Condos Down in Denver Due to Construction Defect Litigation
November 06, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFA new report suggests that fears of construction defect litigation may be the cause of the slump in condo building in the Denver area. The Denver Business Journal reports that the Denver Regional Council of Governments commissioned the study by Economic & Planning Systems. The conclusion of the report was that the only type of condominium likely to be built is high-cost units with high profit margins. This is not good news for the DRCOG, which is seeking to create more affordable housing.
The report found that builders assess the likeliness of being sued “is nearly 100 percent,” that costs of addressing construction defects are 12% higher than at apartment complexes, and that preparing for litigation adds about $15,000 to the cost of a condo unit.
One possible remedy is to reform Colorado’s construction defect laws. Bob Muphy, the mayor of Lakewook and an advocate of construction defect litigation reform, said that he sees “this as a verification of what I’ve been talking about.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Product Manufacturers Beware: You May Be Subject to Jurisdiction in Massachusetts
July 05, 2023 —
Timothy Keough & Audrey Schoenike - White and Williams LLPSay you are a Floridian product manufacturer that does business in Massachusetts and you receive a Complaint filed in Massachusetts that alleges your product injured a Nova Scotian resident in Nova Scotia. You know that the only time that product was in Massachusetts was during its transport up the eastern seaboard to its final destination at a retailer in Nova Scotia. Can you be hailed into a Massachusetts court for this accident? The answer is seemingly not so simple following the Supreme Judicial Court’s holding in Doucet v. FCA US LLC.
On June 8th, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in Doucet v. FCA US LLC, held that FCA US LLC is subject to jurisdiction in Massachusetts for a personal injury action arising out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred in New Hampshire.
No. SJC-13354, slip. op. (Mass. June 8, 2023). The vehicle had been purchased in New Hampshire by a New Hampshire resident. The Court explained that federal due process does not require a causal connection between a company’s business dealings with the jurisdiction and the injury; instead, a mere relationship between the business dealings and the injury will suffice to establish jurisdiction. Because the vehicle at issue was first sold in Massachusetts and FCA US LLC had extensive business dealings unrelated to the vehicle in question in Massachusetts, the Court concluded that a strong enough relationship existed between FCA US LLC, Massachusetts, and the litigation for jurisdiction to exist.
Reprinted courtesy of
Timothy Keough, White and Williams LLP and
Audrey Schoenike, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Keough may be contacted at keought@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Schoenike may be contacted at schoenikea@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Two Texas Cities Top San Francisco for Property Investors
October 22, 2014 —
Brian Louis – BloombergHouston and Austin are the most attractive U.S. markets for buying and developing real estate, topping San Francisco, as growth potential in the Texas cities draws investors from popular coastal areas, a survey shows.
The Northern California city ranked third, down from No. 1 last year, according to a report released today by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and the Urban Land Institute. Denver and Dallas-Fort Worth rounded out the five markets offering the best prospects for investors in 2015, the poll of more than 1,400 people in the real estate business shows. Manhattan slipped out of the top 10 to rank 14th.
Some non-coastal markets are drawing more property investors partly because they offer higher yields than places such as San Francisco and Manhattan, which led the recovery from the financial crisis. The smaller cities also are benefiting from employment growth and increasing numbers of people moving into urban centers, according to Mitch Roschelle, a partner and U.S. real estate advisory practice leader at PricewaterhouseCoopers in New York.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brian Louis, BloombergMr. Louis may be contacted at
blouis1@bloomberg.net
CA Supreme Court Finds “Consent-to-Assignment” Clauses Unenforceable After Loss Occurs During the Policy Period
August 26, 2015 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Fluor Corporation v. Superior Court (No. S205889; filed 8/20/15), the California Supreme Court overruled its earlier decision in Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 934, holding that notwithstanding the presence of a consent-to-assignment clause in a liability policy, Insurance Code section 520 bars an insurer from refusing to honor the insured’s assignment of coverage after a loss has taken place during the policy period.
In Henkel, the Supreme Court limited the ability of corporate successors to obtain coverage under predecessors’ policies on a contract theory. The Henkel Court held that where a successor corporation contractually assumed liabilities of the predecessor corporation, the insurance benefits would not automatically follow. The Henkel Court ruled that if the predecessor company’s policy contains a consent-to-assignment clause, any assignment of insurance policy benefits to a successor corporation required the insurer’s consent. The Court said that policy benefits are not transferable choses in action unless at the time of corporate transfer they could be reduced to a monetary sum certain. The Court reasoned that historic product or environmental liabilities might not even be known to the predecessor at that time, much less reduced to a sum certain, so coverage for such risks could not be considered a transferable chose in action. Thus, where the liability was inchoate at the time of the corporate transaction, the Henkel Court said that coverage would not necessarily follow because the insurer’s duties had not yet attached.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com; Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
WSDOT Seeks Retraction of Waiver Excluding Non-Minority Woman-Owned Businesses from Participation Goals
September 28, 2017 —
Lindsay K. Taft - Ahlers & Cressman PLLCIf you are a regular reader of our blog, you will likely recognize that our firm has been actively involved and concerned with the results of Washington State Department of Transportation’s (“WSDOT”) Disparity Study, which impacts both Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (“DBE”) and general contractors who bid on federally-funded projects with DBE goals. On June 1, 2017, WSDOT implemented a “waiver”, which excluded Caucasian women-owned firms (“WBEs”) from qualifying for Condition of Award DBE Goals on federally-funded projects. This drastic action was the result of WSDOT’s highly criticized 2012 Disparity Study conducted by BBC Research & Consulting of Denver, Colorado, which concluded non-minority women-owned firms do not face “substantial disparities” in the federally-funded transportation contracting market.
BBC’s study was criticized for a number of reasons, but most concerning was BBC’s flawed and unreliable statistical methodology that did not accurately represent true marketplace conditions. See Ahlers & Cressman letter of January 9, 2014 and Associated General Contractors of Washington article. For example, BBC’s results showed both decreasing WBE availability and availability vastly out of range with other states (e.g., the availability of women-owned construction firms in Washington was just 1.5% compared to 11.96% in Oregon). Nevertheless, based on this flawed BBC study and BBC’s assertion that women-owned firms did not face disparities, WSDOT sought and on June 1, 2017 was granted a waiver precluding general contractors from counting WBE firms towards their DBE goals on federally funded public works projects.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lindsay Taft, Ahlers & Cressman PLLCMs. Taft may be contacted at
ltaft@ac-lawyers.com
KB to Spend $43.2 Million on Florida Construction Defects
August 27, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFIn their second quarter filing with the SEC, KB Homes estimates that repairing damage caused by defects in framing, stucco, roofs, and sealant will cost it $43.2 million. That estimate includes homes that are yet to be identified. KB had estimated lower costs earlier, but subsequently determined it was necessary to increase the funds by $15.9. As a result, the firm showed a loss in the second quarter. The company hopes to recover some funds in insurance settlements.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Social Distancing and the Impact on Service of Process Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic
April 13, 2020 —
Robert Devine, James Burger & Susan Zingone - White and WilliamsService of process usually requires person-to-person contact and is an essential part of civil procedure. It notifies the defendant of the legal proceedings against him/her and establishes jurisdiction. “Process” refers to the documents that must be served on a defendant. If service of process is not performed pursuant to the governing rules of civil procedure, a lawsuit cannot proceed.
Service of Process in NJ and PA
Personal service is required to be the first attempted means of service in New Jersey. If personal service is not successful, then service may be made by mailing a copy of the process via registered or certified mail with return receipt requested to the defendant’s usual place of abode or business/place of employment, or to an authorized agent. The party attempting to serve the defendant by mail can choose to mail the process by regular mail as well, and if the defendant refuses to accept or claim the registered or certified copy, and the regular mail copy is not returned, then service is considered effectuated.
Pennsylvania allows for a defendant to be served via personal service by handing a copy to the defendant or by delivering a copy to an adult family household member at the defendant’s residence. Pennsylvania also permits service of process by mail. Process can be served by mail requiring a signature of the defendant. If the mail is unclaimed, alternative service must be attempted.
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams attorneys
Robert Devine,
James Burger and
Susan Zingone
Mr. Devine may be contacted at deviner@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Burger may be contacted at burgerj@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Zingone may be contacted at zingones@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brown Paint Doesn’t Cover Up Construction Defects
April 25, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFIn a decision that describes the case as illustrating “the perils that real estate brokers and their agents assume when acting as a dual listing agent to both the buyers and sellers of the same house,” the California Court of Appeals has issued a decision in William L. Lyon & Associates v. The Superior Court of Placer County. Lyon & Associates sought summary judgment to dismiss the claims of the Henleys who bought a home in a transaction where a Lyon agent represented both sides.
The prior owners of the home, the Costas, had used a Lyon agent in purchasing their home. When they later sought to sell it, that agent “became aware of some of the house’s defects and problems.” In response, the Costas sought the help of another agent, Connie Gidal, also of Lyons & Associates. Photos taken in the presence of Ms. Gidal show defects of the paint and stucco. The Costas also took the step of painting the house dark brown. During the sale process, “rain caused many of the painted-over defects to reappear.” The Costas “purchased more dark brown paint and covered up the newly visible damage prior to inspection by the Henleys.”
With the damage concealed, the Henleys bought the home in May 2006. The agreement with Lyons & Associates noted that “a dual agent is obligated to disclose known facts materially affecting the value or desirability of the property to both parties.” Escrow closed on May 9, 2006. The contract with the broker included a two-year limit on the time to bring legal action.
The Henleys moved in during June 2006, and “began to discover construction defects that had been concealed by the Costas.” In addition to the painted-over stucco problems, the Henleys found that the Costas had “installed quartzite stone overlays on the backyard steps in a manner that caused water intrusion on the house’s stucco walls.”
In May 2009, the Henleys sued the Costas, Ron McKim Construction, Lyons & Associates, and Ms. Gidal. Their complaint alleged that Lyons & Associates had committed breach of contact, negligence, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent nondisclosure in connection with the construction defects. The Costas named Lyons in a cross complaint. Lyons moved for summary judgments on the grounds that the two-year statute of limitations had expired before the complaint and cross-complaint were filed. Both the Henleys and the Costas opposed this claim. The court denied the motion and Lyons appealed.
The appeals court upheld the denial, noting that the both California Supreme Court decision and later action by the legislature compels real estate brokers and salespersons “to conduct a reasonably competent and diligent visual inspection of the property offered for sale.” The court noted that under California law, brokers have responsibilities to both sellers and buyers. The section of law cited by Lyons applies to seller’s agents. The court rejected the contention by Lyons that they were “cooperating brokers.” The Henleys were “not constrained by the two-year statute of limitations.”
Lyons contended that even if California’s statute did not apply, there was a contractual limit of two years. The court also rejected this, agreeing with the Henleys that “the two-year limitation period must be extended by the discovery rule.”
The court noted that “Lyon & Associates may not reap the benefit of a shortened contractual limitation period when its own alleged malfeasance contributed to the delay in the discovery of the buyer’s injury.” The court found that the Henleys could proceed with their breach of contract claim, because, “when a breach of contract is committed in secret, such as the intentional nondisclosure of a real estate broker regarding a previously visible construction defect, the contractual limitations period is properly held subject to the discovery rule.” The court felt that the interpretation favored by the California Association of Realtors would “halve the applicable statute of limitations period.”
In addition to rejecting Lyon request for summary judgment on the claims made by the Henleys, the court also rejected the request of summary judgment on the claims made by the Costas, concluding that neither claim is time-barred. Costs were awarded to both the Henleys and Costas.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
