Commercial Construction in the Golden State is Looking Pretty Golden
August 26, 2015 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogIf the $2.1 trillion erased from the U.S. stock market over the last week has you white knuckled, you might consider commercial construction in the Golden State, where things are looking . . . well . . . pretty golden.
According to the Summer/Fall 2015 Commercial Real Estate Survey jointly published by Allen Matkins and the UCLA Anderson School of Management, commercial construction in California has risen to its highest level since 2001.
The survey, conducted of commercial real estate developers and financiers and their outlook for seven metropolitan regions in California including the East Bay, the Inland Empire, Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego, San Francisco and Silicon Valley, found that all respondents expressed optimism (characterized as an optimism sentiment above 50) that office, multifamily, industrial and retail construction would grow over the next three-years although it varied depending on the region and sentiment was at times lower than when the survey was last taken last year.
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
Arizona Court of Appeals Rules Issues Were Not Covered in Construction Defect Suit
December 09, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled in the case of Peters v. Marque Homes. In this case, Walter Peters provided the land and funding for Marque Homes to build a luxury residence in Glendale, Arizona. By the terms of the “Joint Venture Agreement,” Peters provided the land and funding, while Marque would not charge Peters for overhead, profits, or supervision fees. The agreement specified that profits would be divided equally.
Two years later, Marque sued Peters claiming he had breached his obligations by refusing several offers for the home. Peters replied that Marque had “failed to complete the home so it is habitable to prospective purchasers.” Peters stated he had “retained an expert inspector who had identified numerous defects.” The court appointed a Special Commissioner to list the home for sale. Peters purchased the home with two stipulations ordered by the court. At this point, the earlier case was dismissed with prejudice.
Peters then sued Marque “asserting express and implied warranty claims arising out of alleged construction defects in the home.” Marque claimed that Peters’s claims were “precluded by the prior joint venture dispute.” The court granted Marque’s motion.
The appeals court reversed the lower court’s decision, determining that Peters’s claims were not precluded by the agreement. Although there had been a prior case between the two parties, warranty issues did not form a part of that case. “Peters never raised these allegations nor presented this evidence in support of any warranty claim.”
The court also noted that the “parties never agreed to preclude future warranty claims.” Marque and Peters “agreed in the stipulated sale order that ‘the sale of the property to a third party shall be “as is” with a 10-year structural warranty.’” The court noted that the agreement said nothing about one of the parties buying the house.
The appeals court left open a claim by Marque that there are no implied or express warranties available to Peters. They asked the Superior Court to address this.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
How Your Disgruntled Client Can Turn Into Your Very Own Car Crash! (and How to Avoid It) (Law Tips)
January 21, 2019 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North CarolinaOver the summer, I was involved in a car crash. It was *not* my fault– heck, I wasn’t even driving but riding shotgun. But it wasn’t my husband’s fault either. A guy pulling out of a parking lot was watching the traffic coming up the road, but failed to see our car sitting in the same intersection waiting to turn into the same parking lot. He ran right into us.
It may not look like much, but the panels were so damaged it cost almost $9k in damages, over a month of car rental fees, and a LOT of aggravation on our part. The guy who hit us was very nice, apologized, and was concerned if we were injured. His insurance company ultimately paid for all of the damage. However– it wasn’t he who suddenly got a new part time job– that was me. I had to spend lots of time with police, insurance representatives, auto body mechanics, rental car places, you name it. If you’ve ever been in an accident, you know the headache involved. In fact, I have had 2 other accidents over the years (again, neither of which were my fault– I think I’m just a beacon for bad drivers?). One of those accidents was a 4 car accident– a driver hit my car, pushing it into the car ahead, which went into the car ahead of that. In that accident, my car was actually totaled. Fun times!
How is this relevant to your life as an architect or engineer? If you stay in the game (that is, the design field) long enough, chances are, you will, at some point, end up dealing with disgruntled clients. One of those clients may even file a lawsuit against you. Or, for that matter, you may end up getting sued by another party involved in your construction projects– one that you don’t even have a contract with.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLCMs. Brumback may be contacted at
mbrumback@rl-law.com
New Homes in Palo Alto to Be Electric-Car Ready
October 01, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFElectric cars are still fairly rare, but if you buy a new home in Palo Alto, you’ll have a place to charge it. The Palo Alto City Council has been enthusiastic about a measure that would require new homes to come wired for car chargers. The hope of the council is that the measure will make owning an electric car “convenient, easy and economical.”
If added to the construction process, the wiring adds about $200 to the cost of the home, far less than the cost of adding it to an existing home. In addition to considering changes in the building code, the city also considered measures that would allow for the operation of public charging stations.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurers Subrogating in Arkansas Must Expend Energy to Prove That Their Insureds Have Been Made Whole
July 30, 2019 —
Michael J. Ciamaichelo - The Subrogation StrategistArkansas employs the “made whole” doctrine, which requires an insured to be fully compensated for damages (i.e., to be “made whole”) before the insurer is entitled to recover in subrogation.[1] As the Riley court established, an insurer cannot unilaterally determine that its insured has been made whole (in order to establish a right of subrogation). Rather, in Arkansas, an insurer must establish that the insured has been made whole in one of two ways. First, the insurer and insured can reach an agreement that the insured has been made whole. Second, if the insurer and insured disagree on the issue, the insurer can ask a court to make a legal determination that the insured has been made whole.[2] If an insured has been made whole, the insurer is the real party in interest and must file the subrogation action in its own name.[3] However, when both the insured and an insurer have claims against the same tortfeasor (i.e., when there are both uninsured damages and subrogation damages), the insured is the real party in interest.[4]
In EMC Ins. Cos. v. Entergy Ark., Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14251 (8th Cir. May 14, 2019), EMC Insurance Companies (EMC) filed a subrogation action in the District Court for the Western District of Arkansas alleging that its insureds’ home was damaged by a fire caused by an electric company’s equipment. EMC never obtained an agreement from the insureds or a judicial determination that its insureds had been made whole. In addition, EMC did not allege in the complaint that its insureds had been made whole and did not present any evidence or testimony at trial that its insureds had been made whole. After EMC presented its case-in-chief, the District Court ruled that EMC lacked standing to pursue its subrogation claim because “EMC failed to obtain a legal determination that its insureds had been made whole . . . prior to initiating this subrogation action.” Thus, the District Court granted Entergy Ark., Inc.’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and EMC appealed the decision.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael J. Ciamaichelo, White and Williams LLPMr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at
ciamaichelom@whiteandwilliams.com
How To Fix Oroville Dam
January 04, 2018 —
Henry W. Burke - Engineering News - RecordOriginally Published by CDJ on March 22, 2017
On Sunday, Feb. 12, California officials ordered the immediate, mandatory evacuation of 188,000 residents from towns below the Oroville Dam. Two days later, when federal and state officials deemed the dam safe, the evacuation order was rescinded, and people were allowed to return to their homes. It isn't often that hundreds of thousands of people in the U.S. have to leave their homes because of worries about a catastrophic structural failure.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Henry W. Burke, ENRMr. Burke may be contacted at
hwburke@cox.net
Defense Victory in Breach of Fiduciary Action
February 26, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFEarlier this month, Scott Calkins and Anthony Gaeta of Collinsworth, Specht, Calkins & Giampaoli, LLP obtained a defense verdict in a breach of fiduciary duty action involving a high-rise condominium in downtown San Diego, California. The Association asked for excess of over $3 million, however, the jury returned with a 10-2 defense verdict in favor of K. Hovnanian.
Cortez Blu Community Association, Inc. v. K. Hovnanian at Cortez Hill, LLC, et al. initially involved construction defect claims against the developer, K. Hovnanian, and the general contractor, Turner Construction, as well as a claim of breach of fiduciary duty. However, the construction defect claims settled prior to trial leaving only the breach of fiduciary claim.
“While it is now becoming ever more common for attorneys representing homeowners associations to allege a breach of fiduciary duty by the developer, there has been little actual litigation of the issues surrounding those claims which test the viability of the allegations or the defenses to them,” defense attorney Anthony Gaeta stated. “A breach of a fiduciary duty by a developer, which is demonstrated to damage the viability of an HOA either to perform regularly scheduled maintenance, or replace building components from its reserves, has the potential in economic terms to surpass the damages from purported construction defects.
The Plaintiff argued that K. Hovnanian breached its fiduciary duty to the Association by failing to set adequate reserves within the initial Department of Real Estate budget (“DRE”) for painting, caulking, and power washing the exterior of the building, referencing Raven’s Cove Townhomes, Inc. v. Knuppe Development Co., Inc. (1981) 114 Cal. App. 3d 783. In response, K. Hovnanian stated that in part, the initial reserves as set forth in the DRE budget were adequate, good faith estimates and, therefore, there was no liability for breach of fiduciary duty.
“Our case was exclusively concerned with the duties of the developer when forming the initial HOA, preliminary budgets, and reserves,” Gaeta said. “We litigated the duties and responsibilities of the initial board and whether a developer may rely on reports prepared by third-parties during the formation of a common interest development. The jury found our client’s actions and reliance on third-parties was reasonable and, thus, no breach of fiduciary duty occurred.”
Collinsworth, Specht, Calkins & Giampaoli is a general civil litigation firm representing clients throughout California and Arizona. You may learn more about the firm at www.cslawoffices.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Builder’s Be Wary of Insurance Policies that Provide No Coverage for Building: Mt. Hawley Ins. Co v. Creek Side at Parker HOA
May 01, 2014 —
David M. McLain – Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCOn the heels of a recent order regarding coverage under a Comprehensive General Insurance policy issued by Mt. Hawley Insurance Company (“Mt. Hawley”), builders should be very wary of CGL policies providing no coverage for property damage.
On January 8, 2013, District Court Judge R. Brooke Jackson granted a motion for declaratory judgment filed by Mt. Hawley. The order states that the subject insurance policies issued by Mt. Hawley to Mountain View Homes II, LLC (“MV Homes”), the builder developer of the Creek Side at Parker development (the “Project”), did not provide coverage for any of the work performed by MV Homes or its subcontractors on the Project.
MV Homes originally began construction on the Project in 2002 and completed construction in 2005. MV Homes was insured by National Fire and Marine Insurance Company (“National Fire”) and Mt. Hawley. In December 2008, Creek Side at Parker Homeowners Association, Inc. (“the HOA”) served notice on MV Homes. The HOA then instituted a construction defect lawsuit on June 1, 2009 against MV Homes and others. MV Homes initially demanded a defense and indemnity from National Fire, which provided a defense. Then, after two years, MV Homes demanded a defense and indemnity from Mt. Hawley in July 2011. Mt. Hawley denied coverage and did not provide a defense. The case was settled soon after, and National Fire reserved or assigned claims against Mt. Hawley.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
