Washington Supreme Court Expands Contractor Notice Obligations
November 28, 2018 —
Brett M. Hill - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight BlogThe Washington State Supreme Court dealt another blow to public works contractors in Washington State. In a case recently issued by the court, Nova Contracting, Inc. v. City of Olympia, [1] the court expanded contractors’ obligations when providing notice on public works construction projects. The Nova Contracting case was the subject of a previous blog. The case involved Nova Contracting and the City of Olympia. Nova was the low bidder on the contract. Nova alleged that the City of Olympia did not want Nova to win the job and intentionally hindered Nova’s ability to perform the job. The facts alleged by Nova, which were covered in the previous blog, involved the City’s improper and apparently punitive rejection of submittals on the job and the City’s eventual wrongful termination of Nova. Of significance in the case is that Nova never actually began work on the job. All that Nova had done at the time of termination was begin mobilizing its equipment on site. The Court of Appeals found that Nova had alleged sufficient facts to establish that the City violated the duty of good faith and fair dealing by improperly rejecting Nova’s submissions and had breached the contract with Nova by improperly terminating.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brett M. Hill, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Hill may be contacted at
brett.hill@acslawyers.com
Housing Affordability Down
November 20, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFIn what Rick Judson, the chairman of the National Association of Home Builders, describes as a “‘perfect storm’ scenario,” home prices and interest rates are up “at the same time that the cost of building homes is rising due to tightened supplies of building materials, developable lots and labor.” Residential housing is becoming less affordable.
David Crowe, the Chief Economist for the NAHB, attributes this to “higher mortgage rates and the more than year-long steady increase in home prices,” but he notes that “a family earning a median income can afford 65% of homes recently sold.”
For the last four quarters, the San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City area in California holds the dubious distinction of being the nation’s least affordable area. There, a family earning the area’s median income of $101,200 (nearly double the national median) could only afford 16% of the homes sold in the area.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Superior Court Of Pennsylvania Holds Curb Construction Falls Within The Scope Of CASPA
September 17, 2014 —
Jerrold Anders & Michael Jervis – White and Williams LLPIn Prieto Corp. v. Gambone Construction Co., the Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently considered three issues arising out of a construction dispute, including whether construction of a curb falls within the scope of the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act (CASPA), 73 P.S. §§ 501-516. CASPA is a Pennsylvania statute which is intended to protect contractors and subcontractors from abuses in the building industry and which establishes certain rules and deadlines for payments between owners, contractors, and subcontractors. Failure to abide by the act’s payment requirements subjects an owner or contractor to liability for interest, penalties and attorneys fees. In this case, Prieto was a subcontractor hired by Gambone to construct concrete or Belgian block curbs at Gambone’s property developments. Prieto sued Gambone under CASPA for failure to pay its invoices for four projects. After the trial court entered judgment for Prieto, Gambone appealed, arguing that CASPA did not encompass the work at issue, i.e. the construction of curbs, because curbs did not constitute an improvement to real property.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jerrold Anders, White and Williams LLP and
Michael Jervis, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Anders may be contacted at andersj@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Jervis may be contacted at jervism@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mitigating Mold Exposure in Manufacturing and Multifamily Buildings
July 31, 2024 —
Laura Champagne - Construction ExecutiveAs hurricanes season and summer storms approach, more apartment complexes, commercial and industrial properties, and public buildings are at risk of leaking and flooding. Water-saturated structures are prime breeding grounds for mold, but there are ways to prevent, detect and remove it before it becomes a serious and costly issue—for buildings and building residents alike. Being proactive limits an owner’s exposure to the liability of debilitating health effects and structural safety concerns.
Mold requires three things to grow: water, food and humidity. Water will stealthily penetrate small porous surfaces of any building material, such as drywall, plaster, wood, concrete or even fabrics. These materials serve as a food source to quickly produce more fungus. Common sources of undetected water flow include foundation problems, poorly installed windows, roof malfunctions, gutter clogs, storm damage, leaky pipes, improper drainage, HVAC issues, faulty appliances, bathroom vent issues and wet building materials. Mold loves humidity and thrives in dark, warm environments, such as attics, basements, lofts, building corners and bathrooms.
Reprinted courtesy of
Laura Champagne, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Product Liability Economic Loss Rule and “Other Property” Damage
November 28, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesOne of the best defenses a manufacturer has, particularly in non-personal injury cases, is the economic loss rule. Lo and behold, a recent opinion out of the Middle District of Florida, Dero Roofing, LLC v. Triton, Inc., 2022 WL 14636884 (M.D.Fla. 2022), touches on this very subject with cogent analysis regarding “other property” damage for purposes of the economic loss rule.
In Dero Roofing, a roofing contractor repaired hurricane damage to roofs of condominium buildings. The roofing contractor became a certified applicator of the manufacturer Triton’s products. After the roofer applied certain products with a sprayer, the products “streaked down the roof tiles onto ‘the exterior and interior of the [Condos], including penetration of the residents’ screens, gutters, and other related areas.” Dero Roofing, supra, at *1. The roofing contractor obtained an assignment of the condominium’s claims and sued the manufacturer and distributor of the (Triton manufactured) products.
The defendants moved to dismiss under the economic loss doctrine.
The economic loss doctrine “prohibits tort recovery when a product damages itself, causing economic loss, but does not cause personal injury or damage to any property other than itself.” Dero Roofing, supra, at *3 (quotation and citation omitted).
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
If I Released My California Mechanics Lien, Can I File a New Mechanics Lien on the Same Project? Will the New Mechanics Lien be Enforceable?
December 29, 2020 —
William L. Porter - Porter Law GroupIf I Released My California Mechanics Lien, Can I File a New Mechanics Lien on the Same Project? Will the New Mechanics Lien be Enforceable?
In general, the answer to the above questions is “Yes”, but only if you meet the following requirements:
- You must only release the mechanics lien itself, but not the “right” to a mechanics lien: There is an important distinction to be made between releasing a mechanics lien and releasing the right to a mechanics lien. Whether you do one or the other will depend on the specific language used in your release. In the case of Santa Clara Land Title Co. v. Nowack and Associates, Inc. (1991) 226 Cal. App.3d, 1558 a “release of mechanics lien” document was recorded TO THE County Recorder’s office which included a statement that the mechanics lien was “fully satisfied, released and discharged”. Based on this language, the court concluded that the mechanics lien claimant had waived its “right” to a further mechanics lien on the same property for the work in question. The court concluded that since the release stated that the claim was “fully satisfied” the right to mechanics lien on the project had forever been waived. The Nowak case can be distinguished from the case of Koudmani v. Ogle Enterprises, Inc., (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1650, where the release of mechanics lien only stated that the mechanics lien was “otherwise released and discharged” and not that it was “satisfied”. Based on the distinction drawn from the two cases, a simple mechanics lien release that only releases the mechanics lien itself, but not the “right” to a mechanics lien should be used. At the following link you will find a proper form to achieve this purpose: https://www.porterlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/03PRI-Mechanics-Lien-Release.pdf
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Porter, Porter Law GroupMr. Porter may be contacted at
bporter@porterlaw.com
California Supreme Court Holds “Notice-Prejudice” Rule is “Fundamental Public Policy” of California, May Override Choice of Law Provisions in Policies
November 12, 2019 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia & Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLPOn August 29, 2019, in Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2019 Cal. LEXIS 6240, the California Supreme Court held that, in the insurance context, the common law “notice-prejudice” rule is a “fundamental public policy” of the State of California for purposes of choice of law analysis. Thus, even though the policy in Pitzer had a choice of law provision requiring application of New York law – which does not require an insurer to prove prejudice for late notice of claims under policies delivered outside of New York – that provision can be overridden by California’s public policy of requiring insurers to prove prejudice after late notice of a claim. The Supreme Court in Pitzer also held that the notice-prejudice rule “generally applies to consent provisions in the context of first party liability policy coverage,” but not to consent provisions in the third-party liability policy context.
The Pitzer case arose from a discovery of polluted soil at Pitzer College during a dormitory construction project. Facing pressure to finish the project by the start of the next school term, Pitzer officials took steps to remediate the polluted soil at a cost of $2 million. When Pitzer notified its insurer of the remediation, and made a claim for the attendant costs, the insurer “denied coverage based on Pitzer’s failure to give notice as soon as practicable and its failure to obtain [the insurer’s] consent before commencing the remediation process.” The Supreme Court observed that Pitzer did not inform its insurer of the remediation until “three months after it completed remediation and six months after it discovered the darkened soils.” In response to the denial of coverage, Pitzer sued the insurer in California state court, the insurer removed the action to federal court and the insurer moved for summary judgment “claiming that it had no obligation to indemnify Pitzer for remediation costs because Pitzer had violated the Policy’s notice and consent provisions.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Timothy Carroll, White and Williams and
Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams
Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Update Coverage for Construction Defect Claims in Colorado
February 11, 2013 —
Tred R. Eyerly Whether construction defect claims against an insured contractor or subcontractor are covered is undergoing an intense debate in Colorado that is reminiscent of the current coverage battle in Hawaii.
Although I missed the case until recently, the decision in Colo. Pool Sys. v. Scottsdale Ins Co., 2012 Colo. App. LEXIS 1732 (Colo. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2012), appears to divert from a prior case from the Colorado Court of Appeals, Gen. Sec. Indem. Co. v. Mountain States Mut. Cas. Co., 205 P.3d 529 (Colo. App. 2009). Gen. Security held that faulty workmanship, standing alone, was not an "accident." Gen. Security was heavily relied upon by the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals when it found construction defects arose from breach of contract and were not covered under a liability policy. See Group Builders v. Admiral Insurance Co., 123 Haw. 142, 231 P.3d 67 (Haw. Ct. App. 2010).
In Colo. Pool Sys., Colorado Pool hired subcontractors to construct a poll's concrete shell. After the shell was poured, an inspection noticed that some re-bar was too close to the surface. The owner turned to its general contractor, White Construction Group, and demanded that the pool be removed and replaced. White turned to Colorado Pool, who notified its carrier, Scottsdale.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
