Gillotti v. Stewart (2017) 2017 WL 1488711 Rejects Liberty Mutual, Holding Once Again that the Right to Repair Act is the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims
June 05, 2017 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq. & Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq. - Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger BulletinBackground
In Gillotti v. Stewart (April 26, 2017) 2017 WL 1488711, which was ordered to be published on May 18, 2017, the defendant grading subcontractor added soil over tree roots to level the driveway on the plaintiff homeowner’s sloped lot. The homeowner sued the grading subcontractor under the California Right to Repair Act (Civil Code §§ 895, et seq.) claiming that the subcontractor’s work damaged the trees.
After the jury found the subcontractor was not negligent, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the subcontractor. The homeowner appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly construed the Right to Repair Act as barring a common law negligence theory against the subcontractor and erred in failing to follow Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98. The Third District Court of Appeal disagreed and affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the subcontractor.
Impact
This is the second time the Third District Court of Appeal has held that Liberty Mutual (discussed below) was wrongly decided and held that the Right to Repair Act is the exclusive remedy for construction defect claims. The decision follows its holding in Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court (Hicks) (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 333, in which the Court of Appeal held that the Right to Repair Act’s pre-litigation procedures apply when homeowners plead construction defect claims based on common law causes of action, as opposed to violations of the building standards set forth in the Right to Repair Act. Elliott is currently on hold at the California Supreme Court, pending the decision in McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132, wherein Liberty Mutual was rejected for the first time by the Fifth District. CGDRB continues to follow developments regarding the much anticipated McMillin decision closely, as well as all related matters.
Discussion
The Right to Repair Act makes contractors and subcontractors not involved in home sales liable for construction defects only if the homeowner proves they negligently cause the violation in whole or part (Civil Code §§ 911(b), 936). As such, the trial court in Gillotti instructed the jury on negligence with respect to the grading subcontractor. The jury found that while the construction did violate some of the Right to Repair’s building standards alleged by the homeowner, the subcontractor was not negligent in anyway. After the jury verdict, the trial court found in favor of the grading subcontractor.
The homeowner moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial on the grounds that the trial court improperly barred a common law negligence theory against the grading subcontractor. The trial court denied the motions on the grounds that “[t]he Right to Repair Act specifically provides that no other causes of action are allowed. See Civil Code § 943.” The trial court specifically noted that its decision conflicted with Liberty Mutual, in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the Right to Repair Act does not eliminate common law rights and remedies where actual damage has occurred, stating that Liberty Mutual was wrongly decided and that the Liberty Mutual court was naïve in its assumptions regarding the legislative history of the Right to Repair Act.
In Gillotti, the Third District Court of Appeal stated that the Liberty Mutual court failed to analyze the language of Civil Code § 896, which “clearly and unequivocally expresses the legislative intent that the Act apply to all action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in, residential construction, except as specifically set forth in the Act. The Act does not specifically except actions arising from actual damages. To the contrary, it authorizes recovery of damages, e.g., for ‘the reasonable cost of repairing and rectifying any damages resulting from the failure of the home to meet the standards....’ ([Civil Code] § 944).”
The Court also disagreed with Liberty Mutual’s view that because Civil Code §§ 931 and 943 acknowledge exceptions to the Right to Repair Act’s statutory remedies, the Act does not preclude common law claims for damages due to defects identified in the Act. The Court stated: “Neither list of exceptions, in section 943 or in section 931, includes common law causes of action such as negligence. If the Legislature had intended to make such a wide-ranging exception to the restrictive language of the first sentence of section 943, we would have expected it to do so expressly.”
Additionally, the Court of Appeal rejected the argument that Civil Code § 897 preserves a common law negligence claims for violation of standards not listed in Civil Code § 986. It explained that the section of Civil Code § 897, which provides, “The standards set forth in this chapter are intended to address every function or component of a structure,” expresses the legislative intent that the Right to Repair Act be all-encompassing. Anything inadvertently omitted is actionable under the Act if it causes damage. Any exceptions to the Act are made expressly through Civil Code §§ 931 and 934. The Court concluded in no uncertain terms that the Right to Repair Act precludes common law claims in cases for damages covered by the Act.
The homeowner further argued that she was not precluded from bringing a common law claim because a tree is not a “structure,” and therefore the alleged tree damage did not fall within the realm of the Right to Repair. The Court of Appeal also rejected this argument, holding that while the tree damage itself was not expressly covered, the act of adding soil to make the driveway level (which caused the damage) implicated the standards covered by the Right to Repair Act. The Court explained that since under the Act a “structure” includes “improvement located upon a lot or within a common area” (Civil Code § 895(a)), as the driveway was an improvement upon the lot, the claim was within the purview of the Right to Repair Act. As the soil, a component of the driveway, caused damage (to the trees), it was actionable under the Act.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Chelsea L. Zwart, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hunton Insurance Head Interviewed Concerning the Benefits and Hidden Dangers of Cyber Insurance
December 04, 2018 —
Michael S. Levine - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogThe head of Hunton Andrews Kurth’s insurance practice, Walter Andrews, was interviewed earlier this week by ABC 7 (WJLA) concerning the need for cyber insurance and the benefits that it can provide to government contractors and other businesses that are impacted by a cyber event. Andrews explains the diverse spectrum of benefits that are available through cyber insurance products, but cautions that a serious lack of uniformity exists among today’s cyber insurance products, making it crucial that policyholders carefully analyze their cyber insurance to ensure it provides the scope and amount of insurance they desire.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews KurthMr. Levine may be contacted at
mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Exception to Watercraft Exclusion Does Not Apply
September 24, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe court determined that an additional insured was not entitled to coverage despite an exception to the watercraft exclusion. Holden v. U.S. United Ocean Serv., LLC, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 15954 (5th Cir. Aug. 19, 2014).
United entered a contract with Buck Kreihs Company, Inc. under which Buck Kreihs would perform ship-repair work for United. Under the contract, Buck Kreihs would indemnify United for all liabilities arising out of the work or services performed by Buck Kreihs for United. The contract further provided that Buck Kreihs was to procure general liability coverage and name United as an additional insured. Buck Kreihs did so under a policy issued by St. Paul.
Holden, an employee of Buck Kreihs, was injured while preparing to remove a gangway that led from a dock at Buck Kreihs's facility to a barge owned by United. Holden sued United, which tendered to St. Paul as an additional insured. St. Paul denied coverage under the policy's watercraft exclusion. Holden and United settled. United pursued its third party suit against St. Paul. The district court granted summary judgment to St. Paul.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Wilke Fleury Attorneys Highlighted | 2019 Northern California Super Lawyers
September 16, 2019 —
Wilke, Fleury, Hoffelt, Gould & Birney, LLPWilke Fleury is proud to announce that 14 of our astounding attorneys were featured in the Annual List of Top Attorneys in the 2019 Northern California Super Lawyers magazine.
Super Lawyers rates attorneys in each state using a patented selection process; they also publish a yearly magazine issue that regularly produces award-winning features on selected attorneys.
Reprinted courtesy of
Wilke, Fleury, Hoffelt, Gould & Birney, LLP Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
U.S. Stocks Fluctuate Near Record After Housing Data
February 25, 2014 —
Lu Wang and Callie Bost – BloombergU.S. stocks fluctuated near a record high after data showed slower growth in home prices and a drop in consumer confidence, while Macy’s Inc. and Home Depot Inc. reported higher-than-estimated earnings.
Macy’s and Home Depot rose at least 3.1 percent. Tesla Motors Inc. climbed 16 percent as Morgan Stanley more than doubled its projected price for the stock. Office Depot Inc. slumped 11 percent after reporting an unexpected loss. Tenet Healthcare Corp. declined 11 percent as its forecast missed analysts’ estimates.
The S&P 500 (SPX) gained 0.1 percent to 1,848.59 at 1:59 p.m. in New York, poised for the highest close ever. Earlier, the U.S. equity benchmark lost 0.4 percent. The Dow Jones Industrial Average advanced 14.05 points, or 0.1 percent, to 16,221.19. Trading in S&P 500 stocks was 7 percent below the 30-day average during this time of the day.
Ms. Wang may be contacted at lwang8@bloomberg.net; Ms. Bost may be contacted at cbost2@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lu Wang and Callie Bost, Bloomberg
Construction Spending Had Strongest Increase in Four Years
January 13, 2014 —
CDJ STAFFThe Commerce Department announced a 1% gain in construction spending, from October to November, which is the biggest gain that construction has seen since March 2009, according to The Spokesman-Review. The gain brought construction spending to an adjusted annual rate of $934.4 billion.
The Spokesman-Review further reports that residential construction rose 1.9% in November, while commercial construction rose 2.7%. Government construction, on the other hand, fell 1.8%.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Denver Airport Terminates P3 Contract For Main Terminal Renovation
November 12, 2019 —
Mark Shaw - Engineering News-RecordIn a move that stunned transportation planners around the country, Denver International Airport terminated the contractor team working on a $650-million terminal renovation. The move also ended the airport’s $1.8-billion public-private partnership with Great Hall Partners, a consortium led by Ferrovial Airports, with partners Saunders/JLC Infrastructure.
Mark Shaw, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Shaw may be contacted at shawm@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
More Hensel Phelps Ripples in the Statute of Limitations Pond?
February 03, 2020 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsAs is always the case when I attend the Virginia State Bar’s annual construction law seminar, I come away from it with a few posts on recent cases and their implications. The first of these is not a construction case, but has implications relating to the state project related statute of limitations and indemnification issues for construction contracts brought out in stark relief in the now infamous Hensel Phelps case.
In Radiance Capital Receivables Fourteen, LLC v. Foster the Court considered a waiver of the statute of limitations found in a loan contract. The operative facts are that the waiver was found in a Continuing Guaranty contract and that the default happened more than 5 years prior to the date that Radiance filed suit to enforce its rights. When the defendants filed a plea in bar stating that the statute of limitations had run and therefore the claim was barred, Radiance of course argued that the defendants had waived their right to bring such a defense. The defendants responded that the waiver was invalid in that it violated the terms of Va. Code 8.01-232 that states among other things:
an unwritten promise not to plead the statute shall be void, and a written promise not to plead such statute shall be valid when (i) it is made to avoid or defer litigation pending settlement of any case, (ii) it is not made contemporaneously with any other contract, and (iii) it is made for an additional term not longer than the applicable limitations period.
The Circuit Court and ultimately the Supreme Court agreed with the defendants. In doing so, the Virginia Supreme Court rejected arguments of estoppel and an argument that a “waiver” is not a “promise not to plead.”
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
