Beyond the Statute: How the Colorado Court Upheld Modified Accrual in Construction Contracts
November 13, 2023 —
Hal Baker - Colorado Construction Litigation BlogIn a case of first impression, the First Division of the Colorado Court of Appeals recently reviewed whether parties may contractually alter the accrual time established by Colorado’s statute of limitations for construction defect actions, C.R.S. § 13-80-104, in South Conejos Sch. Dist. RE-10 v. Wold Architects, Inc., 2023 COA 85 (2023), decided on September 21, 2023. The Court held that sophisticated parties may contractually alter the accrual time standards, enlarging the accrual time as was the issue in this case. Notably, the Court’s decision was made in the context of commercial construction, not residential.
The issue in South Conejos Sch. Dist. RE-10 arose from the construction of a school in Antonito, Colorado. Prior to construction, the South Conejos School District RE-10 (the “School District”) and Wold Architects, Inc. (“Wold”) entered a contract that provided:
Unless a longer period is provided by law, any action against [Wold] brought to recover damages for deficiency in the design, planning, supervision, inspection, construction or observation of construction or for injury to person or property shall be brought within two years after the claim for relief arises and is discovered by [the District]; … “Discovered” as used herein means detection and knowledge by [the District] of the defect in the improvement that ultimately causes the injury, when such defect is of a substantial or significant nature.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hal Baker, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. Baker may be contacted at
baker@hhmrlaw.com
The Peak of Hurricane Season Is Here: How to Manage Risks Before They Manage You
September 21, 2020 —
Vincent E. Morgan - Construction ExecutiveThe Atlantic hurricane season runs from June 1 to Nov. 30, but it peaks sharply during August, September and October. The latest forecasts predict this will be one of the most active seasons in history, in terms of frequency and severity, though it is always important to remember that even a single hurricane or tropical storm making landfall can still be a devastating event.
Hurricanes pose unique risks to the construction industry ranging from project and labor force disruptions to concerns about the availability and price of construction materials. This is even more true this year, which requires merging hurricane preparedness and response plans with the realities of COVID-19. Because hurricanes cannot be avoided, preparing for them is the only way to manage these risks. Ensuring the personal safety and wellbeing of affected individuals is the first priority. After that, here are some key issues, and suggestions for handling them, that may help guide construction companies through the storm.
SITE PROTECTION
Construction contracts often place responsibility for site protection on contractors. Where those duties exist, failing to properly carry them out can lead to enormous losses that then turn into liability claims. This could be anything from removing materials that can become projectiles, covering exposed ventilation shafts, and sealing electrical conduits to ensuring that key equipment such as generators and pumps can remain functional in a storm. One way to approach it is to imagine sustained 100-mph winds and relentless water, and then make sure preparedness efforts are likely to survive that kind of test. This is not the time for guessing. It is far better to go through a rigorous analytical process now than in a courtroom years later.
Reprinted courtesy of
Vincent E. Morgan, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
CAUTION: Terms of CCP Section 998 Offers to Compromise Must Be Fully Contained in the Offer Itself
May 12, 2016 —
Jesse M. Sullivan & R. Bryan Martin – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Sanford v. Rasnick, (Ct. of Appeal, 1st App. Dist., No. A145704) the First Appellate District addressed whether a CCP § 998 Offer to Compromise requiring plaintiff to execute a release and enter into a separate settlement agreement was valid. Because the settlement agreement could potentially contain additional terms not stated in the CCP 998 Offer, the Court of Appeal held that it was not.
Plaintiff alleged he was injured when the 17-year-old Defendant ran a stop sign and struck his motorcycle. Plaintiff sued the 17-year-old and his father (the owner of the vehicle) for vehicular negligence and general negligence.
Just after discovery closed, defendants jointly served a CCP § 998 Offer to Compromise to plaintiff in the amount of $130,000. The offer contained a condition requiring that in order to accept, plaintiff must provide a “notarized execution and transmittal of a written settlement agreement and general release. Each party will bear its own fees, costs and expenses.”
Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at jsullivan@hbblaw.com
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com
Reprinted courtesy of
Jesse M. Sullivan, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Amazon Feels the Heat From Hoverboard Fire Claims
January 20, 2020 —
William L. Doerler - The Subrogation StrategistIn State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 3:18CV166-M-P, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189053 (Oct. 31, 2019), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi considered a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by defendant Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon). Amazon argued that, because it was a “service provider” who cannot be held liable under Mississippi’s Product Liability Act (MPLA), Miss. Code § 11.1.63, the negligence and negligent failure to warn claims filed against it by plaintiff State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (State Farm) failed as a matter of law. The court, looking beyond the MPLA, held that State Farm’s complaint stated a claim against Amazon.
In State Farm, Taylor and Laurel Boone (the Boones), State Farm’s subrogors, purchased two hoverboards from third parties in transactions facilitated by Amazon. They purchased the first hoverboard on October 31, 2015 and the second on November 10, 2015. The Boones started using the hoverboards on or about December 25, 2015. On March 16, 2016, the hoverboards caught fire and the fire spread to destroy the Boones’ home. As alleged in the amended complaint, the hoverboards were “manufactured by unknown manufacturers from China.” State Farm, as the Boones’ subrogee, filed suit asserting negligence and negligent failure to warn claims against Amazon.
Amazon filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, arguing that State Farm’s claims against it were governed by the MPLA and, as a service provider, it was not liable under the MPLA. In response, State Farm argued that Amazon was liable because it acted as a “marketplace” and that, rather than MPLA claims, Amazon is subject to common law negligence and failure to warn claims. The District Court agreed with State Farm.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLPMr. Doerler may be contacted at
doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com
2019’s Biggest Labor and Employment Moves Affecting Construction
January 27, 2020 —
Micah Dawson - Construction ExecutiveThe construction industry is fueled by change, which is the only constant in life and construction. Still, continuous change makes compliance with state and federal laws and regulations more difficult.
While contractors may thrive on the frantic pace, sometimes it is good to look back and ensure they have an understanding of, and are complying with, the newest regulations and laws.
Top 10 Stories Dominating Employment Law in Construction
1. Trio of Federal Joint Employment Rules Expected in December 2019
Joint employment took center stage during the November 20, 2019 release of the Fall Regulatory Agenda, as three separate federal agencies announced plans to move forward with revised joint employment rules in December. While the Department of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board had already released versions of their draft rules, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission also announced that it would weigh in on the topic before the end of 2019. As of January 10, 2020, the EEOC had not done so.
2. NLRB Tightens Union Access to Employer Property
In a ruling that levels the labor relations playing field, the NLRB ruled that employers could rightfully eject outside union representatives soliciting petition signatures from a shared shopping center parking area. When read in conjunction with an earlier 2019 decision conferring greater rights to limit on-premises union activity by abolishing the “public space” exception, the NLRB has significantly restricted union access to private employer property.
Reprinted courtesy of
Micah Dawson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Dawson may be contacted at
mdawson@fisherphillips.com
The Colorado Court of Appeals Rules that a Statutory Notice of Claim Triggers an Insurer’s Duty to Defend.
October 23, 2012 —
David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellGene and Diane Melssen d/b/a Melssen Construction (“Melssen”) built a custom home for the Holleys, during which period of time Melssen retained a CGL insurance coverage from Auto Owners Insurance Company. Soon after completion of the house, the Holleys noticed cracks in the drywall and, eventually, large cracks developed in the exterior stucco and basement slab. Thereafter, the Holleys contacted Melssen, the structural engineer, an attorney, and Auto-Owners, which assigned a claims adjuster to investigate the claim.
In April 2008, the Holleys sent Melssen a statutory notice of claim pursuant to C.R.S. § 13-20-803.5 (“NOC”). In this NOC, the Holleys claimed approximately $300,000 in damages related to design and construction defects. The Holleys also provided a list of claimed damages and estimated repairs, accompanied by two reports from the Holleys’ consultant regarding the claimed design and construction defects. In June 2008, Melssen tendered the defense and indemnity of the claim to Auto-Owners. While Auto-Owners did not deny the claim at that time, it did not inspect the property or otherwise adjust the claim. Thereafter, in October 2008, Auto-Owners sent Melssen a letter denying coverage on the basis that the damage occurred outside of the applicable policy period.
Ultimately, Melssen settled the claims against it for $140,000.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC. Mr. McLain can be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pulte Home Corp. v. CBR Electric, Inc.
August 24, 2020 —
Michael Velladao - Lewis BrisboisIn Pulte Home Corp. v. CBR Electric, Inc., 50 Cal.App.5th 216 (June 10, 2020), the California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s entry of judgment in favor of six subcontractors with respect to an equitable subrogation lawsuit filed by St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company (“St. Paul”). St. Paul filed the lawsuit after defending Pulte Home Corp. (“Pulte”) against two construction defect lawsuits. The lawsuit contended that St. Paul was entitled to seek recovery of defense costs incurred on behalf of Pulte based on equitable subrogation. St. Paul relied on the indemnity clauses in each of the subcontracts, and argued that the subcontractors had breached their contracts with Pulte. As such, each subcontractor was obligated to pay an equitable share of the defense of the construction defect lawsuits relating to their work on the homes at issue in such lawsuits. The trial court ruled against St. Paul and held that the subcontractors’ failure to pay defense costs did not “cause” the homeowners’ claims, such that there was no causal connection supporting a claim for equitable subrogation. In addition, the trial court found that “equitable subrogation was an all-or-nothing claim, meaning it required a shifting of the entire amount of defense costs to the subcontractors on a joint and several basis and did not allow for an apportionment of costs among the defendant subcontractors.”
In reversing the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeal reasoned that St. Paul stood in the shoes of Pulte and was limited to pursuing recovery from the subcontractors based on the same rights as afforded to Pulte under the subcontracts. The Court of Appeal noted that St. Paul was seeking reimbursement of defense costs from the subcontractors based on the theory that they were contractually liable for paying an equitable share of defense costs. The Court of Appeal also noted that St. Paul’s claim was not premised on the contention that the subcontractors’ failure to pay defense costs caused the homeowners’ claims. Rather, St. Paul’s claim was premised on the subcontractors’ breach of their defense duty owed to Pulte under the indemnity clauses in their subcontracts.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Velladao, Lewis BrisboisMr. Velladao may be contacted at
Michael.Velladao@lewisbrisbois.com
Court Narrowly Interprets “Faulty Workmanship” Provision
March 28, 2018 —
Jeffrey J. Vita and Thersa A. Guertin – SDV BlogIn a recent victory in their home state of Connecticut, Saxe Doernberger & Vita partners,
Jeffrey Vita and
Theresa Guertin, representing owner-developer 777 Main Street, LLC, overcame a summary judgment motion filed by Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company. The Connecticut Superior court refused to adopt the insurer’s broad interpretation of the “faulty workmanship” exclusion in an all-risk builders’ risk insurance policy.
In 2014, 777 Main Street, LLC began renovations on the 27-story former Hartford National Bank building in downtown Hartford, converting the property from an office building to a mixed residential and commercial space. During the renovation, a subcontractor hired to perform the cleaning the concrete façade of the building accidentally over-sprayed the cleaning material onto the property’s windows. The subcontractor’s attempts to clean the overspray further damaged the structural integrity and cosmetic look of the windows. As a result, the owner was forced to replace over 1,800 windows, costing millions.
Mr. Vita may be contacted at jjv@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Guertin may be contacted at tag@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
