Colorado Springs may be Next Colorado City to Add Construction Defects Ordinance
October 28, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe Gazette reported that Colorado Springs city councilwoman Jill Gaebler stated that “she would bring a proposal to the council next month that would address the construction defects issue.”
Gaebler told The Gazette: “We have gone back and forth with how best to address this issue. It is a statewide concern, so how do we bring forward something that is meaningful to our community without stepping on the toes of our legislators?”
The state of Colorado has tried and failed to pass construction defects legislation three years in a row, according to The Gazette. If Colorado Springs adopts an ordinance, it will become the ninth city to pass construction defects laws.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Safety Data: Noon Presents the Hour of Greatest Danger
April 20, 2017 —
Richard Korman - Engineering News-RecordUnlike previous research into construction fatalities, a new review of three years of Labor Dept. data found that most occur between 10 am and 3 pm, with a peak at noon.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Richard Korman, ENRMr. Korman may be contacted at
kormanr@enr.com
Differing Rulings On Construction Defect Claims Leave Unanswered Questions For Builders, and Construction Practice Groups. Impact to CGL Carriers, General Contractors, Builders Remains Unclear
March 07, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFIn the past year a number of state and federal courts have rendered a number of conflicting decisions that promise to alter or perhaps shift entirely the paradigm, of how builders manage risk.
According to a report today by Dave Lenckus in Property Casualty 360 “Nine state and federal courts and one state legislature over the past year have addressed whether a construction defect a defective product or faulty workmanship is fortuitous and therefore an occurrence under the commercial general liability insurance policy. Four jurisdictions determined it is; three said no; two ruled that a construction defect that causes consequential damage to property other than the work product is an occurrence; and one federal court contributed its conflicting case law that has developed in Oregon since its high court ruled in 2000 that a construction defect is not an occurrence”.
The article strongly suggests that in the absence of a clear consensus over what the recent rulings mean for builders and contractors coverage disputes will intensify and continue to proliferate.
Doing this on a state-by-state basis has caused a lot of confusion among buyers and sellers, said Jeffrey A. Segall, a Tampa-based senior vice president and the Florida Construction Practice leader at Willis of Florida, a unit of Willis Group Holdings.
Read Full Story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Revisiting the CMO; Are We Overusing the Mediation Privilege?
November 19, 2021 —
Michael T. Kennedy Jr. - BERDING|WEILOne of the most common features in construction defect cases is the Case Management Order (“CMO”) or Pre-Trial Order (“PTO”) to govern pre-trial and mediation procedures. CMOs and PTOs arose in the days when the HOA would sue the developer, the developer would cross-complaint against the subcontractors, and each defendant and cross-defendant might have 2 or 3 insurance carriers defending, each of whom may retain their own panel counsel. In a large case there may have been 20 parties and 30 defense attorneys. In order to avoid the cost and chaos of all of those parties propounding their own discovery, and in order to prepare these cases for mediation well before trial and the associated costs, it became standard practice in California to include provisions in the CMO to stay all discovery until just before trial.
Plaintiff would provide a Defect List or Statement of Claims and the parties experts would meet and exchange information as part of the mediation process. All of the information exchanged would be subject to mediation privileges and inadmissible at trial. The benefit of this practice was that the parties (and carriers) would avoid the cost of formal discovery and allow the experts to discuss compromised scopes of repair to help settle the case while being able to take a more aggressive position at trial. The disadvantages are that each party uses its privileged initial expert reports to stake out negotiating positions more extreme than what they would put on at trial, with each side losing credibility with the other in assessing the value of the case, and for those cases that did not settle, the parties would be faced with having to do all of the depositions and discovery in the last 60 days, or delaying trial, or both.
Over the last 10 or 15 years with the advent of wrap-up insurance policies, these cases now usually involve 2 sides instead of 20; only the HOA and the developer remain in the case. However, old habits die hard, and the standard CMO/PTO hasn’t evolved with other aspects of these cases. The practice of staying all discovery and exchanging information only under mediation privileges remains, and as a result insurance carriers don’t receive the admissible evidence that they need to determine coverage and evaluate the real settlement value of the case until just before trial. On the plaintiff’s side, if most of the experts’ work is done under the guise of mediation privilege, those costs may not be recoverable. Outside the context of mediation, costs incurred in investigation of the defects and preparation of a scope and cost of repair are recoverable.
This reflexive claim of mediation privilege over all information exchanged during the case has outlived its usefulness. The CMO can and should remain to regulate formal discovery and to help the parties prepare for mediation, but regulated discovery should be opened early in the case. In California, the SB800 process already provides for the exchange of admissible information during the prelitigation right to repair process. Continuing that exchange during the early litigation allows the parties to continue to prepare for mediation, but waiving privileges had advantages for both sides.
A senior claims manager once commented that Plaintiff’s mediation-protected Statement of Claims “might as well be a stack of blank paper” for all of its usefulness to the carrier in assessing the value of the case. If the Plaintiff and it expects are free to inflate their claims early in the case without having to worry about every supporting those claims in front of a jury, they have little or no credibility. And if those claims are inflated or not “real,” not only can the carrier not properly assess the verdict range and settlement value of the case, but it may also be hampered in making a coverage determination. Simply put, if the exchange of real information through formal discovery is put off until just before trial, the defense cannot be ready to settle until then. Worse, the cost of defense goes through the roof in the last 60 days before trial as the lawyers’ scramble to take all of the depositions and to all of the other work that had been stayed for the previous year or two.
The Plaintiff is faced with the same question of credibility of defense experts where they are free to take a “low ball” negotiating position without having to support that position through cross-examination in front of the jury. Just as the carrier behind the defense attorney needs the Plaintiff’s “real” evidence to assess the claim, so does the HIOA Board of Directors behind the Plaintiff’s counsel. Additionally, in California as in most states, the cost of experts’ preparation for mediation may not be recoverable as costs or damages, but investigation of the defects and preparation of the scope and cost of repair is recoverable.
The biggest challenge is resolving construction defect claims for both sides is how to resolve these cases quickly while keeping costs under control. Practices that worked 20 years ago are no longer applicable with changes in insurance, and in light of some of the bad habits that arise when all of the information exchanged was confidential.
The CMO/PTO process can still be useful to regulate the discovery and mediation schedule given the volume of documents and other information to be exchanged but exchanging “real” information in a form that may come into evidence at trial should foster earlier resolution, resulting in cost savings for the parties. The CMO can provide for the parties to respond to controlled discovery, and the exchange of expert reports and potentially depositions can and should be done earlier in the case, well before the eve of trial. The parties can then assess the true value of each case and prepare for more substantive mediation without waiting until they are on the figurative courthouse steps.
Construction defect cases have a pattern, and it is tempting for busy lawyers to just put each case through the same algorithms that they have used for years. However, these cases have evolved and those of us handling these cases need to reevaluate our approach to these cases. Taking aggressive negotiating positions that no longer have any credibility with the other side has become counterproductive, and the exchange of real evidence earlier in the case would better serve our clients and carriers.
BERDING|WEIL is the largest and most experienced construction defect and common interest development law firm in California. For more information, please visit https://www.berding-weil.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael T. Kennedy Jr., BERDING|WEILMr. Kennedy may be contacted at
mkennedy@berdingweil.com
Builders Beware: A New Class Of Defendants In Asbestos Lawsuits
January 06, 2016 —
David J. Byassee, Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP & Timothy A. Gravitt, Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld, LLPResidential, commercial and industrial builders face new and potentially significant liability for construction activities that took place in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s: personal injury lawsuits filed by construction workers from exposure to building products containing asbestos. After emptying the pockets of manufacturers and suppliers of raw asbestos and asbestos-containing products over the last 20 years, plaintiff lawyers are beginning to set their sights on a new class of defendants in asbestos litigation: residential, commercial and industrial builders who unknowingly allowed asbestos-containing products to be incorporated into their projects.
The men and women who have been involved in the building industry for 40 years or more may remember the subject of asbestos surfacing in the 1970s with the enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). At that point builders were just beginning to learn that asbestos was a component of some building materials, and the potential risk of cancer presented by asbestos was being debated in scientific and medical journals. Although the use of building materials containing asbestos was mostly phased out by the 1980s, the health risks associated with exposure to asbestos continue – and in fact increase – for the duration of an exposed person’s life.
Today it is generally accepted that exposure to asbestos increases the risk of developing asbestosis and certain kinds of cancer, including mesothelioma. Cancers associated with exposure to asbestos are typically diagnosed at least 15 years (and sometimes up to 50 years) after a person’s exposure to asbestos, meaning that exposures in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s might not manifest in disease until now. The class of persons who may be at risk for asbestos-related disease is long and varied: insulators, HVAC installers, pipe fitters, plumbers, drywall installers, painters, plasterers and roofers, to name a few. Long-term exposure history, coupled with the theory that “each and every” exposure during a lifetime is a substantial factor increasing the risk of developing cancer, presents potential liability to builders acting as general contractors and/or property owners, as well as the usual defendants in asbestos lawsuits, which include manufacturers, suppliers, and users of asbestos-containing materials.
In recent years, plaintiff lawyers have set their sights on builders as the financial wherewithal of traditional asbestos defendants has dried up. Plaintiff lawyers have created a new theory of liability which they use to rope builders in as defendants in asbestos lawsuits: that the builder knew – or should have known – that a deadly ingredient (asbestos) was contained in the building materials used in construction, and the builder failed to warn its subcontractors or anyone else on the project that exposure to asbestos could harm them.
Builders have unique legal defenses to claims brought by employees of subcontractors who have developed asbestos-related disease. For example, the California Supreme Court in Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, held that an injured employee of a subcontractor cannot maintain a claim against the hirer (builder) for the employee’s injury absent affirmative contribution on the part of the builder to the injury. Thus the first line of defense in an asbestos exposure case is to argue that the developer had no direct role in the plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos and therefore the Privette doctrine precludes the plaintiff from suing the builder. But resourceful plaintiff lawyers are coming up with arguments to get around this so-called Privette defense in asbestos lawsuits by claiming that builders’ activities such as cleanup of asbestos-containing materials, or assertion of control over the work of the subcontractor, directly contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries and therefore provide exceptions to Privette and allow the claim to proceed.
A practical question is raised in asbestos cases: How is a plaintiff able to prove, decades after working on a project, what building materials contained asbestos, or that a builder knew or should have known in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s that asbestos-containing materials were used on their project, or that asbestos presented a health risk? To answer the first part of the question (what building materials contained asbestos), plaintiff’s experts will say that during the relevant timeframe asbestos was a common ingredient in many building products, e.g., drywall joint compounds, stucco/plaster/gun cement, acoustic ceiling products, cement pipe, insulation, roofing mastic, caulk and plumber’s putty; this can be further proven by reference to product manufacturers’ disclosures made pursuant to the Asbestos Information Act. Also, through the decades of asbestos litigation against product manufacturers and suppliers, resourceful plaintiff lawyers have developed vast banks of data and documentation identifying the manufacturers of asbestos-containing building products, the end-users of those products, and the projects where those products were supplied. With this bank of knowledge, all that is necessary for them to make the claim against a builder is to have the plaintiff identify a construction project where he or she remembers working during the relevant timeframe. Once that identification is made, it is a simple matter for the lawyers to dig and find out who developed the building/project, who then becomes a defendant in an asbestos lawsuit.
The answer to the second part of the question (whether the developer knew or should have known that the products brought to their projects contained asbestos) requires a detailed investigation into the dates at which the products were supplied to the project, the manufacturer of the product, and what information was available in the market place about the material content of the particular product.
The answer to the third part of the question (knowledge that asbestos presented a health risk) is trickier. One of the first standards set by OSHA in 1972 related to permissible levels of exposure to asbestos. It is a common tactic for plaintiff lawyers to argue that the existence of OSHA standards created a presumption of knowledge in the building industry about the dangers of asbestos. But what about pre-OSHA knowledge? Here plaintiff lawyers will argue that well before OSHA, going back as far as 1936, exposure to asbestos was regulated in California under General Industry Safety Orders relating to Dusts, Fumes, Mists, Vapors and Gases. They argue that the General Industry Safety Orders put builders “on notice” of the dangers of asbestos by virtue of being regulated by the State of California, and, by extension, builders had “knowledge” of the health risks associated with asbestos.
There are defenses that skilled defense counsel can utilize to defeat asbestos claims, assuming the Privette defense is not available. The first is to thoroughly investigate and evaluate all of the plaintiff’s potential exposures to asbestos throughout his entire lifetime, and identify those sources that likely were the major contributors to his disease. Next, counsel has to properly investigate the project at which the plaintiff is alleged to have been exposed to asbestos, identify all of the possible sources of exposure, i.e., the products that were used or might have been used at the project, and finally how the plaintiff was allegedly exposed at the project. As most builders do not maintain records of what products were used in their projects dating back 15 years or more, let alone the identities of the trades that worked on the projects, knowledgeable defense counsel can be a valuable partner in unearthing the brands of products typically in use in the locale where the construction took place, and identifying the manufacturers of those products. Defense counsel must analyze the frequency, duration, proximity and intensity of the exposure, as well as the type of asbestos the plaintiff was allegedly exposed to (not all asbestos is created equal – some types are more toxic than others). This will involve careful evaluation of the levels of exposure created by the alleged activity of the builder, to determine, through experts and a thorough understanding of the scientific and medical studies on the subject, whether the levels of asbestos exposure created by the activity could be considered a “substantial factor” in contributing to the risk of the plaintiff’s development of his asbestos-related disease.
Asbestos lawsuits present a significant risk to the unsuspecting and unprepared builder. Money damages available to a plaintiff are substantial. Medical expenses for treatment of asbestos-related disease typically run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, lost income (including retirement benefits) can also be significant, and jury awards for pain, suffering and emotional distress can be staggering - often millions of dollars. In some cases punitive damages are even awarded.
The bottom line is that a builder runs a big risk if it treats an asbestos claim like any other claim. The level of analysis and investigation to properly defend against the claim requires prompt action by knowledgeable counsel, and frequently there is no insurance coverage.
David J. Byassee is an attorney with the firm
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP, and is a litigator who has devoted nearly a decade to representation of real estate developers and builders. He can be reached at: dbyassee@bremerwhyte.com.
Timothy A. Gravitt is an attorney with the firm
Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld, LLP who is devoted to defending real estate developers and builders in a variety of litigation. He can be reached at: tgravitt@ulichlaw.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
No Duty to Defend Suit That Is Threatened Under Strict Liability Statute
July 09, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Washington Court of Appeals found there was no duty to defend the insured under a strict liability statute for alleged contamination when no action was threatened by the agency. Gull Indus., Inc. v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 1338 (Wa. Ct. App. June 2, 2014).
Gull leased a gas station to the Johnsons from 1972 to 1980. In 2005, Gull notified the Department of Ecology (DOE) that there had be a release of petroleum product at the station. DOE sent a letter acknowledging Gull's notice of suspected contamination. In 2009, Gull tendered its defense to its insurer, Transamerica Insurance Group. Gull also tendered its claims as an additional insured to the Johnson's insurer, State Farm. Neither insurer accepted the tenders.
Gull then sued the insurers, arguing they had a duty to defend. Gull contended that because the state statute imposed strict liability, the duty to defend arose whether or not an agency had sent any communications about the statute or cleanup obligations. The insurers moved for partial summary judgment. The trial court ruled in favor of the insurers.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Learning from Production Homes of the Past
August 13, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFBig Builder recaps production homes by decade, beginning with Sears Catalog Homes of the 1920s. They cover major events, original prices, intended buyers, geographic areas, designer/developers, styles/floor plans, and how they broke ground. Big Builder chose to highlight Greenbelt Row Houses for the 1930s, Levittown Tract Homes for the 1940s, as well as additional home builders for each decade through 2010.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Don’t Sign a Contract that Doesn’t Address Covid-19 (Or Pandemics and Epidemics)
December 14, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesDo yourself a favor: Don’t sign a construction contract that doesn’t address COVID-19 or any pandemic or epidemic from this point forward!
As the number of COVID-19 numbers rise, it would be reasonable to think this could have an impact on ongoing or future construction projects. For this reason, I want to revisit the subject of addressing COVID-19 (and any pandemic or epidemic) in your construction contract.
The potential impact caused by COVID-19 could result from governmental regulations that impact construction of the project, shutdowns due to affected workers, owners’ decisions to suspend performance or adjust the way the project is being constructed, increased deep cleaning requirements, and increased measures associated with social distancing and re-sequencing of shifts. This all plays into the timeliness of performance and the productivity of manpower and equipment usage. When submitting a price, a lot of these considerations may not be factored in because doing so could lead to a price that will never get accepted.
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
