Late Filing Contractor Barred from Involving Subcontractors in Construction Defect Claim
March 01, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Colorado Court of Appeals looked at that state’s Construction Defect Action Reform Act in determining if a general contractor could add subcontractors as third-party defendants to a construction defect lawsuit. Shaw Construction, LLC was the general contraction of the Roslyn Court condominium complex, and was sued by the homeowners’ association in a construction defect case. United Builder Services was the drywall subcontractor on the project. MB Roofing had installed roofs, gutters, and downspouts. The certificate of occupancy for the last building was issued on March 10, 2004. The project architect certified completion of all known remaining architectural items in June, 2004.
The HOA filed a claim against the developers of the property on January, 21, 2009. A week later, the HOA amended its complaint to add Shaw, the general contractor. Shaw did not file its answer and third-party complaint until March 29, 2010, sending its notice of claim under the CDARA on March 30.
The subcontractors claimed that the six-year statute of limitations had ended twenty days prior. Shaw claimed that the statute of limitations ran until six years after the architect’s certification, or that the HOA’s suit had tolled all claims.
The trial court granted summary judgment to the subcontractors, determining that “substantial completion occurs ‘when an improvement to real property achieves a degree of completion at which the owner can conveniently utilize the improvement of the purpose it was intended.’”
The appeals court noted that “Shaw correctly points out that the CDARA does not define ‘substantial completion.’” The court argued that Shaw’s interpretation went against the history and intent of the measure. “Historically, a construction professional who received a complaint responded by ‘cross-nam[ing] or add[ing] everybody and anybody who had a part to play in the construction chain.’” The court concluded that the intent of the act was to prevent unnamed subcontractors from being tolled.
The court further rejected Shaw’s reliance on the date of the architect’s certification as the time of “substantial completion,” instead agreeing with the trial court that “the architect’s letter on which Shaw relies certified total completion.”
The appeals court upheld the trial court’s determination that the statute of limitation began to run no later than March 10, 2004 and that Shaw’s complaint of March 29, 2010 was therefore barred. The summary judgment was upheld.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Federal Miller Act Payment Bond Claim: Who Gets Paid and Who Does Not? What Are the Deadlines?
September 16, 2019 —
William L. Porter - Porter Law GroupWhen working on federal public works construction projects there are no Stop Payment Notice or Mechanics Lien remedies available to protect subcontractors’ and suppliers’ right to payment. Instead, unpaid subcontractors and suppliers must resort to making a claim for payment under a federal law known as the AMiller Act@ (40 USCS 3131 et seq.). Many claimants however, do not realize that the right to make a Miller Act claim is not available to all subcontractors and suppliers. Before committing to performing work on a federal project it is important for subcontractors and suppliers to understand whether or not a Miller Act claim will be available. For those who have no Miller Act rights, careful consideration must be given to whether it is worth the risk to take on the project. For those who have valid Miller Act claim rights, important deadlines must be considered.
Who Gets Paid Under a Miller Act and Who Does Not
For federal projects in excess of $100,000, contractors who have a contract directly with the Federal Government must obtain Miller Act Payment Bond intended for the protection of Subcontractors, laborers and material suppliers to the project.
As a general rule, every subcontractor, laborer, or material supplier who deals directly with the prime contractor and is unpaid may bring a lawsuit for payment against the Miller Act Payment Bond. Further, every unpaid subcontractor, laborer, or material supplier who has a direct contractual relationship with a first-tier subcontractor may bring such an action. The deadlines for these claims are described below.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Porter, Porter Law GroupMr. Porter may be contacted at
bporter@porterlaw.com
Builder’s Risk Coverage—Construction Defects
August 20, 2019 —
Brian Hearst - Construction ExecutiveThis is the second of three articles bringing clarity to the complex and challenging course of construction exposures and providing solutions for mitigating risk through builder’s risk insurance coverage. Part I, Builder’s Risk Coverage – Language Matters, addressed a select few critical exposures to projects under the course of construction. Part II addresses how a standard builder’s risk policy may respond to a loss arising from defective construction and alternative insurance market offerings that can help with specific costs associated with construction defect loss.
Coverage for Loss Ensuing from Faulty Workmanship
Part I tackled the standard builder’s risk exclusion that applies to losses arising from faulty materials or workmanship. Traditionally, carriers do not have an appetite for covering a contractor’s failure to perform their work properly. There is one exception, which is coverage is available for ensuing loss – or the resulting damage to other property from faulty workmanship.
If the excluded cause of loss (i.e., faulty workmanship) causes resultant damage, the builder’s risk policy will cover the damages to the extent the peril of fire is covered. The ensuing loss exception limits the faulty work exclusion to costs directly related to repairing or replacing the faulty work.
For example, suppose faulty wiring work leads to a fire which damages part of a structure under construction. The faulty workmanship exclusion would apply to the actual faulty wiring work, but if fire is a covered peril under the policy (this is nearly always the case), the policy would respond to the structure’s fire damage.
Reprinted courtesy of
Brian Hearst, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Hearst may be contacted at
Brian.Hearst@lockton.com
Beyond the Statute: How the Colorado Court Upheld Modified Accrual in Construction Contracts
November 13, 2023 —
Hal Baker - Colorado Construction Litigation BlogIn a case of first impression, the First Division of the Colorado Court of Appeals recently reviewed whether parties may contractually alter the accrual time established by Colorado’s statute of limitations for construction defect actions, C.R.S. § 13-80-104, in South Conejos Sch. Dist. RE-10 v. Wold Architects, Inc., 2023 COA 85 (2023), decided on September 21, 2023. The Court held that sophisticated parties may contractually alter the accrual time standards, enlarging the accrual time as was the issue in this case. Notably, the Court’s decision was made in the context of commercial construction, not residential.
The issue in South Conejos Sch. Dist. RE-10 arose from the construction of a school in Antonito, Colorado. Prior to construction, the South Conejos School District RE-10 (the “School District”) and Wold Architects, Inc. (“Wold”) entered a contract that provided:
Unless a longer period is provided by law, any action against [Wold] brought to recover damages for deficiency in the design, planning, supervision, inspection, construction or observation of construction or for injury to person or property shall be brought within two years after the claim for relief arises and is discovered by [the District]; … “Discovered” as used herein means detection and knowledge by [the District] of the defect in the improvement that ultimately causes the injury, when such defect is of a substantial or significant nature.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hal Baker, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. Baker may be contacted at
baker@hhmrlaw.com
Millennials Skip the Ring and Mortgage
June 26, 2014 —
Megan McArdle – BloombergThey’re living at home in growing numbers. They're not buying homes, which creates ripple effects throughout the housing market. They’re having more babies out of wedlock than in it. Why can’t millennials get it together?
The first and most obvious answer is “jobs.” If you can’t find a stable job, it’s hard to move out of Mom’s basement. It’s hard to commit to a mortgage or a spouse. It's hard, in other words, to launch into the middle-class life that constitutes the American Dream.
Millennials are some of the biggest victims of the financial crisis. Those without a college degree face high rates of unemployment, while those who have a sheepskin are more and more likely to be underemployed in a job that doesn’t require their degree. Even if the student loan crisis has been overstated, the rising cost of college tuition certainly doesn’t help.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Megan McArdle, BloombergMs. McArdle may be contacted at
mmcardle3@bloomberg.net
Real Property Alert: Recording Notice of Default as Trustee Before Being Formally Made the Trustee Does Not Make Foreclosure Sale Void
February 18, 2015 —
Krsto Mijanovic and Annette F. Mijanovic – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Ram, et al. v. OneWest Bank, FSB, et al. (filed 2/6/15, No. A139055), the California Court of Appeal held that a nonjudicial foreclosure sale is not void merely because the notice of default was recorded by an entity who had not yet been substituted as trustee. The court also held that because the sale was voidable, rather than void, the plaintiffs were required to allege an ability and willingness to tender their debt in addition to alleging that they were prejudiced by the irregularity in the foreclosure process.
Plaintiffs were borrowers who purchased a home subject to a deed of trust. After they defaulted on their loan, nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings were initiated, and the beneficiary of the deed of trust, OneWest Bank, FSB ("OneWest"), purchased the property at the foreclosure sale. Plaintiffs sued OneWest and other entities for wrongful foreclosure, alleging that the sale was void because the entity identified as the trustee on the notice of default, Aztec Foreclosure Corporation ("Aztec"), had not been formally substituted as trustee until after the notice of default was recorded. The trial court sustained OneWest's demurrer and plaintiff appealed.
Reprinted courtesy of
Krsto Mijanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Annette F. Mijanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com
Ms. Mijanovic may be contacted at amijanovic@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ohio Court of Appeals: Absolute Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage For Workplace Coal-Tar Pitch Exposure Claims
January 24, 2018 —
White and Williams LLPOn December 28, 2017, the Ohio Court of Appeals (Eighth District) held in
GrafTech International, Ltd., et al. v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., et al., No. 105258 that coverage for alleged injurious exposures to coal tar pitch was barred by a liability insurance policy’s absolute pollution exclusion. Applying Ohio law, the court concluded that Pacific Employers had no duty to defend GrafTech or pay defense costs in connection with claims by dozens of workers at Alcoa smelting plants that they were exposed to hazardous substances in GrafTech products supplied to Alcoa as early as 1942.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams
Foreclosures Decreased Nationally in September
October 29, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to the San Diego Source, in “September 2014, there were 46,000 completed foreclosures nationally, down from 68,000 in September 2013, a year-over-year decrease of 32.6 percent and down 61 percent from the peak of completed foreclosures in 2010, according to the September National Foreclosure Report of CoreLogic.”
Between 2000 and 2006, “completed foreclosures averaged 21,000 per month nationwide.” Furthermore, the San Diego Source reported that “[s]ince the financial crisis began in September 2008, there have been approximately 5.2 million completed foreclosures across the country, and since homeownership rates peaked in Q2 of 2004, there have been approximately 7 million homes lost to foreclosure.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
