Did the Court of Appeals Just Raise the Bar for California Contractors to Self-Report Construction-Related Judgments?
June 10, 2015 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogAn interesting construction case just came out from the California Court of Appeals for the Second District this past month – Pacific Caisson & Shoring, Inc. v. Bernards Bros., Inc., California Court of Appeals for the Second District, Case No. B248320 (May 19, 2015) – which discusses a number of intertwining issues that can be faced by contractors in California and concludes with a result that I’m not sure I quite agree with.
Among the issues discussed by the Court of Appeal were:
- The application of the dreaded Business and Professions Code section 7031 which: (1) precludes a contractor from making a claim for payment for work performed; and (2) requires a contractor to disgorge all monies received for work performed, if the contractor was not properly licensed at all times that work was performed;
- The impact of an unsatisfied judgment against one contractor on the license of another “related” contractor; and
- Whether a stipulated judgment providing for payments over time is an unsatisfied final judgment under the Licensing Law.
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
Construction Halted in Wisconsin Due to Alleged Bid Issues
March 26, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFA $9 million construction project in Middleton, Wisconsin has been halted due to an allegation that the construction company, Newcomb, did not comply with the advertised bid requirements and they were not the lowest bidder, according to the Wisconsin State Journal.
“Dane County Judge Rhonda Lanford issued a temporary restraining order at the request of Associated General Contractors of Wisconsin asking the city to stop work on the…facility,” the Wisconsin State Journal reported.
“We are pleased with the court’s decision. Fairness and transparency in public contracting is critical for the industry,” Robert Barker, Associated’s executive vice president, told the Wisconsin State Journal. “The city must abide by the rules so that all bidders are given a fair shake.”
However, the city stated that Newcomb was the construction company with the lowest bid in that category.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Harmon Hotel Construction Defect Trial to Begin
October 29, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe trial involving the Las Vegas Harmon Hotel, which is currently being demolished piece by piece due to construction defects, is ready to begin six years after the defects were first discovered, reported the Las Vegas Review-Journal. It’s an unusual case for multiple reasons. The trial is expected to last a year, and the number of attorneys involved in the case required chairs to be removed from the galley to accommodate lawyer tables, which are wired with monitors and microphones. In addition, “two 80-inch monitors are being installed for the jury.”
The Las Vegas Review-Journal further reported that “each party will have its own technology team to display the more than 3 million digitally stored pieces of evidence.” Michael Doan, the court’s information technology director, told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that the “paper list of that evidence fills more than 100 document-storage boxes.”
The case “involves more than $400 million in damage claims.” Construction on the Harmon Tower was stopped after a “structural engineer hired by MGM Resorts determined the building was unsafe and could topple if an earthquake of a magnitude of 7.7 were to hit Las Vegas.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Damron Agreement Questioned in Colorado Casualty Insurance v Safety Control Company, et al.
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFSafety Control and EMC appealed the judgment in Colorado Casualty Insurance Company versus Safety Control Company, Inc., et al. (Ariz. App., 2012). The Superior Court in Maricopa County addressed “the validity and effect of a Damron agreement a contractor and its excess insurer entered into that assigned their rights to sue the primary insurer.” Judge Johnsen stated, “We hold the agreement is enforceable but remand for a determination of whether the stipulated judgment falls within the primary insurer’s policy.”
The Opinion provides some facts and procedural history regarding the claim. “The Arizona Department of Transportation (“ADOT”) hired DBA Construction Company (“DBA”) to perform a road-improvement project on the Loop 101 freeway. Safety Control Company, Inc. was one of DBA’s subcontractors. As required by the subcontract, Safety Control purchased from Employer’s Mutual Casualty Company (“EMC”) a certificate of insurance identifying DBA as an additional insured on a policy providing primary coverage for liability arising out of Safety Control’s work.”
A collision occurred on site, injuring Hugo Roman. Roman then sued ADT and DBA for damages. “Colorado Casualty tendered DBA’s defense to the subcontractors, including Safety Control. Safety Control and EMC rejected the tender. Roman eventually settled his claims against DBA and ADOT. DBA and ADOT stipulated with Roman for entry of judgment of $750,000; Roman received $75,000 from DBA (paid by Colorado Casualty) and $20,000 from ADOT, and agreed not to execute on the stipulated judgment. Finally, DBA, ADOT and Colorado Casualty assigned to Roman their rights against the subcontractors and other insurers.”
Colorado Casualty attempted to recover what “it had paid to defend DBA and ADOT and settle with Roman. However, Roman intervened, and argued that “Colorado Casualty had assigned its subrogation rights to him as part of the settlement agreement.” The suit was not dismissed, but the Superior Court allowed Roman to intervene. “Roman then filed a counterclaim against Colorado Casualty and a cross-claim against the subcontractors.”
All claims were settled against all of the defendants except Safety Control and EMC. “The superior court ruled on summary judgment that EMC breached a duty to defend DBA and that as a result, ‘DBA was entitled to settle with Roman without EMC’s consent as long as the settlement was not collusive or fraudulent.’ After more briefing, the court held the stipulated judgment was neither collusive nor procured by fraud and that EMC therefore was liable to Roman on the stipulated judgment and for his attorney’s fees. The court also held Safety Control breached its subcontract with DBA by failing to procure completed-operations insurance coverage and would be liable for damages to the extent that EMC did not satisfy what remained (after the other settlements) of the stipulated judgment and awards of attorney’s fees.” Safety Control and EMC appealed the judgment.
Four reasons were given for the decision of the ruling. First, “the disagreement between Roman and Colorado Casualty does not preclude them from pursuing their claims against EMC and Safety Control.” Second, “the settlement agreement is not otherwise invalid.” Third, “issues of fact remain about whether the judgment falls within the EMC policy.” Finally, “Safety Control breached the subcontract by failing to procure ‘Completed Operations’ coverage for DBA.”
In conclusion, the Superior Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded . “Although, as stated above, we have affirmed several rulings of the superior court, we reverse the judgment against EMC and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion to determine whether the stipulated judgment was a liability that arose out of Safety Control’s operations. In addition, we affirm the superior court’s declaratory judgment against Safety Control but remand so that the court may clarify the circumstances under which Safety Control may be liable for damages and may conduct whatever further proceedings it deems appropriate to ascertain the amount of those damages. We decline all parties’ requests for attorney’s fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01 without prejudice to a request for fees incurred in this appeal to be filed by the prevailing party on remand before the superior court.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Top 3 Trends That Will Impact the Construction Industry in 2024
December 04, 2023 —
The Hartford Staff - The Hartford InsightsAs more than 40% of the current U.S. construction workforce will retire in the next decade, industry leaders need to equip themselves with the necessary resources to combat the shifting work environment.1
“Trends in the construction industry will fluctuate in the coming years, which can lead to additional risks for industry leaders. It will be important to think about how they can address any potential risk factors. A lot of leaders have been increasing their planning efforts and looking into technology solutions to combat the ongoing labor shortage,” said David DeSilva, head of construction at The Hartford. Here, he outlines the top three top trends for business leaders to watch in 2024.
1. Ongoing Labor Shortages
Construction is an industry that traditionally has a high labor turnover rate, which means companies needs to hire more frequently. This only increases during labor shortages. The construction workforce is up against several factors, including an aging workforce and recruitment struggles.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Hartford Staff, The Hartford Insights
Liquidating Agreements—Bridging the Privity Gap for Subcontractors
September 03, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorWhat is a subcontractor to do when the owner has demanded additional work, but has refused to pay for it? Typically, a subcontractor cannot sue the owner because the subcontractor doesn’t have a contract with the owner. Perhaps the subcontractor and general contractor should enter into a liquidating agreement through which the general contractor can pursue the claim on behalf of the subcontractor.
Liquidating agreements bridge the privity gap between owners and subcontractors who sustain damages because of the others actions. Liquidating agreements or pass-through agreements grant the general contractor a release of its liability to the subcontractor after the general contractor prosecutes the subcontractor’s pass-through claim against the owner and gives the subcontractor any recovery.
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
2023 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar
March 27, 2023 —
Beverley BevenFlorez – CDJ StaffThe 29th annual West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar will return to the Disneyland Hotel in May. The event covers topics of interest to those in the construction defect field including prosecution, defense, insurance coverage, and science and technology. The seminar will also have networking opportunities. Attendees every year include professionals “from the legal, insurance, builder, contractor, subcontractor and numerous other communities.”
May 18th-19th, 2023
Disneyland Hotel
1150 Magic Way
Anaheim, CA 92802
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Affordable Housing, Military Contracts and Mars: 3D Printing Construction Potential Builds
September 05, 2022 —
Adam J. Weaver & Lindsey Mitchell - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogThe 3D printing construction market is likely on the cusp of a boom.
This unique construction method boasts many advantages in comparison to traditional forms of construction. Projects can be completed more quickly and at a fraction of the cost, given fewer laborers are required and the materials used are much cheaper. Though market growth stalled during the COVID-19 pandemic, industry leaders expect 3D printing construction to experience exponential growth in the coming years.
While 3D printing technology has risen in popularity and prominence in the past couple of decades, it is only recently that 3D printing companies have begun making strides in the construction industry. Critical to the construction process is the software that is used to create and model the planned structure. A software program turns a building’s blueprint into code that then dictates the movement of a 3D printer on the construction site. After a concrete-like mix is loaded into the printer, the printer begins to build the walls by laying one cylindrical layer of concrete at a time, in accordance with the blueprint. There is no one-size-fits-all approach in 3D printing construction: some companies print the core structure as well as the roof and floor of the structure, while others print only the core and shell and install those portions separately using traditional methods and materials.
Reprinted courtesy of
Adam J. Weaver, Pillsbury and
Lindsey Mitchell, Pillsbury
Mr. Weaver may be contacted at adam.weaver@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
