Commonwealth Court Holds That Award of Attorney's Fees and Penalties is Mandatory Under the Procurement Code Upon a Finding of Bad Faith
October 29, 2014 —
William J. Taylor and Michael Jervis – White and Willams LLPIn a decision regarding a payment claim by a highway contractor against the City of Allentown, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has held that an award of attorney's fees and penalties is mandatory under the terms of the Pennsylvania Procurement Code, 62 Pa.C.S. § 3901 et seq., upon a finding of bad faith by the non-paying government agency, even though the statute only states that a court “may” award such fees and penalties.
In A. Scott Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Allentown, Cmwlth. Ct. No. 2163 C.D. 2013, the plaintiff, A. Scott Enterprises, Inc. (Scott), won a contract with the City of Allentown (City) to construct a one mile roadway. Several weeks after commencing work, Scott learned that soil at the construction site was potentially contaminated with arsenic, and was instructed by the City to suspend its work. Because of the soil contamination, additional work would be required to complete the project and Scott submitted proposals for the additional work plus its suspension costs. However, the City never approved the additional work and the project was never completed. The City never paid Scott for costs incurred due to the suspension of the work and Scott filed suit to recover its losses. The jury found that the City had breached the contract with Scott and had acted in bad faith in violation of the Procurement Code, and awarded damages to Scott for its unreimbursed suspension costs. However, the trial court denied Scott’s request for an award of attorney's fees and penalty interest. Both Scott and the City appealed the final judgment to the Commonwealth Court, which reversed the trial court’s refusal to award attorney's fees and penalties.
Reprinted courtesy of
William J. Taylor, White and Williams LLP and
Michael Jervis, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Taylor may be contacted at taylorw@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Jervis may be contacted at jervism@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Issue and Claim Preclusion When Forced to Litigate Similar Issues in Different Forums: White River Village, LLP v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland
October 10, 2013 —
Brady Iandiorio — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC.Often in construction litigation the parties wish to move the case to arbitration. However, there are certain circumstances in which such change of litigation forums should be carefully analyzed. The case of White River Village, LLP v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, serves as an example of one of those circumstances.
In March 2013, U.S. District Court Judge Blackburn ruled on a motion for summary judgment filed by Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland (“F&D”). The order grants the motion in part and denies it in part. White River Village, LLP (“White River”) was the owner of the project which hired S&S Joint Venture (“S&S”), the contractor, to build two similar developments, directly adjacent to each other. The contracts between Whiter River and S&S for the two projects were so substantially similar that the court referred to them as the S&S Contracts. F&D issued payment and performance bonds guarantying the obligations of S&S under the S&S Contracts.
After S&S defaulted on the construction contracts, F&D, as the surety, undertook to complete performance on the contracts. White River alleged that F&D was liable for construction defects and delays in completing the project, and failed to fulfill its obligations under the performance bonds after it overtook the construction of the projects.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brady IandiorioBrady Iandiorio can be contacted at
Iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com
Beam Cracks Cause Closure of San Francisco’s New $2B Transit Center
October 09, 2018 —
David Suggs – Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.After two billion dollars and two decades, San Francisco’s newest transportation hub opened on August 11th of this year only to be closed a month later, on September 25th, after a cracked beam was discovered, according to The Real Deal. Later, workers found an additional, though smaller, crack in another beam parallel to the first.
The Real Deal described the crack in the first beam: “The Transbay Joint Powers Authority (TJPA) – which built and now operates the center – said the tear was 2.5 feet long and 4.5 inches deep on a 60-foot beam that holds a 5.4-acre rooftop park above a bus deck.” Steel supports are now being installed to reduce the pressure on the beams.
While officials have not discovered the cause of the problem, The Real Deal reported several possibilities, including “fabrication problems, installation error, too much weight, or an issue in the initial design.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
No Coverage for Co-Restaurant Owners Who Are Not Named In Policy
August 24, 2017 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Federal District Court denied two plaintiffs' claims for breach of the policy and for bad faith because they were not insureds under the policy. Tu v. Dongbu Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115200 (N.D. Calif. July 24, 2017).
Dongbu, a Hawaii insurance company, issued a two-year policy to Plaintiff Ken Tu for his business. He was the only named insured under the policy.
The waste system at Plaintiffs' restaurant failed, causing fumes to impact neighboring tenants and waste to contaminate the underlying soil. Plaintiffs were forced to close the restaurant. A claim was tendered for damage and repair, loss of business income, and other insured losses. Dongbu denied coverage.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Limiting Plaintiffs’ Claims to a Cause of Action for Violation of SB-800
November 18, 2011 —
Samir R. Patel, Esq., Lorber, Greenfield, & Polito, LLPThere has been a fair share of publicity about the SB-800 amendments to the Civil Code (Civil Code section 896, et seq.) that codified construction defect litigation in 2002. Most of the publicity is geared toward the pre-litigation standards allowing a builder the right to repair before litigation is commenced by a homeowner. Less focus and attention has been given to the fact that violation of the SB-800 performance standards is being used by plaintiff’s counsel as an additional tool in the plaintiff’s pleading tool box against builders. Closer scrutiny to SB-800 reveals that those provisions should in fact act as a limitation to the pleading tools available to plaintiffs and an additional tool for builders in the defense of cases governed by SB-800.
The typical construction defect complaint contains the boiler plate versions of numerous causes of action. These causes of action include Strict Liability, Negligence, Negligence Per Se, Breach of Contract, Breach of Contract – Third-Party Beneficiary, Breach of Express Warranties, Breach of Implied Warranties, among others. The wide array of causes of action leave a defendant “pinned to the wall” because they require a complex defense on a multitude of contract and tort related causes of action. Furthermore, the statutes of limitations as to these claims widely differ depending upon if the particular defect is considered latent or patent. The truth of the matter remains, no matter what the circumstances, if a construction defect matter ultimately goes to trial, it is inevitable that plaintiffs will obtain a judgment on at least one of these causes of action.
On its own, the Strict Liability cause of action can be a thorn in a defendant’s side. A builder is obviously placing a product into the stream of commerce and strict liability is a tough standard to defend against, particularly when it concerns intricate homes comprised of multiple components that originally sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars. A Negligence cause of action can also be difficult to defend because the duty of care for a builder is what a “reasonable” builder would have done under the circumstances. An interpretation of this duty of care can easily sway a jury that will almost always consist of sympathetic homeowners. A Negligence Per Se cause of action can also leave a defendant vulnerable to accusations that a builder violated the Uniform Building Code or a multitude of other obscure municipal construction-related code provisions during the construction of the home. Lastly, the Breach of Contract cause of action leaves a builder relying on dense and intricate purchase and sale agreements with dozens of addenda which leave the skeptical jurors turned off by what they view as one-side, boilerplate provisions. Ultimately, when a matter is about to go to trial, the complexity of these complaints can benefit a plaintiff and increase a plaintiff’s bargaining power against a defendant who is attempting to avoid a potentially large judgment.
Enter the SB-800 statutes. The SB-800 statutes apply to all homes sold after January 1, 2003. Civil Code section 938 specifically states that “[t]his title applies only to new residential units where the purchase agreements with the buyer was signed by the seller on or after January 1, 2003.” (Civil Code §, 938.) As time progresses, more residential construction defect cases will exclusively fall under the purview of SB-800. Slowly but surely more SB-800 governed litigation is being filed, and its exclusive application is looming on the horizon.
On its surface, this “right to repair” regime has left builders with a lot to be desired despite the fact that it is supposed to allow the builder the opportunity to cure any deficiencies in their product before litigation can be filed by potential plaintiffs. However, the application of the time line for repair has shown to be impractical for anything but the most minor problems involving only small numbers of residential units. Moreover, the fact that the fruits of the builder’s investigation into the claimed defects in the pre-litigation context can freely be used as evidence against it in litigation makes builders proceed with trepidation in responding with a repair. For these reasons, more SB-800 litigation can be expected to result due to the shortcomings of the pre-litigation procedures, and savvy defense counsel should anticipate the issues to be dealt with in presenting the defense of such cases at trial.
This fact should not necessarily be met with fear or disdain. Within the SB-800 statutes, the legislature made it clear that they were creating a new cause of action for construction defect claims, but it further made it clear that this cause of action is a plaintiff’s exclusive remedy. The legislature giveth, but at the same time, the legislature taketh away. Throughout numerous provisions within the SB-800 statutes, the Civil Code states that claims for construction defects as to residential construction are exclusively governed by the Civil Code, and that the Civil Code governs any and all litigation arising under breaches of these provisions. Civil Code section 896 specifically states:
In any action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in, the residential construction … the claimant’s claims or causes of action shall be limited to violation of, the following standards, except as specifically set forth in this title. (Civil Code §, 896.)
Civil Code section 896 then provides approximately fifty-plus standards by which a construction defect claim is assessed under that provision. Civil Code section 896 covers everything from plumbing to windows, and from foundations to decks, and in several instances expressly dictates statutes of limitations as to specific areas of construction that severely truncate the 10-year latent damage limitations period. As for any construction deficiencies that are not enumerated within Civil Code section 896, Civil Code section 897 explicitly defines the intent of the standards and provides a method to assess deficiencies that are not addressed in Civil Code section 896. Civil Code section 897 states:
Intent of Standards
The standards set forth in this chapter are intended to address every function or component of a structure. To the extent that a function or component of a structure is not addressed by these standards, it shall be actionable if it causes damage. (Civil Code §, 897.)
Therefore, Civil Code section 897 acts as a catch-all by which defects that are not covered within Civil Code section 896 can be evaluated on a damage standard mirroring the Aas case (damages must be present and actual). The result of sections 896 and 897 being read in combination is a comprehensive, all-inclusive set of performance standards by which any defect raised by Plaintiffs can be evaluated and resolved under a single SB-800 based cause of action.
Civil Code section 943 makes clear that a cause of action for violation of SB-800 performance standards is a plaintiff’s sole remedy for a residential construction defect action. Specifically, Civil Code section 943 states:
Except as provided in this title, no other cause of action for a claim covered by this title or for damages recoverable under 944 is allowed. In addition to the rights under this title, this title does not apply to any action by a claimant to enforce a contract or express contractual provision, or any action for fraud, personal injury, or violation of a statute. (Civil Code §, 943.)
Civil Code section 944 provides the method for computing damages within a construction defect action, as follows:
If a claim for damages is made under this title, the homeowner is only entitled to damages for the reasonable value of repairing any violation of the standards set forth in this title, [and] the reasonable cost of repairing any damages caused by the repair efforts… . (Civil Code §, 944.)
A cursory review of these statutes yields the conclusion that the legislature was attempting to create an exclusive cause of action that trumps all other causes of action where SB-800 applies. The remedy available to plaintiffs is limited to that allowed by the Civil Code. As noted above, “[n]o other cause of action for a claim covered by this title…is allowed.” (Civil Code §, 943.) Therefore, Civil Code sections 896, 897, 943, and 944 specifically prohibit the contract-based and tort-based causes of action typically pled by plaintiffs.
Plaintiff’s counsel has seized upon the language of section 943 to advance the argument that SB-800 still allows a plaintiff to advance typical contract and tort based causes of action. On the surface, this argument may seem compelling, but a minimum of scrutiny of the express language of section 943 dispels this notion. Section 943 says that it provides rights “[i]n addition” to those under the SB-800 Civil Code provisions. Clearly, the language in section 943 is intended to expressly underscore the fact that a plaintiff is not precluded from seeking relief in addition to that allowed under SB-800 for damages not arising from a breach of the SB-800 standards or for damages in addition to those recoverable under Section 944. This language does not provide an unfettered license to bring a Strict Liability, Negligence or other cause of action against a builder where SB-800 applies.
In fact, this language only keeps the door open for plaintiffs to pursue such causes of action not arising from a breach of the SB-800 standards should there be such supporting allegations. For example, if a plaintiff alleges that a builder breached an “express contractual provision” related to the timing of the completion of the home and close of escrow, and the contract specifies damages in this regard, a plaintiff may have a viable separate cause of action for Breach of Contract for recovery of those damages precisely because that is not an issue expressly dealt with in SB-800 in the performance standards under sections 896 and 897, or in the damage recovery terms under 944. As it stands, the vast majority of complaints are seeking redress for violation of the same primary right; that is, defects specifically outlined in Section 896 and 897 or which result in damages as stated in Section 944.
So, how does a builder defend against a complaint that contains multiple causes of action regarding construction defects for a home sold after January 1, 2003? There are numerous ways to approach this. First and foremost, these superfluous and improper causes of action can be attacked by demurrer seeking dismissal of all causes of action other than the cause of action alleging violation of SB-800. If the the time period within which to file a demurrer has passed already, a motion for judgment on the pleadings can be utilized to attack the improper causes of action in the same way as a demurrer can be used for this purpose.
The limitation to a demurrer or motion for judgment on the pleadings is that the judge is restricted to viewing only the four corners of the pleading when making a ruling. It is typical for plaintiffs’ counsel to cleverly (or one might even say, disingenuously) leave the complaint purposely vague to avoid a successful defense attack on the pleadings by not including the original date the residence was sold. In that instance, a motion for summary adjudication can be used to attack a plaintiff’s complaint. By simply providing evidence that the homes were originally sold after January 1, 2003, the improper causes of action should be subject to dismissal by summary adjudication. If the plaintiff is a subsequent purchaser, the builder still has recourse to enforce the pleading limitations under SB-800. Civil Code section 945 states that “[t]he provisions, standards, rights, and obligations set forth in this title are binding upon all original purchasers and their successors-in-interest.” (Civil Code §, 945.)
Attacking a plaintiff’s complaint to eliminate multiple causes of action can have numerous benefits. The practical result is that a plaintiff will only have one viable cause of action. The advantage is that the SB-800 performance standards include the defined performance standards and shortened statutes of limitations periods with regard to specific issues. Furthermore, as to defects which are not specifically provided for in Civil Code section 896, Civil Code section 897 requires a proof of actual damages. Therefore, a plaintiff must provide evidence of current damages and not simply conditions that may potentially cause damage in the future.
The Appellate Courts have yet to directly address and interpret these SB-800 provisions. The time for that is undoubtedly drawing near. For now, however, plaintiffs will have to find ways to accurately plead construction defect claims within the confines of one cause of action for breach of the performance standards enumerated within the Civil Code.
Printed courtesy of Lorber, Greenfield & Polito, LLP. Mr. Patel can be contacted at spatel@lorberlaw.com and Mr. Verbick at tverbick@lorberlaw.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New York Building Boom Spurs Corruption Probe After Death
August 19, 2015 —
Chris Dolmetsch & David M. Levitt – BloombergNew York’s building boom has spurred the formation of a task force to probe corruption in the construction industry.
The group of prosecutors and inspectors plan to go after companies that ignore or hide safety violations or commit other crimes including bid rigging and extortion.
The formation of the task force was announced the same day two men and their companies were indicted for causing a worker’s death in April by failing to address repeated warnings about safety at a construction site in Manhattan’s Meatpacking District.
Reprinted courtesy of
Chris Dolmetsch, Bloomberg and
David M. Levitt, Bloomberg
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Families First Coronavirus Response Act: What Every Employer Should Know
April 06, 2020 —
Donald A. Velez, Karissa L. Fox & Sarah K. Carpenter - Smith CurrieSmith Currie provides this update regarding the Families First Coronavirus Response Act as part of its continuing effort to monitor developments concerning the Coronavirus disease (“COVID-19”) and provide guidance as to potential issues that may arise in businesses across the United States.
On March 18, 2020, President Trump signed into law the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (the “Act”), which contains provisions requiring certain private employers to provide paid leave to employees who cannot work because of Coronavirus, expanding Family and Medical Leave Act coverage, providing for federal tax credits to affected employers, and providing eligible states the ability to further fund their unemployment trust fund accounts. The Act is effective as of April 2, 2020 and will remain in place through December 31, 2020.
Below, we provide a summary of the Act and several of its key components, including the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act (“EFMLEA”), the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act, and the Emergency Unemployment Insurance Stabilization and Access Act.
Reprinted courtesy of Smith Currie attorneys
Donald A. Velez,
Karissa L. Fox and
Sarah K. Carpenter
Mr. Velez may be contacted at davelez@smithcurrie.com
Ms. Fox may be contacted at klfox@smithcurrie.com
Ms. Carpenter may be contacted at skcarpenter@smithcurrie.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Congratulations to BWB&O’s 2023 Super Lawyers Rising Stars!
June 26, 2023 —
Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPBWB&O is excited to announce Partner
Courtney Serrato and Associates
Andrew Arakelian,
Pamchal Deylami, and
Brian Taylor have been selected in the 2023 Southern California Super Lawyers list as Rising Stars for their work in Family Law and Civil Litigation. To read Super Lawyers’ digital publication, please click
here.
Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The objective of Super Lawyers’ patented multiphase selection process is to create a credible, comprehensive, and diverse listing of outstanding attorneys that can be used as a resource for attorneys and consumers searching for legal counsel. Please join us in congratulating Courtney, Andrew, Pamchal, and Brian on achieving this level of recognition!
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
