NEW DEFECT WARRANTY LAWS – Now Applicable to Condominiums and HOAs transitioning from Developer to Homeowner Control. Is Your Community Aware of its Rights Under the New Laws?
February 07, 2014 —
Nicholas D. Cowie – Maryland Condo Construction Defect Law BlogAll condominium associations and homeowners associations (“HOAs”) created in Maryland 0n or after October 1, 2010 are subject to new laws pertaining to statutory warranties for construction defects in workmanship and materials.
Most associations that have recently transitioned, or that are about to transition, from developer to homeowner control were created on after October 1, 2010. It is now time for these Associations to become familiar with the new laws to ensure they protect and preserve their warranty rights. Below is an Article I wrote regarding these new laws, which I helped create. See Blog Post: “Maryland Construction Defect Lawyers Enforcing Warranty Claims for Condominiums.”
Too often our firm is contacted by condominium associations who never knew what there warranty and other legal rights were until it was too late to seek developer repairs and reimbursement for construction defects. There is no reason for community associations to remain uniformed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nicholas D. Cowie, Maryland Condo Construction Defect Law BlogMr. Cowie may be contacted at
ndc@cowiemott.com
Court of Appeal Holds That Higher-Tiered Party on Construction Project Can be Held Liable for Intentional Interference with Contract
December 07, 2020 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIn
Caliber Paving Company, Inc. v. Rexford Industrial Realty and Management, Inc., Case No. G0584406 (September 1, 2020), the 4th District Court of Appeal examined whether a higher-tiered party on a construction project can be held liable for intentional interference with contract when it interferes with the contract between lower-tiered parties even though the higher-tiered party has an economic interest in the contract between the lower-tiered parties.
The Caliber Paving Case
Project owner Rexford Industrial Realty and Management, Inc. owns and operates industrial property throughout Southern California. In 2017, Rexford hired contractor Steve Fodor Construction to perform repaving work at Rexford’s property in Carson, California.
Fodor Construction in turn hired subcontractor Caliber Paving Company, Inc. to perform the repaving work. The subcontract divided the parking lot into four areas, with separate costs to repave each area, and Caliber completed its work in one area in June 2017.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Federal Judge Rips Shady Procurement Practices at DRPA
October 07, 2016 —
Wally Zimolong – Supplemental ConditionsIn an opinion overturning a $17,000,000 bridge painting contract for the Commodore Barry Bridge, a United States Federal Judge called the procurement practices of the Delaware River Port Authority “a black box . . . obscure and unexplained, and lacking any indicia of transparency or the hallmarks of a deliberative process.”
The case involved lead paint remediation and repainting of the Pennsylvania span of the Commodore Barry. Seven contractors submitted bids. Alpha Painting was the apparent low bidder. Corcon was the second low bidder. Corcon was also the contractor that was perform the painting work on the New Jersey span of the bridge. Like most agencies engaged in public bidding, the DRPA requires contracts to be awarded to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLCMr. Zimolong may be contacted at
wally@zimolonglaw.com
Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment in Landis v. Fannin Builders
April 20, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFThe Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in Landis v. William Fannin Builders. Landis contracted Fannin Builders to build their home. The case involved staining problems on the T1-11 siding chosen by the plaintiffs.
After a year and a half of discussion on how to resolve the problem of uneven staining on the siding, Landis filed suit “against Fannin Builders, alleging claims for breach of contract, breach of the express limited warranty, and violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (“OCSPA”). Fannin Builders, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against 84 Lumber, alleging claims for breach of contract and indemnification. With the trial court’s leave, Fannin Builders also later amended its answer to add a counterclaim against appellees for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. In the counterclaim, Fannin Builders alleged that appellees still owed it $3,908.98 for the construction of appellees’ home.”
“In its decision, the trial court found in appellees’ favor on their breach of contract claim and against appellees on their claims for breach of the express limited warranty and violation of the OCSPA. Additionally, the trial court found in Fannin Builders’ favor on its counterclaim for breach of contract and against Fannin Builders on its third-party claims for breach of contract and indemnity. The trial court determined that appellees’ damages amounted to $66,906.24, and after setting off the $3,908.98 that appellees owed Fannin Builders under the construction contract, the trial court awarded appellees $62,997.26. The trial court reduced its decision to judgment on May 18, 2010.”
Fannin Builders appealed this judgment and assigned the following errors:
[1.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant Breached its Contract with Appellees when it provided a Semi-Transparent Oil-Based Stain that Simply did not Meet their Approval.
[a.] The Contract does not Contain a Satisfaction Clause.
[b.] Even if the Court Implies a Satisfaction Clause, the Court Should Apply an Objective Standard.
[2.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Failing to Consider Appellant’s Right to Cure.
[3.] The Trial Court committed Reversible Error by not Assessing Damages Using “Diminished Value Standard,” and by Creating a Remedy that Constitutes Economic Waste.
[4.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant is Barred from Seeking Indemnification When 84 [Lumber] Never Fulfilled its Obligations Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement Entered on August 2, 2005.
In response to the first assigned error, the Court of Appeals stated: “Because the failure to provide siding of a uniform color, not appellees’ displeasure, breached the contract, we reject Fannin Builders’ contention that the trial court implied a satisfaction clause into the contract and found a breach of that clause. Accordingly, we overrule Fannin Builders’ first assignment of error.”
The Court of Appeals overruled the second assignment of error and provided the following reasoning: “Although Fannin Builders depends upon a term of the limited warranty for its right to cure, the trial court concluded that no breach of the limited warranty occurred. Fannin Builders breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIA’s Quality Standards. Consequently, the limited warranty does not apply to this case, and thus, it does not prevent appellees’ recovery of damages.”
The Appeals Court found “the trial court’s award of damages” was “both reasonable and supported by competent, credible evidence,” and therefore concluded “that the trial court did not err in setting appellees’ damages at $62,997.26.” The Fannin Builders third assignment of error was overruled.
The fourth and final assignment of error was also overruled by the Court of Appeals. “While Fannin Builders correctly asserts that 84 Lumber never installed the replacement siding, it ignores the fact that it ordered 84 Lumber to remove the replacement siding from appellees’ property. Thus, Fannin Builders precluded 84 Lumber from completely performing under the August 2, 2005 letter agreement. […] Consequently, Fannin Builders cannot now claim that the letter agreement is unenforceable or that it is entitled to indemnification from 84 Lumber. Because Fannin Builders assumed all liability for the defective siding in the letter agreement, it is responsible for appellees’ damages.”
James A. Zitesman, Columbus, Ohio Business Attorney, compared the case to Jones v. Centex (Ohio App. 2010), which had a different verdict:
“The common thread is the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the Jones case, the Court found that the buyers had in fact waived all implied warranties, including the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the contract between Jones and Centex, the builder stated that it “…would not sell the property to Purchasers without this waiver.” Probably should have been a sign to the buyers.
In the Landis case, the Court stated, “Contracts for the future construction of a residence include a duty, implied by law, that the builder must perform its work in a workmanlike manner.” The Court gave significant weight to the concept of the implied warranty of good workmanship. The builder relied upon the BIA Warranty which limits builders’ liability and exposure to legal issues. The trial court concluded there was no breach of the limited warranty, rather the builder “breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIAs Quality Standards.”
The Supreme Court of Ohio has accepted the Jones v. Centex Homes case for review.
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
2017 California Construction Law Update
December 15, 2016 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogTo say it’s been an exciting year in politics would be an understatement.
While most of the nation’s attention was focused on the presidential election, state legislatures, including California’s, were busy at work. The California State Legislature introduced 3099 bills during the second session of the 2015-2016 session of which 808 bills were signed into law. 2016 saw the enactment of several bills of interest to the construction industry including bills related to alternative project delivery methods, prevailing wages, and licensing. Each of the bills discussed below takes effect on January 1, 2017.
Project Delivery
AB 2126 – Amends Public Contract Code section 6701 to increase the number of projects the Department of Transportation may use the construction manager/general contractor method of project delivery from no more than 6 projects, to 12 projects, of which 8 of the 12 projects would be required to use Department employees or consultants under contract with the Department to perform all project design and engineering services.
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
Second Circuit Certifies Question Impacting "Bellefonte Rule"
December 15, 2016 —
Ellen Burrows – White and Williams LLPCalling into question the continued validity of the so-called “Bellefonte Rule,” on December 8, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified to the New York Court of Appeals the question whether a facultative reinsurance contract limit is presumptively all-inclusive and “caps” the reinsurer’s total exposure even where the reinsured policy pays defense costs in addition to the limit. Global Reinsurance Corporation v. Century Indemnity Company Docket No. 15-2164-cv (December 8, 2016).[1]
In Bellefonte Reinsurance Company v. Aetna 903 F.2d 910 (2d Cir. 1990), the court ruled that a reinsurer was not liable to pay defense costs above the stated reinsurance contract limit. Although litigants argued that this ruling was dependent on the fact that the reinsured policy limits were defense cost-inclusive, a later panel of the Second Circuit applied the “cap” ruling in Bellefonte to a situation where the reinsured policy limit was not cost-inclusive and where the insurer was obligated to pay defense costs in addition to the policy limit. Unigard Security Insurance Company v. North River Insurance Company 4 F.3d 1049 (2d Cir. 1993).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ellen Burrows, White and Williams LLPMs. Burrows may be contacted at
burrowse@whiteandwilliams.com
Gehry-Designed Project Seen Bringing NYC Vibe to L.A.
April 28, 2014 —
Nadja Brandt and John Gittelsohn – BloombergBillionaire Stephen Ross’s Related Cos. new project in the sleepy end of downtown Los Angeles is designed to invigorate Grand Avenue the way its Time Warner Center helped energize New York’s Columbus Circle.
“The notion of bringing together this diverse mix of uses, and allowing for a lot of public spaces and public events, has proven to be very powerful in the right locations and with the right planning.” said William Witte, president of Related’s California division.
The New York-based firm formed a joint venture with Los Angeles-based SBE Entertainment Group LLC to restart plans for a $650 million-to-$700 million complex with entertainment, shopping, apartments, condominiums and a luxury hotel, Witte said. After going back and forth with local officials for most of the past year, Related won approval in January for the Frank Gehry-designed project from Los Angeles County supervisors.
Ms. Brandt may be contacted at nbrandt@bloomberg.net; Mr. Gittelsohn may be contacted at johngitt@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nadja Brandt and John Gittelsohn, Bloomberg
Overruling Henkel, California Supreme Court Validates Assignment of Policies
October 02, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiIn a major ruling, the California Supreme Court applied a statutory provision to overrule its prior decision in Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemn. Co., 29 Cal. 4th 934 (2003) and ruled that liability policies can be assigned despite non-assignment provisions. See Fluor Corp. v. Superior Court, 2015 Cal. LEXIS 5631 (Cal. Aug. 20, 2015). The Hawaii Supreme Court relied on Henkel when it also found anti-consent provisions valid. See Del Monte Fresh Fresh Produce (Hawaii), Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 117 Haw. 357, 183 P.3d 734 (2007) [see posts here and here].
For decades, Fluor Corporation performed engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) operations through various corporate entities and subsidiaries. Beginning in 1971, Hartford issued up to 11 CGL policies to Fluor from 1971 to 1986. Each policy contained a consent-to-assignment clause reading: "Assignment of interest under the policy shall not bind the Company until its consent is endorsed hereon."
Beginning in the mid-1980s, Fluor Corporation was sued in numerous lawsuits claiming personal injury from asbestos exposure. Fluor Corporation tendered the early lawsuits to Hartford, which accepted the defense. Fluor Corporation subsequently went through a reverse spinoff under which a newly formed subsidiary, Fluor 2, took over the continuation of the company's EPC businesses. The original Fluor transferred all of its EPC-related assets and liabilities to Fluor-2, making Fluor-2 the parent of the EPC subsidiaries. The transaction did not except any insurance rights from the transfer of "any and all" assets.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
