Court Dismisses Cross Claims Against Utility Based on Construction Anti-Indemnity Statute
August 14, 2018 —
David R. Cook - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLPWhen a plane crashed and several passengers and crew died or were injured, their representatives sued several defendants, including a nearby plant owner, Milliken & Company (“Plant Owner”), based on claims that transmission lines on Plant Owner’s property were too close to the runways, were too high, and encroached on the airport easements. Plant Owner cross claimed against utility owner, Georgia Power Company (“Utility”). Plant Owner’s claim was based on an easement it granted to Utility, which required Utility to indemnify it for any claims arising out of Utility’s construction or maintenance of the transmission lines.
In defense, Utility argued that the easement’s indemnity provision violated Georgia’s construction anti-indemnity statute.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLPMr. Cook may be contacted at
cook@ahclaw.com
Will a Notice of Non-Responsibility Prevent Enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien?
March 05, 2015 —
William L. Porter – Porter Law Group, Inc.The “Notice of Non-Responsibility” is one of the most misunderstood and ineffectively used of all the legal tools available to property owners in California construction law. As a result, in most cases the answer to the above question is “No”, the posting and recording of a Notice of Completion will not prevent enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien.
The mechanics lien is a tool used by a claimant who has not been paid for performing work or supplying materials to a construction project. It provides the claimant the right to encumber the property where the work was performed and thereafter sell the property in order to obtain payment for the work or materials, even though the claimant had no contract directly with the property owner. When properly used, a Notice of Non-Responsibility will render a mechanics lien unenforceable against the property where the construction work was performed. By derailing the mechanics lien the owner protects his property from a mechanics lien foreclosure sale. Unfortunately, owners often misunderstand when they can and cannot effectively use a Notice of Non-Responsibility. As a result, the Notice of Non-Responsibility is usually ineffective in protecting the owner and his property.
The rules for the use of the Notice of Non-Responsibility are found in California Civil Code section 8444. Deceptively simple, the rules essentially state that an owner “that did not contract for the work of improvement”, within 10 days after the owner first “has knowledge of the work of improvement”, may fill out the necessary legal form for a Notice of Non-Responsibility and post that form at the worksite and record it with the local County Recorder in order to prevent enforcement of a later mechanics lien on the property.
What commonly occurs however is that early in the process the owner authorizes or even requires its tenant to perform beneficial tenant improvements on the property. This authorization is often set forth in a tenant lease or other written document. The dispositive factor for determining whether the Notice of Non-Responsibility will be enforceable though is that the owner knows that these improvements will be made to the property and intends that they be made, usually long before the work begins. Indeed, the owner has usually negotiated these very terms into the lease contract. The owner then mistakenly believes that once work on the property commences it has 10 days to post and record a Notice of Non-Responsibility and thereby protect itself from a mechanics lien.
The usual error is two-fold. First, the statute states that the Notice is available when the owner “did not contract for the work of improvement”. The fact though is that the owner did contract for the work of improvement. It did so through the lease contract. This is true even though the owner’s contract was not with the contractor or supplier directly. Secondly, the 10 day period to post and record the Notice begins when the owner first “has knowledge” of the work of improvement. This knowledge was of course gained when the lease was negotiated and signed, providing knowledge typically many days before the work has begun. Thus, the 10 day period can also seldom be met. The Notice of Non-Responsibility will therefore fail both rules because the owner has in fact contracted for the improvement and because he does not act within 10 days of gaining this knowledge.
The next event in the typical scenario occurs when the tenant does not pay its contractor. The contractor then has nothing to pay its subcontractors. Material suppliers also go unpaid. Mechanics liens are then recorded by the unpaid claimants, followed by foreclosure actions within ninety days thereafter. Owners will typically point to the Notice of Non-Responsibility they posted and recorded, claiming its protection. Claimants then in turn point to the lease or other evidence that the owner knew of the pending improvements and contracted in some way that the improvements be performed, often also more than 10 days before they posted the Notice. Judges generally agree with the unpaid mechanics lien claimants and the Notice of Non-Responsibility is deemed ineffective.
The fact that the Court does not enforce the Notice of Non-Responsibility under these circumstances is not an unfair result. Since the owner authorized the work to be performed and it received a substantial benefit in the form of those improvements, it is not unfair that the owner should pay for those benefits. It would be inequitable for the owner to obtain the benefit of the improvements which it authorized but for which it did not pay, while allowing those who provided the benefit to go unpaid. Moreover, without such a system in place the door would be open to owners setting up sham “tenants” who would enter into contracts to have work performed, only to disappear when the work is completed, leaving the contractor without a source of payment. The system in place as described above prevents such duplicity. Owners would do well to arm themselves with proper knowledge of when the Notice of Non-Responsibility will and will not protect them and then responsibly use the Notice of Non-Responsibility.
For the legal eagles among you, the following cases illustrate the view of the courts, consistent with the above: Baker v. Hubbard (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 226; Ott Hardware v. Yost (1945) 69 Cal. App.2d 593 (lease terms); Los Banos Gravel Co. v. Freeman (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 785 (common interest); Howard S. Wright Construction Co. v. Superior Court (2003); 106 Cal.App.4th 314 (participating owner).
William L. Porter of
Porter Law Group, Inc. located in Sacramento, California may be contacted at (916) 381-7868 or bporter@porterlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Federal Court Finds a Breach of Contract Exclusion in a CGL Policy Bars All Coverage for a Construction Defect Action
July 19, 2021 —
Robert Dennison - Traub LiebermanThe Southern District of California published a decision in May 2021 in Associated Industries Ins. Co. v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 2021 WL 1921016 (S.D. Cal. 5/12/21) concerning the scope of a breach of contract exclusion in a general liability insurance policy as applied to a construction defect action.
The suit was filed by Associated Industries Insurance Company against Mt. Hawley Insurance Company for equitable contribution for amounts spent to defend and indemnify the parties co-insured, referred to as JGCI in the decision. JGCI agreed to build a building for a third party pursuant to a written construction contract. The City of Davis issued a certificate of occupancy for the building on May 6, 2005. The City’s permits stated the building was final on that date. Mt. Hawley issued the first of several annual general liability insurance policies in September 2005.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Robert Dennison, Traub LiebermanMr. Dennison may be contacted at
rdennison@tlsslaw.com
The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions: A.B. 1701’s Requirement that General Contractors Pay Subcontractor Employee Wages Will Do More Harm Than Good
November 02, 2017 —
Steven M. Cvitanovic & Omar Parra - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPTales of subcontractors who close up shop before paying their employees are not all that uncommon, but they are certainly not common enough to require General Contractors to pay for that same labor twice. Last month, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill No. 1701, which requires the General Contractor of a private construction project to pay all unpaid wages and fringe benefits owed to an employee of a subcontractor, irrespective of the tier, and even if the General Contractor made the payment. With the Governor’s recent signature, Assembly Bill No. 1701 is now the law of the land. Here is what you need to know:
- It applies to all private (but not public) construction contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2018;
- It gives a subcontractor’s employee a direct cause of action against the General Contractor for any unpaid wages and fringe benefits, even if the General Contractor has fully paid the subcontractor;
- It gives a third party owed fringe or other benefits a cause of action against the General Contractor;
- All actions by the employee or third party must be filed within one year of the earliest of the recordation of the notice of completion, the recordation of the notice of cessation of work, or the actual completion of the work;
- The General Contractor cannot contract to avoid the liability imposed by Assembly Bill No. 1701, but it can seek indemnity from the subcontractor; and
- At the General Contractor’s request, the subcontractor shall provide the General Contractor with its payroll records.
Reprinted courtesy of
Steven Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Omar Parra, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com
Mr. Parra may be contacted at oparra@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Grenfell Fire Probe Faults Construction Industry Practices
November 28, 2022 —
Peter Reina - Engineering News-Record"Incompetence and poor practices in the construction industry" and among others led to the June 2017 fire at London's Grenfell residential high-rise building, causing 72 deaths, according to the lead counsel for the public inquiry that ended Nov. 10.
Reprinted courtesy of
Peter Reina, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Reina may be contacted at reina@btinternet.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
#2 CDJ Topic: Valley Crest Landscape v. Mission Pools
December 30, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFIn July of this year,
Christopher Kendrick and
Valerie A. Moore of
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP analyzed the results of the Valley Crest Landscape v. Mission Pools case, in which “a California appeals court held that equities favor an insurer seeking equitable subrogation over a subcontractor that agreed to defend and indemnify claims arising out of its performance of work under the subcontract.”
Read the full story...
In the article, “General Liability Insurer Entitled to Subrogate Against its Insured’s Indemnitor,”
Matthew S. Foy and
Michael A. Pursell of
Gordon & Rees LLP also discussed the details of the Valley Crest v. Mission Pools case that involved installing a swimming pool on a St. Regis hotel property: “In Valley Crest Landscape Development, Inc. v. Mission Pools of Escondido, Inc., the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held that an insurer was entitled to equitably subrogate a breach of express indemnity claim against its insured’s indemnitor.”
Read the full story...
This month,
Graham C. Mills of
Newmeyer & Dillion reported on the decision by the Court of Appeals regarding the Valley Crest case, which “reinforces the right of a general contractor to defense and indemnity by a subcontractor when the parties have contractually allocated risk to the subcontractor. To ensure compliance with that right, the Valley Crest court imposed a strong penalty against a subcontractor that defaulted on its obligation.”
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Indemnity: What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You!
September 19, 2022 —
Caitlin Kicklighter & Bill Shaughnessy - ConsensusDocsRisk allocation between the parties is a critical component of any construction contract. Indemnity obligations can be some of the important risk-shifting provisions of any design or construction contract. Indemnity provisions typically require one party, the Indemnitor, to agree to “hold harmless,” and/or reimburse another party, the indemnitee, from claims and liability arising out of the party’s work. Considering the financial consequences that an indemnity provision can have on a construction project, it is critical that all parties to a construction contract know the legal implications of the contract indemnity provisions and understand any limitations in enforcing the indemnity provisions depending on the controlling jurisdiction. While most indemnity clauses and obligations are enforceable, many states have enacted anti-indemnity statutes prohibiting or restricting specific indemnification provisions. These anti-indemnity statutes afford protection to contractors and subcontractors not generally in a position to protect themselves from overly extensive indemnity obligations.
This article highlights several examples of indemnity provisions typically seen in construction contracts, the measures are taken by a growing number of states to protect parties with less bargaining power in the form of anti-indemnity statutes, and offers practical considerations when negotiating or drafting indemnity provisions.
[1]
Reprinted courtesy of
Caitlin Kicklighter, Emory Law Student (2024 Graduate), (ConsensusDocs) and
Bill Shaughnessy, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Mr. Shaughnessy may be contacted at bshaughnessy@joneswalker.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurance and Your Roof
November 13, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThose seeking home insurance should look up. Bankrate points out that the type of roof a home has can affect how much it costs to insure it. “The roof is the first layer that wind, hail, wildfire and other hazards really begin to act on,” Tim Reinhold, the chief engineer at the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety, told the site.
For insurers, the most problematic roof type is probably wood shakes. “Some companies won’t even insure certain roof types, such as wood shakes, in high fire-risk areas,” said Robert Hunter, the director of insurance for the Consumer Federation of America.
Not that other roof types are problem-free. Metal roofs can corrode, particularly when two different metals touch. Shingles age more quickly than other roof types, becoming brittle, and they can blow off in high winds. Tile roofs are expensive, something insurers are guaranteed to factor into the insurance rates.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
