Subcontractor Exception to Your Work Exclusion Paves the Way for Coverage
April 03, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFIn a brief opinion, the Second Circuit vacated the district court's denial of coverage for construction defects. Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. R.I. Pools Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5680 (2nd Cir. March 21, 2013).
The insured, R.I. Pools, employed outside companies to supply concrete and to shoot the concrete into the ground. During the summer of 2006, it obtained its concrete from one subcontractor and used another to shoot the concrete. In 2009, nineteen customers of R.I. Pools from 2006 complained damage to their pools, including cracking, flaking, and deteriorating concrete.
Scottsdale sought a declaratory judgment against R.I. Pools that it had no obligations under the policy to defend or indemnify for claims related to cracks in the pools.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred EyerlyTred Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Personal Guarantor Cannot Escape a Personal Guarantee By…
June 02, 2016 —
David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn a prior article, I discussed the point that a
personal guarantor cannot escape a contractual requirement of a
personal guarantee merely by executing the guarantee as a corporate officer.
The recent decision Frieri v. Capital Investment Services, Inc., 41 Fla. L. Weekly D1189a (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) illustrates this point. In this case, a company hired an individual to help grow that company’s business. The contract required the individual to invest $6 Million into a trust in consideration of the company’s president transferring substantial shares of the company into the trust. The objective was that the trust would own the controlling shares of the company. The money was transferred. However, the shares were never placed in the trust and the trust never received controlling interest in the company.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David M. Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Challenging a Termination for Default
September 23, 2024 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesNo contractor wants to be terminated for default. It is the harshest contractual recourse. It is a recourse that has implications, particularly in the public sector. However, a party needs to be in a position to support the basis of the termination for default, and the terminated party, in most instances, should not be in a position to imply accept the basis of the default. This applies regardless of the project.
In the federal context: “When a contractor challenges a default termination, the government bears the burden of establishing the validity of the termination.” Sergent’s Mechanical Systems, Inc. v. U.S., 2024 WL 4048175, *7 (Fed.Cl. 2024) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Once the government establishes the default, “the contractor bears the burden of establishing that the default was excused by fault of the government.” Id. at *8 (internal quotation and citation omitted).
Relevant considerations as to whether the contractor is in default include the contractor’s failure to meet contract specifications or the required schedule. Sergent’s Mechanical Systems, supra, at *8. “[T]here is ‘a requirement that the contractor give reasonable assurances of performance in response to a validly issued cure notice.” Id. (internal quotation and citation 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
Introducing Nomos LLP!
December 30, 2019 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogWe’ve been quiet lately we know.
We’ve been nesting. Not the alien popping through your stomach kind of nesting, although, there have been a few white knuckled “what the heck did we get ourselves into!” moments. Rather, we’ve been quietly building something we think is pretty great. Not just for us, but for our clients.
Our own law firm. So here’s the 411:
What’s with the name Nomos LLP?
We’ve gotten a few questions about that. We wanted to create a client-centric law firm not a lawyer-focused one. Hence, no last names. Plus, we don’t have cool last names like Low, Ball & Lynch or Payne & Fears. The name “nomos” is Greek for “law.” And, of course, it’s from the Greeks that much of modern Western legal system is derived. Simple. Opa!
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
California Supreme Court Allows Claim Under Unfair Competition Statute To Proceed
October 16, 2013 —
Tred Eyerly — Insurance Law HawaiiThe California Supreme Court determined that insurance practices violating the state's Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA) could support a claim under the state's unfair competition law (UCL). Zhang v. Superior Court, 57 Cal. 4th 353 (2013).
Zhang purchased a CGL policy from California Capital Insurance Company. She sued California Capital in a dispute over coverage for fire damage to her commercial property. The complaint included causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the UCL. In her UCL claim, Zhang alleged that California Capital had "engaged in unfair, deceptive, untrue, and/or misleading advertising" by promising to provide timely coverage in the event of a compensable loss, when it had no intention of paying the true value of the insureds' covered claims.
Zhang specifically alleged unreasonable delays causing deterioration of her property; withholding of policy benefits; refusal to consider cost estimates; misinforming her as to the right to an appraisal; and falsely telling her mortgage holder that she did not intend to repair the property, resulting in foreclosure proceedings.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred EyerlyTred Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
San Diego’s NFL Stadium Dream Counts on Munis for Chargers’ Home
June 10, 2015 —
James Nash and Darrell Preston – BloombergSan Diego, still dealing with the legacy of a pension crisis that led politicians to consider bankruptcy a decade ago, may throw taxpayer money behind municipal bonds for a football-stadium bidding war.
The city and the National Football League’s Chargers are negotiating on a proposed $1.3 billion coliseum to keep the team from leaving for Los Angeles. A plan backed by a city panel would have San Diego pay $121 million of the new stadium’s debt, even though it still owes $52 million for the Chargers’ current home. San Diego County would chip in, too.
The quest to keep the team has triggered a debate over whether to finance professional football as the city deals with $2 billion of deferred maintenance brought about in part by mounting pension costs. The city’s retirement system has a shortfall just as large, which led voters three years ago to approve reducing benefits for city workers.
Reprinted courtesy of
James Nash, Bloomberg and
Darrell Preston, Bloomberg Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THAT THE RIGHT TO REPAIR ACT (SB800) IS THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CLAIMS NOT INVOLVING PERSONAL INJURIES WHETHER OR NOT THE UNDERLYING DEFECTS GAVE RISE TO ANY PROPERTY DAMAGE in McMillin Albany LL
January 24, 2018 —
Chapman, Glucksman, Dean, Roeb, & BargerRICHARD H. GLUCKSMAN, ESQ.
GLENN T. BARGER, ESQ.
JON A. TURIGLIATTO, ESQ.
DAVID A. NAPPER, ESQ.
The Construction Industry finally has its answer. The California Supreme Court ruled that the Right to Repair Act (SB800) is the exclusive remedy for construction defect claims alleged to have resulted from economic loss, property damage, or both. Our office has closely tracked the matter since its infancy. The California Supreme Court’s holding resolves the split of authority presented by the Fifth Appellate District’s holding in
McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132, which outright rejected the Fourth Appellate District’s holding in
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98.
By way of background, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held in
Liberty Mutual that compliance with SB800’s pre-litigation procedures prior to initiating litigation is only required for defect claims involving violations of SB800’s building standards that have not yet resulted in actual property damage. Where damage has occurred, a homeowner may initiate litigation under common law causes of action without first complying with the pre-litigation procedures set forth in SB800. Two years later, the Fifth District Court of Appeal, in
McMillin Albany, held that the California Legislature intended that all claims arising out of defects in new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003 are subject to the standards and requirements of the Right to Repair Act, including specifically the requirement that notice be provided to the builder prior to filing a lawsuit. Thus, the Court of Appeal ruled that SB800 is the exclusive remedy for all defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003.
After extensive examination of the text and legislative history of the Right to Repair Act, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s ruling that SB800 preempts common law claims for property damage. The Complaint at issue alleged construction defects causing both property damage and economic loss. After filing the operative Complaint, the homeowners dismissed the SB800 cause of action and took the position that the Right to Repair Act was adopted to provide a remedy for construction defects causing only economic loss and therefore SB800 did not alter preexisting common law remedies in cases where actual property damage or personal injuries resulted. The builder maintained that SB800 and its pre-litigation procedures still applied in this case where actually property damages were alleged to have occurred.
The Supreme Court found that the text and legislative history reflect a clear and unequivocal intent to supplant common law negligence and strict product liability actions with a statutory claim under the Right to Repair Act. Specifically the text reveals “…an intent to create not merely
a remedy for construction defects but
the remedy.” Additionally certain clauses set forth in SB800 “…evinces a clear intent to displace, in whole or in part, existing remedies for construction defects.” Not surprisingly, the Court confirmed that personal injury damages are expressly not recoverable under SB800, which actually assisted the Court in analyzing the intent of the statutory scheme. The Right to Repair Act provides that construction defect claims not involving personal injury will be treated the same procedurally going forward whether or not the underlying defects gave rise to any property damage.
The Supreme Court further found that the legislative history of SB800 confirms that displacement of parts of the existing remedial scheme was “…no accident, but rather a considered choice to reform construction defect litigation.” Further emphasizing how the legislative history confirms what the statutory text reflects, the Supreme Court offered the following summary: “the Act was designed as a broad reform package that would substantially change existing law by displacing some common law claims and substituting in their stead a statutory cause of action with a mandatory pre-litigation process.” As a result, the Supreme Court ordered that the builder is entitled to a stay and the homeowners are required to comply with the pre-litigation procedures set forth in the Right to Repair Act before their lawsuit may proceed.
The seminal ruling by the California Supreme Court shows great deference to California Legislature and the “major stakeholders on all sides of construction defect litigation” who participated in developing SB800. A significant win for builders across the Golden State, homeowners unequivocally must proceed via SB800 for all construction defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003. We invite you to contact us should you have any questions.
Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys
Richard Glucksman,
Glenn Barger,
Jon Turigliatto and
David Napper
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Barger may be contacted at gbarger@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Turgliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
From ‘Cuckoo’s Egg’ to Today’s Cyber Threat Landscape
September 02, 2024 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessIn 1990, I read an exciting book titled The Cuckoo’s Egg: Tracking a Spy Through the Maze of Computer Espionage. The author, astronomer Clifford Stoll, managed computers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) in California. He was tasked with resolving an accounting error of 75 cents in the computer usage accounts.
The tedious process eventually led him to disclose a German hacker who had gained access to U.S. military secrets through LBNL’s computers. He had been selling information to the KGB for years.
Today’s threat landscape in construction
The LBNL incident was one of the first—if not the first—documented cases of a computer break-in. Fast-forward to today and cyber-attacks are an everyday phenomenon that occurs more often in construction.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
