Construction Defect or Just Punch List?
December 11, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFA couple in Dickinson, North Dakota have put big, green “buyer beware” signs on their home. They’re not planning on selling, but just trying to warn prospective neighbors of the problems they’ve had since moving into their new home. Andrea Thermes said her problems included leaking windows and uneven floors. “I absolutely love my house,” she said. “If we didn’t have the issues, I would be the happiest girl in the world.”
One problem was a leaking picture window in her living room. The builder replaced it, but the first window that arrived was the wrong size. The new home is still under a warranty and the builder has been fixing issues as they arise. “They are upset with some of the problems they have had,” said William Henry, president of B-Dev, the builder of the home. Since Ms. Thermes’s window wasn’t repaired in time for Thanksgiving, Mr. Henry sent wine and beer to her home. “Not that that makes up for not having their window, but we’re trying to make this work and trying to appease them,” he said.
But Mr. Henry said that some of the problems “are not really material defects,” characterizing them as “punch-list and warranty items.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Texas res judicata and co-insurer defense costs contribution
March 23, 2011 —
CDCoverage.comIn Truck Ins. Exchange v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co., No. 03-08-00526-CV (Tex. App. 3d Aug. 27, 2010), insured contractor DCI was sued by the project owner seeking damages for defective construction. DCI tendered its defense to its CGL insurers Truck and Mid-Continent. Truck agreed to defend while Mid-Continent denied a defense. While the underlying suit was pending, Mid-Continent sued DCI, but not Truck, and obtained a judicial declaration of no duty to defend or indemnify DCI in the underlying suit. After settling the underlying suit, Truck sued Mid-Continent seeking contribution towards defense costs and indemnity payments. The state trial court entered summary judgment for Mid-Continent. The intermediate appellate court affirmed.
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Protect Your Right To Payment By Following Nedd
August 03, 2022 —
Denise Motta - Gordon & Rees Construction Law BlogIn order to preserve your right to payment, you must satisfy the contractual requirements supporting a change order for the increased costs or time due to the delay. The key to the successful presentation of change order claims is educating your team on the following:
1. NOTICE
- Review the change order and notice provisions of your contracts. Make your contract searchable and insert the term “Noti” and look for the items listed below.
- Who: Check the designated representative for notice.
- It may not be the project manager.
- Confirm who can authorize the change order.
- Is owner approval required?
- Ensure that the party approving the change order has authority to do so.
- What: Check for specific information required by the contract.
- Provide ALL information available.
- If certain information is not yet available, state that the information will be provided when available.
- Reserve all rights to amend and submit additional information.
- Request both an increase to the Contract Sum and Contract Time.
- Make the request even if you do not believe the delay or time necessary will cause a significant impact.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Denise Motta, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLPMs. Motta may be contacted at
dmotta@grsm.com
In a Win for Property Owners California Court Expands and Clarifies Privette Doctrine
March 28, 2018 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogWe’ve written before about the
Privette doctrine, which
generally holds that a higher-tiered party is not liable for injuries sustained by employees of a lower-tiered party under the peculiar risk doctrine,
here,
here,
here and
here. We’ve also talked about some of the
exceptions to the
Privette doctrine, including the non-delegable duty doctrine and the negligent exercise of retained control doctrine, which provide that a hirer cannot rely on the
Privette doctrine if it owed a non-delegable duty to an employee of an independent contractor or if it retained control over the work of an employee of an independent contractor and negligently exercised that control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to injuries to that employee.
In the next case,
Delgadillo v. Television Center, Inc., Second District Court of Appeals, Case No. B270985 (February 2, 2018), the Court examined whether a property owner could be held liable under the non-delegable duty doctrine and negligent exercise of retained control doctrine for failing to provide structural anchor bolts on its buildings which led to the death of an employee of window washing company.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel, Rose, Black, & Dean, LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Adopts New Rule in Breach-of-the-Consent-to-Settle-Clause Cases
August 19, 2015 —
Sean Mahoney – White and Williams LLPIn Babcock & Wilcox Company, et al. v. America Nuclear Insurers, et al., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently held that where a liability insurer has agreed to provide a defense to its insured in an underlying tort action subject to a reservation of rights but refuses to consent to a settlement in that action, the insured may nevertheless accept the settlement over the insurer’s objection where the settlement is “fair, reasonable, and non-collusive” from the perspective of a reasonably prudent person in the insured’s position in light of the totality of the circumstances and is covered. Babcock & Wilcox Company v. America Nuclear Insurers, No. 2 WAP 2014, 2015 WL 4430352 (Pa. Jul. 21, 2015). This decision fills an important gap in Pennsylvania precedent addressing the rules applicable when an insurer refuses to consent to an insured’s settlement of a lawsuit.
In Babcock, the underlying plaintiffs sued Babcock & Wilcox Company and Atlantic Richfield Company (“the Insureds”) alleging that the Insured’s nuclear facilities caused bodily injury and property damage. The Insureds’ liability insurers agreed to defend the Insureds subject to a reservation of rights. The insurers later refused to consent to an offer to settle the underlying action for a total of $80 million because they believed the Insureds were likely to succeed on the merits. Nevertheless, in 2009, the Insureds accepted that offer and settled the underlying action for $80 million, notwithstanding the insurer’s refusal. The Insureds then sought reimbursement of the $80 million settlement from their insurers, who rejected that request on the ground that the Insureds had breached the consent-to-settlement/cooperation provisions of the implicated policies.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sean Mahoney, White and Williams LLPMr. Mahoney may be contacted at
mahoneys@whiteandwilliams.com
Condo Building Hits Highest Share of Canada Market Since 1971
December 10, 2015 —
Theophilos Argitis – BloombergIt’s the year of the condo for Canada’s housing market.
Construction of multiple units as a share of total new housing starts is at the highest level since 1971, data from Canada Mortgage & Housing Corp. show, as builders in Toronto and Vancouver press ahead with new development.
The condo boom -- fueled in part by affordability issues in Canada’s two priciest markets -- is helping offset a slump in construction of single detached homes across the country.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Theophilos Argitis, Bloomberg
Newmeyer & Dillion Ranked Fourth Among Medium Sized Companies in 2016 OCBJ Best Places to Work List
September 01, 2016 —
Newmeyer & Dillion LLPProminent business and real estate law firm
Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is proud to announce that it has been ranked fourth among medium sized companies in the
Best Places to Work in Orange County – 2016 Survey. The firm was the only law firm to make the top 25 of its category. This marks the fifth consecutive year Newmeyer & Dillion LLP has made the list showing that its deep commitment to professionalism and client service is shared and appreciated by its workforce.
Jeff Dennis, Newmeyer & Dillion’s Managing Partner, believes the award is representative of the team effort and atmosphere that is fostered at the firm. “We believe that client satisfaction goes hand-in-hand with work-place satisfaction. By combining an environment in which individual effort is recognized, with a team approach in which everyone is respected, we have achieved the perfect balance for success. We are honored that our employees appreciate our efforts in this regard.”
Created in 2009, the awards program evaluates entries based on workplace policies, practices, demographics and also collects employee surveys to measure overall satisfaction and experience. The Best Companies Group worked alongside the Orange County Business Journal in collecting and analyzing the data and is a partner in the project.
Newmeyer & Dillion has been honored in the July 25 issue of the Orange County Business Journal. For more information on the survey process and to see other award recipients contact Jackie Miller at 877-455-2159 or visit www.BestPlacestoWorkOC.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
Client Alert: Catch Me If You Can – Giorgio Is No Gingerbread Man
November 26, 2014 —
Steven M. Cvitanovic, Jesse M. Sullivan, & Colin T. Murphy - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Giorgio v. Synergy Management Group, LLC (2014) Case No. B248752, a California Court of Appeal held in an opinion published on November 6, 2014, that the Los Angeles County trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting service by publication on Defendant John Giorgio ("Giorgio") after numerous attempts to find his current address produced a single address in Los Angeles from which mailed service was returned. The Court ruled that publication in a Los Angeles newspaper was proper because Plaintiff had a reasonable belief that service by publication in that county was most likely to give actual notice to the party to be served.”
In this intentional tort action, Synergy Management Group, LLC ("Synergy") alleged in its Complaint that Giorgio converted assets of Synergy's assignor by submitting false expense reports which resulted in the misappropriation of the assignor's assets. Synergy personally served Giorgio with the original Complaint at a North Carolina airport and Giorgio failed to respond. Synergy subsequently filed a First Amended Complaint and attempted service via an address in the Netherlands. Again, Giorgio did not respond. Synergy then filed a request for entry of default against Giorgio which was entered that day.
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys
Steven M. Cvitanovic,
Jesse M. Sullivan and
Colin T. Murphy
Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com; Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at jsullivan@hbblaw.com; and Mr. Murphy may be contacted at cmurphy@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
