Construction Defect Case Not Over, Despite Summary Judgment
November 07, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Supreme Court of Oregon has concluded in an en banc decision that a motion to reconsider a summary judgment is not a motion for a new trial. In coming to their conclusion the court overturned an earlier Oregon Supreme Court case, Carter v. U.S. National Bank. Although the decision does not bear on construction defects, the underlying case did. Due to the decision, these claims can now be evaluated in a trial.
The case, Association of Unit Owners of Timbercrest Condominiums v. Warren, came about after an apartment complex was converted into condominium units. The developers hired Big Al’s Construction for some of the remodeling work. The condominium association later sued the developer and the contractor over claims of construction defects. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted.
But that wasn’t the end of things. The plaintiff soon filed a “motion to reconsider,” noting that the summary judgment seemed to be in conflict with both law and other recent rulings, and additionally, the grounds for the decision were not in the order. The judge then notified the parties that the court had “pulled the trigger too quickly” and had seven questions for the parties to answer.
The court dismissed all claims against the defendants. The defendants filed their responses, objecting that that “‘there is no such thing’ as a motion for reconsideration.” Further, while “the rules do allow for post-judgment review of pre-judgment rulings through a motion for a new trial,” the plaintiffs had not filed for a new trial. But did they need one? They did file an appeal.
The judge in the case admitted that there was no such thing as a motion to reconsider, and felt bad about prematurely signing the judgment. The case was sent to the Court of Appeals to determine if the motion to reconsider was a request for a new trial. The Court of Appeals concurred.
In reviewing the decision, the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that there were a maximum of three questions to address. Was the motion for reconsideration a motion for a new trial? If so, was the later notice of appeal premature? And if so, was the plaintiff required to file a new appeal? The court determined that the answer to the first question was no.
Prior decisions pointed to the conclusion “that a motion for reconsideration of a summary judgment amounts to a motion for a new trial,” but here the court concluded that “our prior cases erred,” and turned to the summary judgment rule for clarification. The court noted that “the rule contemplates that summary judgment and trial are separate and distinct events.” With this conclusion, the Oregon Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Is it the End of the Story for Redevelopment in California?
October 02, 2015 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogLong, long ago (in 2012 to be exact) in a land not so far away (also known as California), legislation which allowed local governments to establish redevelopment agencies tasked with eliminating blight through the development, reconstruction and rehabilitation of residential, commercial, industrial and retail districts were abolished.
Note: For a relatively concise history of redevelopment in California see the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s working paper
Redevelopment Agencies in California: History, Benefits, Excesses, and Closure (January 2014).
A quite war has been waged ever since. Cities, community development commissions, successor agencies to redevelopment agencies, nonprofit housing corporations and individual taxpayers have fought the legislation (AB 1X 26 (Blumenfield 2011)) which eliminated California’s 425 redevelopment agencies, principally, on constitutional grounds.
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
EEOC Issues Anti-Harassment Guidance To Construction-Industry Employers
July 22, 2024 —
Christopher Kelleher & Andrew Scroggins - The Construction SeytSeyfarth Synopsis: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has issued guidance tailored to the construction industry regarding compliance with anti-harassment laws. This lines up with our prediction in early 2024 that the EEOC had put the construction industry squarely in its sights. The guidance is important for construction-industry leaders and employers to understand to prevent and remedy workplace harassment, and to avoid potential harassment liability.
On June 18, 2024, the EEOC issued its
Promising Practices for Preventing Harassment in the Construction Industry. This guidance provides key recommendations that construction-industry leaders and employers should consider implementing to prevent and address harassment in the workplace, and avoid being the target of the EEOC’s enforcement efforts. The guidance is intended to supplement the EEOC’s
Strategic Enforcement Plan (“SEP”) for fiscal years 2024-2028, which provides direction on the EEOC’s current objectives, principles, and enforcement efforts – among them, increasing diversity in the construction industry and remedying harassment. (We’ve written previously about the
proposed and
final SEP.)
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kelleher, Seyfarth and
Andrew Scroggins, Seyfarth
Mr. Kelleher may be contacted at ckelleher@seyfarth.com
Mr. Scroggins may be contacted at ascroggins@seyfarth.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hawaii Court of Appeals Remands Bad Faith Claim Against Title Insurer
January 14, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) vacated the trial court's issuance of summary judgment to the title insurer on a bad faith claim and remanded the case. Anastasi v. Fidelity Nat. Title Ins. Co., 2014 Haw. App. LEXIS 585 (Haw. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2014).
Fidelity issued a title insurance policy to Anastasi insuring that Alajos Nagy had good title to the property. The policy insured Anastasi against loss in the event a mortgage on the property executed by Nagy was not enforceable. Anastasi had loaned $2.4 million to Nagy and Nagy had executed the mortgage in favor of Anastasi as security for the loan.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2023 Illinois Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars
February 01, 2023 —
Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman is pleased to announce that two Partners from the Chicago, IL office have been selected to the 2023 Illinois Super Lawyers list. In addition, two Partners have been named to the 2023 Super Lawyers Rising Stars list.
2023 Illinois Super Lawyers
- Brian Bassett – Insurance Coverage
- Dana Rice – Insurance Coverage
2023 Super Lawyers Rising Stars
- Jessica Kull – Civil Litigation: Defense
- Jeremy Macklin – Insurance Coverage
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman
Seller Cannot Compel Arbitration for Its Role in Construction Defect Case<
March 01, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe buyer of a leaky home in Venice, California cannot be compelled to arbitration with the seller in a construction defect lawsuit, according to a decision in Lindemann v. Hume, which was heard in the California Court of Appeals. Lindemann was the trustee of the Schlei Trust which bought the home and then sued the seller and the builder for construction defects.
The initial owner was the Hancock Park Trust, a real estate trust for Nicholas Cage. Richard Hume was the trustee. In 2002, Cage agreed to buy the home which was being built by the Lee Group. Cage transferred the agreement to the Hancock Park Trust. Hancock had Richard Nazarin, a general contractor, conduct a pre-closing walk through. They also engaged an inspector. Before escrow closed, the Lee Group agreed to provide a ten-year warranty “to remedy and repair any and all damage resulting from water infiltration, intrusion, or flooding due to the fact that the door on the second and third floors of the residence at the Property were not originally installed at least one-half inch (1/2”) to one inch (1”) above the adjacent outside patio tile/floor on each of the second and third floors.”
Cage moved in and experienced water intrusion and flooding. The Lee Group was unable to fix the problems. Hume listed the home for sale. The Kamienowiczs went as far as escrow before backing out of the purchase over concerns about water, after the seller’s agent disclosed “a problem with the drainage system that is currently being addressed by the Lee Group.”
The house was subsequently bought by the Schlei Trust. The purchase agreement included an arbitration clause which included an agreement that “any dispute or claim in Law or equity arising between them out of this Agreement or any resulting transaction, which is not settled through mediation, shall be decided by neutral, binding arbitration.” The warranty the Lee Group had given to Hancock was transferred to the Schlei trust and Mr. Schlei moved into the home in May 2003.
Lindemann enquired as to whether the work done would prevent future flooding. Nazarin sent Schlei a letter that said that measures had been taken “to prevent that situation from recurring.” In February, 2004, there was flooding and water intrusion. Lindemann filed a lawsuit against the Lee Group and then added the Hancock Park defendants.
The Hancock Park defendants invoked the arbitration clause, arguing that Lindemann’s claims “were only tangentially related to her construction defect causes of action against the Lee Group.” On June 9, 2010, the trial court rejected this claim, ruling that there was a possibility of conflicting rulings on common issues of law. “With respect to both the developer defendants and the seller defendants, the threshold issue is whether there was a problem with the construction of the property in the first instance. If there was no problem with the construction of the property, then there was nothing to fail to disclose.” Later in the ruling, the trial court noted that “the jury could find there was no construction defect on the property, while the arbitration finds there was a construction defect, the sellers knew about it, and the sellers failed to disclose it.” The appeals court noted that while Hancock Park had disclosed the drainage problems to the Kamienowiczs, no such disclosure was made to Sclei.
The appeals court described Hancock Park’s argument that there is no risk of inconsistent rulings as “without merit.” The appeals court said that the issue “is not whether inconsistent rulings are inevitable but whether they are possible if arbitration is ordered.” Further, the court noted that “the Hancock Park defendants and the Lee Group have filed cross-complaints for indemnification against each other, further increasing the risk of inconsistent rulings.”
The court found for Lindemann, awarding her costs.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brookfield to Start Manhattan Tower After Signing Skadden
April 15, 2015 —
David M. Levitt – BloombergBrookfield Property Partners LP said it will start building its 1 Manhattan West office tower, after signing a lease with the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP for about a quarter of the skyscraper.
The agreement, announced Tuesday in a statement by New York-based Brookfield, jump-starts office construction at the 7 million-square-foot (650,000-square-meter) Manhattan West project, part of an effort to draw the Midtown business district west toward toward the Hudson River. It’s another step in the plan to remake the once-industrial Hudson Yards area into a neighborhood for housing and commerce, with office tenants including Coach Inc. and Time Warner Inc. and stores such as the city’s first Neiman Marcus.
The Skadden law firm agreed to a 20-year lease for 550,000 square feet on floors 28 to 43 of the 67-story tower.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David M. Levitt, Bloomberg
Connecticut District Court to Review Proposed Class Action in Defective Concrete Suit
July 13, 2017 —
Tiffany Casanova - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Thousands of Connecticut homeowners have fallen victim to a defective concrete epidemic. Over the last thirty years, the foundation in many homes, particularly in the Northeast region of the state, was built with a concrete aggregate that contained the mineral pyrrhotite. When exposed to the elements, including water and air, pyrrhotite oxidizes, resulting in cracking and disintegration over time. For Connecticut homeowners, this has resulted in disaster, both financially and to the foundations of their homes.
Previously, many homeowners insurance policies provided coverage for a “collapse” caused by the “use of defective material . . . in construction, remodeling or renovation.” As the pyrrhotite epidemic became more prevalent, insurers altered the coverage afforded for a “collapse” in several ways that potentially minimized or eliminated coverage for these types of claims. Primarily, coverage for a “collapse” is now restricted to collapses that are “abrupt,” and coverage is excluded for buildings in danger of falling down or those that are still standing, even if evidence of cracking or settling is demonstrated. The insurers did not notify homeowners of the change. Thus, homeowners who renewed policies were not informed of a coverage reduction nor were they provided with a corresponding reduction in the amount of premium.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tiffany Casanova, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Casanova may be contacted at
tlc@sdvlaw.com
