Recent Supreme Court Decision Could Have Substantial Impact on Builders
January 23, 2023 —
Cassidy Ingram - Ahlers Cressman & SleightOn October 27, 2022, the Washington State Supreme Court issued a decision which could have a substantial impact on the enforceability of contract clauses that require litigation to be commenced within a stated period of time from project completion. In Tadych v. Noble Ridge Construction, Inc.,the Supreme Court held that the contractual one-year statute of limitations for bringing claims against the contractor was substantively unconscionable and reversed the Court of Appeals.
In Tadych, plaintiff owners (the Tadychs) contracted with defendant contractor (Noble Ridge Construction, Inc., or NRC) for the construction of a custom home in 2012. The contract included a one-year claim limitations clause that required claims to be raised within a one year period from project completion and that any claims not raised during the one-year period would be waived. In December 2013, as the project neared completion, the Tadychs met with NRC to identify any outstanding project issues. The Tadychs noted several, including rainwater pools at the landing at the bottom of the stairs and several nicks and cracks on the stucco exterior walls.
The Tadychs moved into the home on April 8, 2014, and the City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development conducted its final site inspection on April 15 and approved the residence for occupancy on April 23. In January or February of 2015, the Tadychs began to notice a shift in their home. In February of 2015, the Tadychs engaged the Construction Dispute Resolution (CDR) to review NRC’s work. CDR raised concerns about the adequacy of the home’s construction and prepared a written report in March 2015 indicating several deviations from the architectural plans and building codes. The Tadychs sent this report to NRC, who assured the Tadychs that NRC’s work followed all requirements and rejected any claims that there were deviations from the plans. The Tadychs continued to notice issues with the home through October 2016.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Cassidy Ingram, Ahlers Cressman & SleightMs. Ingram may be contacted at
cassidy.ingram@acslawyers.com
Avoid L&I Violations by Following Appropriate Safety Procedures
November 07, 2022 —
Reeya Patel - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCDepartment of Labor and Industries of the State of Washington v. Roof Doctor, Inc. d/b/a Roof Doctors, Inc. of Tacoma (Unpublished opinion)
Roof Doctor, a company engaging maintenance of roofs, was hired to complete work for a commercial building in Tacoma in February 2018. During the job, Roof Doctor was cited for two violations by a Washington State Department of Labor and Industries’ (L&I) compliance inspector and seven additional asbestos violations. Each citation was rated with a probability of 1 – 3 to determine the likelihood of injury, illness, or disease. The ratings allowed issuance of an appropriate monetary penalty.
The disputes among the parties on appeal were as follows:
First, L&I and Roof Doctor disputed the asbestos probability ratings and calculated penalties. L&I produced as evidence, the fact that nine employees were physically hanging roofing material with asbestos, but none had training or knew that the material contained asbestos. L&I did agree that that most of the employees were experienced in handling roofing material and knew of the dangers that asbestos presented. Roof Doctor explained that because the employees were working outdoors, the danger of asbestos exposure was mitigated due to a low probability that a high concentration of asbestos could be inhaled by the employees when outdoors.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
EPA Will Soon Issue the Latest Revision to the Risk Management Program (RMP) Chemical Release Rules
February 10, 2020 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelOn November 21, 2019, EPA released a pre-publication copy of its Reconsideration of the revised Risk Management Program (RMP) Rules. In an accompanying statement, the agency noted that it has taken steps to “modify and improve” the existing rule to remove burdensome, costly and unnecessary requirements while maintaining appropriate protection (against accidental chemical releases) and ensuring responders have access to all of the necessary safety information. This action was taken in response to EPA’s January 13, 2017 revisions that significantly expanded the chemical release prevention provisions the existing RMP rules in the wake of the disastrous chemical plant explosion in West, Texas. The Reconsideration will take effect upon its publication in the Federal Register.
Background
As recounted by the D. C. Circuit in its August 2018 decision in the case of Air Alliance Houston, et al. v. EPA, in 1990, the Congress amended the Clean Air Act to force the regulation of hazardous air pollutants (see 42 USC Section 7412). An initial list of these hazardous air pollutants was also published, at Section 7412 (b). Section 112(r) (codified at 42 USC Section 7412 (r)), authorized EPA to develop a regulatory program to prevent or minimize the consequences of a release of a listed chemical from a covered stationary source. EPA was directed to propose and promulgate release prevention, detection, and correction requirements applicable to stationary sources (such as plants) that store or manage these regulated substances in amounts determined to be above regulated threshold quantities. EPA promulgated these rules in 1996 (see 61 FR 31668). The rules, located at 40 CFR Part 68, contain several separate subparts devoted to hazard assessments, prevention programs, emergency response, accidental release prevention, the development and registration of a Risk Management Plan, and making certain information regarding the release publicly available. EPA notes that over 12.000 RMP plans have been filed with the agency.
In January 2017, in response to the catastrophe in West, EPA issued substantial amendments to these rules, covering accident prevention (expanding post-accident investigations, more rigorous safety audits, and enhanced safety training), revised emergency response requirements, and enhanced public information disclosure requirements. (See 82 FR 4594 (January 13, 2017).) However, the new administration at EPA, following the submission of several petitions for reconsideration of these revised rules, issued a “Delay Rule” on June 14, 2017, which would have extended the effective date of the January 2107 rules until February 19, 2019. On August 17, 2018, the Delay Rule was rejected and vacated by the D.C. Circuit in the aforementioned Air Alliance case (see 906 F. 3d 1049 (DC Circuit 2018)), which had the effect of making the hotly contested January 2017 RMP revisions immediately effective.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Can an Architect, Hired by an Owner, Be Sued by the General Contractor?
September 10, 2014 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorAs is often the answer in this blog, maybe. And, it will likely depend on which state’s law is applied. Over the last few weeks, courts around the country have reached differing conclusions on whether a general contractor may sue an architect that it did not hire.
Here’s the situation: The owner hires an architect to draft plans for a project. The project is then put out for bid and the owner hires a general contractor for the work. The general contractor and architect do not enter into a contract with each other.
If, during construction, the general contractor finds fault with the plans, it may seek Request for Information and Change Orders, to shore up the perceived problems with the plans. Ultimately, the general contractor may sue the architect to recover damages it suffered in completing the project.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
Miller Act Statute of Limitations and Equitable Tolling
July 11, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen it comes to a Miller Act payment bond claim, there is a one-year statute of limitations—“The Miller Act contains a statute of limitations provision that requires actions to ‘be brought no later than one year after the day on which the last of the labor was performed or material was supplied by the person bringing the claim.’” U.S. f/u/b/o Techniquex Specialty Flooring, Inc., v. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co., 2022 WL 169070, *3 (M.D.Penn. 2022) (citing the Miller Act).
There is an argument, albeit a difficult one, to support an equitable tolling of the one-year statute of limitations. This would be an argument filed when the one-year statute of limitations expires, but there is reason for missing the statute of limitations caused typically by the overt misleading of the defendant (surety/bond-principal):
“Equitable tolling functions to stop the statute of limitations from running where the claim’s accrual date has passed.” “Equitable tolling is appropriate in three situations: (1) when the defendant has actively misled the plaintiff respecting the facts which comprise the plaintiff’s cause of action; (2) when the plaintiff in some extraordinary way has been prevented from asserting his rights; and (3) when the plaintiff has timely asserted his rights in the wrong forum.” The first ground for equitable tolling“appears to be the same, in all important respects” to equitable estoppel, which “excuses late filing where such tardiness results from active deception on the part of the defendant” and “what courts describe as ‘equitable tolling’ is encompassed by the latter two parts of our Circuit’s doctrine.” The extraordinary circumstances standard may be met “where the defendant misleads the plaintiff, allowing the statutory period to lapse; or when the plaintiff has no reasonable way of discovering the wrong perpetrated against her …”
Tehniquex, supra, at *5 (internal citations omitted).
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
Mediation Clause Can Stay a Miller Act Claim, Just Not Forever
July 11, 2021 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIt seems to be Miller Act time here at Construction Law Musings, not to mention in the Federal District Courts here in Virginia. Last week I discussed what sort of work can form the basis for a Miller Act claim. This week I am discussing the effect of a mandatory mediation contract clause on the same type of claim. I have discussed both the benefits and the possible negative consequences of the inclusion of such a clause in your construction contract.
The recent case out of the Norfolk, Virginia Federal District Court recently explored the related question of whether such a clause can be enforced in the context of a Miller Act claim. In United States of America, for the use of Precision Air Conditioning of Brevard Inc. v. Cincinnati Insurance Company, the Court was confronted with a possible conflict between the legal requirement that any waiver of the right to pursue a Miller Act claim must be explicitly waived in writing and the clear contractual language between the general contractor and the plaintiff stating that mediation was a condition precedent to suit.
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
Named Insured’s Liability Found Irrelevant to Additional Insured’s Coverage Under a Landlords and Lessors Additional Insured Endorsement
November 16, 2020 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Truck Ins. Exchange v. AMCO Ins. Co. (No. B298798, filed 10/26/20), a California appeals court held that even though the named insured restaurant-lessee was found not liable for premises liability to injured restaurant patrons, the respective liability of the named and additional insured was irrelevant to the landlord-lessor’s coverage for injuries “arising out of” the lessee’s “use” of the premises under a landlords, managers or lessors of premises additional insured endorsement on the lessee’s general liability policy.
In Truck v. AMCO, restaurant patrons were injured when a vehicle crashed into the restaurant while they were dining. The landlord was aware of a similar accident that happened several years before, but the current lessee operating the restaurant was not. The patrons sued the lessee, alleging negligence and premises liability for failing to take precautionary measures and safeguard the patrons. On learning of the prior incident, the patrons added the landlord, alleging that it should have protected the property from a recurrence by reinforcing the door and installing bollards by the street.
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
Insurer Doomed in Delaware by the Sutton Rule
September 12, 2023 —
Katherine Dempsey - The Subrogation StrategistIn Donegal Mut. Ins. Co. v. Thangavel, No. 379, 2022, 2023 Del. LEXIS 227, the Supreme Court of Delaware (Supreme Court) considered whether the Sutton Rule prevented the plaintiff from pursuing subrogation against the defendants. As applied in Delaware, the Sutton Rule explains that landlords and tenants are co-insureds under the landlord’s fire insurance policy unless a tenant’s lease clearly expresses an intent to the contrary. If the Sutton Rule applies, the landlord’s insurer cannot pursue the tenant for the landlord’s damages by way of subrogation. Here, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision that the Sutton Rule applied because the lease did not clearly express an intent to hold the tenants liable for the landlord’s damages.
In Thangavel, the plaintiff, Donegal Mutual Insurance Company (Insurer), provided property insurance to Seaford Apartment Ventures, LLC (Landlord) for a residential property in Delaware. Sathiyaselvam Thangavel and Sasikala Muthusamy (Tenants) leased an apartment (the Premises) from Landlord and signed a lease. Insurer alleged that Tenants hit a sprinkler head while flying a drone inside the Premises which caused water to spray from the damaged sprinkler head, resulting in property damage to the Premises. Landlord filed an insurance claim with Insurer, who paid Landlord $77,704.06 to repair the damage. Insurer then sought to recover the repair costs from Tenants via subrogation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Katherine Dempsey, White and Williams LLPMs. Dempsey may be contacted at
dempseyk@whiteandwilliams.com
