Badly Constructed Masonry Walls Not an Occurrence in Arkansas Law
May 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe US District Court for Maryland has granted a summary judgment in the case Konover Construction Corp. v. ATC Associates to Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company and denied a request for dismissal from ACT. Konover (KBE) was contracted by Wal-Mart to build a Wal-Mart store and a Sam’s Club in Port Covington, Maryland. Superus, Inc. was hired by KBE to build the masonry walls. Superus purchased a policy from Massachusetts Bay Insurance which named KBE as an additional insured. Wal-Mart hired ATC Associates to independently test and inspect the concrete structural steel, and masonry.
After the building was in use, a large crack appeared which was attributed a latent construction defect. Other cracks were discovered. Upon investigation, it was discovered that there were “voids or foam in the concrete block surrounding the reinforcing steel that should have been filled with grout,” and in some cases, “reinforcing steel was missing or not installed in accordance with the specifications.” KBE paid for the repair and remediation and Wal-Mart assigned all rights and interests against ATC to KBE.
KBE filed suit against ATC. ATC called for dismissal on the grounds that Wal-Mart had no claims as the problems had been remediated. Wal-Mart then provided KBE with additional agreements to give them enforceable rights against ATC and Superus. KBE filed a fourteen claims against ATC, Superus, and Massachusetts Bay. In the current case, Massachusetts Bay sought summary judgment and ATC sought dismissal of all claims against it.
Massachusetts Bay claims that they need not indemnify Superus, as “there is no evidence adequate to establish that Superus’ defective work caused any collateral and/or resulting damage that was not subject to an Impaired Property exclusion, and that, in any event, no damage occurred during the policy period.”
As Wal-Mart is headquarted in Arkansas, certain contracts were under Arkansas law. Under the Arkansas courts, “defective workmanship, standing alone and resulting in damages only to the work product itself, is not an ‘occurrence.’” The court determined that collateral or resultant damage would be covered. The court found that “it is clear under Arkansas law, and the parties appear to agree, that Massachusetts Bay is not obligated to indemnify KBE for any repairs to the masonry walls themselves, including any cracks or gaps in the walls.” The court also found that “there is no evidence adequate to prove that any allegedly resultant property damage was caused by Superus’ faulty construction of the walls.” The court also noted that “if the building code violation and structural integrity problem were ‘property damage,’ insurance coverage would be barred by the Impaired Property Exclusion.” Based on these findings, the court concluded that Massachusetts Bay is entitled to summary judgment.
While the court dismissed the case against Massachusetts Bay, the court declined ATC’s motion to dismiss. The court noted that ACT’s alleged negligence in conducting inspections “created only a risk of economic loss for KBE.” Although hired by Wal-Mart, ATC “transmitted its daily testing and inspection reports of the Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club projects directly to KBE.” The court found that “KBE has made a plausible claim.”
ATC also claimed that KBE contributed to the negligence due to the negligence of its subcontractor. The court concluded that it was plausible that “ATC will not be able to carry its burden of proving KBE was contributorily negligent.” The court was less sanguine about KBE’s fraud claim, but though it “may not now appear likely to have merit, it is above the ‘plausibility’ line.”
In conclusion, KBE may not continue its case against Massachusetts Bay. However, the judge allowed the other proceedings to continue.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Developer’s Fraudulent Statements Are His Responsibility Alone in Construction Defect Case
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Texas Court of Appeals ruled on December 21 in the case of Helm v Kingston, a construction defect case. After purchasing what was described as “an extremely well-built” two-bedroom townhouse, Mr. Kingston made complaints of construction defects. Greenway Development did not repair the defects to Kingston’s satisfaction, and he filed notice of suit. In his suit, he claimed that GDI and its president, John Helm, had committed fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Kingston claimed that Helm “fraudulently induced Kingston to believe that the townhouse evidenced the highest quality of workmanship when in fact the quality of workmanship was atrocious.” Helms brought a counterclaim that Kingston’s suit was frivolous.
About four years after Kingston purchased the townhome, the suit proceeded to trial. The trial court determined that Helm was not “liable in his individual capacity,” but this was reversed at appeal.
A second trial was held ten years later on the question of whether Kingston’s unit was a townhome or an apartment. A jury found that Helm “engaged in a false, misleading or deceptive act or practice that Kingston relied on to his detriment.” Kingston was awarded $75,862.29 and an additional $95,000 in attorney fees by the jury. Helms made an unsuccessful appeal to the Appeals Court, after which Kingston was awarded an additional $10,000. Helms then made an unsuccessful appeal to the Texas Supreme Court, which lead to an additional $3,000 for Kingston. There was also a verdict of $48,770.09 in pre-judgment interest and “five percent post-judgment interest accruing from the date of the judgment until the time the judgment is paid. Helm appealed.
In his appeal, Helm raised seven issues, which the court reorganized into five Kingston raised one issue on cross-appeal.
Helms’ first claim was that Kingston “failed to satisfy the requirement of” Texas’s Residential Construction Liability Act and that by not filing under the RCLA, Kingston’s fraud and misrepresentation claims were preempted. Further Helms claimed that the RCLA limited Kingston’s damages. The court rejected this, as the RCLA deals with complaints made to a contractor and not only did Helm fail to “conclusively establish” his “status as a ‘contractor’ under the statutory definition,” Helm testified that he was “not a contactor” at the pre-trial hearing.
Helms’s second claim was that Kingston’s later claim of a misconstructed firewall should be barred, claiming that Kingston “‘had knowledge of a defect in the firewall’ as early as 1997 but did not assert them until 2007.” The court rejected this because Kingston’s claim was that “Helm ‘fraudulently induced Kingston to believe that the townhouse evidenced the highest quality of workmanship when in fact the quality of the workmanship was atrocious.’”
Helms also challenged whether his statements that the residence was of “good quality” constituted fraud and misrepresentation under Texas’s Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. The court concluded that Helm was in a position to make knowledgeable statements and further that “residential housing units are not artistic works for which quality is inherently a matter of subjective judgment.” Helm also claimed that Kingston could have avoided certain repair expenses through the “exercise of reasonable care.” Helms argued that the repairs could have been made for $6,400. The court disagreed, as these claims were cited only to invoke the DTPA, and that later petitions established additional defects.
Helms’s next claim was that he was not allowed to designate responsible third parties. The court rejected this because there GDI represented matters concerning the residence only through Helm’s statements. The court noted that “Helm is correct that?third parties may be liable for fraud if they ‘participated in the fraudulent transactions and reaped the benefits,’” but they note that “Helm never specifically alleged that GDI or CREIC participated in Helm’s alleged fraudulent transactions.
The final issue in the decision was about court costs, and here the court denied claims on both sides. Helm argued that the award of legal fees were excessive, as they exceeded the actual damages. The court noted that they “may not substitute our judgment for that of the jury,” and also that “the ratio between the actual damages awarded and the attorney’s fees is not a factor that determines the reasonableness of the fees.” But the court also rejected Kingston’s claim for post-judgment interest on $10,312.30 that Helm had deposited in the trial court’s registry. The court noted that the monies were to be paid out upon final judgment, but the mandate did not include any reference to interest.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Judicial Council Votes to Rescind Prohibitions on Eviction and Foreclosure Proceedings
September 28, 2020 —
David Rao & Lyndsey Torp - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogThe California Judicial Council’s emergency rules staying evictions and judicial foreclosures are coming to an end.
On March 27, 2020, the Governor of California issued executive order N-38-20, giving the Judicial Council emergency authority to act in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. On April 6, 2020, the Judicial Council of California voted to approve temporary emergency rules of court. Rule 1 prohibited the issuance of a summons, or the entering of a default, in an eviction action for both residential and commercial properties except as necessary to protect public health and safety. Rule 1 also continued all pending unlawful detainer trials for at least 60 days, with no new trials being set until at least 60 days after a request was filed. Rule 2 stayed all pending judicial foreclosure actions, tolled the statute of limitations, and extended the deadlines for responding to such actions.
Rule 1 and Rule 2 were to remain in effect until 90 days after the Governor declared the state of emergency resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic lifted, or until repealed by action of the Judicial Council. On August 13, 2020, the Judicial Council voted 19-1 to sunset Rule 1 and Rule 2 as of September 1, 2020. Beginning September 2, 2020, California state courts are authorized to issue summons on unlawful detainer actions, enter defaults, and set trial dates on request. Stays on pending judicial foreclosure actions will be lifted.
Reprinted courtesy of
David Rao, Snell & Wilmer and
Lyndsey Torp, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Rao may be contacted at drao@swlaw.com
Ms. Torp may be contacted at ltorp@swlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Supreme Court Upholds Insurance Commissioner’s Authority to Regulate Replacement Cost Estimates
January 26, 2017 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPn Assn. of Cal. Insurance Companies v. Jones ( No. S226529, filed 1/23/17), the California Supreme Court reversed trial and appellate court decisions to hold that California’s Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones had the authority to promulgate California Code of Regulations, title 10, section 2695.183, which sets out specific requirements for estimating replacement cost as part of any application for or renewal of homeowners insurance.
The regulation was promulgated in 2010 in response to complaints from homeowners who lost their homes in the Southern California wildfires of 2003, 2007, and 2008, and who discovered that they did not have enough insurance to cover the full cost of repairing or rebuilding their homes because the insurers’ estimates of replacement value were too low when they purchased the insurance.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Case Cannot Be Overturned While Facts Are Still in Contention in Related Cases
September 09, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Alabama Court of Civil Appeals has dismissed an appeal of a summary judgment in the case Bella Investments, Inc. v. Multi Family Services, Inc. MFS was hired by Bella to be the general contractor for a hotel in Gardendale, Alabama. MFS hired various subcontractors, including the architect for the project. After completion of the hotel in April, 2006, Bella made requests for MFS to repair cracked floor tiles.
In August, 2008, Bella sued MFS, the architect, and various fictitiously named defendants. Subsequently, Bella amended its complaint, naming some of the fictitiously named defendants.
MFS in turn claimed that Bella’s claims were void under the statute of limitations and that Bella was in beach of contact by failing to pay MFS the full amount owed. MFS moved for summary judgment under the statute of limitations, which was granted by the court.
Bella requested that the court “alter, amend, or vacate its summary judgment order.” When this was denied, Bella appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court, which transferred the appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals. The Court of Appeals refused to vacate the summary judgment as claims that form part of the case against MFS are also part of Bella’s claims against the other defendants. For this reason, the court upheld the summary judgment.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
What Counts as Adequate Opportunity to Cure?
June 13, 2022 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musingsqimono @ PixabayHere at Musings, we like to discuss (likely more than readers would like) the fact that in Virginia, the contract is king and its terms will be looked at carefully by the courts. One of those provisions that will be looked at carefully is the so-called “cure period.” The “cure period” is the time that a subcontractor has to fix any non-compliant construction after receiving notice of any deviation from the contract documents that must be fixed.
In United States ex rel Allan Myers VA, Inc. v. Ocean Construction Services, Inc. the federal court for the Eastern District of Virginia examined what it means to grant a proper opportunity to cure. The Ocean Construction Services case arises from a contractual dispute between Allan Myers VA Inc. and Ocean Construction Services Inc., or OCS, involving renovation work performed in sections of Arlington National Cemetery. Presently before the court is Myers’ motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that the undisputed facts demonstrate that it was not provided with a three-day cure period, a contractual prerequisite to OCS terminating the subcontract for default.
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
Fifth Circuit Reverses Summary Judgment Award to Insurer on Hurricane Damage Claim
December 18, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the insurer on a property damage claim arising from Hurricane Harvey. Advanced Indicator and Manufacturing, Inc. v. Acadia Ins. Co., 50 F.4th 469 (2022).
After Hurricane Harvey struck southern Texas in 2017, Advanced submitted a claim to Acadia for damage to its building that it claimed was caused by the hurricane's winds. Acadia sent an adjuster, Nick Warren, as well as an engineer, Jason Watson. Watson determined that pre-existing conditions - including ongoing leaks from deterioration and poor workmanship - caused the damage, rather than winds from Hurricane Harvey. Warren adopted these conclusions in his recommendations to Acadia. Acadia denied Advanced's claim based on these reports.
Advanced sued Acadia, alleging breach of contract and bad faith. Advanced filed a motion to remand to state court which was denied. Acadia moved for summary judgment arguing that it did not breach the policy and that Advanced could not segregate any damages caused by hurricane from pre-existing damage. The district court granted Acadia's motion, finding that Acadia's denial of Advanced's claim was based on "extensive consideration of the evidence." Further, Advanced failed to carry its burden of showing that covered and non-covered damages could be segregated as required by Texas's concurrent causation doctrine. Finally, the bad faith claim was dismissed because there was no breach of contract.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
OSHA’s COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard Is in Flux
December 06, 2021 —
Megan E. Baroni & Jonathan H. Schaefer - Construction ExecutiveOn Friday, Nov. 5, 2021, Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard was issued, with most requirements set to go into effect on Dec. 5. The ETS applies to employers with a total of 100 or more employees company-wide. Employers covered by the ETS would be required to develop, implement and enforce a mandatory vaccination policy, subject to limited exemptions, or allow unvaccinated employees to test regularly and be subject to a mask policy, among other associated recordkeeping, reporting and training requirements.
Almost immediately, the ETS was hit with a number of legal challenges in various courts across the country. On November 6, just a day after the ETS was issued, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an order staying the implementation of the ETS until further notice. The Court’s order was not a final ruling on the validity of the ETS but has halted implementation of the ETS, at least for the time being. Other legal challenges are already in process, further complicating the issue of if and when the ETS will become effective.
As of November 2021, the ETS is on hold, at least temporarily. That could change any day and the ETS could be back in effect, in whole or in part, or permanently halted. The legal challenges to the ETS are unlikely to end, or diminish, until the Supreme Court has weighed in, making for a few uncertain months ahead.
Reprinted courtesy of
Megan E. Baroni and Jonathan H. Schaefer, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Ms. Baroni may be contacted at mbaroni@rc.com
Mr. Schaefer may be contacted at jschaefer@rc.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
