California Ranks As Leading State for Green Building in 2022
February 01, 2023 —
The U.S. Green Building CouncilWashington, D.C. (Jan. 17, 2023) – The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) today released its annual ranking of U.S. states leading the way on green building, and California made the top ten at number four. USGBC's ranking is based on LEED-certified gross square footage per capita over the past year. The LEED rating system is the world's most widely used green building program and was created by USGBC as a leadership standard defining best practices for healthy, high-performing green buildings.
"It was a strong year for LEED certifications across the U.S. as companies and governments embrace LEED as a tool for meeting ESG goals and organizational commitments to climate action, occupant wellbeing and resource efficiency," said Peter Templeton, USGBC president and CEO. "In California and beyond, LEED buildings are environmentally friendly, cutting their emissions and waste, and use less energy and water. At the same time, they also help reduce operational and maintenance costs, contributing to the bottom line."
In 2022, California had 386 LEED-certified projects, totaling over 96.4 million square feet or 2.44 square feet per capita. Office buildings, residential apartment buildings, government buildings and schools were among those that were LEED-certified last year.
The states ranking ahead of California were Massachusetts (3.76 LEED-certified square feet per resident), Illinois (3.47 square feet per capita), and New York (3.17 square feet per capita).
Additional information on the 2022 rankings, along with a listing of notable projects, can be found
here.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Checking the Status of your Contractor License During Contract Work is a Necessity: The Expanded “Substantial Compliance” under B&P 7031 is Here
June 05, 2017 —
Ivo G. Daniele – Newmeyer & Dillion LLP News AlertIt is paramount that a contractor diligently maintains its license prior to and during the performance of any contract work. Failure to do so could result in barring a contractor from receiving payment and/or disgorgement of profits received under the construction contract.
California Business and Professions Code section 7031 is part of the Contractors State License Law (Business & Prof. section 700 et seq.), and is both feared and loathed by all contractors performing work in the state of California. This draconian statute is known as the “Shield” and was enacted over 70 years ago for the singular purpose to bar all actions by contractors seeking compensation for unlicensed contract work – even precluding a contractor from enforcing his or her mechanic’s lien rights. However, a contractor could potentially avoid the harshness of B&P 7031 by establishing that he or she had substantially complied with the appropriate licensing requirements.
SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH LICENSE REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO 2017 AMENDMENT
The substantial compliance exception is found in section B&P 7031(e), which authorizes the court to determine that there has been substantial compliance with licensure requirements, if the contractor has shown at an evidentiary hearing that he or she engaged in the unlicensed work had:
- Been duly licensed as a contractor in this state prior to the performance of the act or contract;
- Acted reasonably and in good faith to maintain the license;
- Did not know or reasonably should not have known that he or she was not licensed when he or she performed the work; and
- Acted promptly and in good faith to reinstate the license once it learned the license had lapsed.
Although not impossible, satisfying all four requirements of the exception was challenging for the contractor, specifically, requirement # (3) – the lack of knowledge that he or she was unlicensed during performance of work.
SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE POST 2017
Fortunately, Governor Brown heard the collective cry for relief and signed Assembly Bill 1793 (“AB 1793”) into law. The new bill revises the criteria for the court to determine if a contractor is in substantial compliance with the licensing requirements by deleting requirement # (3) in its entirety and modestly amending requirement # (4) to require the contractor to act promptly and in good faith to remedy the failure to comply with the licensure requirements upon learning of the failure.
As a result, the substantial compliance exception under B&P 7031(e) reads as follows:
(e) The judicial doctrine of substantial compliance shall not apply under this section where the person who engaged in the business or acted in the capacity of a contractor has never been a duly licensed contractor in this state. However, notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section 143, the court may determine that there has been substantial compliance with licensure requirements under this section if it is shown at an evidentiary hearing that the person who engaged in the business or acted in the capacity of a contractor
(1) had been duly licensed as a contractor in this state prior to the performance of the act or contract, (2) acted reasonably and in good faith to maintain proper licensure, and (3) acted promptly and in good faith to remedy the failure to comply with the licensure requirements upon learning of the failure.
This new legislation has tempered the burden of proof born by the contractor in establishing substantial compliance, although be it minor in its modification, the fact of the matter remains the same – be diligent in maintaining your license during all phases of contract work.
Ivo Daniele is a seasoned associate in the Walnut Creek office focusing his practice on commercial transactions and business and construction litigation. For questions regarding California Business and Professions Code section 7031, please feel free to contact Ivo Daniele at (925) 988-3222 or ivo.daniele@ndlf.com.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Court of Appeal Makes Short Work Trial Court Order Preventing Party From Supplementing Experts
August 06, 2019 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogYears ago I recommended to a client that we hire a construction defect expert in a case. The client, a thrifty fellow, responded, “But I thought you were the construction expert. Why do I need to hire another expert? A fair question and one that caught me flat footed.
Whether I’m an “expert” or not can be debated, but I explained to the client that while I was an attorney whose practice focused on construction law, I was not someone who he would want to take the stand and testify about the engineering design and seismic stability of pilings. For that, he needed an expert.
In construction litigation it’s not uncommon for parties and their attorneys to hire “experts.” There are even special rules set forth in the California Code of Civil Procedure for disclosing, supplementing and deposing experts, which basically provide as follows:
1. Demand for Exchange of Expert Information: After the court sets a trial date in a case, any party may demand that each party exchange information concerning the experts they intend to have testify at trial;
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
South Carolina “Your Work” Exclusion, “Get To” Costs
July 30, 2014 —
Scott Patterson - CD CoverageIn Precision Walls, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., No. 2013-000787 (S.C. Ct. App. July 23, 2014), SYS was the general contractor for a project. SYS contracted with Precision for the supply and installation of exterior insulation board, to include the taping of all joints. After Precision completed its work, another subcontractor began construction of the brick veneer wall over the insulation board. During construction of the brick wall, some of the joint sealing tape installed by Precision began to come loose. To correct the problem, the existing portion of the brick veneer wall had to be torn down, all of the joint sealing tape removed and replaced, and the brick veneer wall rebuilt. SYS deducted the cost of tearing down and rebuilding the brick veneer wall from Precision’s contract. Precision sought reimbursement for this amount from its CGL policy issued by Liberty Mutual.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scott Patterson, CD Coverage
Car Crashes Through Restaurant Window. Result: Lesson in the History of Additional Insured Coverage
December 29, 2020 —
Randy J. Maniloff - White and Williams LLPBack in the day, additional insureds were oftentimes afforded coverage for liability “arising out of” the named insured’s work for the additional insured. When confronted with such language, courts often concluded that it dictated “but for” causation. In other words, but for the named insured doing the work for the additional insured, the additional insured would not be in the liability-facing situation that it is in. The result in some cases: additional insureds were entitled to coverage for their sole negligence. Decisions reaching such a conclusion were generally not well-received by insurers. This was especially so when you consider that the premium received by insurers, for the AI coverage, may not have been enough to buy a package of Twizzlers.
Insurer frustration with such decisions -- which insurers did not believe expressed the intent of additional insured coverage -- led ISO to make revisions to additional insured forms in 2004 (later revisions followed). At the heart of these revisions was an attempt to require fault on the part of the named insured before coverage could be afforded to the additional insured. (This is a very brief and simple history of this complex issue.)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Randy J. Maniloff, White and Williams LLPMr. Maniloff may be contacted at
maniloffr@whiteandwilliams.com
Thank You for Seven Years of Election to Super Lawyers
May 01, 2023 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIt is with humility and a sense of accomplishment that I announce that I have been selected for the seventh straight year to the
Virginia Super Lawyers in the Construction Litigation category for 2023. Add this to my recent election to the
Virginia Legal Elite in Construction and I’ve had a pretty good year. As always, I am thrilled to be included on these peer-elected lists.
So without further ado, thank you to my peers and those on the panel at Virginia Super Lawyers for the great honor. I feel quite proud to be part of the
5% of Virginia attorneys that made this list for 2023.
The full lists of Virginia Super Lawyers will appear in the May edition of Richmond Magazine. Please check it out.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Contractor Given a Wake-Up Call for Using a "Sham" RMO/RME
October 02, 2015 —
Steven M. Cvitanovic & David A. Harris – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPTwo weeks ago we wrote about a disgorgement case winding its way through the courts where a contractor who let its license lapse after assigning its contract to a related but properly licensed entity was still facing disgorgement of the entire contract amount. Judicial Council of California v. Jacobs Facilities, Inc. (Ct. of Appeal, 1st App. Dis., Div. One, A140890, A141393.)
Now another disgorgement case, Jeff Tracy, Inc. v. City of Pico Rivera (Ct. of Appeal, 2nd App. District, Div. 2, B258563), shows the risk of not having a genuine RMO/RME. The consequences of disgorgement are potentially devastating and would certainly cause some contractors to go belly-up. The good news for the contractor in this particular case is that the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court. The bad news for the contractor is that damaging facts were revealed during the process of the court trial that will make a victory very difficult to pull off.
Reprinted courtesy of
Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
David A. Harris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com
Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Is Privity of Contract with the Owner a Requirement of a Valid Mechanic’s Lien? Not for GC’s
January 04, 2021 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsAs any reader of this construction law blog knows, mechanic’s liens make up much of the discussion here at Construction Law Musings. A recent case out of Fairfax County, Virginia examined the question of whether contractual privity between the general contractor and owner of the property at issue is necessary. As a reminder, in most situations, for a contract claim to be made, the claimant has to have a direct contract (privity) with the entity it sues. Further, for a subcontractor to have a valid mechanic’s lien it would have to have privity with the general contractor or with the Owner.
The Fairfax case, The Barber of Seville, Inc. v. Bironco, Inc., examined the question of whether contractual privity is necessary between the general contractor and the Owner. In Bironco, the claimant, Bironco, performed certain improvements for a barbershop pursuant to a contract executed by the two owners of the Plaintiff. We wouldn’t have the case here at Musings if Bironco had been paid in full. Bironco then recorded a lien against the leasehold interest of The Barber of Seville, Inc., the entity holding the lease. The Plaintiff filed an action seeking to have the lien declared invalid because Brionco had privity of contract with the individuals that executed the contract, but not directly with the corporate entity.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
