Hotel Claims Construction Defect Could Have Caused Collapse
December 30, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe owners of the Crowne Plaza New Orleans Airport, in Kenner, Louisiana, have filed a lawsuit claiming that a defective beam installed during renovations put the building at risk of collapse, reports The Louisiana Record. The hotel was sold to its current owners, 2929 Williams Blvd, LLC, in 2006, and the renovations began after Hurricane Katrina in 2007. The renovations converted an indoor pool area into a ballroom.
The renovations were finished in 2008, but hotel staff noticed the walls and ceiling of the ballroom were sagging by September 2011. A structural engineer determined that a main beam had failed, risking collapse of the entire building. The hotel owners set upon repairing the structure and now seek reimbursement. 2929 Williams Blvd., LLC is suing Trimark Constructors LLC, Kyle Associates LLC, and Avengo Baily & Associates, Inc. for an unspecified amount of damages.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Court of Appeal Makes Short Work Trial Court Order Preventing Party From Supplementing Experts
August 06, 2019 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogYears ago I recommended to a client that we hire a construction defect expert in a case. The client, a thrifty fellow, responded, “But I thought you were the construction expert. Why do I need to hire another expert? A fair question and one that caught me flat footed.
Whether I’m an “expert” or not can be debated, but I explained to the client that while I was an attorney whose practice focused on construction law, I was not someone who he would want to take the stand and testify about the engineering design and seismic stability of pilings. For that, he needed an expert.
In construction litigation it’s not uncommon for parties and their attorneys to hire “experts.” There are even special rules set forth in the California Code of Civil Procedure for disclosing, supplementing and deposing experts, which basically provide as follows:
1. Demand for Exchange of Expert Information: After the court sets a trial date in a case, any party may demand that each party exchange information concerning the experts they intend to have testify at trial;
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
Home Buyers will Pay More for Solar
February 05, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe National Association of Home Builders’ (NAHB) Eye on Housing reported that a study’s results “found that homebuyers are willing to pay more for homes that have installed solar photovoltaic (PV) energy systems.” The team of researchers led by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Berkeley Laboratory “estimates a price premium of approximately $4 per watt of PV installed. For a typical PV system, the research team found that this translates into a price premium of $15,000.”
Furthermore, according to the NAHB, the study “suggests that the presence of energy-efficient home features is among the most important concerns for prospective home buyers.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
CDJ’s #9 Topic of the Year: Nevada Supreme Court Denies Class Action Status in Construction Defect Case
December 31, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to Sean Whaley of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, “The Nevada Supreme Court has rejected a request for class action status for claims of damaged stucco from faulty construction by Del Webb Communities involving nearly 1,000 Sun City Summerlin residents.” However, “the court upheld the award of damages to 71 homeowners following a jury trial in Clark County District Court in 2008.” Whaley reported that this construction defect case was touted as the largest in Nevada history.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Appeals Court Upholds Decision by Referee in Trial Court for Antagan v Shea Homes
May 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFIn the case Antangan v. Shea Homes Ltd. Partnership (Cal. App., 2012), Plaintiffs appealed “an order vacating a judgment and entering a modified judgment in their construction defect action against defendants Shea Homes, Inc. and Shea Homes Limited Partnership,” while the Defendant, Shea Homes Limited Partnership (Shea Homes) appealed “an order of the judicial referee denying its motion to strike and tax costs.”
On the Antagon issue, the appeals court concluded that “the trial court did not err by vacating and modifying its judgment so that the cost of referee’s fees would be equally divided by the parties and consistent with a prior stipulation they filed in court.”
On the Shea Homes issue, the appeals court concluded: “1) the judicial referee did not err by ruling that plaintiffs’ offers to compromise (§ 998) were validly served on Shea Homes’ counsel, 2) the offers substantially complied with statutory requirements, 3) the offers were not required to be apportioned, and 4) the referee’s award of $5,000 as costs for a person assisting plaintiffs’ counsel was not an abuse of discretion.” The appeals court affirmed the judgment.
Here is a brief history of the trial case: “Plaintiffs Chito Antangan, Jimmy Alcova and other homeowners brought an action against defendants Shea Homes, Inc. and Shea Homes Limited Partnership for damages alleging that the properties they purchased from these ‘developer defendants’ were defective. Plaintiffs claimed numerous construction defects required them ‘to incur expenses’ for ‘restoration and repairs’ and the value of their homes had been diminished.”
In response, Shea Homes filed a motion for an order to appoint a judicial referee. The motion was granted and it was ruled that “a referee would ‘try all issues’ and ‘report a statement of decision to this court.’”
On May 10, 2010 the judicial referee (Thompson) “awarded plaintiffs damages and various costs, and ruled that ‘Shea Homes shall bear all of the Referee’s fees.’” The latter ruling would become a matter for contention later on.
In July of 2010, the plaintiffs “sought, among other things, $54,409.90 for expert fees, and $14,812.50 for the services of Melissa Fox for ‘exhibit preparation & trial presentation.’ Shea Homes filed a motion to strike and/or tax costs claiming: 1) Fox was a paralegal, 2) plaintiffs were not entitled to attorney’s fees, and 3) the fees for Fox’s services were an indirect and improper method to obtain attorney’s fees. The referee disagreed and awarded $5,000 for Fox’s services. The referee also ruled that plaintiffs had properly served valid offers to compromise (§ 998) on Shea Homes’ counsel in 2009. He said those offers to defendants in the case at that time did not have to be apportioned.”
“Antangan contends the trial court erred when it vacated and modified its original judgment, which ordered Shea Homes to pay all the referee’s fees. We disagree.”
Antagon contended that the trial court erred when it vacated and modified its original judgment regarding Shea Homes paying the referee’s fees. The appeals court disagreed: “A trial court has inherent authority to vacate or correct a judgment that is void on its face, incorrect, or entered by mistake. (§ 473; Rochin v. Pat Johnson Manufacturing Co. (1998),67 Cal.App.4th 1228; Olivera
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Did the Building Boom Lead to a Boom in Construction Defects?
May 10, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe height of the building boom is now almost a decade past but some are saying that the results of the rush to get housing built during the profitable market are still with us. The Wall Street Journal reports on the rise of construction defect lawsuits as these homes have aged, some not too gracefully. One couple thought they were hearing acorns falling on their roof. They were less happy to find that the source of the noises was their house slumping on one end, leading to cracks throughout the house. Their neighbors had similar problems and they are now part of a lawsuit against the builder. The expenses to repair the houses could total millions of dollars.
Some have suggested that during the building boom both building and inspection standards were more lax in order to keep up with the pace of building. Criterium Engineers, a building-inspection firm, estimates that 17% of new homes built in 2006 had at least two significant defect, while only 15% of those built in 2003 fit these criteria. Meanwhile others attribute the rise in construction defect lawsuits to home inspector and construction defect attorneys looking for new territories to exploit.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wait! Don’t Sign Yet: Reviewing Contract Protections During the COVID Pandemic
April 13, 2020 —
Danielle S. Ward - Balestreri Potocki & HolmesAs the circumstances of the COVID pandemic change day by day, and we all rush to keep business moving where and when we can, companies should consider hitting the “pause button” before renewing or executing any new contracts. Developing contracts often takes considerable time and expense, and companies are not in the habit of reworking them often. A change in law may prompt a company to revisit their contract terms, but otherwise business is often carried out with a standard form contract for a period of years. With the COVID pandemic affecting nearly every business and industry, life is not business as usual, and companies should make sure their contracts consider what previously seemed like an unforeseeable event.
Force Majeure clauses are included in many contracts to excuse contract performance when made impossible by some unforeseen circumstance. These clauses typically fall under two categories: general and specific. General force majeure clauses excuse performance if performance is prevented by circumstances outside the parties’ control. By contrast, specific force majeure clauses detail the exhaustive list of circumstances (acts of god, extreme weather, war, riot, terrorism, embargoes) which would excuse contract performance. Force majeure clauses are typically interpreted narrowly. If your contract has a specific clause and pandemic or virus is not one of the listed circumstances it may not apply. Whether a particular existing contract covers the ongoing COVID pandemic will vary depending on the language of the contract.
Force majeure clauses previously made headlines when the great economic recession hit in 2008. A number of courts held that simple economic hardship was not enough to invoke force majeure. The inability to pay or lack of desire to pay for the contracted goods or services did not qualify as force majeure. In California, impossibility turns on the nature of the contractual performance, and not in the inability of the obligor to do it. (Kennedy v. Reece (1964) 225 Cal. App. 2d 717, 725.) In other words, the task is objectively impossible not merely impossible or more burdensome to the specific contracting party.
California has codified “force majeure” protection where the parties haven’t included any language or the circumstances in the clause don’t apply to the situation at hand. Civil Code section 1511 excuses performance when “prevented or delayed by an irresistible, superhuman cause, or by the act of public enemies of this state or of the United States, unless the parties have expressly agreed to the contrary.” (Civ. Code § 1511.) What qualifies as a “superhuman cause”? In California, the test is whether under the particular circumstances there was such an insuperable interference occurring without the party's intervention as could not have been prevented by the exercise of prudence, diligence and care. (Pacific Vegetable Oil Corp. v. C. S. T., Ltd. (1946) 29 Cal.2d 228, 238.)
If you find yourself in an existing contract without a force majeure clause, or the statute does not apply, you may consider the doctrine of frustration of purpose. This doctrine is applied narrowly where performance remains possible, but the fundamental reason the parties entered into the contract has been severely or substantially frustrated by an unanticipated supervening circumstance, thus destroying substantially the value of the contract. (Cutter Laboratories, Inc. v. Twining (1963) 221 Cal. App. 2d 302, 314-15.) In other words, performance is still possible but valueless. Note this defense is not likely to apply where the contract has simply become less profitable for one party.
Now that COVID is no longer an unforeseeable event, but rather a current and grave reality, a party executing a contract today without adequate protections may have a difficult time proving unforeseeability. Scientists are not sure whether warm weather will suppress the spread of the virus, as it does with the seasonal flu, but to the extent we get a reprieve during the summer we may see a resurgence of cases this Fall or Winter. Companies should take care in reviewing force majeure clauses, and other clauses tied to timely performance such as delay and liquidated damages before renewing or executing new contracts.
Your contract scenario may vary from the summary provided above. Please contact legal counsel before making any decisions. During this critical time, BPH’s attorneys can be reached via email to answer your questions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Danielle S. Ward, Balestreri Potocki & HolmesMs. Ward may be contacted at
dward@bph-law.com
Guidance for Construction Leaders: How Is the Americans With Disabilities Act Applied During the Pandemic?
September 28, 2020 —
Molly Gwin - Construction ExecutiveWith the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous cities and states have mandated infection control practices, including social distancing, mask requirements and sanitization of work areas and tools. As a result, many construction leaders now have questions as to how government guidance related to COVID-19 interacts with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). For example, can a project manager enforce a mask mandate when a construction worker presents a doctor’s excuse noting breathing difficulties? Or, what if the employer is aware that an individual presents a higher risk for severe illness because of an underlying health condition, but that employee does not request an accommodation?
Thankfully, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently published guidance relating to these requests that construction leaders can reference. While our goal is to summarize that guidance and provide practical advice for the construction sector, this article does not substitute for situation specific legal counsel.
SCENARIO 1: AN EMPLOYEE REFUSES TO WEAR A MASK AND PRODUCES A DOCTOR’S NOTE CITING BREATHING DIFFICULTIES. MUST THE EMPLOYER ACCOMMODATE SUCH A REQUEST?
Potentially. Since the request to not wear a mask is considered an accommodation under the ADA, the employer can still require a doctor’s note when considering the accommodation.
Reprinted courtesy of
Molly Gwin, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ms. Gwin may be contacted at
mgwin@isaacwiles.com
