New England Construction Defect Law Groups to Combine
November 13, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe lawyers of Little Bulman Medeiros & Whitney PC will be joining Pierce Atwood on December 9, 2013. The combined firm will have a larger construction litigation practice. Little Bulman is already recognized for its handling of construction disputes. Pierce Atwood is one of the largest firms in New England. Their combined forces intended to create a strong presence in construction litigation throughout New England.
Gloria Pinza, a managing partner at Pierce Atwood said of Little Bulman that “their exceptional credentials in the construction law area will combine with our strong construction practice to create a regional practice that will provide highly competitive expertise, depth and value throughout New England and beyond.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pennsylvania Federal Court Confirms: Construction Defect Claims Not Covered by CGL Policies
March 06, 2022 —
Nathan A. Cazier & Scott S. Thomas - Payne & FearsThe construction industry operates under the constant spectre of claims seeking damages for defective or faulty workmanship. Fortunately, the law in most states treats these claims as covered under commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies. A small minority of states take a much stingier view. In a newly decided case, a Pennsylvania federal court confirmed that Pennsylvania belongs to this small group of states that regard construction claims as not worthy of liability insurance coverage. Main St. Am. Assurance Co. v. Howard Lynch Plastering, Inc., No. CV 21-3977, 2022 WL 445768, (E.D. Pa. Feb. 14, 2022).
Main St. involves a typical construction defect case: W.B. Homes (“W.B.”) developed a residential community, contracting with various trades to build the homes. W.B. required these subcontractors to obtain liability insurance covering their work and, when homeowners sued W.B. for damages due to allegedly faulty work, W.B. tendered the claim to these insurers. One of them, Main Street Assurance Co. (“Main Street”) then sued W.B. for declaratory relief, arguing that under Pennsylvania law, it had no duty to defend W.B.
Reprinted courtesy of
Nathan A. Cazier, Payne & Fears and
Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears
Mr. Cazier may be contacted at nac@paynefears.com
Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman Team Obtains Summary Judgment in Favor of Client Under Florida’s Newly Implemented Summary Judgment Standard
August 23, 2021 —
Heather Fleming & Gregory H. Lercher - Traub LiebermanOn July 27, 2021, the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Osceola County, Florida granted summary judgment in favor of a client insurer defended by Traub Lieberman Partner Heather M. Fleming and Associate Gregory H. Lercher in connection with a first party property lawsuit arising from Hurricane Irma that involved multiple, comingled claims, in part resolved via prior appraisal.
As of May 1, 2021, Florida state courts have applied a new summary judgment standard after Florida’s longstanding rule was amended by the Supreme Court of Florida. The amendment aligns Florida’s standard with that of the federal courts and the supermajority of states that have already adopted the federal summary judgment standard codified in Rule 56 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court of Florida’s stated goal in adopting the new standard across the Sunshine State was to improve the fairness and efficiency of Florida's civil justice system, to relieve parties from the expense and burdens of meritless litigation, and to save the work of juries for cases where there are real factual disputes that need resolution.
Reprinted courtesy of
Heather Fleming, Traub Lieberman and
Gregory H. Lercher, Traub Lieberman
Ms. Fleming may be contacted at hfleming@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Lercher may be contacted at glercher@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman Partner Katie Keller and Associate Steven Hollis Obtain Summary Judgment Based on Plaintiff’s Failure to Comply with Policy Conditions
June 12, 2023 —
Kathryn Keller & Steven A. Hollis - Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman Partner Katie Keller and Associate Steven Hollis obtained summary judgment on behalf of a major homeowners’ insurer in a breach of contract action in the Circuit Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Osceola County, Florida. The underlying claim involved a water loss in the kitchen of the Plaintiff’s property allegedly resulting in substantial damage to the home necessitating renovations throughout the residence. The claim was reported seventeen days after the reported date of loss by Plaintiff’s counsel. The Plaintiff had retained counsel and two vendors before giving notice to the insurer. In addition, the insurer’s field adjuster was not provided the opportunity to inspect the plumbing materials which had been allegedly damaged. Specifically, the bottom panel of the sink kitchen cabinet box had been removed. The insurer retained an engineer, who concluded that the removal of the damaged property hindered the ability of the engineer to determine their conditions prior to removal or whether exposure from waste arm leakage occurred. It was later learned that the damaged plumbing fixtures and the bottom of the cabinets had been thrown out by the contractors, which all happened before the claim was reported to the insurer. The insured also failed to provide a signed, sworn proof of loss within sixty days after the loss.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kathryn Keller, Traub Lieberman and
Steven A. Hollis, Traub Lieberman
Ms. Keller may be contacted at kkeller@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Hollis may be contacted at shollis@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Franchisors Should Consider Signing a Conditional Lease Assignment Rather Than a Franchisee’s Lease
November 17, 2016 —
Richard H. Herold – Real Estate Litigation BlogIn Franchise & High Properties, LLC v. Happy’s Franchise, LLC, a 2015 decision issued by the Court of Appeals in Michigan, the franchisor, Happy’s Pizza Franchise, LLC, signed a five-year lease for the commercial space to be occupied by its franchisee, Happy’s Pizza #19, Inc. The franchisor did so to secure a right of first refusal to purchase the property and to enforce the franchise agreement to have the lease assigned to the franchisor if the franchisee defaulted.
The issue in the case was whether the term “tenant” referred solely to Happy’s Pizza #19 or whether it also included Happy’s Franchise as a co-tenant. “Tenant” was defined as follows: “Happy’s Pizza #19, Inc., 29102 Telegraph Road, Suite 607, Southfield, MI 48034, the lessee, and Happy’s Pizza Franchise, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as `Franchisor’), hereinafter designated as the Tenant.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Herold, Real Estate Litigation BlogMr. Herold may be contacted at
rherold@swlaw.com
AB 1701 Has Passed – Developers and General Contractors Are Now Required to Double Pay for Labor Due to Their Subcontractors’ Failure to Pay
October 19, 2017 —
Clayton T. Tanaka – Newmeyer & Dillion LLPOn September 13, 2017, the California State Legislators passed a bill that would make developers and general contractors responsible for subcontractors who fail to pay their employees even though they already paid the subcontractors for the work. Assembly Bill 1701 (AB 1701), sponsored by unions who represent carpenters and other building trades, would require general contractors to “assume, and [be] liable for . . . unpaid wage, fringe or other benefit payment or contribution, including interest owed,” which subcontractors owe their employees. Despite vehement opposition from the California Building Industry Association and the Associated General Contractors of California, this bill has been submitted to the Governor and is expected to be signed into law.
NEW REQUIREMENTS
Once signed, this bill would impose the following requirements under Labor Code section 218.7:
- Applies to All Private Works Contracts That Are Entered Starting January 1, 2018.
For private works contracts entered on or after January 1, 2018, a “direct contractor” (i.e., prime contractor or contractor who has direct contractual relationship with an owner) must assume and be liable for any debt which its subcontractor or a lower tier subcontractor incurs “for [a] wage claimant’s performance of labor included in the subject of the contract between the direct contractor and the owner.” (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subds. (a)(1) and (e).)
- The Labor Commissioner and Joint Labor-Management Cooperation Committees May Bring Action to Recover Unpaid Wages on Behalf of Wage Claimants.
The California Labor Commissioner and joint Labor-Management Cooperation Committees established under the federal Labor Management Cooperation Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. § 175a) (typically comprised of labor unions and management) may bring a civil action against the direct contractor for unpaid wages owed to a wage claimant. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subds. (b)(1) and (3).) The Labor Commissioner may also bring its claims through administrative hearings (Labor Code section 98) or by citations (Labor Code section 1197.1). (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subd. (b)(1).)
- Third Parties That Are Owed Fringe or Other Benefit Payments or Contribution on Behalf of Wage Claimants (Labor Unions) May Bring Action.
Third parties who are owed fringe or other benefit payments or contributions on a wage claimant’s behalf (e.g., labor unions) may bring a civil action against the direct contractor for such unpaid benefit payments or contributions. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subd. (b)(2).)
- It Does Not Confer Wage Claimants With Any Right to Sue Direct Contractors.
AB 1701 gives the Labor Commissioner, Labor-Management Cooperation Committees and the unions standing to bring an action against the direct contractor, but it does not confer any private right of action by the wage claimants against the direct contractor.
- Labor-Management Cooperation Committees and Labor Unions Shall Recover as Prevailing Plaintiffs Their Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, Including Expert Fees.
For actions brought by Labor-Management Cooperation Committees or labor unions, “[t]he court shall award a prevailing plaintiff in such an action its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, including expert witness fees.” (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subds. (b)(2)-(3).)
- Direct Contractor’s Property May Be Attached to Pay for Judgment.
AB 1701 authorizes the attachment of direct contractor’s property to pay for any judgment that is entered pursuant to this section. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subd. (c).)
- One-Year Statute of Limitation to Bring Action under This Section.
Actions brought pursuant to this section must be filed within one year of the earliest of: (1) recordation of a notice of completion of the direct contract; (2) recordation of a notice of cessation of the work covered by direct contract; or (3) actual completion of work covered by direct contract. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subd. (d).)
- Rights to Receive Payroll Records and Project Award Information from Subcontractors and to Withdraw All Payments Owed for Their Failure to Comply.
Upon the direct contractor’s request, subcontractors and lower tier subcontractors must provide payroll records and project award information. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subds. (f)(1)-(2).) Direct contractor may withhold as “disputed” all sums owed if a subcontractor does not timely provide the requested records and information without specifying what is untimely and such failure to comply does not excuse direct contractor from any liability under this section. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subds. (f)( 3) and (i).)
- Rights to Receive Payroll Records and Project Award Information from Subcontractors and to Withdraw All Payments Owed for Their Failure to Comply.
Upon the direct contractor’s request, subcontractors and lower tier subcontractors must provide payroll records and project award information. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subds. (f)(1)-(2).) Direct contractor may withhold as “disputed” all sums owed if a subcontractor does not timely provide the requested records and information without specifying what is untimely and such failure to comply does not excuse direct contractor from any liability under this section. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subds. (f)( 3) and (i).)
- Further Legislative Efforts on Subdivision (h) Are Expected in 2018.
Subdivision (h), which states that “[t]he obligations and remedies provided in this section shall be in addition to any obligations and remedies otherwise provided by law . . .” (emphasis added) is potentially misleading since the author and sponsor of the bill have indicated that the bill is not intended to punish direct contractors with liquidated damages or penalties. As such, further legislative efforts on subdivision (h) are expected in 2018.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
While workers should be paid for the work they perform, AB 1701 would place undue burden on general contractors to monitor their subcontractors’ payroll, confirm that all wages and benefits are paid timely and withhold disputed payments from non-compliant subcontractors. General contractors would also need to caution against the chain reaction that could result from such withholding, including work stoppage, increased change order requests, and an overall increase in construction costs. Finally, general contractors would need to brace themselves for at least a year after project completion against any union or a Labor-Management Cooperation Committee actions armed with a prevailing party’s right to recover attorneys’ fees and expert fees, for previously unidentified subcontractor or sub-subcontractor workers.
STRATEGIES DEVELOPERS AND GENERAL CONTRACTORS SHOULD LOOK FOR
In anticipation of AB 1701 being signed into law and its potentially harsh effects, developers and general contractors are advised to consult their attorneys for a review and revision of their existing contracts, to develop plans for accessing and monitoring subcontractor payroll records, and to consider strategies for mitigating claims that may be brought against them, as follows:
- Execute all pending agreements
before January 1, 2018 to avoid the effects of AB 1701;
- Include an audit provision
requiring subcontractors and sub-subcontractors to provide payroll records (at minimum, information set forth in Labor Code section 226) and project award information, regularly and/or upon request, with specific deadlines for such production, as subdivision (f) does not specify what is untimely;
- Include defense and indemnity provisions
that would require subcontractors to defend and indemnify the general contractor for claims that are brought pursuant to this section arising from labor performed by employees for subcontractors and sub-subcontractors, and require subcontractors to include a similar provision in their own contracts with sub-subcontractors that would require lower tier subcontractors to also defend and indemnify the general contractor for claims arising from their respective employees’ work;
- Require subcontractors to provide a payment bond and/or a letter of credit
to satisfy claims that are made against the general contractor under this section;
- Require personal guarantees
from owners, partners or key subcontractor personnel;
- Include withholding and back-charge provisions
that would allow general contractors to withhold or charge back the subcontractors for disputed amounts, for claims brought against them, and for failure to comply with the audit, bond, and guarantee requirements.
- Consider implementing a system to confirm evidence of payments,
such as signed acknowledgment of payment by each subcontractor and sub-subcontractor employees and by third parties entitled to recover fringe and other benefit payments or contribution, possibly working with electronic billing software providers to implement such system.
Clay Tanaka is a partner in the Newport Beach office of Newmeyer & Dillion, focusing on construction, real estate, business and insurance disputes in both California and Nevada. As a licensed civil engineer, Clay has significant experience in design and construction of all types of construction projects, which he has effectively utilized in his litigation, trial and arbitration practice to obtain great results for his clients. For questions related to AB1701, please contact Clay Tanaka (clay.tanaka@ndlf.com) or Newport Beach Partner Mark Himmelstein (mark.himmelstein@ndlf.com).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Clayton T. Tanaka, Newmeyer & Dillion LLPMr. Tanaka may be contacted at
clay.tanaka@ndlf.com
Maine Case Demonstrates High Risk for Buying Home “As Is”
August 27, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to Meredith Eilers of Bernstein Shur, writing in JDSupra Business Advisor, a Boston Appeals court “enforced an 'as is' provision in a purchase and sale agreement and concluded that the sale of a multimillion dollar oceanfront property in Bar Harbor was not accompanied by Maine’s implied warranty of habitability.”
Eilers explained that “the first circuit concluded that the bargained-for ‘as is’ provision that was incorporated into the purchase and sale agreement—in exchange for a reduction in the purchase price—essentially waived any claims from the buyer regarding misrepresentations by the sellers.” This left “the buyer to incur the repair costs without the ability to recover those costs from the seller” and it demonstrated “that agreeing to such a clause when closing a real estate deal has real risks.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Case Alert: Appellate Court Confirms Engineer’s Duty to Defend Developer Arises Upon Tender of Indemnity Claim
January 27, 2010 —
Steven M. CvitanovicIn the recent case of UDC-Universal Development, L.P. v. CH2M Hill, 2010 Cal.App.LEXIS 47 (filed January 15, 2010), the Sixth District Court of Appeal provided a stunning illustration of the far-reaching effects of the California Supreme Court’s holding in Crawford v. Weather Shield Manufacturing Inc. (2008) 44 Cal.4th 541. In Crawford, the Court held the duty to defend under an indemnity agreement arose upon the mere tender of defense of a claim covered by the indemnity.
In the UDC case, CH2M Hill provided engineering and environmental planning services to developer UDC on a project that ultimately wound up in a construction defect lawsuit by the homeowners association ( HOA ). UDC tendered its defense to CH2M Hill, the tender was rejected, and UDC filed a cross-complaint for negligence, breach of contract and indemnity against CH2M Hill and others. After the HOA’s construction defect claims were settled, UDC proceeded to trial against CH2M Hill. The jury found in favor of CH2M Hill on the claims for negligence and breach of contract. At the request of the parties prior to trial, the trial court ruled on the application of the indemnity agreement in light of Crawford and, in so doing, found that the defense obligation arose upon the tender and that CH2M Hill breached that duty despite the jury finding in favor of CH2M Hill.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, noting that the defense obligation arose as soon as the defense was tendered and did not depend on the outcome of the litigation, and that the HOA’s general description of the defects along with an allegation that Doe engineers were negligent triggered the duty to defend.
Although this case did not expand the crushing impact of Crawford’s holding, it is
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
