, age, and volume of people habitually entering and exiting the rail station. In addition, plaintiff alleged that MTA “failed to provide adequate safeguards against the known dangerous condition by, among other acts and omissions, failing to properly design, construct, supervise, inspect and repair the Premises causing the same to be unsafe and defective for its intended purposes.” MTA, in turn, cross-complained against Hampton- the entity that provided design and construction services at the station.
Hampton demurred to the first amended cross-complaint, asserting a four year statute of limitations defense pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 337.1, claiming the alleged deficiencies were patent defects. On September 11, 2013, the trial court overruled the demurrer finding that the defect was not patent. Hampton appealed.
The appellate court overruled the trial court’s ruling and in fact, granted Hampton’s writ of mandate and even directed the trial court to sustain the demurrer without leave to amend! (Delon Hampton & Associates v. Sup. Ct. (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority) (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 3; June 23, 2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 250, [173 Cal.Rptr.3d 407].)
The appellate court found that the purpose of section 337.1 is to “provide a final point of termination, to proctect some groups from extended liability.” A “patent deficiency” has been defined as a deficiency which is apparent by reasonable inspection. See Tomko Woll Group Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1326, 1336. The court found a patent defect can be discovery by the kind of inspection made in the exercise of ordinary care and prudence, whereas a latent defect is hidden and would not be discovered by a reasonably careful inspection. See Preston v. Goldman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 108, 123. The test to determine whether a construction defect is patent is an objective test that asks “whether the average consumer, during the course of a reasonable inspection, would discover the defect…” See Creekbridge Townhome Owners Assn., Inc. v. C. Scott Whitten, Inc. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 251, 256.
Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP
Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (5/29/24) – Megaprojects on the Rise, Agency Guidance for CRE, and an Upbeat Forecast for Commercial Real Estate Investment
June 21, 2024 —
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogIn our latest roundup, summer travelers seek alternative lodging options, purpose-built wellness real estate investments grow, bonds backed by CRE debt hit are hit with losses, and more!
- Across all property types, purpose-built wellness real estate investment has grown dramatically in recent years, including properties with wellness features as a focus. (Mary Salmonsen, Multifamily Dive)
- The travelers on the road this summer will have different demographics, budgets and reasons for travel and different preferences on accommodations, with more travelers opting for alternative housing options. (Noelle Mateer, Hotel Dive)
- Megaprojects are on the rise, with massive projects, from rail tunnels to computer chip factories, having myriad stakeholders and lengthy timelines that span political administrations. (Julie Strupp, Construction Dive)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team
SAFETY Act Part II: Levels of Protection
June 21, 2024 —
Lorelie S. Masters, Kevin W. Jones & Charlotte Leszinske - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogPart I of this series,
SAFETY Act is Powerful Protection Against Emerging Liabilities, addressed the benefits of obtaining SAFETY Act coverage, including:
- From a reputational perspective, SAFETY Act protection provides benefits even absent a security incident: it demonstrates that a knowledgeable federal agency has examined the relevant technology and determined that it is both safe and effective.
- SAFETY Act protection can benefit companies taking steps to enhance the security of their physical premises and operations, or their cybersecurity defenses, to reduce their potential liability and enhance their reputation.
- Other benefits include—depending on the level of protection—powerful liability protections including exclusive federal jurisdiction and choice of law for the venue where the incident occurred, caps on liability, prohibitions on punitive damages, and government contractor immunity.
This post will explain the levels of protection that a company can seek under the SAFETY Act.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth,
Kevin W. Jones, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Charlotte Leszinske, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Jones may be contacted at kjones@HuntonAK.com
Ms. Leszinske may be contacted at cleszinske@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Business Solutions Alert: Homeowners' Complaint for Breach of Loan Modification Agreement Can Proceed Past Pleading Stage
October 08, 2014 —
Krsto Mijanovic, Annette Mijanovic, Blythe Golay - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Fleet v. Bank of America, N.A. (No. G050049, published 9/23/14, filed 8/25/14), a California Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer of a lender, where the homeowners had adequately alleged causes of action for breach of contract, fraud, and promissory estoppel. The homeowners alleged that they made timely payments during the trial period plan under the modification program, but before the last payment was due, the lender foreclosed and their house was sold.
The homeowners had applied for a loan modification and were approved for a trial period plan under the modification program. They were required to make three monthly payments and verify financial hardship to permanently modify their loan. The homeowners made two payments and were told that foreclosure proceedings had been suspended. But before the third payment was due, the lender foreclosed. The trial court found that the trial period plan was not a binding loan modification agreement, so the homeowners had no right to any guaranteed loan modification.
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys
Krsto Mijanovic,
Annette Mijanovic and
Blythe Golay
Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com
Ms. Mijanovic may be contacted at amijanovic@hbblaw.com
Ms. Golay may be contacted at bgolay@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams Announces the Election of Five Lawyers to the Partnership and the Promotion of Five Associates to Counsel
February 16, 2016 —
White and Williams LLPWhite and Williams is proud to announce that Meredith Bieber, Eric Hermanson, Timothy Martin, Brian Tetro and Debra Weinrich have been elected to the partnership. The firm has also promoted Alan Charkey, Michael DiFebbo, William Doerler, Justin Fortescue and Stephen Milewski from associate to counsel.
The newly elected partners and promoted counsel represent the wide array of practices that White and Williams offers its clients, including construction, finance, healthcare, insurance coverage, product liability, real estate, reinsurance, and subrogation. These accomplished lawyers have earned this elevation based on their contributions to the firm and their practices.
“We are delighted to elect these five lawyers to the partnership and promote five exceptional associates to counsel. Those included in these promotions represent the breadth of services and the deep bench that we have to offer at White and Williams,” said Patti Santelle, Managing Partner of the firm. “The election of our new partners and promotion of our new counsel is a reflection of their success and dedication as well as the continued health of the firm.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams LLP
Seeking Better Peer Reviews After the FIU Bridge Collapse
September 16, 2019 —
Engineering News-RecordOn the surface, it seemed like an outrageous defensive move following a painful tragedy. Louis Berger Group has refused requests from the Dept. of Labor to hand over emails with FIGG Bridge Engineers about its peer review of the ill-fated Florida International University pedestrian bridge. The structure collapsed on March 15, 2018, killing six people and injuring several others.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Engineering News-RecordENR may be contacted at
ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
#5 CDJ Topic: David Belasco v. Gary Loren Wells et al. (2015) B254525
December 30, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFChapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys
Richard H. Glucksman,
Jon A. Turigliatto, and
David A. Napper analyzed the above mentioned Belasco case, in which “the Second District Court of Appeal made clear that settlement agreements containing waviers of unknown claims in connection with a construction of a property, absent fraud or misrepresentation, will be upheld.” Glucksman, et al. explained that “the homeowner plaintiff had made a claim against the builder pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 896 (“Right to Repair”) and settled for a cash payment and obtained a Release of all Claims including for all known and unknown claims. The court held that homeowner’s subsequent construction defect claim was barred pursuant to the terms and conditions of the earlier release.”
Read the full story...
In another article on the subject,
Edward A. Jaeger, Jr. and
William L. Doerler of
White and Williams LLP concluded, “The Court of Appeal’s holding establishes that, despite the prohibition against the release of unknown claims set forth in section 1524 and the protections provided to homeowners by the Right to Repair Act, California homeowners can, in fact, release or waive claims against homebuilders for future, latent construction defects. To release or waive such claims, the language of any settlement agreement should be unequivocal.”
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Third Circuit Holds That Duty to Indemnify "Follows" Duty to Defend
December 27, 2021 —
Jeffrey J. Vita - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.In a win for policyholders, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a District Court’s 2018 ruling, which held that the duty to indemnify follows the duty to defend where a settlement precludes a determination on the facts of the case relative to liability and apportionment.
In Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Penn National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co.,1 a large concrete panel collapsed and killed a construction worker at a construction site in New Kensington, Pennsylvania. Cost Company (“Cost”), Liberty Mutual’s insured, was a masonry subcontractor on the project and had further subcontracted with Pittsburgh Flexicore Co. (“Flexicore”), Penn National’s insured, for the concrete panels. Cost’s subcontract agreement required Flexicore to name Cost as an additional insured under its general liability policy issued by Penn National.
When the construction worker’s widow filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Cost and Flexicore, Cost demanded that Penn National defend and indemnify it as an additional insured under the policy. Penn National refused, arguing that any additional insured status had terminated at the conclusion of Flexicore’s work for Cost. As a result, Liberty Mutual defended Cost in the lawsuit, which was ultimately settled.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Vita may be contacted at
JVita@sdvlaw.com
