Summary Judgment in Favor of General Contractor Under Privette Doctrine Overturned: Lessons Learned
March 27, 2023 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIt seems like we’ve been seeing a lot of Privette doctrine cases recently. Here’s another,
Brown v. Beach House Design & Development, 85 Cal.App.5th 516 (2002), which provides a cautionary tale for general contractors to watch what they include in their scope of work and how they manage projects.
The Beach House Case
Kyle Brown was a carpenter employed by subcontractor O’Rourke Construction, Inc. who contracted with general contractor Beach House Design and Development to provide finish carpentry on a construction project. A&D Plastering Co., another subcontractor on the project, had erected scaffolding on the project.
On June 16, 2017, while using A&D’s scaffolding, Brown fell onto a concrete walkway where he suffered severe injuries. Following the accident, Beach House and A&D inspected the scaffolding and found that some of the scaffolding was not properly secured to the building and that planks, crossbars, ties and guardrails had been cut or were missing.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Florida Adopts Daubert Standard for Expert Testimony
October 07, 2019 —
Michael L. DeBona - The Subrogation StrategistSeven months ago, the Florida Supreme Court declined to adopt Daubert as the standard for admitting expert testimony in Florida state courts. In DeLisle v. Crane Co., 258 So. 3d 1219 (2018), the court reaffirmed that “Frye, not Daubert, is the appropriate test in Florida.” On May 23, 2019, however, Florida’s high court did an about-face. In In Re: Amendment to the Florida Evidence Code, No. SC19-107, the Florida Supreme Court overruled its decision in DeLisle and declared that Florida will now apply the Daubert standard to determine whether scientific evidence is admissible.
The Daubert standard comes from the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), which held that the longstanding Frye test[1] for admitting expert testimony was superseded by Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Daubert instructed that federal judges should act as “gatekeepers” to ensure expert testimony is rooted in scientifically valid principles and that those principles are properly applied to the facts at issue. In determining whether scientific evidence should be admitted, Daubert sets forth several factors to consider: the testability of the theory or technique; the peer review and publication of the theory or technique; the error rate for the technique; the standards controlling the technique’s operation; and the general acceptance of the theory or technique.[2] The Daubert standard is generally considered a more onerous test than Frye, precluding expert testimony that might otherwise go to the jury under Frye.[3] Whereas Frye is a single factor test that applies only to new or novel science, Daubert is a multifactor test that applies to all expert testimony.
Since Daubert, a growing number of states have moved away from the Frye test in favor of the Daubert standard; it is now followed by a majority of jurisdictions in the country. In 2013, the Florida State legislature attempted to move Florida in this direction by amending the Florida Evidence Code to codify the Daubert standard. But because the Florida Supreme Court is vested with the power to make procedural rules and it was unclear whether the Daubert standard was a procedural or substantive rule, it was uncertain whether the 2013 Daubert amendments were controlling law. Then in 2017, in In Re: Amendment to the Florida Evidence Code, No. SC16-181, the Florida Supreme Court expressly declined adopting the Daubert amendments to the extent they were procedural. This decision signaled that, if faced with the Daubert standard on appeal from a litigated case, the Florida Supreme Court would reaffirm that Frye – not Daubert – controlled the admissibility of expert testimony in Florida state courts.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael L. DeBona, White and Williams LLPMr. DeBona may be contacted at
debonam@whiteandwilliams.com
Expanded Virginia Court of Appeals Leads to Policyholder Relief
January 29, 2024 —
Michael S. Levine & Olivia G. Bushman - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogExercising its newly expanded jurisdiction that now permits Virginia’s intermediate appellate courts to hear insurance coverage disputes, the Court of Appeals recently reversed a lower court decision that allowed a two-year “Suits Against Us” provision to serve as a basis for an insurer’s refusal to reimburse repair and replacement costs incurred more than two years after the date of loss. Bowman II v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., Record No. 1256-22-3 (Nov. 21, 2023). CAV (unpublished opinion).
In the proceeding below, the circuit court found no justiciable controversy and dismissed the complaint where repairs to the policyholder’s fire-damaged home continued more than two years after the date of the fire. The circuit court relied on a two-year limitation in the policy that governed the period within which the policyholder must bring suit against the insurer.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Olivia G. Bushman, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Ms. Bushman may be contacted at obushman@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
No Prejudicial Error in Refusing to Give Jury Instruction on Predominant Cause
November 11, 2024 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment after the jury determined there was no coverage for a leaking pipe. Mendoza v. Pacific Spec. Ins. Co., 2024 Cal. App. Unpub. EXIS 5477 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2024).
The Mendoza's third amended complaint alleged their home was damaged "by overflow of water from the dwelling's plumbing system resulting from a broken pipe, which overflow undermined the structural integrity of the dwelling."
The Mendozas insured their home under a policy issued by Pacific. The policy insured the property against "sudden and accidental direct physical loss" except where expressly excluded. The Mendozas submitted a claim Pacific paid approximately $1800 for the loss and closed the claim. The amount paid did not include payment for any structural damage to the home. The Mendozas alleged that Pacific's failure to conduct a full and fair investigation into the structural damage and its inadequate payment of benefits was a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
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
Construction Contract Clauses Only a Grinch Would Love – Part 4
November 30, 2016 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogScope, time and cost provisions may be the most important clauses in your construction contract but they’re not the only ones which can impact your bottom line. The fourth and final part in a multi-part series, here are some other important construction contract clauses that can put a damper on your holidays.
Provision: Warranty Provisions
- Typical Provision: “Subcontractor warrants to Contractor that all materials and equipment furnished shall be new unless otherwise specified and that all Work performed shall be performed in a good and workmanlike manner, of good quality and free from defects, and in conformance with industry standards, manufacturer’s recommendations and the Contract Documents. All work not conforming to these requirements, including substitutions not properly approved, shall be considered defective. Subcontractor agrees to promptly make good any and all defects due to faulty workmanship, materials and/or equipment which may appear within the Contract Documents, and if no such period is stipulated in the Contract, then for a period of one year from the date of acceptance by the Owner. Nothing herein shall shorten or limit any applicable periods of limitations including, but not limited to, those set forth in Civil Code, Part 2, Title 2, Chapter 3.”
- What it Means: Warranty periods are subject to the agreement of the parties. However, warranties are different than limitations periods, such as California’s 4 year statute of repose for patent defects and 10 year statute of repose for latent defects (note: a statute of repose is different than a statute of limitation. A statute of repose sets a deadline based on an event. So, for example, under the 10 year statute of repose for latent defects a claimant must bring a latent defect claim within 10 years following substantial completion even if the latent defect wasn’t discovered until 10 years and 1 month following substantial completion. A statute of limitation, in contrast, sets a deadline based on the occurrence of an injury or damage. So, for example, California has a 2 year statute of limitation for personal injuries, which sets a deadline of 2 years from the date of injury to bring a personal injury claim). Warranty periods are also different from limitations periods because most warranties require work to be corrected at no cost, and because many contracts include attorney’s fee provisions, breach of a warranty can give rise to claim for attorney’s fees as well.
- What You Can Do: Lower-tiered parties should examine warranty provisions to see if they are reasonable, and if not reasonable, should seek to either eliminate or limit those provisions, such as by reducing the warranty period or providing different warranty periods for different components of work, etc.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
DC Metro Extension’s Precast Supplier Banned from Federal Contracts
November 16, 2020 —
Jim Parsons - Engineering News-RecordStowe, Pa.-based Universal Concrete Products, which supplied hundreds of defective precast panels for the $2.7 billion Silver Line light rail extension in northern Virginia, has received a three-year ban on participating in federally financed transportation projects. Imposed by the Federal Transit Administration, the ban makes Universal ineligible for contracts, grants, loans or other financial assistance from agency of the federal government until the end of 2023.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jim Parsons, 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
Counterpoint: Washington Supreme Court to Rule on Resulting Losses in Insurance Disputes
September 01, 2011 —
Douglas Reiser, Builders Council BlogThis is the fourth installment of posts on Vision One v. Philadelphia Indemnity, a Washington Supreme Court case touching on Washington construction and insurance law. After Williams v. Athletic Field got so much coverage, I wished that I had provided a forum for argument on Builders Counsel. While we await that opinion from the Supreme Court, I decided to let a few good writers have at Vision One here on the blog. Last week, attorney Chris Carr weighed in. Today, insurance expert David Thayer returns to give his final impression. David provided an initial peak at the case earlier this year. Thanks to both Chris and David for contributing to the debate.
In August 2011 the Washington Supreme Court will rule on a pair of joined cases that involve critical insurance coverage issues. The outcome of the ruling will impact a large swath of policyholders in Washington State including builders, developers, and homeowners to name a few.
The cases are Vision One vs. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance and Sprague vs. Safeco. The Vision one case comes from Division Two of the Appellate Court which overturned a lower court decision in favor the plaintiff, Vision One. Division Two decided that the collapse of a concrete pour during the course of construction did not constitute a resulting loss due to faulty workmanship. They further went on to redefine efficient proximate cause in a way that is harmful to policyholders by broadening rather than narrowing the meaning of exclusionary language in Philadelphia’s Builders Risk Policy.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Napa Quake, Flooding Cost $4 Billion in U.S. in August
September 10, 2014 —
Noah Buhayar - BloombergAn earthquake that struck the California wine country north of San Francisco and flooding in the U.S. last month caused more than $4 billion in economic losses, according insurance broker Aon Plc. (AON)
A 6.0-magnitude temblor shook the city of Napa on Aug. 24, damaging more than 1,100 buildings, injuring at least 258 people and causing about $2 billion in economic damages, the London-based broker said today in a report. Insured losses are expected to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars, because of the below-average extent of coverage, Aon said.
“Residential earthquake insurance penetration rates have gradually lowered in California during the past two decades from 33 percent in 1996 to roughly 10 percent today,” Steve Bowen, associate director and meteorologist for Aon Benfield Impact Forecasting, said in a statement. The Napa quake “serves as a reminder of the unpredictability and costly impacts.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Noah Buhayar, BloombergMr. Buhayar may be contacted at
nbuhayar@bloomberg.net
