“Wait! Do You Have All Your Ducks in a Row?” Filing of a Certificate of Merit in Conjunction With a Complaint
January 13, 2020 —
Rahul Gogineni - The Subrogation StrategistIn Barrett v. Berry Contr. L.P., No. 13-18-00498-CV, 2019 Tex. LEXIS 8811, the Thirteenth District Court of Appeals of Texas considered, among other things, the procedural timing requirements of filing a certificate of merit in conjunction with a complaint. The court concluded that the proper reading of the statute requires a plaintiff to file a certificate of merit with the first complaint naming the defendant as a party.
In Barrett, after sustaining injuries while working at a refinery, David Barrett (Barrett) filed suit against Berry Contracting, LP and Elite Piping & Civil, Ltd. on July 6, 2016. In Barrett’s first amended complaint, which he filed on August 23, 2016, Barrett added Govind Development, LLC (Govind) as another defendant. Barrett subsequently filed a second amended complaint (omitting Govind) and, on December 27, 2017, shortly before the statute of limitations ran, a third amended complaint (reasserting claims against Govind). On January 28, 2018, after the statute of limitations period ran, Barrett filed a certificate of merit. Govind filed a motion to dismiss the claim, asserting that Barrett violated the statute that required a certificate of merit to be filed with the complaint, Tex. Civ. Prac & Rem. Code §150.002.
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §150.002(a) states,
In any action or arbitration proceeding for damages arising out of the provision of professional services by a licensed or registered professional, a claimant shall be required to file with the complaint an affidavit of a third-party licensed architect, licensed professional engineer, registered landscape architect or registered professional land surveyor…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rahul Gogineni, White and Williams LLPMr. Gogineni may be contacted at
goginenir@whiteandwilliams.com
Construction Contract Basics: Indemnity
October 30, 2023 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsI’m back after a welcome
change of offices from a Regus location to a separate and more customer-friendly
local shared office space location. I thought I’d jump back into posting with a series of construction contract-related posts, the first of which relates to indemnification clauses.
An indemnification clause in a contract obligates one party (the Indemnitor) to take on liability (read pay for) any damages to another party (the Indemnitee) under certain circumstances. In a construction context, this type of arrangement can arise in a
bonding context with a general indemnity obligation to the surety among other contexts outside of the four corners of any prime or subcontract. I will not be discussing those other contexts and will focus on the typical indemnity clause found in most if not all, construction contracts. These clauses most often state that the “downstream” party is to indemnify all of the upstream parties for any and all damages incurred by the indemnitees due to any action of the downstream party, its employees, subcontractors, sub-subcontractors, etc. The clauses are often not limited in scope and generally include attorney fee provisions and generally require indemnity for breaches of contract by their terms.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Got Licensing Questions? CSLB Licensing Workshop November 17th and December 15th
November 15, 2017 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogA rare opportunity to hear it straight from the folks who process the applications . . .
CSLB Licensing Workshop Offers Helpful Information for Applicants
The Contractors State License Board (CSLB) is hosting free workshops for those looking to become a licensed contractor. Current licensees are encouraged to pass this information along to their workers and to those who might be interested in learning more about the application process.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP Mr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
How California’s Construction Industry has dealt with the New Indemnity Law
October 22, 2014 —
Mark S. Himmelstein, Esq. - Newmeyer & DillionIt has been almost two years since the California legislature enacted changes to the state’s indemnity law affecting commercial construction contracts. Although we do not yet have any court opinions analyzing the new statutes, the attorneys at
Newmeyer & Dillion now have real world experience in negotiating such indemnity provisions. It is time to evaluate how the construction community has reacted to the changes. In this article, we examine the practical applications of the new law to various construction agreements.
Enacted on January 1, 2013, the new legislation was the latest in a series of efforts by subcontractors and their insurers to eliminate “Type I” indemnity clauses. Under a Type I provision, a subcontractor has a duty to indemnify the developer or general contractor for the negligence of the developer or general contractor or other subcontractors, in addition to the negligence of the subcontractor itself. In 2006, the law was changed to preclude Type I provisions regarding “For Sale” residential construction defect claims. At that time, there was no such restriction enacted for commercial construction contracts. However, since then, commercial subcontractors have been seeking similar legislation. Their efforts culminated in the 2013 revisions regarding commercial contracts.
Commercial Subcontracts
Pursuant to the new indemnity statute — Civil Code section 2782.05 — we have revised our clients’ commercial subcontracts to:
(a) Eliminate the requirement that the subcontractor indemnify the general contractor for the general contractor’s “active negligence;” and
(b) Include the subcontractor’s options for defending claims for which they have an indemnity obligation.
Many subcontractors have responded: “Hey, wait a minute, the new legislation eliminated Type I indemnity so you (general contractor) cannot still require any indemnification for the general contractor’s negligence”. Well, that might be the rumor in subcontractor circles, but the new statute does not eliminate indemnity for the general contractor’s passive fault. In addition, the Civil Code lists 13 instances where the new indemnity restrictions do not apply.
Residential Subcontracts
The legislature did not make anyone’s job easier by drafting a different indemnity provision for commercial subcontracts than for residential subcontracts. In fact, the residential and commercial statutes are different in several critical respects. First, the restrictions on indemnity in the residential statute apply only to construction defect claims in newly constructed “For Sale” houses. The statute does not preclude Type I indemnity provisions for any other claims arising out of residential subcontracts. In contrast, the indemnity restrictions in the commercial statute apply to all claims arising out of commercial subcontracts. In addition, the commercial statute allows indemnity for the general contractor’s passive fault. Since some subcontractors on “residential” projects perform off-site “commercial” work as well, we have amended even residential subcontracts to address the subcontractors’ various indemnity obligations for different parts of their work (e.g., residential work versus commercial work).
Owner-Contractor Agreements
The January 1, 2013 new indemnity provisions apply not only to subcontracts, but also to owner-contractor agreements. Civil Code section 2782(c)(1) precludes indemnity for an owner’s active negligence. Interestingly, the exclusions contained in Civil Code section 2782.05 for subcontracts do not apply, and the statute does not provide contractors with the option of defending claims set forth in the sections concerning subcontracts. Therefore, we have revised the indemnity provisions in owner-contractor agreements to exclude indemnity for the owner’s active negligence.
Design Professional Agreements
The 2007 revisions with respect to “For Sale” residential contracts (discussed above), and the 2013 revisions for commercial contracts do not apply to design professionals. The new indemnity statute concerning commercial subcontracts specifically excludes design professionals from the “anti-indemnity” benefits provided to subcontractors. Therefore, Type I indemnity provisions are fair game and can still be included in design professional contracts.
Conclusion
In sum, Civil Code sections 2782 et seq. now contain an increasingly complex framework for indemnity rules in construction contracts. For example, there is one set of rules for “For Sale” residential construction defect claims (no indemnity for the developer’s active or passive negligence), another for any other claims arising out of residential construction (Type I indemnity is permitted), another for commercial subcontracts (no indemnity for the general contractor’s active negligence, but indemnity for the general contractor’s passive negligence unless any of the exceptions apply, in which case Type I indemnity is permitted), and yet another for commercial owner contractor agreements (no indemnity for the owner’s active negligence, but indemnity for the owner’s passive negligence with no exceptions).
California’s indemnity laws are complex, and rumors as to the impact of the new legislation have made it even more difficult to negotiate these provisions. It is imperative that indemnity clauses in construction contracts clearly delineate the obligations for the specific type or types of work contemplated by the contract. The legislature’s attempt to simplify indemnity obligations has actually made such provisions lengthier and more cumbersome. As experienced construction attorneys, our task is to draft indemnity provisions that comply with the laws, address potential claims, and are understandable.
Mr. Himmelstein is a partner in the Newport Beach office of Newmeyer & Dillion and practices in the areas of construction, real estate, business and insurance litigation. He also specializes in drafting and negotiating construction and real estate contracts. Mark can be reached at mark.himmelstein@ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Congratulations to BWB&O’s Las Vegas Team on Obtaining Summary Judgment for the Firm’s Landowner Client!
August 03, 2022 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPBremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is proud to announce Partner Anthony Garasi, Senior Associate Madeline Arcellana, and Associate Laura Rios successfully won a Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”), while also defeating two competing MSJs filed by Plaintiff, and ultimately obtaining a full dismissal of their landowner client against claims of premises liability.
Plaintiff, who sued both BWB&O’s client (the landowner) and its tenant, alleged injury when he slipped and fell, while utilizing a temporary wooden board as a ramp that was placed on the subject property by the tenant, who was occupying the property subject to a lease-to-own arrangement with BWB&O’s client.
In this Motion practice, the BWB&O team successfully obtained a ruling from the Court to find that BWB&O’s client had effectively contracted to delegate its maintenance responsibilities to its tenant, and also that the tenant owed BWB&O’s client full indemnity for Plaintiff’s alleged losses.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
California to Require Disclosure of Construction Defect Claims
October 30, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFCalifornia Governor Jerry Brown has signed Senate Bill 625. Starting in July 2014, anyone who sells a home will have to disclose all claims made of construction defects and the status of these claims.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Loan Modifications Due to COVID-19 Pandemic: FDIC Answers CARES Act FAQs
May 11, 2020 —
Nancy Sabol Frantz, Marissa Levy, Timothy E. Davis & Kristen E. Andreoli - White and WilliamsIn support of financial institutions and borrowers during the COVID-19 pandemic, the newly enacted Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) includes a number of provisions permitting lenders to suspend, during a covered period, requirements under U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) with respect to categorizing certain loan modifications as a troubled debt restructuring (TDR) due to COVID-19. In light of the CARES Act, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) issued a series of answers to FAQs for financial institutions with respect to loan modifications. The FAQs help guide lenders as well as borrowers as they address pending defaults under existing credit facilities. The FAQs encourage financial institutions to work with borrowers who may be unable to meet their payment obligations due to COVID-19 in several ways:
Payment Accommodations
Short-term accommodations which modify, extend, suspend or defer repayment terms should be intended to facilitate the borrower’s ability to work through the immediate impact of the virus. According to the FAQs, all loan accommodation programs should ultimately be targeted towards repayment. To that end, the FDIC recommends that financial institutions address deferred or skipped payments by either extending the original maturity date or by making those payments due in a balloon payment at the maturity date of the loan.
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams attorneys
Nancy Sabol Frantz,
Marissa Levy,
Timothy E. Davis and
Kristen E. Andreoli
Ms. Frantz may be contacted at frantzn@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Levy may be contacted at levymp@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Davis may be contacted at davist@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Andreoli may be contacted at andreolik@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Water Seepage, Ensuing Mold Damage Covered by Homeowner's Policy
August 13, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe appellate court reversed the trial court's determination that the policy covered only mold damage, but not damage caused by water seepage. Henderson v. Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 2014 Ga. App. LEXIS 539 (Ga. Ct. App. July 16, 2014).
The homeowner's policy covered losses caused by constant seepage or leakage of water or the presence of condensation or moisture over a period of time. The insureds also paid for additional coverage for "ensuing mold . . . caused by or resulting from" one of the covered risks, including water seepage.
Ms. Henderson discovered a puddle of water in her kitchen and contacted Georgia Farm Bureau. The insurer's contractor tore out a section of the floor, but found no other problems of water seepage. Later, the Hendersons removed another part of the floor and discovered standing water and black mold underneath. The Hendersons had to vacate their house for one year.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
