Brief Overview of Rights of Unlicensed Contractors in California
September 10, 2014 —
William M. Kaufman – Construction Lawyers BlogUnder California Contractor’s State License Law enumerated in Business and Professions Code Sections 7000 to 7191, a contractor may not “bring or maintain” any action for compensation for performing any act or contract for which a license is required unless the contractor was duly licensed “at all times” during performance. Bus & Prof Code Section 7031(a).
What does this mean and who does it include?
This is a question that often has to be answered on a case by case basis. Basically, California does not want unlicensed contractors to be able to get paid for work that should be performed by a licensed contractor. The law has set forth some general parameters. General contractors, subcontractors, and master developers must be licensed. However, suppliers, manufacturers, laborers and equipment lessors are exempt and do not need a contractor’s license. Essentially, those parties that merely furnish material or supplies without fabricating them into, or consuming them in the performance of work, do not need to be licensed. Bus & Prof Code Section 7052.
There are sever fines and penalties for those who improperly perform construction work without a license. A contract between any contractor and an unlicensed subcontractor is a misdemeanor. Lack of a license bars all actions in law or in equity for collection of compensation for the performance of work requiring a license. There are very few exceptions to this rule. A “savvy” unlicensed contractor cannot simply avoid these requirements by “subbing” out all the work to licensed contractors. Any person who uses the services of an unlicensed contractor may file a court action or cross-complaint to recover all payments made to the unlicensed contractor. In addition, a person who uses the services of an unlicensed contractor is a victim of a crime and eligible for restitution of economic losses regardless of whether that person had knowledge that the contractor was unlicensed. Bus. & Prof Code Sections 7028, 7028.16. It goes without saying that performing work without a license on projects is a bad idea.
Reprinted courtesy of
William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP
Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Violation of Prompt Payment Statutes is Not a Breach of Contract. But That’s Not the Most Interesting Part
November 01, 2022 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogWhile construction projects can get messy, they don’t get much messier than the next case, which, while involving a fairly limited legal issue, has such jaw dropping facts it’s worth a read if only to make you feel a bit better about your own project.
The Clark Bros. Case
In Clark Bros, Inc. v. North Edwards Water District, 77 Cal.App.5th 801 (2022), general contractor Clark Bros., Inc. was awarded over $3 million in damages against a local water district on a water treatment facility project.
The Project
The North Edwards Water District serves approximately 220 customers in the Mojave Desert. It has one employee, Dollie Dimples Kostopoulos. Seriously, you can’t make this stuff up. The drinking water it provides to its customers contains three times the legal limit of arsenic, a carcinogen.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Constructive Suspension (Suspension Outside of an Express Order)
December 13, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn the federal procurement arena, there is a concept known as “constructive suspension.” Constructive suspension, while known in the federal arena, should reasonably apply to all projects when work is stopped outside of an express order to stop the work based on the law below. An unreasonable suspension is an unreasonable suspension and an express order to stop the work does not negate the effects of what really amounts to a suspension.
“Constructive suspension occurs when work is stopped absent an express order by the contracting officer and the government is found to be responsible for the work stoppage.” P.R. Burke Corp. v. U.S., 277 F.3d 1346, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The government delay must be unreasonable to support a constructive acceleration claim. Id.
“To demonstrate such a constructive suspension of work, the contractor must show that the delay (1) was for an ‘unreasonable length of time,’ (2) was proximately caused by the government’s actions, and (3) resulted in some injury to the contractor.” Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. U.S., 2001 WL 36415627, *6 (Fed.Cl. 2001) (citation omitted). “Relative to proving that the delay was directly caused by the government, the contractor must concomitantly show that it was not delayed by any concurrent cause that would have independently generated the delay during the same time period even if it does not predominate over the government’s action as the cause of the delay.” Beauchamp Const. Co. v. U.S., 14 Cl.Ct. 430, 437 (Cl.Ct. 1988).
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
Civil Engineers: Montana's Infrastructure Grade Declines to a 'C-'
December 23, 2024 —
American Society of Civil EngineersHelena, MT — The Montana Section of the
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) today released the
2024 Report Card for Montana's Infrastructure, assigning 14 categories of infrastructure a cumulative grade of 'C-', which is on par with the national average from the
2021 Report Card for America's Infrastructure. This is a one-notch decrease from the 'C' grade Montana received in its last report in 2018, citing increasingly severe weather events putting strain on aging and underfunded assets, and one of the fastest growing populations requiring expansions of transportation, water and energy infrastructure.
The report includes the first-ever chapter on Montana's broadband infrastructure, assigning an 'I' grade for 'incomplete' due to a lack of sufficient condition data; however, the chapter does note that 71% of Montana residents have access to adequate broadband service, and the IIJA provided nearly $630 million to expand this access across the state.
ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS
Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 160,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Colorado Federal Court Confirms Consequetial Property Damage, But Finds No Coverage for Subcontractor
November 01, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiA recommended decision from the Magistrate Judge of the Federal District Court for the District of Colorado found there was no coverage for the subcontractor's faulty workmanship, but recognized that Colorado finds consequential damages to be property damage. Indian Harbor Ins. Co. v. Houston Cas. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117857 (D. Colo. July 5, 2022).
The insured, Tripp Construction, was a subcontrator for contructing balconies at an apartment complex. The owner complained that Tripp failed to properly install balconies. The defective installation of certain balcony components damaged other, non-defective components.
The general contractor had an OCIP policy issued by Houston Casualty Company (HCC). The general contractor also had a Subcontractor Default policy issued by Indian Harbor.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
SAFETY Act Part II: Levels of Protection
June 21, 2024 —
Lorelie S. Masters, Kevin W. Jones & Charlotte Leszinske - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogPart I of this series,
SAFETY Act is Powerful Protection Against Emerging Liabilities, addressed the benefits of obtaining SAFETY Act coverage, including:
- From a reputational perspective, SAFETY Act protection provides benefits even absent a security incident: it demonstrates that a knowledgeable federal agency has examined the relevant technology and determined that it is both safe and effective.
- SAFETY Act protection can benefit companies taking steps to enhance the security of their physical premises and operations, or their cybersecurity defenses, to reduce their potential liability and enhance their reputation.
- Other benefits include—depending on the level of protection—powerful liability protections including exclusive federal jurisdiction and choice of law for the venue where the incident occurred, caps on liability, prohibitions on punitive damages, and government contractor immunity.
This post will explain the levels of protection that a company can seek under the SAFETY Act.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth,
Kevin W. Jones, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Charlotte Leszinske, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Jones may be contacted at kjones@HuntonAK.com
Ms. Leszinske may be contacted at cleszinske@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Leonard Fadeeff v. State Farm General Insurance Company
September 21, 2020 —
Michael Velladao - Lewis BrisboisIn Fadeeff v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 50 Cal.App.5th 94 (May 22, 2020), the California Court of Appeal reversed the entry of summary judgment in favor of State Farm General Insurance Company (“State Farm”) in connection with a smoke and soot damage claim made by Leonard and Patricia Fadeeff (the “Fadeeffs”) for damage sustained by their home due to the 2015 Valley Fire. The parties’ dispute arose out of the Valley Fire, which took place in Lake County, California. The Fadeeffs’ home was located in Hidden Valley Lake.
The Fadeeffs submitted a claim to State Farm under their homeowners policy. Initially, after an adjuster inspected the home and noted that it was “well maintained” with no apparent maintenance issues, State Farm made a series of payments and arranged for ServPro to clean the smoke and soot damage. Subsequently, the Fadeeffs retained an independent adjuster and submitted a supplemental claim in the amount of $75,000. State Farm retained a different unlicensed adjuster to investigate the claim and retained expert, Forensic Analytical Consulting Services (FACS) to inspect the Fadeeffs’ home, and another company referred to as HVACi, to inspect the Fadeeffs’ HVAC system.
The independent adjuster used to investigate the Fadeeffs’ supplemental claim failed to follow company guidelines in connection with using experts, which required specific questions to be addressed by the expert. In addition, FACS only took surface samples of the walls in the Fadeeffs’ home. Ultimately, the reports prepared by FACS and HVACi concluded that no additional work was required to remediate the damage sustained by the Fadeeffs’ home. Thereafter, State Farm denied the Fadeeffs’ supplemental claim.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Velladao, Lewis BrisboisMr. Velladao may be contacted at
Michael.Velladao@lewisbrisbois.com
No Entitlement to Reimbursement of Pre-Tender Fees
April 28, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Federal District Court for the District of Hawaii determined that the insured was not entitled to pre-tender defense fees. The Hanover Ins. Co. v. Anova Food, LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38947 (D. Haw. March 24, 2016).
Anova sold and marketed fish. It was insured under policies issued by Hanover that covered claims of "personal and advertising injury."
A patent infringement and false advertising case was filed against Anova in the District Court for the District of Hawaii.The underlying complaint alleged Anova falsely, misleadingly, and deceptively advertised, promoted, and sold fish. The allegations covered a period of time between 1999 and 2012, a portion of which time Anova was covered by the Hanover policies.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
