In a Win for Design Professionals, California Court of Appeals Holds That Relation-Back Doctrine Does Not Apply to Certificate of Merit Law
December 20, 2017 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogThe year was 1995. The old guard was still in power in Sacramento. “Button-Down” Pete Wilson was Governor. Willie Brown, the self-nicknamed “Ayatollah of the Assembly,” was Speaker of the Assembly. And Bill “Huggy” Lockyer was Senate Pro Tem. Names that, for many reasons as of late, seem . . . well . . . let’s just say, “quaint.”
Their time, however, was coming to an end. Three years earlier, California voters approved Proposition 140, which instituted term limits for the first time in California. And by 1996, the first slate of legislators would be “termed out.” The immediate impact: It was the time for making deals because you didn’t know who would be keeping house next.
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
Fifth Circuit Concludes Government’s CAA Legal Claims are Time-Barred But Injunctive-Relief Claims are Not
November 28, 2018 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelIn another recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decision, on October 1, 2018, the Fifth Circuit affirmed, in part, the District Court’s ruling that the general federal statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2462, required the dismissal of the government’s civil enforcement action in the case of U.S., et al., v. Luminant Generation Co., LLC, et al.
The Fifth Circuit agreed that the statute barred the imposition of any civil fine for the alleged unlawful construction operations regarding the modification of major emitting facilities contrary to Section 7475(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). But, the Fifth Circuit remanded the injunctive-relief claims to the District Court for further consideration.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Subcontract Should Flow Down Delay Caused by Subcontractors
December 21, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA general contractor’s subcontract with its subcontractor should include a provision that entitles it to flow down liquidated damages assessed by the owner stemming from delays caused by the subcontractor. Such a provision does not mean the general contractor does not have to prove delays caused by the subcontractor or can arbitrarily allocate the amount or days it claims the subcontractor is liable. The general contractor still will need to reasonably establish the delays the subcontractor caused the critical path of the schedule, i.e., delayed the job. In addition to the right to flow down liquidated damages, the subcontract should also entitle the general contractor to recover its actual extended general conditions caused by the subcontractor’s delays (regardless of whether the owner assesses liquidated damages). The objective is that if the subcontractor delays the job, the subcontractor is liable for liquidated damages the general contractor is liable to the owner for in addition to the general contractor’s own delay damages. This is an important subcontractual provision so that the risk of delay caused by subcontractors is clearly flowed down to them in the subcontract.
In a 1987 case, Hall Construction Co., Inc. v. Beynon, 507 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), the subcontract at-issue contained language that stated, “The parties hereto agree that a supplier who delays performance beyond the time agreed upon in this Purchase Order shall have caused [general contractor] liquidated damages in the amount required of [general contractor] by their contract per day for each day such delay continues which sum the supplier hereby agrees to pay.”
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
Gillotti v. Stewart (2017) 2017 WL 1488711 Rejects Liberty Mutual, Holding Once Again that the Right to Repair Act is the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims
June 05, 2017 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq. & Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq. - Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger BulletinBackground
In Gillotti v. Stewart (April 26, 2017) 2017 WL 1488711, which was ordered to be published on May 18, 2017, the defendant grading subcontractor added soil over tree roots to level the driveway on the plaintiff homeowner’s sloped lot. The homeowner sued the grading subcontractor under the California Right to Repair Act (Civil Code §§ 895, et seq.) claiming that the subcontractor’s work damaged the trees.
After the jury found the subcontractor was not negligent, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the subcontractor. The homeowner appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly construed the Right to Repair Act as barring a common law negligence theory against the subcontractor and erred in failing to follow Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98. The Third District Court of Appeal disagreed and affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the subcontractor.
Impact
This is the second time the Third District Court of Appeal has held that Liberty Mutual (discussed below) was wrongly decided and held that the Right to Repair Act is the exclusive remedy for construction defect claims. The decision follows its holding in Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court (Hicks) (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 333, in which the Court of Appeal held that the Right to Repair Act’s pre-litigation procedures apply when homeowners plead construction defect claims based on common law causes of action, as opposed to violations of the building standards set forth in the Right to Repair Act. Elliott is currently on hold at the California Supreme Court, pending the decision in McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132, wherein Liberty Mutual was rejected for the first time by the Fifth District. CGDRB continues to follow developments regarding the much anticipated McMillin decision closely, as well as all related matters.
Discussion
The Right to Repair Act makes contractors and subcontractors not involved in home sales liable for construction defects only if the homeowner proves they negligently cause the violation in whole or part (Civil Code §§ 911(b), 936). As such, the trial court in Gillotti instructed the jury on negligence with respect to the grading subcontractor. The jury found that while the construction did violate some of the Right to Repair’s building standards alleged by the homeowner, the subcontractor was not negligent in anyway. After the jury verdict, the trial court found in favor of the grading subcontractor.
The homeowner moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial on the grounds that the trial court improperly barred a common law negligence theory against the grading subcontractor. The trial court denied the motions on the grounds that “[t]he Right to Repair Act specifically provides that no other causes of action are allowed. See Civil Code § 943.” The trial court specifically noted that its decision conflicted with Liberty Mutual, in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the Right to Repair Act does not eliminate common law rights and remedies where actual damage has occurred, stating that Liberty Mutual was wrongly decided and that the Liberty Mutual court was naïve in its assumptions regarding the legislative history of the Right to Repair Act.
In Gillotti, the Third District Court of Appeal stated that the Liberty Mutual court failed to analyze the language of Civil Code § 896, which “clearly and unequivocally expresses the legislative intent that the Act apply to all action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in, residential construction, except as specifically set forth in the Act. The Act does not specifically except actions arising from actual damages. To the contrary, it authorizes recovery of damages, e.g., for ‘the reasonable cost of repairing and rectifying any damages resulting from the failure of the home to meet the standards....’ ([Civil Code] § 944).”
The Court also disagreed with Liberty Mutual’s view that because Civil Code §§ 931 and 943 acknowledge exceptions to the Right to Repair Act’s statutory remedies, the Act does not preclude common law claims for damages due to defects identified in the Act. The Court stated: “Neither list of exceptions, in section 943 or in section 931, includes common law causes of action such as negligence. If the Legislature had intended to make such a wide-ranging exception to the restrictive language of the first sentence of section 943, we would have expected it to do so expressly.”
Additionally, the Court of Appeal rejected the argument that Civil Code § 897 preserves a common law negligence claims for violation of standards not listed in Civil Code § 986. It explained that the section of Civil Code § 897, which provides, “The standards set forth in this chapter are intended to address every function or component of a structure,” expresses the legislative intent that the Right to Repair Act be all-encompassing. Anything inadvertently omitted is actionable under the Act if it causes damage. Any exceptions to the Act are made expressly through Civil Code §§ 931 and 934. The Court concluded in no uncertain terms that the Right to Repair Act precludes common law claims in cases for damages covered by the Act.
The homeowner further argued that she was not precluded from bringing a common law claim because a tree is not a “structure,” and therefore the alleged tree damage did not fall within the realm of the Right to Repair. The Court of Appeal also rejected this argument, holding that while the tree damage itself was not expressly covered, the act of adding soil to make the driveway level (which caused the damage) implicated the standards covered by the Right to Repair Act. The Court explained that since under the Act a “structure” includes “improvement located upon a lot or within a common area” (Civil Code § 895(a)), as the driveway was an improvement upon the lot, the claim was within the purview of the Right to Repair Act. As the soil, a component of the driveway, caused damage (to the trees), it was actionable under the Act.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Chelsea L. Zwart, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Evolution of Construction Defect Trends at West Coast Casualty Seminar
May 24, 2018 —
Don MacGregor – Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.Twenty-five years ago. 1993. On January 23rd, Bill Clinton was sworn in as the 42nd President of the United States. The average cost of a gallon of gasoline was $1.16, a movie ticket cost $4.00, and the average cost of a new home was $113,200.00.
1993 also marked the first of what would be a quarter century of annual seminars hosted by West Coast Casualty Service, and provided to the combined professionals within the Construction Defect Community. As the seminar has grown both in attendance and prominence within this community under the watchful stewardship of David and Coral Stern, much has changed both with regard to the content of the seminar and the climate within which it was presented. A quick look at the topics addressed over the past 25 years of the Construction Defect Seminar provides one with a veritable history of construction defect litigation and insurance coverage trends across the United States and beyond.
While the first seminar was hosted in 1993, my first attendance didn’t occur until 1999, and the first time I was honored to be a panelist would have to wait until 2007. In the subsequent years, I’ve had the opportunity to sit on panels an additional three times, and each one I gained rare and valuable insights into the Construction Defect Community, its willingness to challenge itself, and the amazing professionals we all have the distinct pleasure of working with every day (and whom we sometimes take too much for granted).
In the mid to late 90’s, topics at the seminar included such subjects as the Montrose Chemical Corp v. Superior Court decision (Montrose) regarding a carrier’s duty to defend and the subsequent Stonewall Insurance case that examined the duty to indemnify in the context of construction defect claims. The California Calderon Act of 1997, laying out the roadmap for HOA’s filing construction defect lawsuits was also a topic of discussion and debate within the West Coast “arena.”
The new millennium saw the landmark Aas v. William Lyon decision, which disallowed negligence claims for construction defects in the absence of actual resultant damage. This was followed by Presley Homes v. American States Insurance wherein the court ruled that a duty to defend applies where there is mere potential for coverage and the duty to defend applies to the entire action. Each of these bellwether decisions was addressed contemporaneously by panels at the West Coast seminar, contemporaneously bringing additional dialog to the CD community, from within the community.
2002 brought what has become the defining legislation in California regarding construction defect litigation and a builder’s right to repair. Senate Bill 800 (SB800), and its subsequent codification as Title 7, Part 2 of Division 2 of the California Civil Code, Sections 895 through 945.5 would become the defining framework for similar legislation across the United States. During the course of its drafting, movement through the legislature, and final adoption in January of 1993, many of the questions raised and debated in committees in Sacramento, had already been and were continuing to be addressed by panelists at the West Coast Seminar. How does SB800 work with Calderon? How does it affect the prior Aas decision? What now constitutes a defect, and what are timeframes established within the complex pre-litigation process? Open the pages of the 2002 – 2004 Seminar invitations and you’ll see panels comprised of the finest members of the insurance law and coverage communities addressing those very questions (and more)!
As the first decade of the new century drew to a close, a brief review of the WCC invitations from that period suggests a trend towards programmatic analyses of key themes selected for the seminar. In 2008, my second opportunity as a guest speaker, topics included a review of the state of construction defect litigation in a post-SB 800 environment. Panelists offered retrospective insight into the state of right to repair statutes in multiple states, while others offered a glimpse at where the industry might be headed, as similar legislation was enacted across the country. As always, pertinent court decisions bearing on construction defect, both in California, and elsewhere were given unique perspective and additional clarity by multiple panels of gifted speakers. In 2009, claims and coverage were examined from multiple unique perspectives, including that of plaintiff, the policyholder, and the insurer. Wrap policies and the gaps in due to self-insured retention obligations were examined.
As we rapidly approach the end of the second decade of the 21st Century, West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar continues to lead the Construction Defect Community as the premier source for information and peer dialog on all matters relating to construction law, coverage, and emerging trends. In 2017, the Seminar tackled such broad subjects as the role of women in the construction industry, claims management, and risk management, challenges raised by wrap versus non-wrap litigation, and the emergent trend of apartment to condo conversions (and the attendant coverage challenges).
On May 16th at the Disneyland Resort, in Anaheim California, America’s largest Construction Defect event kicked off its 25th Anniversary celebration. As has been every year since 1993, the Seminar provided insurance, legal, and industry professionals an exciting and informative array of salient and timely panel topics, as well as a stellar faculty of gifted panelists. This year’s West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar, like the past 25 years, was not only informative and educational, but also a promise for another 25 years of peerless service to the Construction Defect Community.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A Closer Look at an HOA Board Member’s Duty to Homeowners
October 10, 2013 —
Derek Lindenschmidt — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC.Whenever a homeowner association (HOA) starts thinking in terms of a construction defect lawsuit against its developer and/or builder, its board members will inevitably be confronted with the purported risk and liability to their homeowners if they do not pursue the alleged defects and deficiencies brought to their attention.
Not surprisingly, the board members are on occasion led to believe that pursuing such claims is synonymous with acting in the homeowners’ “best interests.” Further—and unfortunately—board members often feel as though they will breach their obligation to the homeowners if theydon’t agree to proceed with such claims.
Nevertheless, how well do we really know what the board members’ duty actually consists of, when it applies, and what potential liability exists for a board member’s breach of same? The answers might surprise you.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Derek LindenschmidtDerek Lindenschmidt can be contacted at
lindenschmidt@hhmrlaw.com
Chicago Debt Document Says $8.5B O'Hare Revamp May Be Delayed
October 26, 2020 —
Jeff Yoders - Engineering News-RecordThe $8.5-billion revamp of O'Hare International Airport may have to be delayed because of COVID-19 related economic impacts, according to documents included in paperwork to refinance existing airport debt. The city forcefully disagreed with that summation, however, and says the project will move forward and is not endangered.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jeff Yoders, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Yoders may be contacted at yodersj@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
No Coverage Under Exclusions For Wind and Water Damage
March 30, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the granting of summary judgment to the insurer that there was no coverage under the all risk policy for loss caused by wind and water. Porter v. Grand Casino of Miss., Inc., 2016 Miss. LEXIS 3 (Miss. Jan. 7, 2016).
Cherri Porter's home was destroyed during Hurricane Katrina. The destruction occurred when the barge operated by Grand Casino of Mississippi came loose from its moorings and collided with her home.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
