FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Homeowners Must Comply with Arbitration over Construction Defects

January 06, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The California Court of Appeals has upheld a decision by the Superior Court of Kern County that homeowners must comply with arbitration procedures in their construction defect claim. The California Court of Appeals ruled on December 14 in the case of Baeza v. Superior Court of Kern County, denying the plaintiff’s petition that the trial court vacate its order.

The plaintiffs in the case are homeowners in various developments built by Castle & Cook. The homes were sold with a contract that provided for “nonadversarial prelitigation procedures, including mediation, and judicial reference.” The homeowners made defect claims and argued that Castle & Cooke failed to comply with statutory disclosure requirements and that some of the contracts violate related statutes.

The appeals court found that there was no ground for appeal of the lower court’s order to continue with prelitigation procedures. The court noted that the plaintiffs could not seek a review of the mediation until a judgment was issued, but that then the issue would be moot. The court felt that there were issues presented that needed clarification, and so they reviewed this case. This was cleared for publication.

The court considered the intent of the legislature in passing the Right to Repair Act, noting that “under the statutory scheme, the builder has the option of contracting for an alternative nonadversarial prelitigation procedure,” as established in Chapter 4. The court noted that Chapter 4 “contains no specifics regarding what provisions the alternative nonadversarial contractual provisions may or must include.”

The plaintiffs contended that the builder was in violation of the standards set out in Section 912, however the court responded that these sections set out one set of procedures, but they concluded that “if the Legislature had intended the section 912 disclosure provisions…it could have made the requirements applicable to all builders by locating them in a section outside Chapter 4.”

Read the court’s decision…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

The Problem With Building a New City From Scratch

May 10, 2022 — Nolan Gray - Bloomberg
From California to Miami and points in between, housing costs in the U.S. are skyrocketing, bringing bidding wars in hot markets and fears of a fresh surge in homelessness as renters scramble for an affordable place to live. The deepening housing crunch — and the intractable resistance that residents often put up when the prospect of new housing emerges nearby — has led some observers to ask: Why don’t we just make new cities? “When China needs new places for people to live, they just build a new city,” Nathan J. Robinson recently wrote in Current Affairs, contemplating all the undeveloped land in between California’s costly major urban areas. “They’ve built 600 of them since 1949.” At first blush, it might seem obvious. But history is full of failed, unfinished or underperforming scratch-built city projects, in California and elsewhere, and more are in the pipeline. To learn more about how we might best approach building new cities, CityLab talked to a person who’s had a hand in planning a few of them: Alain Bertaud, a fellow at the Marron Institute for Urban Management and a globetrotting former city planner at the World Bank. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nolan Gray, Bloomberg

---

Workers on Big California Bridge Tackle Oil Wells, Seismic Issues

February 02, 2017 — Aileen Cho - Bloomberg
Surrounded by workers, Nik Pecci, project safety manager with PMCM Consulting Engineers for the $1.5-billion Gerald Desmond Bridge replacement project—which is revitalizing a 50-year-old link in Long Beach—gestured in several directions: “I’ve got all these [port] tenants here, I’ve got a massive bridge over here. I have to build this thing intertwined with one of the busiest ports in the world. I constantly have commuters, cargo trucks and trailers and trains.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aileen Cho, ENR
Ms. Cho may be contacted at choa@enr.com

---

What Cal/OSHA’s “Permanent” COVID Standards Mean for Employers

March 06, 2023 — Payne & Fears LLP
Effective Feb. 3, 2023, California has implemented new, “permanent,” COVID-19 standards. The new regulations were adopted by Cal/OSHA on Dec. 15, 2022, but only became effective upon the review and final approval by the Office of Administrative Law. These non-emergency regulations—slated to remain in effect for two years—supplant the COVID-19 Prevention Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) that have been in effect since early in the pandemic. The non-emergency regulations abandon core parts of the ETS, include new definitions for key terms, and update requirements for important provisions. We discuss the primary changes below. The regulation itself is available online, as well as a copy provided by Cal/OSHA comparing the differences between the ETS and the new regulation. An End to Exclusion Pay The non-emergency regulations do not require employers to maintain exclusion pay (an excluded employee’s earnings, seniority, rights, and benefits). All that employers must do under the new regulations is inform confirmed COVID-19 cases and close contacts about potential COVID-19 benefits under federal or local laws (where applicable). This does not affect employees who may receive paid time off under other federal, state, and local laws, as well as through collective bargaining agreements or other employer policies. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears LLP

---

Who Would Face Liability For Oroville Dam Management: Brett Moore Authors Law360 Article

February 23, 2017 — Brett G. Moore - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
On February 12, 2017, the Butte County Sheriff ordered the evacuation of more than 180,000 people in the communities surrounding California’s Oroville Dam after officials spotted severe erosion in the dam’s emergency spillway. The Oroville Dam facilities are managed on by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which licenses the project to California’s Department of Water Resources (DWR). In his Law360 article “Who Would Face Liability For Oroville Dam Management,” Attorney Brett Moore discusses the liability of the agencies involved in managing the Oroville facilities should the dam fail again. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brett G. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Moore may be contacted at bmoore@hbblaw.com

---

What If There Is a Design Error?

October 30, 2023 — Scott L. Baker - Los Angeles Litigation Blog
Many challenges can crop up when working on a construction project. Among these challenges, errors are the last thing that contractors or project owners want to face. Yet, they are not uncommon as you navigate the process. Design errors or mistakes are one such issue that can result in serious construction disputes and delays. It is important to determine who is liable when it comes to defects and design errors. So, who is responsible for design errors? Many might assume the architect – or the person who created the project design – is responsible for design errors. That is not necessarily true. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott L. Baker, Baker & Associates
Mr. Baker may be contacted at slb@bakerslaw.com

---

Rainwater Collecting on Rooftop is not Subject to Policy's Flood Sublimits

October 15, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Responding to a certified question from the First Circuit, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts determined that rainwater collecting on the insureds' rooftop and causing interior damage was not "flood" as defined in the policy and subject to sublimits. Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Medical Properties Trust, Inc., 2024 Mass. LEXIS ___ (Mass. July 23, 2024). A severe thunderstorm caused heavy rain and strong winds which damaged a hospital. The hospital was owned by Medical Properties Trust, Inc. (MPT) and leased to Steward Health Care System LLC (Steward). Ground water accumulated and flooded the basement. Rainwater also accumulated on the hospital's parapet roofs and on the second-story courtyard, and eventually seeped through the parapet roofs and courtyard to the hospital's upper floors, causing damage to the building and property within. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Construction Litigation Roundup: “A Less Than Valiant Effort”

June 21, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
A Miller Act claimant in federal court in New Jersey in relation to a VA medical center project found itself on the wrong end of the law and was sent packing by the court. The claimant had supplied products for the project to general contractor Valiant Group, LLC, pursuant to a purchase order from the GC. The general contractor allegedly refused to pay the supplier, leading to the claim against the GC and its payment bond surety in the amount of $126,900. The supplier also sought recovery under the federal Prompt Payment Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3901-07. State law claims were asserted as well. Chipping away at the federal law claims – the claims forming the asserted basis for federal court jurisdiction for the case – the court first dispensed with the Prompt Payment Act claim. According to the court, allegations that the general contractor had “wrongfully and improperly withheld remuneration… despite [having] ‘received payment from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’" – whether or not accurate – did not trigger the Act. The court wrote: “The Prompt Payment Act was enacted ‘to provide the federal government with an incentive to pay government contractors on time by requiring agencies to pay penalties . . . on certain overdue bills . . . [and] was later amended to include provisions applicable to subcontractors.’… Absent from the Act, however, are ‘any explicit provisions for subcontractor enforcement if the prime contractor fails to make timely payment.’… This is because the Act ‘merely requires that the prime contractor's contract with the subcontractor include the specified payment clause. [It] does not require the prime contractor to actually make payments to the subcontractor[.]’… The Act, therefore, does not ‘give subcontractors an additional cause of action for an alleged breach by a general contractor of a subcontract.’” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

---