SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Georgia Amends Anti-Indemnity Statute

June 02, 2016 — David R. Cook Jr. – AHHC Construction Law Blog
In its most recent session, the Georgia General Assembly passed HB 943, which amends Georgia’s Anti-Indemnity Statute. The amendment expands the Anti-Indemnity Statute beyond construction contracts to include contracts for engineering, architectural, and land surveying services (“A/E Contracts”). In a prior post, we discussed Georgia’s Anti-Indemnity Statute, which generally prohibits indemnity clauses in construction contracts that require one party (the “Indemnitor”) to indemnify another party (the “Indemnitee”) if property damage or bodily injury results from the Indemnitee’s sole negligence. The prior post, discussed the Supreme Court of Georgia’s broad interpretation of the Anti-Indemnity Statute. HB 943 adds subpart (c), which states:

A covenant, promise, agreement, or understanding in or in connection with or collateral to a contract or agreement for engineering, architectural, or land surveying services purporting to require that one party to such contract or agreement shall indemnify, hold harmless, insure, or defend the other party to the contract or other named indemnitee, including its, his, or her officers, agents, or employees, against liability or claims for damages, losses, or expenses, including attorney fees, is against public policy and void and unenforceable, except for indemnification for damages, losses, or expenses to the extent caused by or resulting from the negligence, recklessness, or intentionally wrongful conduct of the indemnitor or other persons employed or utilized by the indemnitor in the performance of the contract. This subsection shall not affect any obligation under workers’ compensation or coverage or insurance specifically relating to workers’ compensation, nor shall this subsection apply to any requirement that one party to the contract purchase a project specific insurance policy or project specific policy endorsement.

(Emphasis added.) Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

---

Indictments Issued in Las Vegas HOA Scam

January 22, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A federal grand jury has indicted eleven individuals involved in the Las Vegas homeowners association scam. Leon Benzer, Keith Gregory, and Barry Levinson were all indicted for their roles in the scam, where conspirators took over homeowners associations in order to profit from construction defect suits. According to the Las Vegas Review Journal, all eleven were charged with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud. Mr. Levinson's license to practice law has been suspended due to an investigation that he misappropriated client funds. Mr. Benzer has been described as the "mastermind" of the scam. Twenty-eight defendants have plead guilty, with all but one agreeing to cooperate with investigators. The report quotes William C. Woerner, the acting special agent in charge of the FBI in Las Vegas, as saying that "today's indictment demonstrates the continued commitment of the FBI and its law enforcement partners to identify and root out public corruption at all levels." Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Terminating the Notice of Commencement (with a Notice of Termination)

July 19, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The notice of commencement is important for purposes of construction lien priority. Stock Bldg. Supply of Florida, Inc. v. Soares Da Costa Const. Services, LLC, 76 So.3d 313, 317 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (“[A] notice of commencement serves to determine the priority of liens under the Construction Lien Law.”). A lien relates back in time to the date the notice of commencement was recorded assuming the notice of commencement is still in effect when the lien is recorded (or an amended noticed of commencement is recorded). Lien priority is very important and the reason why a contractor should always want to ensure there is an effective notice of commencement in place rather than an expired notice of commencement. For the same reasons why a contractor wants to ensure there is an effective notice of commencement, there are times an owner wants to terminate a notice of commencement. An owner may want to terminate the potential priority of a construction lien. For instance, say the owner is refinancing or obtaining a construction loan in the midst of construction. A lender will want to ensure its mortgage maintains first priority and certainly priority over a potential construction lien. Otherwise, why would a lender finance the construction if it does not maintain first priority. It generally will not. Thus, an owner needs to terminate the notice of commencement so that the closing occurs on the loan and the mortgage recorded before a new notice of commencement is recorded and construction continues. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com

---

Renovation Contractors: Be Careful How You Disclose Your Projects

December 09, 2011 — Derek J. Lindenschmidt, Colorado Construction Litigation

In Palu and Beyer v. Toney, 2011 WL 2560249 (Bankr. D. Colo.), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado determined that a Colorado District Court order granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff home buyers was binding on the Bankruptcy Court in the defendant contractor’s bankruptcy proceeding based on issue preclusion.

Pertinent to this column is the subject matter of the summary judgment motion: Colorado’s Seller’s Property Disclosure (Form LC-18-5-04). In the underlying state court action, the plaintiff home buyers filed a motion for summary judgment contending that the defendant contractor represented to them, through the Seller’s Property Disclosure, that there were no present or past conditions involving moisture or water problems, roof problems or leaks, skylight problems, or gutter downspout problems.

In granting plaintiffs’ motion, the state court determined that the defendant contractor made these representations on her Seller’s Property Disclosure despite witnessing water leaking from the skylight onto the floor and being aware of repairs to the roof, skylight, and interior drywall prior to the sale of the property.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of Derek J. Lindenschmidt of Higgins, Hopkins, McClain & Roswell, LLP. Mr. Lindenschmidt can be contacted at lindenschmidt@hhmrlaw.com

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Construction Company Head Pleads Guilty to Insurance and Tax Fraud

December 20, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
The former head of Orients Construction Company and of Melrose Construciton Company, Herlindo Garcia-Merlos, has entered a guilty plea to charges that the gave false informoation to his insurer, New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Group, for more than three years in order to lower his workers compensation payments. Mr. Garcia-Merlos was able to underpay by more than $315,000 as a result of this deception. Mr. Garcia-Merlos additionally failed to file tax returns for his companies and underreported his wages on his own tax returns. The State of New Jersey is seeking an eight-year prison term and restitution of more than $400,000. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

NTSB Sheds Light on Fatal Baltimore Work Zone Crash

April 25, 2023 — Justin Rice - Engineering News-Record
The National Transportation Safety Board recently released conclusions of a preliminary investigation into a March 22 crash that killed six construction workers when an errant car sped through a work zone along the Interstate-695 Beltway in Baltimore. Reprinted courtesy of Justin Rice, Engineering News-Record Mr. Rice may be contacted at ricej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

California Supreme Court Holds “Notice-Prejudice” Rule is “Fundamental Public Policy” of California, May Override Choice of Law Provisions in Policies

November 12, 2019 — Anthony L. Miscioscia & Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLP
On August 29, 2019, in Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2019 Cal. LEXIS 6240, the California Supreme Court held that, in the insurance context, the common law “notice-prejudice” rule is a “fundamental public policy” of the State of California for purposes of choice of law analysis. Thus, even though the policy in Pitzer had a choice of law provision requiring application of New York law – which does not require an insurer to prove prejudice for late notice of claims under policies delivered outside of New York – that provision can be overridden by California’s public policy of requiring insurers to prove prejudice after late notice of a claim. The Supreme Court in Pitzer also held that the notice-prejudice rule “generally applies to consent provisions in the context of first party liability policy coverage,” but not to consent provisions in the third-party liability policy context. The Pitzer case arose from a discovery of polluted soil at Pitzer College during a dormitory construction project. Facing pressure to finish the project by the start of the next school term, Pitzer officials took steps to remediate the polluted soil at a cost of $2 million. When Pitzer notified its insurer of the remediation, and made a claim for the attendant costs, the insurer “denied coverage based on Pitzer’s failure to give notice as soon as practicable and its failure to obtain [the insurer’s] consent before commencing the remediation process.” The Supreme Court observed that Pitzer did not inform its insurer of the remediation until “three months after it completed remediation and six months after it discovered the darkened soils.” In response to the denial of coverage, Pitzer sued the insurer in California state court, the insurer removed the action to federal court and the insurer moved for summary judgment “claiming that it had no obligation to indemnify Pitzer for remediation costs because Pitzer had violated the Policy’s notice and consent provisions.” Reprinted courtesy of Timothy Carroll, White and Williams and Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

No Indemnity After Insured Settles Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability Claims

June 09, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Applying Illinois law, the federal district court ruled that there was no coverage for the insured's settlement of claims based upon breach of the implied warranty of habitability. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Metro North Condo. Ass'n, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43452 (E.D. Ill. March 31, 2016). Metro North sued the developer of its condominium and a number of its contractors and subcontractors for defective construction that caused various problems, including water infiltration. One subcontractor, CSC, was to provide window and glazing services. After a rainstorm, water infiltrated the project due to CSC's work. Metro North claimed that CSC was liable for breach of the implied warranty of habitability. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---