New Home Construction Booming in Texas
October 24, 2022 —
Jason Daniel Feld & Ron Raydon - Kahana FeldWith the rapid relocation trends of families moving to Texas, it was reported that new residential construction permits in Texas grew to a total value in excess of $2 billion and over 7,500 new construction permits in September 2022 alone. D.R. Horton lead the way with 1,139 new permits, while Lennar Homes clocked 696 new permits. Other leading homebuilders including KB Homes (239 permits) and Pulte Homes (253 permits) remained active heading into the 4th Quarter of 2022. The following is a breakdown of new permits and average home values in the 4 largest cities in Texas (Houston, Dallas, Austin and San Antonio) for September 2022:
Houston
Last month, there were approximately 340 home builders with new permits on record in the Houston area, and the following ranked as the top five total new permits:
| Builder | Total Permits | Average Value |
|---|
| 1-D.R. Horton |
483 |
$ 129,812.00 |
| 2-Camillo Properties |
190 |
$ 147,790.00 |
| 3-Lennar Homes |
188 |
$ 195,503.00 |
| 4-Meritage Homes |
124 |
$ 248,597.00 |
| 5-Wan Pacific Real Estate Development |
117 |
$ 165,044.00 |
Dallas
In Dallas, there were more than 290 contractors with new residential construction activity on record with HBW last month, and the following ranked as the top five for total new permits:
| Builder | Total Permits | Average Value |
|---|
| 1-D.R. Horton |
555 |
$ 179,430.00 |
| 2-Lennar Homes |
232 |
$ 202,318.00 |
| 3-Trophy Signature Homes |
111 |
$ 274,016.00 |
| 4-Bloomfield Homes |
97 |
$ 405,235.00 |
| 5-Meritage Homes |
92 |
$ 267,425.00 |
Austin
Last month, there were nearly 125 home builders with new construction activity on record in the Austin area, and the following ranked as the top five for total new permits for the one-month period:
| Builder | Total Permits | Average Value |
|---|
| 1-Lennar Homes |
150 |
$ 154,390.00 |
| 2-KB Homes |
147 |
$ 253,606.00 |
| 3-D.R. Horton |
99 |
$ 200,416.00 |
| 4-Taylor Morrison Homes |
79 |
$ 365,183.00 |
| 5-David Weekley Homes |
64 |
$ 436,978.00 |
San Antonio
In San Antonio, there were nearly 120 contractors with new residential construction activity on record last month, and the following ranked as the top five for total new permits:
| Builder | Total Permits | Average Value |
|---|
| 1-Lennar Homes |
126 |
$ 174,315.00 |
| 2-KB Homes |
55 |
$ 254,109.00 |
| 3-Pulte Homes |
52 |
$ 241,012.00 |
| 4-M/I Homes |
51 |
$ 237,283.00 |
| 5-LGI Homes |
30 |
$ 202,760.00 |
The residential construction boom is Texas does not appear to be slowing down anytime soon. With new corporations relocating corporate offices to the Lone Star State each year, we expect this trend to continue for the foreseeable future. And with increased home production, we will closely monitor the increase in construction related litigation over the next five to ten years.
The increase in market activity attracts new or inexperienced builders and tradesman, making the importance of a proactive approach to construction management all the more important. Given the labor shortages and supply chain issues. It is imperative that Texas homebuilders take extra precautions to ensure quality construction practices and oversight to minimize potential litigation.
Reprinted courtesy of Jason Daniel Feld, Kahana Feld and Ron Raydon, Kahana Feld
Mr. Feld may be contacted at jfeld@kahanafeld.com
Mr. Raydon may be contacted at rraydon@kahanafeld.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurer Could Not Rely on Extrinsic Evidence to Circumvent Its Duty to Defend
February 14, 2023 —
Lorelie S. Masters & Yaniel Abreu - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogIn
First Mercury Insurance Co. v. First Florida Building Corp., et al., a federal district court ordered that an insurer had a duty to defend its insured against an underlying personal injury lawsuit. 2023 WL 23116, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 3, 2023). First Mercury is a cautionary tale about how insurers may try to circumvent their obligations by improperly considering extrinsic evidence when determining whether they have a duty to defend their insureds.
First Mercury is a coverage dispute over an underlying personal injury lawsuit that was filed against the insured, a construction company, for injuries the claimant allegedly sustained at a construction site. Id. The claimant alleged that he was at the construction site as an invitee who was “working with” the insured. Id. The insurer agreed to defend the insured against the personal injury lawsuit under a reservation of rights. Id. However, the insurer filed a coverage action seeking a declaration that coverage for the personal injury lawsuit was excluded under the policy. Id. Specifically, the insurer, on summary judgment, argued that the claimant was an employee of the insured who was injured in the course of his employment, thus falling within the employer’s liability and workers’ compensation exclusions in the policy. Id. Although the insurer acknowledged that the personal injury complaint against the insured triggered its duty to defend under the policy, the insurer argued that those exclusions relieved its duty to defend or indemnify the insured. Id.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Yaniel Abreu, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Abreu may be contacted at yabreu@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Connecticut Court Clarifies Construction Coverage
June 28, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Connecticut Supreme Court has recently ruled on a case in which breach of contract and bad-faith claims were made against an insurer in an construction defect case. Joseph K. Scully of Day Pitney LLP discussed the case in a piece on Mondaq.
Mr. Scully noted that the background of the case was that Capstone Building was the general contractor and project developer of a student housing complex for the University of Connecticut. Unfortunately, the building had a variety of problems, some of which were violations of the building code. Mr. Scully noted that the building had “elevated carbon monoxide levels resulting from inadequate venting, improperly sized flues.” Capstone entered into mediation with the University of Connecticut. Capstone’s insurer, the American Motorists Insurance Company (AMICO), declined involvement in the participation. Afterward, Capstone sued AMICO. The issues the court covered involved the insurance on this project.
The court addressed three questions. The first was “whether damage to a construction project caused by construction defects and faulty workmanship may constitute ‘property damage’ resulting from an ‘occurrence.’” The court concluded that it could “only if it involved physical injury or loss of use of ‘nondefective property.’”
The second question dealt with whether insurers were obligated to investigate insurance claims. The court, “agreeing with the majority of jurisdictions,” did not find “a cause of action based solely on an insurer’s failure to investigate a claim.” Under the terms of the contract, it was up to AMICO to decide if it was going to investigate the claim.
Thirdly, the court examined whether “an insured is entitled to recover the full amount of a pre-suit settlement involving both covered and noncovered claims after an insurer wrongfully disclaims coverage.” The court concluded that the limits are that the settlement be reasonable, the policy limit, and the covered claims.
Mr. Scully concludes that the decision will limit “the scope of coverage for construction defect claims” and “also imposes reasonable requirements on an insured to allocate a settlement between covered and noncovered claims.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Understanding the Real Estate and Tax Implications of Florida's Buyer Ban Law
July 16, 2023 —
Kelly Erb - White and Williams LLPLast month, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) of Florida signed a new law that would prohibit people who are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents and whose "domicile" is in China from purchasing certain real property in the state. Generally, the prohibition applies to agricultural land and other land within ten miles of restricted areas, including military bases and infrastructure like airports and wastewater treatment plants.
The law, which takes effect on July 1, 2023, would also impose criminal penalties on any person or real estate company that knowingly sells real estate in the Sunshine State to anyone impacted by the ban.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kelly Erb, White and Williams LLPMs. Erb may be contacted at
erbk@whiteandwilliams.com
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
Georgia Supreme Court Addresses Anti-Indemnity Statute
October 21, 2019 —
David R. Cook - AHC Construction and Procurement BlogIn prior blog posts, we addressed Georgia’s anti-indemnity statute. One of the posts addressed the statute in the context of an electric utility easement near an airport. That case made its way to the Supreme Court Georgia, which provided some additional clarity to the statute. Milliken & Co. v. Georgia Power Co., — Ga. –, 829 S.E.2d 111 (2019).
When a plane crashed and several passengers and crew died or were injured, their representatives sued several defendants, including a nearby plant owner, Milliken & Company (“Milliken”), based on claims that transmission lines on Milliken’s property were too close to the runways, were too high, and encroached on the airport easements. Milliken cross claimed against Georgia Power Company (“GPC”). Milliken’s claim was based on an easement it granted to GPC, which required GPC to indemnify it for any claims arising out of GPC’s construction or maintenance of the transmission lines.
On appeal, the Supreme Court considered whether the clause was unenforceable under O.C.G.A. § 13-8-2(b). In general, “a party may contract away liability to the other party for the consequences of his own negligence without contravening public policy, except when such agreement it prohibited by statute.” Id. at 113 citing Lanier at McEver v. Planners & Eng’rs Collaborative, 284 Ga. 204, 205 (2008). As one such statute, O.C.G.A. § 13-8-2(b) applies when an indemnification provision (i) “relates in some way to a contract for construction, alteration, repair, or maintenance of certain property” and (ii) “promises to indemnify a party for damages arising from that own party’s sole negligence.” Id. at 114 (internal punctuation omitted).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLPMr. Cook may be contacted at
cook@ahclaw.com
“Incidental” Versus “Direct” Third Party Beneficiaries Under Insurance Policies in Which a Party is Not an Additional Insured
April 18, 2023 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogAs they say, when it rains, it pours. Indemnity and insurance are the “Big Two” when it comes to risk avoidance on construction projects. The next case,
LaBarbera v. Security National Security Company, 86 Cal.App.5th 1329 (2022), involves both. It’s an interesting case, which I think could have gone either way, involving claims by a higher-tiered party that they were a third party beneficiary under an insurance policy in which they were not named as an additional insured.
The LaBarbera Case
The Indemnity Provision and Insurance Policy
In June 1016, Chris LaBarbera hired Richard Knight doing business as Knight Construction to remodel his house in Carmichael, California. The construction contract included an indemnity provision which provided that Knight would defend and indemnify LaBarbera from all claims arising out the remodeling work except for claims arising from LaBarbera’s sole negligence and willful misconduct.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Construction Lien Does Not Include Late Fees Separate From Interest
December 30, 2019 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesConstruction liens can include unpaid finance charges. But, what about late fees? You know, the late fees that certain vendors like to include in their contract or purchase order unrelated to finance charges. An added cost for being delinquent with your payment. Can a late fee be tacked onto the lien too?
In a recent case, Fernandez v. Manning Building Supplies, Inc., 2019 WL 4655988 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019), a residential owner hired a contractor for a renovation job. The contractor entered into a contract with a material supplier. The terms of the supplier’s contract with the contractor provided that there would be a 1.5% delinquency charge for late payments and it seemed apparent that the delinquency charge was separate from finance charges.
Florida Statute s. 713.06(1) provides in relevant portion:
A materialman or laborer, either of whom is not in privity with the owner, or a subcontractor or sub-subcontractor who complies with the provisions of this part and is subject to the limitations thereof, has a lien on the real property improved for any money that is owed to him or her for labor, services, or materials furnished in accordance with his or her contract and with the direct contract and for any unpaid finance charges due under the lienor’s contract.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
