New York’s 2022 Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act: Significant Amendments to the C.P.L.R.
January 17, 2022 —
Ellen H. Greiper & Kristen Carroll - Lewis BrisboisNew York, N.Y. (January 4, 2022) - On December 31, 2021, New York State Governor Hochul signed into law the Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act.
The alleged justification for the act was to reduce the use of “delaying tactics” by compelling disclosure of the complete primary, excess, and umbrella policies implicated by the claim.
These amendments will be unduly onerous on both carriers and defense counsel—for a multitude of reasons. It imposes an obligation on the insurer to immediately identify excess policies, eroding policies, and other information or contracts that affect the available coverage.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ellen H. Greiper, Lewis Brisbois and
Kristen Carroll, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Greiper may be contacted at Ellen.Greiper@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Carroll may be contacted at Kristen.Carroll@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Supreme Court of New York Denies Motion in all but One Cause of Action in Kikirov v. 355 Realty Assoc., et al.
April 28, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFIn the construction defect suit Kikirov v. 355 Realty Associates, LLC, et al., the Supreme Court of the State of New York granted a dismissal of the plaintiff’s fourth cause of action, but denied the defendants’ motion in all other respects. The plaintiff alleged breach of contract, among other claims. “355 Realty was the sponsor of 355 Kings Highway Condominium, a condominium project located at 355 Kings Highway, in Brooklyn, New York. The condominium units were allegedly marketed as ‘ultra luxury condos,’ and a ‘Manhattan style condominium building,’ which would be the ‘epitome of luxury and quality.’ The construction of the six-story 28 unit residential condominium building began in approximately November 2003. […] Plaintiff entered into a purchase agreement, dated December 21, 2005, with 355 Realty (which was executed on behalf of 355 Realty by Michael Marino, as its member) for the purchase of Unit 2G in the building.”
The plaintiff alleged that construction defects emerged soon after moving into the unit: “After taking occupancy of his condominium unit, plaintiff allegedly experienced serious leakage and moisture problems in his unit, which caused a dangerous mold condition to develop, in addition to causing actual damage to the structural elements of his unit. According to plaintiff, the walls, moldings, and wood floors of his unit are constantly wet and moist, and there is severe buckling of the wood floors. Plaintiff claims that these problems have caused his unit to be uninhabitable. Plaintiff alleges that he has been forced to remove all of his personal belongings from his unit and has been unable to occupy his unit.”
According to the plaintiff, Foremost attempted to repair the defects, but only made the situation worse: “Specifically, plaintiff asserts that Foremost’s contractors opened his walls to remove the stained drywall, but never corrected the cause of the leaks, destroyed the walls, and never properly taped and painted the sheet rock. Plaintiff alleges that Foremost repaired the openings in a defective manner. Plaintiff also claims that his floor was repaired at that time by a subcontractor hired by Foremost, but the basic structural problem was never resolved and the leaks continued, compromising the beams and causing the mold conditions, in addition to all of the physical damage present in the unit. On or about July 16, 2009, plaintiff allegedly sent a notice of the defects to 355 Realty and to the managing agent designated by the condominium board, by certified mail, return receipt requested. Plaintiff asserts that defendants have failed and refused to repair and remedy the defective condition, and that the damage is extensive and requires major structural repairs.”
The plaintiff filed suit on May 4, 2010, and the original complaint asserted eight causes of action. “By decision and order dated September 13, 2010, the court granted a motion by defendants to dismiss plaintiff’s second cause of action for breach of implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, his third cause of action for breach of implied warranties, his fifth cause of action for negligence as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, his seventh cause of action for negligence as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ, and his eighth cause of action for violations of General Business Law § 349 and § 350, and granted plaintiff leave to replead his first cause of action for breach of contract as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, his fourth cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, and his sixth cause of action for breach of contract as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ.”
The plaintiff amended their complaint on October 18, 2010, and “has repleaded these three causes of action by asserting a first cause of action for breach of contract as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, a second cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, and a third cause of action for breach of contract as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ. In addition, plaintiff, in his amended complaint, has added a fourth cause of action for fraud.”
The defendants, on the other hand, “argue that each of the four causes of action alleged by plaintiff in his amended complaint fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and that plaintiff’s amended complaint must be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). Defendants also cite to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), and (5), asserting that dismissal is also required based upon documentary evidence and the Statute of Limitations contained in the limited warranty.” The defendants’ motion to dismiss the first cause of action, breach of contract against 355 Realty, was denied: “While defendants dispute that the alleged defects are actually structural in nature, plaintiff’s allegations as to their structural nature are sufficient, at this juncture, to withstand defendants’ motion to dismiss. Thus, dismissal of plaintiff’s first cause of action must be denied.”
Next, the court reviewed the second cause of action, which was breach of statutory warranties: “Defendants’ motion also seeks dismissal of plaintiff’s second cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, which alleges that, under applicable law, including General Business Law § 777-a, et seq., the sponsor warranted to purchasers of units that the units would be constructed in a skillful, careful, and workmanlike manner, consistent with proper design, engineering, and construction standards and practices, and free of material latent, design, and structural defects. Defendants argue that General Business Law § 777-a, known as the housing merchant implied warranty, is inapplicable to this case because it is limited to the construction of a ‘new home,’ defined in General Business Law § 777 (5) as ‘any single family house or for-sale unit in a multi-unit residential structure of five stories or less.’ As noted above, the building in which plaintiff’s condominium unit is located is a six-story building.”
The motion to dismiss the second cause of action is denied. The court provided this reasoning: “the full text of the offering plan has not been provided, the court is unable to examine the entire written agreement so as to determine the purpose of the inclusion of the text of General Business Law § 777.”
In the third cause of action, the plaintiff alleges “a breach of contract claim as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ based upon their contract with 355 Realty, pursuant to which they agreed to be the general contractors/construction managers for the condominium, to undertake oversight responsibility for the design and construction of the condominium, to prepare and/or review drawings, plans, and specifications for the condominium, and to otherwise manage and oversee the project. Plaintiff alleges that Vision, Foremost, and MMJ breached their contractual obligations in that the condominium units were improperly and inadequately designed and constructed, and completed in an incompetent and unworkmanlike manner, with material design and construction defects.”
The motion to dismiss the third cause of action was denied as well: “Plaintiff alleges, in his amended complaint, that Vision, Foremost, and MMJ have acknowledged notice of the defects and have not denied that they are responsible for providing a warranty to plaintiff. Plaintiff also refers to this warranty, in his amended complaint, by noting that paragraph 16 of the purchase agreement stated that the ‘[s]eller shall not be liable to . . . the [p]urchaser for any matter as to which an assignable warranty . . . has been assigned . . . to [p]urchaser and in such case the sole recourse of such . . . [p]urchaser . . . shall be against the warrantor . . . except that in the event a contractor or subcontractor is financially unable or refuses to perform its warranty . . . [s]eller shall not be excused from its obligations enumerated in the [offering p]lan under Rights and Obligations of Sponsor.’ Consequently, the court finds that dismissal of plaintiff’s third cause of action as against Foremost and MMJ must also be denied.”
In the fourth cause of action, the plaintiff alleges “that defendants made false statements and representations orally, in advertisements, and in the purchase agreement, that the condominium was properly and adequately designed and constructed and completed in a competent and workmanlike manner, in accordance with the condominium plans and specifications and proper design, engineering, and construction standards and practices consistent with applicable standards for a first class, luxury condominium in Brooklyn.”
The court dismissed the fourth cause of action stating, “it must be dismissed because it is duplicative of his first cause of action for breach of contract.” Therefore, “defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint is granted to the extent that it seeks dismissal of plaintiff’s fourth cause of action, and it is denied in all other respects.”
Read the court’s decision… Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Another Defect Found on the Bay Bridge: Water Leakage
February 11, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to the San Francisco Chronicle, the eastern span of the Bay Bridge has dealt with alleged “defective welds” and “cracked steel rods,” and now there are reports of leakage. The Chronicle stated that rainwater “is dripping into the steel structure beneath the road deck on the suspension stretch of the span, which,” according to Caltrans “is supposed to be watertight.”
Water corrosion on a bridge could cost $6.4 billion, the San Francisco Chronicle claimed. Caltrans said that they “are going to have teams of engineers and inspectors there this weekend to assess the problem.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Deescalating Hyper Escalation
July 05, 2023 —
Paul F. Williamson - Construction Executive Recent years have seen the construction industry get hit by a perfect storm of rising costs, workforce shortages, delivery delays, supply-chain issues, inflation, interest-rate hikes and materials price escalation. The cost of construction has become more expensive, leaving all parties to grapple with the sufficiency of their risk-management strategies and the ramifications of contracts that are ill-equipped to deal with unprecedented cost increases. Of particular concern to industry participants are the volatile price fluctuations that construction materials have undergone and how to appropriately mitigate the risks they present.
Although owners, general contractors and subcontractors may seek to mitigate future risks, many who are party to an existing contract all too often must scramble to divine how to absorb significantly more financial risk than they expected pre-pandemic. Contracts that were bid and entered into prior to the pandemic may have seen, in some instances, double- and triple-digit percent increases in prices due to hyper escalation, with little recourse to address such situations. While parties to private contracts are free to mitigate their risk through contract negotiations, parties to federal or state public procurements are somewhat more constrained.
Reprinted courtesy of
Paul F. Williamson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Giving Insurance Carrier Prompt Notice of Claim to Avoid “Untimely Notice” Defense
June 12, 2023 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen it comes to giving your insurance carrier notice of claim, I am an advocate of providing that notice as soon as possible, i.e., prompt notice. The reason is to take away the carrier’s argument to deny coverage because you, as the insured, failed to provide it with prompt notice—the “untimely notice” defense. It doesn’t matter whether it is a first party property insurance claim or third-party liability policy claim, provide notice as soon as reasonably possible to take away that “untimely notice” defense.
The “untimely notice” defense was the issue in Benson v. Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exchange, 48 Fla.L.Weekly D1085a (Fla. 6th DCA 2023) dealing with a first party property insurance policy. In this case, eighteen months after Hurricane Irma, the plaintiff noticed a smell and observed brown stains on walls and ceiling in his home. The plaintiff called roofing companies to inspect the damage and perform certain repairs. However, the plaintiff still noticed the smell so he called a company to test and remediate mold. The plaintiff, then, contacted his property insurer with numerous claims relative to the leaks and damage. Although there was an initial property insurance payment made, the carrier ultimately denied coverage for subsequent claims stating that “the late notice of the claim and the prior repairs to the roof substantially prejudiced its ability to complete an inspection of [plaintiff’s] property to evaluate the claim.” Benson, supra.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
When Is Mandatory Arbitration Not Mandatory?
August 19, 2015 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsI have discussed my views on mandatory mediation in construction contracts at other places here at Musings and also discussed how the contract is king here in Virginia. A recent Charlottesville, Virginia Circuit Court case combined these two concepts to allow a subcontractor to proceed straight to litigation despite various ADR provisions in the contract between it and the general contractor.
In ProBuild v. DPR & Continental Casualty, the Court looked at a series of ADR steps that were to be followed in the contract between the parties in order to allow DPR, the general contractor to require arbitration as opposed to litigation. The Court considered the surety’s motion to stay the litigation against it pending arbitration between ProBuild and DPR.
In ProBuild, the Court looked at a contractual provision that provided certain steps to be followed in the event of a dispute, starting with a notice of dispute, followed by negotiation, followed by mediation should the disputing party request it, and in the event that mediation was tried and failed, the disputing party or general contractor could require arbitration. The Court determined that ProBuild, the subcontractor, was the disputing party under the contract, had pursued unsuccessful formal negotiations and that neither ProBuild nor DPR requested mediation. The Court then held that because unsuccessful mediation was a prerequisite to required arbitration and because mediation was never pursued, the mandatory arbitration clause did not apply.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PCMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
SB800 CONFIRMED AS EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CLAIMS
January 24, 2018 —
Jeffrey Brower and Nathan Owens - Newmeyer & Dillion, LLPIn
McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App., Aug. 26, 2015) 2015 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9931 (“
McMillin”), the Fifth Appellate District Court of Appeal in California published a resounding win for builders, general contractors, and others entities seeking the protections of the Right to Repair Act, Civil Code sections 895, et seq. (“SB800”). The
McMillin Court firmly rejected the reasoning and outcome of both
Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98 (“
Liberty Mutual”) and
Burch v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1411 (“
Burch”), and held that:
the Legislature intended that all claims arising out of defects in residential construction, involving new residences sold on or after January 1, 2003 (§ 938), be subject to the standards and the requirements of the Act; the homeowner bringing such a claim must give notice to the builder and engage in the prelitigation procedures in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 4 of the Act prior to filing suit in court.
(
McMillin, Opinion, p. 15.) The
McMillin Court further held that even if the claimant’s counsel intentionally pleads around SB800 by asserting only tort causes of action, SB800 still applies to all defect claims and a stay of the action to require SB800 compliance is appropriate.
Newmeyer & Dillion has strongly supported builders’ efforts to enforce the Right to Repair Act since its inception. The firm filed an amicus brief in
McMillin on behalf of Leading Builders of America (“LBA”), an association of the leading residential homebuilders in the United States. For years, LBA members developed their warranty and dispute resolution procedures according to the Right to Repair Act and performed prelitigation repairs to the satisfaction of thousands of homeowners.
Liberty Mutual and
Burch undermined the Right to Repair Act by allowing plaintiffs’ attorneys to circumvent the prelitigation procedures to the detriment of homeowners and builders, resulting in confusion and increased litigation. The
McMillin decision breathes new life into the Right to Repair Act and sets the stage for future review by the California Supreme Court.
The
McMillin Court focused on the express language of the Right to Repair Act to arrive at its conclusion that Civil Code sections 896, 897, 943 and 944 demonstrate a clear Legislative intent to occupy the field of construction defect litigation – a belief held by nearly all in the construction industry and the California Superior Courts before
Liberty Mutual. The
McMillin Court found further support for SB800’s comprehensive nature in the Legislative history, which consistently described the Act as “groundbreaking reform” and a “major change” in construction defect litigation, designed to “significantly reduce the cost of construction defect litigation and make housing more affordable.” (
McMillin, Opinion, pp. 18-19.) The
McMillin Court found it inescapable that the Right to Repair Act exclusively governs construction defect litigation involving homes sold on or after January 1, 2003.
The
McMillin, decision will have a significant impact on construction litigation moving forward in two respects. First,
McMillin, is the only appellate decision to date to address whether a builder has the right to enforce SB800 when the claimant’s counsel deliberately attempts to plead around SB800 by asserting only tort claims. Second, the decision provides trial courts with the authority and precedent to ensure compliance with the Right to Repair Act. Trial courts may also find it necessary to revisit prior rulings against builders that relied on
Liberty Mutual.
Newmeyer & Dillion will continue to advocate in support of builders and general contractors by working vigorously to gain further support for the
McMillin, decision and setting the stage for review by the California Supreme Court.
Jeffrey R. Brower is an associate at the Newport Beach office of Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP. His practice focuses on business and construction litigation. Jeffrey can be reached at jeffrey.brower@ndlf.com.
Nathan Owens is the managing partner of the Las Vegas office for Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP. He represents businesses and individuals operating in a wide array of economic sectors including real estate, construction, insurance and health care in all stages of litigation in state and federal court. Nathan can be reached at nathan.owens@ndlf.com.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit
www.ndlf.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Congratulations to our 2019 Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Stars
July 30, 2019 —
John Arbucci, Frances Brower, Lisa Hsiao, Kristian Moriarty & Michael Parme - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPCongratulations to attorneys John Arbucci, Frances Brower, Lisa Hsiao, Kristian Moriarty and Michael Parme who were selected to the 2019 Southern California Rising Stars list. Each year, no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor.
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys
T. Giovanni “John” Arbucci,
Frances Brower,
Lisa Hsiao,
Kristian Moriarty and
Michael Parme
Mr. Arbucci may be contacted at jarbucci@hbblaw.com
Ms. Brower may be contacted at fma@hbblaw.com
Ms. Lisa may be contacted at lhsiao@hbblaw.com
Mr. Kristian may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com
Mr. Parme may be contacted at mparme@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
