Implied Warranties for Infrastructure in Florida Construction Defect Claims
December 30, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe homeowners in the Lakeview development built by Maronda Homes in Orange County, Florida started having water and drainage problems shortly after the homeowners association took control of the community. They fought their case all the way to the Florida Supreme Court, where the question was whether implied warranties of fitness covered the community’s infrastructure.
William Martin III, writing on the DestinLog, notes that previous Florida Supreme Court decisions went the other way. In a case involving a seawall, the court held that “unless the seawall was part of or in connection with the construction of a home or in support of a residence.” In the Lakeview case, they determined that the community’s infrastructure was just that: “essential to the habitability of the residence.” The court specifically included roads for ingress and egress, drainage systems to divert flooding, retention ponds to correct water flow damage, and underground pipes which are necessary for living accommodations.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Preliminary Notice Is More Important Than Ever During COVID-19
June 01, 2020 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsFor this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Construction Law Musings, we welcome Justin Gitelman. Justin is the Content Coordinator at Levelset, where over 500,000 contractors and suppliers connect on a cloud-based platform to make payment processes stress-free. Levelset helps contractors and suppliers get payment under control, and sees a world where no one loses a night’s sleep over payment.
As the construction industry continues to adjust to the coronavirus and an uncertain future, contractors are struggling to get paid. During the COVID-19 pandemic, construction businesses across Virginia need to do everything they can to protect their payments, and get paid faster. One simple action that can help fight payment delays: sending preliminary notice on every job.
Subcontractors and suppliers should send preliminary notices out to the GC, project owner, and/or lender at the start of every single project. These tools allow contractors to make themselves visible on crowded job sites, helping contractors get paid more quickly, and, in some cases, securing their right to file a mechanics lien or bond claim.
Preliminary Notices in Construction
The purpose of a preliminary notice is to allow each member of a construction project to know who you are and what work you’ll be performing. With coronavirus in mind, contractors can use preliminary notices to remind the hiring party of their payment expectations. When you submit a preliminary notice on every project, you’ll have legal protection in your corner while also giving yourself a greater opportunity to get paid.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrissghill@constructionlawva.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
Can General Contractors Make Subcontractors Pay for OSHA Violations?
March 05, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorOSHA has long held the opinion that general contractors may be held liable for subcontractor’s OSHA violations and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, overseeing the Midwest, has agreed since 2009. To combat this risk, general contractors would be well served to incorporate targeted indemnity provisions into their subcontracts that require subcontractors to pay for all claims and costs associated with subcontractor caused OSHA violations.
OSHA’s Multi-Employer Policy
OSHA’s Multi-Employer Policy, a/k/a OSHA Instruction CPL 02-00-124, allows OSHA to cite multiple employers at a single worksite for creating a hazard, or for failing to prevent or correct a hazard, even if their own workers are not exposed to the hazard. A ‘‘controlling’’ or ‘‘correcting’’ employer is liable for hazards that it did not take ‘‘reasonable care’’ to detect and prevent.
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
Hawaii Supreme Court Construes Designated Premises Endorsement In Insured's Favor
April 01, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Hawaii Supreme Court held that a Designated Premises Endorsement provided coverage for injury and damage that occurred away from a listed location if the injury or damage arose out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the designated premises. C. Brewer and Co., Ltd. v. Marine Indemn. Ins. Co., 2015 Haw. LEXIS 62 (Haw. March 27, 2015). [Disclosure: our office represents C. Brewer].
The case involves coverage for the former owner (C. Brewer) of land under the Kaloko Reservoir. The Reservoir was fronted by an earthen dam. The Dam burst in March 2006, killing seven people and causing extensive property damage downstream.
In 1977, the State of Hawaii and C. Brewer entered an agreement requiring C. Brewer to, among other things, restore and expand the irrigation system that provided water to sugar cane fields in Kilauea, Kauai. C. Brewer formed the Kilauea Irrigation Company (KIC) to satisfy obligations to the State, revitalize the System, and sell System water to local farmers for irrigation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Holds that Nearly All Project Labor Agreements are Illegal
February 18, 2019 —
Wally Zimolong - Supplemental ConditionsIn what is nothing short of a monumental decision, on January 11, 2019, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court in Allan Myers L.P. v. Department of Transportation ruled that nearly all project labor agreements in Pennsylvania are illegal under the Commonwealth’s procurement code.
What are Project Labor Agreements?
In short, Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) are pre-hire agreements that set the working conditions for all employees of contractors working on a construction project. Typically, a PLA is entered into between an public or private construction project owner and certain local building trade unions. PLAs require the use of union labor that is to be hired exclusively through the hiring halls of the unions who are parties to the PLA. PLAs are controversial because, among other reasons, while not expressly excluding non-union contractors from performing work on the project, they require non-union firms to use union members instead of their regular employees.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLCMr. Zimolong may be contacted at
wally@zimolonglaw.com
Illinois Insureds are Contesting One Carrier's Universal Denial to Covid-19 Losses
May 11, 2020 —
Anna M. Perry - Saxe Doernberger & VitaIn response to the large number of COVID-19-related losses that businesses are experiencing, insurers have begun issuing statements informing their insureds of whether their policies will respond to the losses, and if so, what coverage will be afforded. Insurers cannot take a “one-size-fits-all” approach to the COVID-19 losses because, besides factual differences, the losses are occurring within all fifty states which means 50 different state law interpretations will apply.
Recently, on March 27, 2020, a number of restaurants and movie theaters located in and around Chicago (the “Insureds”) filed a declaratory judgement action, titled Big Onion Tavern Group, LLC et al. v. Society Insurance, Inc., against their property insurance carrier, Society Insurance, Inc. (“Society”), seeking coverage for business interruption resulting from the shutdown order issued by the governor of Illinois. The suit alleges that Society improperly denied their business interruption claims by using a boiler plate denial. The denial issued by Society is allegedly used for all COVID-19 losses regardless of the applicable jurisdiction’s interpretation of the policy language and the specific coverage purchased by the insured. Further, in its denial, Society takes the position that any loss related to a government-issued closure order is uncovered, even though the Insureds specifically purchased business interruption coverage and their policies did not contain an exclusion for losses caused by viruses.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & VitaMs. Perry may be contacted at
amp@sdvlaw.com
City of Aspen v. Burlingame Ranch II Condominium Owners Association: Clarifying the Application of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act
June 17, 2024 —
David McLain - Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCOn June 17, 2024, the Colorado Supreme Court delivered a significant opinion in the case of City of Aspen v. Burlingame Ranch II Condominium Owners Association (Case No. 22SC293). This decision provides crucial guidance on the interplay between the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (“CGIA”) and the economic loss rule in the context of construction defect claims.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a construction defect dispute between the City of Aspen, which served as the developer and declarant for the affordable housing condominiums at issue, and the Burlingame Ranch II Condominium Owners Association, the HOA created by Aspen to manage the association after the period of declarant control. The Association alleged that Aspen breached various warranties related to the construction of affordable housing units, leading to structural deficiencies. Aspen argued that the CGIA barred these claims because they could lie in tort.
The Lower Court’s Decision
The district court initially agreed with Aspen, holding that the Association’s claims sounded in tort and were therefore barred by the CGIA. The court relied on the principle that governmental immunity protects public entities from liability for claims that ‘lie in tort or could lie in tort,’ as established by the CGIA.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
