Disjointed Proof of Loss Sufficient
June 11, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe court found that when considered as a whole, separately filed proofs of loss and estimates of damage were sufficient to meet the requirements of a flood policy. Young v. Imperial Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51863 (April 15, 2014).
On August 29, 2012, plaintiffs' property sustained flood damage due to Hurricane Isaac. After Imperial's adjustor inspected the property, advance payments were made for $5000 under the building coverage and $5000 under the contents coverage.
On October 26, 2012, the plaintiffs' adjustor submitted a proof of loss for building damages, stating the amount of loss was $175,100, which was the policy limit minus the deductible. The insured wife signed the proof of loss. The actual case value, full cost of replacement or repair, and applicable depreciation were listed "undetermined."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Unintended Consequences of New Building Products and Services
April 19, 2022 —
David S. Jaffe – National Association of Home BuildersAs home builders throughout the United States are grappling with building material price surges, and shortages or delays for certain orders, many are exploring alternatives products to complete or start projects. For example, according to a recent article, some builders are constructing homes from natural materials such as rammed earth, adobe brick, and volcanic rock. In addition to being readily available on site there may be heating and cooling benefits due to the natural insulation provided by these materials. The article cautions, however, that using these alternative materials may come with added challenges such as higher costs due to a need for skilled labor, delays by home inspectors who may be unfamiliar with the techniques and methods of construction, and energy consultants who might have difficulty calculating the value of homes with these materials. See Home Builders Are Turning to Natural Materials to Get Around Supply Chain Problems; There are advantages to buying homes made with natural materials, but expect to pay a premium, Alanna Schubach, Mansion Global (March 25, 2022).
Another caution, not addressed in the article, however, but one that should be heeded by builders considering alternative materials, is the unintended consequences that might result from using alternative products, whether they are natural products or any others. The long-term effects of material use should not be ignored.
For instance, it has been reported that earthen materials are known to contain numerous organic substances and can also harbor mold. It was not too long ago that mold was a high liability issue for builders and property owners. Similarly, the use of rapidly renewable materials - products that can be produced naturally and quickly from nature - is a key component of green building. They are also cellulose or carbohydrate-based products and as such are typically optimal food sources for mold in the presence of moisture.
To avoid mold, it is important to understand the relationship between construction materials and their susceptibility to mold in the presence of moisture. “Buildings will never be designed, built, maintained, or utilized perfectly; and weather and natural disasters cannot be predicted. The one thing we can have complete control over, the materials within the building, should be selected wisely.” See Mold Susceptibility of Rapidly Renewable Building Materials Used in Wall Construction, AM Cooper, Master's thesis, Texas A&M University (2007) (Samples of wool, cork, straw, and cotton-- rapidly renewable materials used as exterior wall insulation products--were exposed to different moisture amounts in an encapsulated environment, representing the environment within a wall cavity when exposed to water from pipes, leaks, condensation and absorption, or from initial construction. The samples were monitored over time for mold growth).
Mold-related issues are just one example of the potential for unintended consequences from the use of alternative materials. Carefully reviewing building material choices in advance may help eliminate non-conforming building materials, returns and possibly disputes. NAHB has developed a guide,
Assessing Building Materials, for builders who may not have their own review process for gathering information from manufacturers and distributors when considering the selection of new building materials.
The guide is intended to arm members with the most important factor when evaluating new materials or products: information. Use the guide to step through the information collection process to make an informed decision on deploying new products or materials. The guide is not intended to be exhaustive or all-inclusive, but it will help builders ask the right questions and seek the most relevant information.
Copyright © 2022 by the National Association of Home Builders of the United States. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David S. Jaffe, NAHBMr. Jaffe may be contacted at
DJaffe@nahb.org
Construction Law Alert: Builder’s Alternative Pre-litigation Procedures Upheld Over Strong Opposition
April 01, 2014 —
Steven M. Cvitanovic and Whitney L. Stefko - Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLPLast week, the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, was tasked with evaluating the enforceability of provisions in home purchase contracts containing alternative pre-litigation procedures which differ from the standard Right to Repair Act procedures. The Court of Appeal, in McCaffrey v. Superior Court of Fresno, et al. ultimately upheld the contractual provisions, and in overturning the trial court's decision, preserved the rights of builders to contract around certain requirements set forth in the Right to Repair Act.
The McCaffrey Group, Inc. constructed single-family homes in a Fresno development. Plaintiffs consisted of 24 homeowners within the development who brought suit against McCaffrey for construction defects in their homes. The homeowners were comprised of three categories: (1) the original purchasers who bought their homes from McCaffrey before January 1, 2003 and had a 2001 version of McCaffrey's contract; (2) the original purchasers who bought their homes from McCaffrey on or after January 1, 2003 and signed a 2003 version of McCaffrey's contract; and (3) the subsequent purchasers who did not buy their homes directly from McCaffrey, but purchased their homes subject to either the 2001 or 2003 version of McCaffrey's home purchase agreement.
Reprinted courtesy of
Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Whitney L. Stefko, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com; Ms. Stefko may be contacted at wstefko@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Counter the Rising Number of Occupational Fatalities in Construction
April 19, 2021 —
Joshua Jacobsen - Construction ExecutivePrior to the pandemic, the construction industry was experiencing mental and behavioral health stressors and increasing fatalities. The pandemic is contributing to these underlying conditions threatening the safety and wellbeing of the construction workforce:
- Workers in construction occupations experienced 1,066 fatalities, a 6.3% increase and the highest total since 2007. Across all industries slips, trips and falls resulted in 880 deaths, a 11.3% increase from the previous year;
- Increasing mental health challenges as evidenced by growing percentage of Americans starting therapy; and
- Rising risk of relapse to substance use disorders and especially opioid overdoses. Deaths from unintentional overdoses of non-medical drug or alcohol use while at work climbed slightly to 313, marking the seventh straight annual increase in this category.
Reprinted courtesy of
Joshua Jacobsen, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Jacobsen may be contacted at
jjacobsen@holmesmurphy.com
Top 10 Construction Contract Provisions – Changes and Claims
November 03, 2016 —
James R. Lynch – Ahlers & Cressman PLLCThis is the seventh post in our “Top 10 Construction Contract Provisions” series. Prior posts discussed
Price and Payment,
Liquidated Damages,
Consequential Damages – Part I and
Part II,
Indemnity,
Scope of Work, and
Flow-Down Provisions.
Today’s topic, Changes and Claims, is a contender for the top spot on our list, for both day-to-day impact on the job and importance in disputes. In fact, these provisions[i] are so variable and are involved in so many reported construction law decisions, that this post will not attempt to survey all their various forms, uses, or potential legal ramifications, but instead focuses on bottom line “best practices”—questions to consider as a general contractor, subcontractor, or owner when drafting, negotiating, or managing the Changes and Claims provisions of a contract. There is no “ideal” here, and the changes and claims procedures should be suited to the project, owner, contractor(s), likely issues, and other project-specific considerations. Key considerations include the following:
1. How prescriptive is the Change Order process? At one end of the spectrum, a Change Order provision may include requirements for written direction and request by the owner and formal response by the contractor, with pricing and specific supporting data or documentation, in addition to strict timelines for response, execution, and performance, precise methods to determine the resulting contract adjustment, limits on the type or extent of adjustment, or terms defining the effect of a signed Change Order, e.g. to what extent related claims or impacts might be extinguished. At the other end of the spectrum, the Change Order provision might simply recognize that the owner may direct changes, and the parties intend to document the directions and resulting compensation in a Change Order, with no further elaboration. There is no universal ideal on this spectrum. A highly defined and prescriptive process may be appropriate for a complex, high value, multi-stakeholder project on which significant changes are likely. The same process would be an inefficient waste of resources on a small and simple project where significant changes are unlikely and the parties would be unlikely to comply with more formal procedures.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James R. Lynch, Ahlers & Cressman PLLCMr. Lynch may be contacted at
jlynch@ac-lawyers.com
Construction Defects Lead to “A Pretty Shocking Sight”
October 14, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFWalls black with mold. Grass growing on carpets. The board chair of the Penhorwood condos, Christine Burton, describes the photos as “a pretty shocking sight.” The residents were all evicted in 2011 and given only fifteen minutes to gather what possessions they could after the buildings were found to be structurally unsound. An attempt was made to stabilize the buildings, but they kept shifting and cracking, exposing the interiors to the elements.
The owners of the Fort McMurray condominium complex are suing the developer, contractor, and others for $60 million. Fort McMurray has ordered that the buildings be torn down, although the condo owners don’t have the funds for this. Even the funds for continuing the lawsuit are hard to come by. Ms. Burton notes “because of the evacuation and the cost of stabilizing the building so that we could go in and get people’s furniture and personal effect out has pretty much depleted our funds.” The owners “have no more money.”
The condo owners are hoping that they can sell the land where their former homes are in order to recoup some of their losses.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
House Passes Bill to Delay EPA Ozone Rule
June 09, 2016 —
Pam Hunter McFarland – Engineering News-RecordThe U.S. House of Representatives voted 234-177 on June 8 to postpone implementation of the Obama administration’s more stringent 2015 ozone regulations by at least eight years.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pam Hunter McFarland, Engineering News-RecordMs. McFarland may be contacted at
mcfarlandp@enr.com
Significant Victory for the Building Industry: Liberty Mutual is Rejected Once Again, This Time by the Third Appellate District in Holding SB800 is the Exclusive Remedy
December 15, 2016 —
Richard H. Glucksman & Ravi R. Mehta – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Bulletin I. Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court (Certified for Publication, Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016
The California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District recently elaborated on the scope of the Right to Repair Act, commonly known as SB-800 (“Act”). In
Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (Kevin Hicks, et al.) (certified for publication, Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016), the Court considered whether the Act (and specifically the Act’s pre-litigation procedure) applies, when homeowners plead construction defect claims based only on common law causes of action, as opposed to violations of the building standards set forth in the Act (
Civil Code §896). The Court answered this question affirmatively.
The homeowners of seventeen (17) single-family homes filed a Complaint against the builder of their homes, Elliott Homes, Inc. (“Elliott”), alleging common law causes of action for construction defects. Elliott filed a motion to stay the litigation on the ground that the homeowners failed to comply with the pre-litigation procedure set forth in the Act. The trial court denied the motion, agreeing with the homeowners that this pre-litigation procedure did not apply because the homeowners had not alleged a statutory violation of the Act. Elliott appealed. The Court of Appeal purely considered the question of whether the Act, including its pre-litigation procedure, applies when a homeowner pleads construction defect claims based on common law causes of action, and not on statutory violations of the Act’s building standards.
To answer this question, the Court analyzed a recent case decided by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District:
Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98. In this subrogation case, a builder’s insurer asserted common law causes of action (but not statutory building standard violations) alleging construction defects against the builder to recover amounts paid to the homeowner after a sprinkler system failure caused extensive damage to the subject property. The trial court sustained the builder’s demurrer to the Complaint on the ground that it was time-barred under the Act. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order, holding that common law construction defect claims arising from actual damages are not covered by the Act because “the Act does not provide the exclusive remedy in cases where actual damage has occurred.” (
Liberty Mutual, 219 Cal.App.4th 98, 109).
The
Elliott Court declined to follow
Liberty Mutual, finding that that Court failed to properly analyze the language of the Act. The
Elliott Court analyzed both the statutory scheme and the legislative history of the Act to arrive at the conclusion that common law causes of action for construction defects do indeed fall within the purview of the Act.
According to the
Elliott Court, the Act “broadly applies to
any action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in…residential construction and in such an action, a homeowner’s claims or causes of action shall be limited to violation of the standards set forth in the Act, except as specified.” Further, the Act expressly provides that “no other cause of action for a claim covered by this title or for damages recoverable under Section 944 is allowed.”
Civil Code §943(a). In turn,
Civil Code §944 allows for a recovery for the cost of repairing a building standard violation, or for the cost of repairing any damage caused by such a violation, among other things.
The limited exceptions to the Act’s applicability concern the enforcement of a contract, or any action for fraud, personal injury, or violation of a statute. Civil Code §943(a). Additionally, the Act does not apply to condominium conversions. Civil Code §896.
The Elliott Court explains that apart from these exceptions, the Legislature intended the Act to apply to all construction defect claims (regardless of damage) relating to the construction of residential properties whose sales contracts are signed after January 1, 2003. There is no exception in the Act, express or implied, for common law causes of action.
Next, the Court turns to the Act’s legislative history to buttress this conclusion. This history makes clear that the Act is a legislative response to the California Supreme Court’s holding in
Aas v. Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal.4th 627, that construction defects in residential properties are only actionable in tort when actual property damage manifests. Senate Judiciary Committee hearings indicate that the Act was the product of protracted negotiations between varying interested parties, including construction industry trade groups and consumer protection groups. The Legislature intended (1) to promulgate building standards, violations of which would be actionable, even without damage, and (2) to allow homeowners to recover for actual damage caused by construction defects not covered by the building standards. In other words, the Act was intended to provide homeowners redress regardless of whether damage had manifested.
Therefore, the Court concluded that common law causes of action for construction defects, regardless of damage, are subject to the pre-litigation procedure set forth in the Act. The Court issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its earlier order, and to enter a new order granting Elliott’s motion to stay the litigation until the homeowners (and Elliott) have satisfied the pre-litigation procedure of the Act.
II. McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132
Similar to the Third Appellate District Court’s ruling in
Elliott, the Fifth Appellate District Court also rejected the holding of
Liberty Mutual in a matter now pending before the California Supreme Court:
McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132 (review granted and opinion superseded sub nom.
Albany v. Superior Court 360 P.3d 1022). Also similar to
Elliott, in
McMillin a group of homeowners filed common law construction defect claims against the builder of their homes. The builder,
McMillin, moved to stay the litigation pending compliance with the Act’s pre-litigation procedure. The trial court denied the motion, holding that the Act does not apply because the homeowners have not asserted statutory building standard violations contained within the Act.
In reasoning substantially similar to that of
Elliott, the
McMillin Court rejected Liberty Mutual’s holding that the Act is not the exclusive remedy for pursuing construction defect claims, with or without damage. Thus, the
McMillin Court issued a writ of mandate to vacate the trial court’s earlier order and to enter a new order granting McMillin’s motion to stay.
On November 24, 2015, the California Supreme Court granted the homeowners’ petition for review. In August of 2016, briefing was completed and the matter is now awaiting the scheduling of arguments. CGDRB will continue to closely monitor the pending appeal of this matter to the California Supreme Court, as well as all related developments.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Ravi R. Mehta, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Mehta may be contacted at rmehta@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
