Specific Source of Water Not Relevant in Construction Defect Claim
June 28, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Nebraska Court of Appeals has concluded that a lower court came to the correct conclusion in a construction defect case involving water intrusion. The Hiatts built a home in North Platte, Nebraska, in in 2004 which they sold to the Oettingers in May, 2006. Shortly thereafter, the Oettingers started experiencing problems with water intrusion and contacted the Hiatts. The Hiatts responded by replacing the septic lift. Subsequently, the Oettingers landscaped their yard, which they allege was done with the assistance of the Hiatts. The water problems continued and “the parties took substantial remedial measures, including excavating the sidewalk and inspecting the downspouts.” The water problems continued, getting worse and requiring increasingly aggressive responses.
The Oettingers then had a series of inspections, and they hired the last of these inspectors to actually fix the water intrusion problem. At that point, they filed a lawsuit against the Hiatts alleging that the Hiatts “breached their contact by constructing and selling a home that was not built according to reasonable construction standards,” and that they “were negligent in the repair of the home in 2009.”
During the trial, Irving Hiatt testified that they “tarred the outside of the basement and put plastic into the tar and another layer of plastic over the top of that.” He claimed that the problem was with the Oettingers’ landscaping. This was further claimed in testimony of his son, Vernon Hiatt, who said the landscaping lacked drainage.
The Oettingers had three experts testify, all of whom noted that the landscaping could not have been the problem. All three experts testified as to problems with the Hiatts’ construction. The court concluded that the Hiatts had breached an implied warranty, rejecting the claim that the water intrusion was due to the landscaping. The Hiatts appealed the decision of the county court to the district court. Here, the judgment of the lowest court was confirmed, with the district court again finding a breach of the implied warranty of workmanlike performance.
The Hiatts appealed again. They alleged that the district court should not have held a breach of implied warranty existed without proving the source of the water intrusion, and that damages should have been apportioned based on the degree to which the Oettingers’ landscaping and basement alterations were responsible. The appeals court dispensed with the second claim first, noting that “they do not argue this error in their brief nor do they explain how or why the trial court should have apportioned damages.” The court also noted that although the Oettingers made a negligence claim in their suit, the case had been decided on the basis of a breach of implied warranty.
The appeals court upheld the Oettingers’ claim of a breach of implied warranty. In order to do this, the court noted that the Oettingers had to show that an implied warranty existed, that the Haitts breached that warranty, damage was suffered as a result, and that no express warranty limited the implied warranty. That court noted that “the record is sufficient to prove that the Hiatts breached the implied warranty in the method in which they constructed the basement” and that “this breach was the cause of the Oettingers’ damages.”
The court concluded that the Oettingers “provided sufficient evidence that the Hiatts’ faulty construction allowed water, whatever its source, to infiltrate the basement.” The court rejected the Hiatts’ claim that the Oettingers’ repairs voided the warranty, as it was clear that the Hiatts were involved in carrying out these repairs. The court’s final conclusion was that “the evidence in the record supports the trial court’s factual finding that the Hiatts’ flawed construction caused water damage to the Oettingers’ basement.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
No Coverage For Construction Defects When Complaint Alleges Contractual Damages
September 01, 2011 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe underlying plaintiff’s allegations contended the contractor was in breach of contract for construction defects caused in building her home. Accordingly, the court found no coverage.See Nat’l Builders and Contractors Ins. Co. v. Slocum, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81694 (S.D. Miss. July 26, 2011).
Slocum Construction LLC sold a home it built to Laura Peterson. Subsequently, Peterson filed suit, alleging a breach of the contract and seeking rescission and cancellation of the contract. Peterson further alleged at least thirty-three specific defects in the construction of the house.
Slocum tendered to its insurer, National Builders and Contractors Insurance Company (NBCI). NBCI filed suit for a declaratory judgment.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hawaii Appellate Court Finds Appraisers Limited to Determining Amount of Loss
April 25, 2023 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals determined that appraisers cannot decide what amount is owed by the insurer after loss, but are limited to finding the amount of the loss. Krafchon v. Dongbu Ins. Co., Ltd., 2023 Haw. App. LEXIS 43 (Haw. Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2023).
The insureds owned three structures on the property on Maui: the Villa; the Cottage; and the Garage. The three structures were insured under homeowners and dwelling fire policies issued by Dongbu. When the structures were damaged by wildfire, Dongbu tendered over $300,000 under a reservation of rights, pending preparation of a final settlement. There was disagreement over the total amount of the loss.
The insureds invoked the appraisal provision of the policies. When Dongbu failed to appoint an appraiser, the insureds sued. The trial court granted the insureds' motion to compel appraisal.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
They Say Nothing Lasts Forever, but What If Decommissioning Does?
June 10, 2019 —
Stella Pulman - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogThe looming decommissioning liabilities of offshore energy producers have been a focus of the federal government in recent years. One recent case out of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Taylor Energy v. United States, highlights the tension between the federal government’s desire to maintain financial security for decommissioning activities, and that of an operator whose security is tied up indefinitely while the government awaits technological advances to allow for safe decommissioning.
The case relates to a trust agreement between Taylor Energy and the United States, established to secure Taylor’s decommissioning liabilities for 28 wells in the Gulf of Mexico. Taylor completed certain decommissioning work for which it was reimbursed by the trust. However, with over $400 million remaining in the trust, Taylor and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) concluded that the ecological benefits of further decommissioning would be outweighed by the ecological risks. But despite recognizing that the limitations of current technology made the environmental impacts of further decommissioning work unjustifiable, the BSEE declined to release Taylor from its decommissioning obligations and instead decided to await “changes in technology and a better understanding of the undersea environment.” Because Taylor’s decommissioning obligations remained in place, the U.S. refused to release the remaining funds in the trust.
Taylor claimed that the United States should release the remaining funds in the trust because “decommissioning the remaining wells is not ‘currently technologically feasible.’” Taylor asserted that Louisiana law applied to the trust agreement, and that under Louisiana law every contract must be completed within an ascertainable term. By holding the trust funds until decommissioning was complete, Taylor argued that the government was essentially holding the funds in perpetuity given the technological infeasibility of completing decommissioning. Taylor also asserted that the agreement was premised on an impossibility (the full decommissioning of the wells), and/or a mutual mistake of the parties (that the wells could be decommissioned).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stella Pulman, PillsburyMs. Pulman may be contacted at
stella.pulman@pillsburylaw.com
Understand and Define Key Substantive Contract Provisions
March 23, 2020 —
Phillip L. Sampson Jr. & Richard F. Whiteley, Construction ExecutiveThe following contract provisions should be clearly understood before undertaking any construction project commences.
Force Majeure
Often referred to as an “Act of God,” a force majeure is an event, typically beyond the parties’ control, that prevents performance under a contract. To determine if a contractor need a force majeure clause in its contract, it should ask whether there may be instances where events beyond the contractor’s control could impact its contractual performance? If so, it will want this clause.
Courts currently treat force majeure as an issue of contractual interpretation, focusing on the express language in the contract. Consequently, the scope and applicability of a force majeure clause depends on the contract’s terms. Using broad language in a force majeure clause may help protect against unforeseen events. But to the extent possible, parties should describe with particularity the circumstances intended to constitute a force majeure.
The law relating to force majeure also fairly consistently provides that parties cannot avoid contractual obligations because performance has become economically burdensome. Courts have refused to apply force majeure clauses where an event only affects profitability. Recent attempts to categorize tariffs on construction materials as a force majeure have failed. Unless a tariff or tax is specifically listed as a force majeure event, it is unlikely to constitute a force majeure because it only affects profitability.
Reprinted courtesy of
Phillip L. Sampson Jr. & Richard F. Whiteley, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
FEMA Offers to Review Hurricane Sandy Claims
May 20, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to NJ, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will be sending 141,800 letters to homeowners offering to review their Hurricane Sandy claims to see if the homeowners had been shortchanged. Homeowners who do not wish to wait for their letter can call 866-337-4262 or download a form online, reported NJ.
If after the initial FEMA review the homeowner remains unsatisfied, he or she can request an additional review by an independent party.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Of Pavement and Pandemic: Liability and Regulatory Hurdles for Taking It Outside
September 21, 2020 —
Jeff Clare - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogAs the COVID-19 pandemic continues to ravage the U.S. economy, restaurateurs and bar owners are feeling the brunt of business closures and adaptations necessary to combat the disease. Where cozy and intimate dining was once de rigueur for the restaurant industry, these businesses must now shift to outdoor dining with adequate space and airflow between parties. In response to these concerns, many cities across the country who once fought against the loss of any parking have turned to a post-automobile tactic: outdoor dining in thoroughfares and parking lots. While at first glance it might seem a simple enough prospect—throw some chairs and a table out front, and voilà—property owners and restaurateurs must remain cognizant of various liability and regulatory hurdles for operating outside.
With Great Space Comes Great … Potential Liability.
One of the largest concerns for landowners in operating in a new space for business is liability. Who is on the hook if someone gets hurt dining in an impromptu dining space in a parking lot? Prior to beginning new outdoor dining operations, landowners and restaurateurs should contact their insurance providers to ensure that the new space is included in their insurance coverage. This is a particular concern for larger commercial landowners who may have various businesses vying to use their parking lot for business. Many leases have carefully crafted clauses limiting where a business may operate and where their liability ceases. Landowners and business owners should review their leases for any such clauses and negotiate with one another to ensure that liability in these new spaces is clearly defined.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jeff Clare, PillsburyMr. Clare may be contacted at
jeff.clare@pillsburylaw.com
Meet the Hipster Real Estate Developers Building for Millennials
October 02, 2015 —
Ben Steverman – BloombergJohn Chaffetz is showing off an apartment building that his development firm, Timberlane Partners, just bought for $7.2 million. He admits it doesn’t look so hot. “This has been treated like a prison camp,” he says of the 32-unit building in Los Angeles’s Echo Park neighborhood. Steel bars stick out of a cinder-block fence, threatening to impale someone. The front door is an ugly metal gate.
But an organic supermarket opened around the corner in November, and a Blue Bottle Coffee just arrived down the block. There’s a farmers market nearby each Friday, and five minutes up Sunset Boulevard is the Silver Lake neighborhood, a nest of hipster cafes and places to buy rare cheese and handmade clothes. Timberlane plans to tear down the building’s security fencing, put terracotta back on the roof, and repair windows that date to its pre-1930 construction. “The goal,” Chaffetz says, “is for this to look like a Moroccan boutique hotel.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ben Steverman, Bloomberg
