Brown Paint Doesn’t Cover Up Construction Defects
April 25, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFIn a decision that describes the case as illustrating “the perils that real estate brokers and their agents assume when acting as a dual listing agent to both the buyers and sellers of the same house,” the California Court of Appeals has issued a decision in William L. Lyon & Associates v. The Superior Court of Placer County. Lyon & Associates sought summary judgment to dismiss the claims of the Henleys who bought a home in a transaction where a Lyon agent represented both sides.
The prior owners of the home, the Costas, had used a Lyon agent in purchasing their home. When they later sought to sell it, that agent “became aware of some of the house’s defects and problems.” In response, the Costas sought the help of another agent, Connie Gidal, also of Lyons & Associates. Photos taken in the presence of Ms. Gidal show defects of the paint and stucco. The Costas also took the step of painting the house dark brown. During the sale process, “rain caused many of the painted-over defects to reappear.” The Costas “purchased more dark brown paint and covered up the newly visible damage prior to inspection by the Henleys.”
With the damage concealed, the Henleys bought the home in May 2006. The agreement with Lyons & Associates noted that “a dual agent is obligated to disclose known facts materially affecting the value or desirability of the property to both parties.” Escrow closed on May 9, 2006. The contract with the broker included a two-year limit on the time to bring legal action.
The Henleys moved in during June 2006, and “began to discover construction defects that had been concealed by the Costas.” In addition to the painted-over stucco problems, the Henleys found that the Costas had “installed quartzite stone overlays on the backyard steps in a manner that caused water intrusion on the house’s stucco walls.”
In May 2009, the Henleys sued the Costas, Ron McKim Construction, Lyons & Associates, and Ms. Gidal. Their complaint alleged that Lyons & Associates had committed breach of contact, negligence, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent nondisclosure in connection with the construction defects. The Costas named Lyons in a cross complaint. Lyons moved for summary judgments on the grounds that the two-year statute of limitations had expired before the complaint and cross-complaint were filed. Both the Henleys and the Costas opposed this claim. The court denied the motion and Lyons appealed.
The appeals court upheld the denial, noting that the both California Supreme Court decision and later action by the legislature compels real estate brokers and salespersons “to conduct a reasonably competent and diligent visual inspection of the property offered for sale.” The court noted that under California law, brokers have responsibilities to both sellers and buyers. The section of law cited by Lyons applies to seller’s agents. The court rejected the contention by Lyons that they were “cooperating brokers.” The Henleys were “not constrained by the two-year statute of limitations.”
Lyons contended that even if California’s statute did not apply, there was a contractual limit of two years. The court also rejected this, agreeing with the Henleys that “the two-year limitation period must be extended by the discovery rule.”
The court noted that “Lyon & Associates may not reap the benefit of a shortened contractual limitation period when its own alleged malfeasance contributed to the delay in the discovery of the buyer’s injury.” The court found that the Henleys could proceed with their breach of contract claim, because, “when a breach of contract is committed in secret, such as the intentional nondisclosure of a real estate broker regarding a previously visible construction defect, the contractual limitations period is properly held subject to the discovery rule.” The court felt that the interpretation favored by the California Association of Realtors would “halve the applicable statute of limitations period.”
In addition to rejecting Lyon request for summary judgment on the claims made by the Henleys, the court also rejected the request of summary judgment on the claims made by the Costas, concluding that neither claim is time-barred. Costs were awarded to both the Henleys and Costas.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Recent Federal Court Decision Favors Class Action Defendants
October 26, 2020 —
Amber Karns & Dan Pipitone - Construction ExecutiveThe commercial construction contracting and subcontracting industry in general is unique under the law for industry professionals, as they’re typically limited to wage and hour litigation under provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The majority of FLSA cases seek class action status or collective classification, while other FLSA litigation is initiated by individuals seeking damages. For the former, past and current employees can opt into class action litigation and seek collective damages against a construction company. The looming financial burden of class action or collective litigation against construction companies consume time, money and resources to the extent it’s often advisable for Defendants to negotiate an unfair settlement.
Yet, thanks to a recent federal court decision on March 27, 2020, the legal maneuvering behind unreasonable Plaintiff demands may soon be counter-balanced by the class action Defendants’ right to due process review. A recent legal opinion in a recent FLSA case has potentially wide-ranging implications for Defendant employers mired in future class action litigation. Moreover, as the FLSA applies to all employers, this decision potentially applies to all ownership groups representing the commercial construction industry, extending to partners, contractors and subcontractors.
Reprinted courtesy of
Amber Karns & Dan Pipitone, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Mr. Pipitone may be contacted at dpipitone@munsch.com
Ms. Karns may be contacted at akarns@munsch.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Home Buyer May Be Third Party Beneficiary of Property Policy
July 19, 2017 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the insurer, finding that the purchaser may have third party beneficiary rights under the seller's property policy. Hensley v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2017 Okla. LEXIS 59 (June 20, 2017).
In May 2000, Hensley sold his property and a mobile home located thereon to Douglas using a contract for deed. The contract for deed required Douglas to keep the premises insured, and the monthly payments made by Douglas to Hensley included the premiums. Hensley had a policy with State Farm on the property. Hensley continued to make the premium payments and the policy continued to be renewed. Further, State Farm was informed of the change in the property's status.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Tennessee Looks to Define Improvements to Real Property
January 27, 2020 —
Lian Skaf - The Subrogation StrategistFor subrogation practitioners dealing with an installation-based statute of repose, knowing what is an improvement to real property is the first battle in what can, but does not have to be, a long fight. Like many other states, Tennessee’s statute of repose bars claims based on improvements to real property. Tennessee’s statute of repose runs four years after substantial completion of the improvement. See Tennessee Code Ann. § 28-3-202. In the case of Maddox v. Olshan Found. Repair & Waterproofing Co. of Nashville, L.P., E A, 2019 Tenn.App. LEXIS 464, 2019 WL 4464816, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee examined whether or not the work done by the defendant, Olshan Foundation Repair & Waterproofing Co. of Nashville, L.P., E.A. (Olshan) — which addressed bowing walls, cracks in the foundation and walls and water intrusion — qualified as improvements to real property for the purposes of the statute of repose. The court held that the work by Olshan essentially amounted to repairs, and did not qualify as improvements to real property.
In Maddox, the plaintiff, Rachel Maddox (Maddox), noticed cracking in her home in 2005 and hired Olshan to assess the issue and conduct necessary repairs. Olshan made several recommendations and the parties agreed on Olshan’s proposal for the price of $27,000. From their initial work in 2005 until late 2011, Olshan visited the property several times to address ongoing structural issues with the home. Eventually, eight months after Olshan told Maddox they could not fix the house and failed to return her phone calls, Maddox filed suit, alleging fraud against the company.
After a three-day bench trial, the trial court found in favor of the plaintiff for $187,000, plus $15,0000 in punitive damages. Among other holdings, the court rejected Olshan’s statute of repose defense. Olshan appealed, raising the statute of repose issue again.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLPMr. Skaf may be contacted at
skafl@whiteandwilliams.com
Recent Bad Faith Decisions in Florida Raise Concerns
November 06, 2018 —
Michael Kiernan, Lauren Curtis & Ashley Kellgren - TLSS Insurance Law BlogThe State of Florida has long been known as one of the most challenging jurisdictions for insurance carriers in the context of bad faith – to say the least. Two recent appellate decisions have taken an already difficult environment and seemingly “upped the ante” in what constitutes good faith claims handling in the context of third-party liability claims. Set forth below is an analysis of the Bannon v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co. and Harvey v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co. decisions.
Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP attorneys
Michael Kiernan,
Lauren Curtis and
Ashley Kellgren
Mr. Kiernan may be contacted at mkiernan@tlsslaw.com
Ms. Curtis may be contacted at lcurtis@tlsslaw.com
Ms. Kellgren may be contacted at akellgren@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Broker Not Negligent When Insured Rejects Additional Coverage
January 31, 2018 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe broker was not negligent when it proposed additional coverage that was rejected by the insured. Cromer v. Rosenzweig Ins. Agency Inc., 2017 N.Y. App Div. LEXIS 8969 (N.Y. App. Div. Dec. 21, 2017).
Plaintiff was injured while employed as a painter at property owned by Allen Skriloff. Coverage was denied because injuries to employees, contractors and employees of contractors were excluded. Plaintiff sued Skriloff and obtained a jury verdict of $6.1 million. Skirloff assigned to plaintiff all rights and claims held against the insurer and insurance brokers.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Privity Problems Continue for Additional Insureds in the Second Circuit
November 08, 2017 —
Samantha M. Martino – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.On October 4, the Second Circuit held that Harleysville Insurance Company had no duty to defend or indemnify a project owner or general contractor as additional insureds under a sub-subcontractor’s commercial general liability (CGL) policy due to lack of direct contractual privity. 1
The underlying claim arose when an employee of The Kimmell Company, Inc. (Kimmell) was injured while repairing an HVAC system at a building owned by the University of Rochester Medical Center (UR). The injured employee sought damages for his injuries and fi led suit against (1) UR; (2) LeChase Construction Corp. (LeChase), the general contractor for the project; and (3) J.T. Mauro Co. Inc. (Mauro), a subcontractor hired by LeChase.
Mauro hired Kimmell as a sub-subcontractor to perform HVAC services at the project. The Mauro-Kimmel contract required Kimmel to add Mauro, UR, and LeChase as additional insureds under Kimmell’s CGL policy.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Samantha M. Martino, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Martino may be contacted at
smm@sdvlaw.com
How a Maryland County Created the Gold Standard for Building Emissions Reduction
May 24, 2021 —
Pam McFarland - Engineering News-RecordMontgomery County, Md. is generating significant buzz among U.S. municipalities aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from buildings.
Reprinted courtesy of
Pam McFarland, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
