N.J. Governor Fires Staff at Authority Roiled by Patronage Hires
August 20, 2019 —
Elise Young, BloombergNew Jersey Governor Phil Murphy’s administration fired 30 employees of a state authority that finances local school construction after an independent review found that his former appointee stacked it with friends, family and political contacts who were unqualified for their jobs.
All but three of those dismissed Tuesday from the Schools Development Authority had been hired by Lizette Delgado-Polanco, the former chief executive officer who resigned in April amid media scrutiny of her oversight. A review by an outside law firm faulted the agency for “patronage-type hires” that undermined its work.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Elise Young - Bloomberg
Eleventh Circuit Finds No “Property Damage” Where Defective Component Failed to Cause Damage to Other Non-Defective Components
October 11, 2021 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia & Margo Meta - White and WilliamsIn Florida, damage caused by faulty workmanship constitutes “property damage;” however, the cost of repairing or removing defective work does not. Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company v. Auchter Company, 673 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2012) (Auchter). But what happens when the cost of repairing or removing defective work results in loss of use of the tangible property which is not physically injured?
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit was recently faced with this question in Tricon Development of Brevard, Inc. v. Nautilus Insurance Company, No. 21-11199, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 27317 (11th Cir. Sep. 10, 2021). Tricon arose out of the construction of a condominium. Tricon was hired to serve as general contractor for the project and hired a subcontractor to fabricate and install metal railings. The railings installed by the subcontractor were defective and damaged, improperly installed, and failed to meet the project’s specifications. Tricon filed an insurance claim with Nautilus Insurance Company, the subcontractor’s commercial general liability insurer, for the cost to remove and replace the railings.[1]
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams and
Margo Meta, White and Williams
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Meta may be contacted at metam@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Life After McMillin: Do Negligence and Strict Liability Causes of Action for Construction Defects Still Exist?
January 24, 2018 —
Thomas Balestreri and Amanda Crawley - Balestreri, Potocki, & HolmesThe ruling is in but the battle will likely continue over the practical application of SB 800. On January 18, 2018 the California Supreme Court issued its decision in
McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (Van Tassel) (January 18, 2018, S229762) __ Cal.4th __, holding that the statutory prelitigation scheme in The Right to Repair Act (“the Act”) that provides for notice and an opportunity for the Builder to repair defects applies to all claims for construction defects in residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003, regardless whether the claim is founded on a violation of the Act’s performance standards or a common law claim for negligence or strict liability. (
McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (Van Tassel) (January 18, 2018, S229762) __ Cal.4th __.) With this holding, has the Court ruled that common law causes of action for construction defect still survive? If so, what will they look like and what standards will be applied?
The short answer is that it appears that common law causes of action still survive, at least for now, but it is not clear from this decision what they will look like and what standards will apply.
Portions of the decision seem to suggest that the Act is the sole and exclusive remedy for construction defect claims: “…even in some areas where the common law had supplied a remedy for construction defects resulting in property damage but not personal injury, the text and legislative history [of the statute] reflect a
clear and unequivocal intent to supplant common law negligence and strict product liability actions under the Act.” (
McMillin (January 18, 2018, S229762) __Cal.4th.__ [p. 6].) (Italics added for emphasis) However, at the end of the decision, the Court seems to be saying that there may still be a place for common law claims for negligence and strict liability alongside the Act but that these causes of action may be subject to the performance standards in the Act.
The
McMillin case went up to the Supreme Court on a procedural issue: whether a common law action alleging construction defects resulting in both economic loss and property damage is subject to the Act’s prelitigation notice and cure procedures. The Van Tassels had dismissed their claims under the Act opting to proceed solely on their common law claims including negligence and strict liability. McMillin sought a stay to force the Van Tassels to comply with the Act’s prelitigation procedures. The Supreme Court held that the Van Tassels must comply with the statutory procedures and affirmed the stay issued by the trial court. But the question remained: now that the Van Tassels were left only with common law claims, how would they proceed under the Act?
To understand how the Court dealt with this question, one must first understand how the Court dealt with the narrow procedural question presented by the case. The Court provides a very detailed, clear explanation of the reasons why it felt the Legislature intended for all construction defect claims involving residential construction must comply with the prelitigation requirements of the Act. In summing up its conclusions the Court makes three definitive holdings.
First, for claims involving economic loss only—the kind of claims involved in
Aas—the Court holds that the Legislature intended to supersede
Aas and provide a statutory basis for recovery. (
McMillin (January 18, 2018, S229762) __Cal.4th.__ [p. 10].) In other words, the Court clearly agrees that the Act was meant to allow recovery of damages based solely on economic damages. No surprise there. Second, the Court held for personal injuries, the Legislature made no changes to existing law that provides common law remedies for the injured party. (Id.) Nobody has ever contested that. Finally, the Court held that for construction defect claims involving property damage and not just economic loss “the Legislature replaced the common law
methods of recovery with the new statutory scheme.” (
Id.,) (Italics added for emphasis.)
In other words, the Court is not saying that negligence and strict liability are not permitted causes of action. The Court is merely stating that these causes of action must comply with the Act’s statutory scheme just as the same as a claim for economic loss. Here the Court is focusing on the procedure that must be followed. “The Act, in effect, provides that construction defect claims not involving personal injury will be treated the same procedurally going forward whether or not the underlying claims gave rise to any property damage.” (
Id.)
Having laid out its fundamental premise, the Court then deals with Plaintiff’s arguments regarding the intent of the Legislature and makes light work of them all. In the process, the Court disapproves
Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal. App. 4th 98, and
Burch v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 1411, to the extent they are inconsistent with the views expressed in the
McMillin opinion.
This is where the decision gets interesting. The Court reminds us that the Van Tassels had dismissed their statutory causes of action for violation of the performance standards under Section 896. One would think at that point that Plaintiffs had to be wondering if they had any claims left given that the Court had ruled that the Act was the sole means of recovery for construction defects. Not so fast. The Court points out that the complaint still rests on allegations of defective construction and that the suit remains an “ ‘action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in, the residential construction’ of the plaintiffs’ homes (§896)
and McMillin’s liability under the Van Tassels’ negligence and strict liability claims depends on the extent to which it [McMillin] violated the standards of sections 896 and 897.” (
McMillin (January 18, 2018, S229762) __Cal.4th.__ [p. 19].) (Emphasis added.) WHAT DID THE COURT JUST SAY? Did the Court just say that a plaintiff could bring a common law cause of action for negligence or strict liability based on a violation of the performance standards under Section 896? What exactly would that claim look like? What would be the elements of such a cause of action?
To answer these questions, the Court states in the very next paragraph, which also happens to be the last paragraph in the decision: “In holding that claims seeking recovery for construction defect damages are subject to the Act’s prelitigation procedures regardless of how they are pleaded,
we have no occasion to address the extent to which a party might rely upon common law principles in pursuing liability under the Act.” (
McMillin (January 18, 2018, S229762) __Cal.4th.__ [p. 19].) (Italics added for emphasis) Is the Court answering “No” to the questions posed above? Probably not. It is simply following the age old rule that an appellate court will
not rule on an issue that is not specifically presented by an appeal, leaving that question for another day.
All we know for sure from
McMillin is that every claim for construction defects falling within the scope of the Act must follow the prelitigation procedure. There are no hall passes for negligence and strict liability. The larger question posed by the last two paragraphs in the decision, is whether the law recognizes a cause of action for negligence and strict liability for construction defects based on the standards in Section 896. The answer will have to be worked out by judges and trial attorneys in courtrooms across the State! The parameters of this hybrid cause of action that the Court seems to have posited will need more careful consideration than can be offered on first reading of
McMillin v. Superior Court.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Balestreri, Potocki, & Holmes
It Was a Wild Week for Just About Everyone. Ok, Make that Everyone.
April 06, 2020 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIt was a crazy week last week as the number of coronavirus cases in the United States jumped to 32,783 cases as of Sunday, from 3,680 cases, just a week before. In an attempt to “flatten the curve” and help those impacted by the virus, numerous federal, state, and local orders were issued, including orders requiring that residents “shelter in place.”
For businesses impacted by the “shelter in place” orders, which, in California, means virtually every business in the state following Governor Newsom’s state-wide “shelter in place” order, there’s been confusion as to who can and can’t continue to work under the orders including among contractors and project owners. Although things have been changing, sometimes daily, here’s what you need to know about the “shelter in place” orders:
The Local “Shelter In Place” Orders
On Monday, March 16, 2020, six Bay Area counties, and the City of Berkeley, issued “shelter in place” orders requiring that residents in those counties and city shelter in place except for “Essential Activities,” if performing “Essential Governmental Functions,” or if operating “Essential Businesses.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
2019 California Construction Law Update
January 15, 2019 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogThe California State Legislature introduced 2,637 bills during the second year fo the 2017-2018 Legislative Session. Of these, 1,016 were signed into law.
It was last official bill signing for Governor Jerry Brown who ends not only his second term as Governor but a colorful political career spanning nearly 50 years during which he has dated pop stars, practiced Zen meditation, kicked it with radical ex-nuns and an Apollo astronaut and, at 80, has sparred regularly with President Trump on issues ranging from climate change to immigration to net neutrality.
For those in the construction industry it wasn’t quite as exciting, unless of course you count SCR 120, which officially makes April “California Safe Digging Month.” Hooray!
Each of the bills discussed below took effect on January 1, 2018, except as otherwise stated.
Building Codes
SB 721 – Requires the inspection of exterior elevated elements, including balconies, decks, porches, stairways, walkways, and elevated entry structures, of multifamily buildings with three or more dwelling units by an architect, engineer or contractor with a Class A, B or C-5 license by January 1, 2025 and by January 1st every six years thereafter. Elements posing an immediate threat to the safety of occupants, or which prevent occupant access or emergency repairs, are required to be repaired immediately. Elements not posing an immediate threat to the safety of occupants, or which do not prevent occupant access or emergency repairs, are required to be repaired within 180 days.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel RosenMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
Professional Malpractice Statute of Limitations in Construction Context
June 26, 2023 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn an interesting dichotomy, which statute of limitations applies to professional malpractice claims relating to construction claims, i.e., in the construction context?
Is it the two year statute of limitations in Florida Statute s.
95.11(4)( a) that governs professional malpractice claims or is it the four year statute of limitations in Florida Statute s.
95.11(3)(c) that governs actions “founded on the design, planning, or construction of an improvement toot real property”? This dichotomy led the appeal in American Automobile Ins. v. FDH Infrastructure Services, LLC, 48 Fla.L.Weekly D1091a (Fla. 3d DCA 2023).
This case sadly involved a construction accident that led to deaths. A contractor was engaged to install an antenna on an existing television tower. The contractor hired an engineering firm “to perform a structural analysis as to the stability and weight-bearing capacity of the tower. [The engineer] was contractually obligated to assess the proposed rigging plan…to lift the loads necessary to construct the antenna.” FDH Infrastructure Services, supra. Unfortunately, after the installation of the antenna commenced, the rigging components failed resulting in workers falling to their deaths. After insurers paid out benefits, they sued the engineering firm under equitable and contractual subrogation theories. The engineering firm moved for summary judgment arguing the subrogation claims were barred by the professional malpractice two year statute of limitations in section 95.11(4)(a). The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of the engineering firm.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Nevada’s Construction Defect Law
March 05, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFConstructive Dive reported on the effects of Nevada’s new construction defect law, which is a revision of the original 1995 Homeowners Protection Act: “The new rules more tightly define ‘defect,’ strike the requirement for the losing party to pay the other’s legal fees, and require homeowners to be much more specific about the defects they claim.” Furthermore, it reduces “the length of time a homeowner has to make a construction-defects claim at six years, down from the 10-year statute of limitations in the original law.”
Arizona, Colorado, Florida, and Washington legislators are debating revising their current construction defect laws, according to Construction Dive. “If the Colorado measure passes, homeowners will have to go through arbitration before they’ll be allowed to sue their builders. The proposal in Washington would require the owner making the claim to have a third-party professional inspect the defect before filing a suit,” Construction Dive reported.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
St. Petersburg Florida’s Tallest Condo Tower Allegedly Riddled with Construction Defects
October 15, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFIn a new lawsuit, the Signature Place Condominium Association claims "it is spending ‘large sums' of money to repair problems ranging from cracks in exterior walls to improper fire wall installation to excessive noise from air-conditioning and heating systems,” according to the Tampa Bay Times.
The lawsuit also stated that “some of the alleged defects were hidden by building components and finishes and thus were not discovered by owners "until after the purchase and occupancy of the unit,” reported the Tampa Bay Times.
The association “seeks damages in excess of $15,000, cites more than 100 other alleged construction and design defects.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
