University of Tennessee’s New Humanities Building Construction Set to Begin
January 14, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFConstruction preparation of the Tennessee Volunteer’s $30.5 million new humanities building has begun, according to The Tennessean. The 80,000 square-foot facility will become the largest building on the university’s campus, and will feature 23 classrooms, 18 labs, 11 collaborative study areas, 56 offices, 20 adjunct faculty workrooms as well as an outdoor theater and courtyard.
“This is a significant milestone in the history of the college,” President Jerry Faulkner told The Tennessean. “This building has been on our wish list for about 12 years in terms of wanting to have this facility available, so for the first time our humanities division is going to have a home of its own.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Damron Agreement Questioned in Colorado Casualty Insurance v Safety Control Company, et al.
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFSafety Control and EMC appealed the judgment in Colorado Casualty Insurance Company versus Safety Control Company, Inc., et al. (Ariz. App., 2012). The Superior Court in Maricopa County addressed “the validity and effect of a Damron agreement a contractor and its excess insurer entered into that assigned their rights to sue the primary insurer.” Judge Johnsen stated, “We hold the agreement is enforceable but remand for a determination of whether the stipulated judgment falls within the primary insurer’s policy.”
The Opinion provides some facts and procedural history regarding the claim. “The Arizona Department of Transportation (“ADOT”) hired DBA Construction Company (“DBA”) to perform a road-improvement project on the Loop 101 freeway. Safety Control Company, Inc. was one of DBA’s subcontractors. As required by the subcontract, Safety Control purchased from Employer’s Mutual Casualty Company (“EMC”) a certificate of insurance identifying DBA as an additional insured on a policy providing primary coverage for liability arising out of Safety Control’s work.”
A collision occurred on site, injuring Hugo Roman. Roman then sued ADT and DBA for damages. “Colorado Casualty tendered DBA’s defense to the subcontractors, including Safety Control. Safety Control and EMC rejected the tender. Roman eventually settled his claims against DBA and ADOT. DBA and ADOT stipulated with Roman for entry of judgment of $750,000; Roman received $75,000 from DBA (paid by Colorado Casualty) and $20,000 from ADOT, and agreed not to execute on the stipulated judgment. Finally, DBA, ADOT and Colorado Casualty assigned to Roman their rights against the subcontractors and other insurers.”
Colorado Casualty attempted to recover what “it had paid to defend DBA and ADOT and settle with Roman. However, Roman intervened, and argued that “Colorado Casualty had assigned its subrogation rights to him as part of the settlement agreement.” The suit was not dismissed, but the Superior Court allowed Roman to intervene. “Roman then filed a counterclaim against Colorado Casualty and a cross-claim against the subcontractors.”
All claims were settled against all of the defendants except Safety Control and EMC. “The superior court ruled on summary judgment that EMC breached a duty to defend DBA and that as a result, ‘DBA was entitled to settle with Roman without EMC’s consent as long as the settlement was not collusive or fraudulent.’ After more briefing, the court held the stipulated judgment was neither collusive nor procured by fraud and that EMC therefore was liable to Roman on the stipulated judgment and for his attorney’s fees. The court also held Safety Control breached its subcontract with DBA by failing to procure completed-operations insurance coverage and would be liable for damages to the extent that EMC did not satisfy what remained (after the other settlements) of the stipulated judgment and awards of attorney’s fees.” Safety Control and EMC appealed the judgment.
Four reasons were given for the decision of the ruling. First, “the disagreement between Roman and Colorado Casualty does not preclude them from pursuing their claims against EMC and Safety Control.” Second, “the settlement agreement is not otherwise invalid.” Third, “issues of fact remain about whether the judgment falls within the EMC policy.” Finally, “Safety Control breached the subcontract by failing to procure ‘Completed Operations’ coverage for DBA.”
In conclusion, the Superior Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded . “Although, as stated above, we have affirmed several rulings of the superior court, we reverse the judgment against EMC and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion to determine whether the stipulated judgment was a liability that arose out of Safety Control’s operations. In addition, we affirm the superior court’s declaratory judgment against Safety Control but remand so that the court may clarify the circumstances under which Safety Control may be liable for damages and may conduct whatever further proceedings it deems appropriate to ascertain the amount of those damages. We decline all parties’ requests for attorney’s fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01 without prejudice to a request for fees incurred in this appeal to be filed by the prevailing party on remand before the superior court.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
President Trump Issued Two New EOs on Energy Infrastructure and Federal Energy Policy
May 20, 2019 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel1. The first EO is very comprehensive, affecting many federal agencies and departments, and is entitled “Promoting Federal Infrastructure and Economic Growth.” The EO emphasizes its concern with the need for infrastructure that “ is capable of safely and efficiently transporting these plentiful resources to end users.” To that end, the EO:
- (A) states the general policy that the U.S. Government is to promote private investment in the Nation’s infrastructure by establishing efficient permitting processes and procedures that avoid duplication and result in increased regulatory certainty;
- (B) reviews and revises existing federal guidance and regulations regarding Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), with particular emphasis on EPA’s guidance document, CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification, and actions will be taken in accordance with a regulatory schedule set forth in the EO which has as its objective a notice of proposed rulemaking on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Section 401 regulations to be published in 12 months, with the final rules to be issued by May 2020;
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Steps to Curb Construction Defect Actions for Homebuilders
June 15, 2017 —
Jason Daniel Feld – Kahana & Feld, LLPThe homebuilding and construction industries in California are at a record high in 2017 according to the National Homebuilders Association. While there is finally prosperity and growth for builders, developers and contractors after suffering from the recession of 2008, there is also a growth in construction defect claims. As with every industry and especially with construction, there are several risk prevention methods that can help curb this litigation.
Time Frames for Pursuing Construction Defect Claims
It is important to know and understand the time frames for which construction defect claims can be pursued by homeowners. There is a hard cut-off for construction defect litigation in California known as the Statute of Repose of 10 years. California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) §337.15 provides a statute of repose that bars actions to recover damages for construction defects more than 10 years after substantial completion of the work of improvement. This provision is limited to property damage claims and does not extend to personal injuries (See, Geertz v. Ausonio, 4 Cal.App.4th 1363 (1992) and willful misconduct or fraudulent concealment claims. (See, Acosta v. Glenfed Development Corp., 128 Cal.App. 4th 1278 (2005).
There are also interim statutes of limitations for “patent” and “latent” defects discovered at the home also from the date of substantial completion. CCP §337.1(e) provides for a four year window to bring suit for deficiencies that are apparent by reasonable inspection (patent deficiencies). CCP §337.15(b) provides for deficiencies that are not apparent by reasonable inspection or hidden defects that require invasive testing to become apparent (latent deficiencies). A latent defect can become patent after it “manifests itself” (i.e. becomes observant – for example a roof leak) for which the four year window from the date of discovery would become the applicable statute of limitations.
The discovery rule effectively acts to toll the statute of limitation period on construction defect claims until they become reasonably apparent. (See, Regents of the University of CA v.Harford Accident & Indemnity, Co., 21 Cal.3d 624, 630 (1978). This is similar to a breach of contract claim, also a four year statute of limitation. Finally, the California Right to Repair Statute (SB800) – Civil Code §§895, et seq. specifically Civil Code §896 sets forth the “Functionality Standards” or a list of actionable defect items, including items affecting the component’s “useful life” and a catch-all provision for all items not expressed listed as defects in the statute. (Civil Code §897). The majority of the defects alleged have a 10 year statute of limitations. However, there are shortened statute of limitations for the following items:
| Functionality Standards | Statute of Limitations |
|---|
| Noise Transmission |
1 year from original occupancy of adjacent unit |
| Irrigation |
1 year from close of escrow |
| Landscaping Systems & Wood Posts (untreated) |
2 years from close of escrow |
| Electrical systems, pluming/sewer systems, steel fences (untreated), flatwork cracks |
4 years from close of escrow |
| Paint/Stains |
5 years from close of escrow |
| All other functionality standards (Civil Code §941(a)) |
10 years after substantial completion(date of recordation of valid NOC) |
Preventative Measures to Curb Construction Defect Litigation
Once the builder knows the time frames for construction defect claims, the following are some preventive measures to limit construction defect claims. As a reminder, homeowners are less likely to bring construction defect action if they feel that the builders are taking care of them.
1. Communicate With Homeowners Prior to Claims
It is imperative to communicate with the homeowners throughout the ten years statute of repose period. For example, most builders provide a limited warranty to the homeowners at the time of purchase. Homeowners are generally confused as to the length of the warranty and what the warranty covers. A practical tip to help curb construction defect claims is for the builder to send postcards or letters to the homeowners at the six month, one year and nine-year marks to advise the homeowner of: (1) the existence of the warranty and what is covered at each time frame; (2) the maintenance obligations of the homeowner at the various time frames; and (3) the fact that the home is approaching the ten-year mark. Most builders would rather deal directly with the homeowners through customer service than defend a construction defect litigation action where the costs to defend the claim will vastly exceed the cost to address the individual homeowner issues. The more the builder communicates with the homeowner in advance, the less likely it is that the homeowner engages in litigation against the builder.
2. Timely Response to Homeowner Claims
During the purchase process, provide the homeowners instructions on how to send in a customer service or warranty requests. Provide multiple methods for notification to the builder by the homeowner when issues arise in their home (fax, email, website forms, etc.). The builder should provide a timely response – within 48 hours of the notice if possible. The homeowner wants to receive some notification from the builder that they received their request and, at the very least, will investigate the claim. Even if it is determined to be a maintenance item or homeowner caused damage, the homeowner should receive: (1) an acknowledgement of the claim; (2) an investigation report of the issue; and (3) an action plan or conclusion statement – this can be a declination of repairs with an explanation as to the cause not being the result of original construction. Sometimes even sending a customer service representative to the home to listen to the homeowner claims and explaining that there are not repairs required is sufficient to satisfy the homeowner. The goal is to make sure the homeowner’s claims are acknowledged and that the builder is standing behind its product. In my experience, the fact that the builder failed to respond in a timely fashion to the homeowner is a significant motivating factor as to why the homeowner elected to enter formal litigation against the builder.
3. Be Proactive When Litigation Ensues Despite the fact that the homeowner has engaged an attorney and joined a construction defect action, the builder is not precluded from continuing to communicate with its homeowners. Several builders send letters to the non-plaintiff homeowners reminding them to contact the builder should they have issues at their homes rather than join the ongoing construction defect action. Under the law, clients can always talk to clients even if they are represented by counsel. While the attorneys for the builders cannot speak to the represented construction defect homeowners, the builder can communicate directly with its homeowners offering to honor its warranty and customer service procedures in lieu of the homeowner proceeding with the litigation. Both of these builder attempts to communicate with homeowners post-litigation have a dual effect – some homeowners elect to contact the builder to effectupate repairs and drop the litigation; while others elect to continue with the litigation. So proceed cautiously in this regard.
It is noted, there are many motivating factors for homeowners to bring a lawsuit against homebuilders that have nothing to do with the construction practices or customer service and are merely economically driven. However, these small steps in addition to providing solid construction practices should help curb construction defect litigation by homeowners.
Jason Daniel Feld is a founding partner of Kahana & Feld LLP, an AV Preeminent boutique litigation firm in Orange County specializing in construction defect, insurance defense, employment and general business litigation matters. The firm was founded with the goal of providing high-quality legal services at fair and reasonable rates. The firm believes that what defines attorneys is not their billing rates, but their record of success, which speaks for itself. For more information, please visit: www.kahanafeld.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Collapse of Improperly Built Deck Not An Occurrence
August 17, 2017 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court found that the insured's faulty construction of an outside deck did not arise from an occurrence. Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. West, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113951 (N.D. Miss. July 21, 2017).
D.L. Action Construction Company (DLA) constructed multifamily dwellings. They were sued by the homeowners after a deck collapsed at one of the dwellings. Also sued was the subcontractor, Littrell Construction, who installed the deck. The homeowners alleged that Littrell knew that college students would be residing in the units and that the decks would be heavily used. The decks were attached to the building structure using only nails instead of bolts.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Client Alert: Court Settles Conflict between CCP and Rules of Court Regarding Demurrer Deadline Following Amended Complaint
August 20, 2014 —
R. Bryan Martin and Kristian B. Moriarty - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Carlton v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. (No. E056566, filed 8/14/2014), The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, held a demurrer was timely filed in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 471.5, despite being filed after the 10-day filing period prescribed in California Rule of Court 3.1320(j).
This case appears to settle the conflict that existed between the CCP and the Rules of Court as to the timing of demurrers following amendments to Complaints. Prior to this case, the validity of Rule of Court 3.1320(j)(2) was unclear as it arguably conflicted with CCP Section 471.5, which requires defendants to “answer” an amended complaint within 30 days after service. At the same time, it was not clear that CCP Section 471.5 applied to amendments after a demurrer had been sustained, and it was even more unclear whether the statutory 30-day period to “answer” an amended complaint foreclosed the shorter 10-day period prescribed under Rule of Court 3.1320(j)(2) for a demurrer or motion to strike.
On July 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. (“Dr. Pepper”) and others. On October 24, 2011, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Dr. Pepper demurred to the FAC on various grounds. On January 5, 2012, the trial court sustained the demurrer in part, and overruled it in part. The Court granted Plaintiff 30 days to amend the FAC.
Reprinted courtesy of
R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com, Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Cybersecurity on Your Project: Why Not Follow National Security Strategy?
August 28, 2018 —
Rick Erickson - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogIn its recent Cybersecurity Strategy, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) defined “cyberspace” as “the independent network of information technology infrastructure, including the Internet, telecommunications networks, computers, information and communications systems, and embedded processors and controllers.” To DHS, protecting cyberspace includes threats against “federal and nonfederal information systems.” In other words, both private and public interests are at risk. In his 2018 National Defense Strategy, U.S. Department of Defense Secretary, Jim Mattis, essentially concurred in declaring cyberspace a “warfighting domain” and promising to “invest in cyber defense, resilience, and the continued integration of cyber capabilities into the full spectrum of military operations.”
The construction industry is a key player in cybersecurity because contractors, designers and owners are responsible for building and delivering projects providing critical public services like national defense, health care, law enforcement, transportation, and utilities. Like any business reckoning with risks in cyberspace, moreover, everyone on a construction project has valuable data and confidentialities to protect. Cyber breaches on a project may also compromise electrical power, physical safety and, inevitably, a lot more than the critical path schedule and profit margins. Cybersecurity insurance is not very affordable or comprehensive, either, and it usually excludes any property damage or bodily injury resulting from a cyber event.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rick Erickson, Snell & WilmerMr. Erickson may be contacted at
rerickson@swlaw.com
ConsensusDOCS Hits the Cloud
April 02, 2019 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsI have discussed the ConsensusDOCS here at Musings on a few occasions. These relatively new form documents, endorsed by the AGC among other trade organizations, are a great counterpoint to the AIA documents that we all are more than familiar with and as construction attorneys and contractors have likely reviewed on numerous occasions.
Recently, these documents have joined the parade and have taken to the cloud. The folks at ConsensusDOCS made this move to ease the type of collaboration that I have discussed must occur on construction projects among the players. The use of the cloud based technology is one of the first uses of this technology to increase productivity.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
