Tort Claims Against an Alter Ego May Be Considered an Action “On a Contract” for the Purposes of an Attorneys’ Fees Award under California Civil Code section 1717
April 12, 2021 —
Tony Carucci - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogCalifornia Civil Code section 1717 entitles the prevailing party to attorneys’ fees “[i]n any action on a contract,” where the contract provides for an award of attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party, regardless of whether the prevailing party is the party specified in the contract or not. But what about an action that alleges tort causes of action against an alter ego of a contracting party but that does not include a breach of contract claim against the alter ego? This was the question facing the California Court of Appeal in 347 Group, Inc. v. Philip Hawkins Architect, Inc. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 209.
In that case, the plaintiff 347 Group sued and obtained a default judgment for breach of contract against defendant Philip Hawkins Architect, Inc. Id. at 211–12. 347 Group had also sued Philip Hawkins individually as well as Design-Build, Inc., the company Hawkins founded after putting Philip Hawkins Architect, Inc. into bankruptcy. Id. at 212. 347 Group originally alleged claims for breach of contract, fraudulent conveyance, and conspiracy against Hawkins and Design-Build, seeking to establish that Hawkins and Design-Build were the alter egos of the contracting party, Philip Hawkins Architect, Inc., but later dismissed the breach of contract claim. Id. Hawkins and Design-Build eventually prevailed on the tort causes of action, and moved for attorneys’ fees. Id.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tony Carucci, Snell & WilmerMr. Carucci may be contacted at
acarucci@swlaw.com
Builders Beware: A New Class Of Defendants In Asbestos Lawsuits
January 06, 2016 —
David J. Byassee, Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP & Timothy A. Gravitt, Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld, LLPResidential, commercial and industrial builders face new and potentially significant liability for construction activities that took place in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s: personal injury lawsuits filed by construction workers from exposure to building products containing asbestos. After emptying the pockets of manufacturers and suppliers of raw asbestos and asbestos-containing products over the last 20 years, plaintiff lawyers are beginning to set their sights on a new class of defendants in asbestos litigation: residential, commercial and industrial builders who unknowingly allowed asbestos-containing products to be incorporated into their projects.
The men and women who have been involved in the building industry for 40 years or more may remember the subject of asbestos surfacing in the 1970s with the enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). At that point builders were just beginning to learn that asbestos was a component of some building materials, and the potential risk of cancer presented by asbestos was being debated in scientific and medical journals. Although the use of building materials containing asbestos was mostly phased out by the 1980s, the health risks associated with exposure to asbestos continue – and in fact increase – for the duration of an exposed person’s life.
Today it is generally accepted that exposure to asbestos increases the risk of developing asbestosis and certain kinds of cancer, including mesothelioma. Cancers associated with exposure to asbestos are typically diagnosed at least 15 years (and sometimes up to 50 years) after a person’s exposure to asbestos, meaning that exposures in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s might not manifest in disease until now. The class of persons who may be at risk for asbestos-related disease is long and varied: insulators, HVAC installers, pipe fitters, plumbers, drywall installers, painters, plasterers and roofers, to name a few. Long-term exposure history, coupled with the theory that “each and every” exposure during a lifetime is a substantial factor increasing the risk of developing cancer, presents potential liability to builders acting as general contractors and/or property owners, as well as the usual defendants in asbestos lawsuits, which include manufacturers, suppliers, and users of asbestos-containing materials.
In recent years, plaintiff lawyers have set their sights on builders as the financial wherewithal of traditional asbestos defendants has dried up. Plaintiff lawyers have created a new theory of liability which they use to rope builders in as defendants in asbestos lawsuits: that the builder knew – or should have known – that a deadly ingredient (asbestos) was contained in the building materials used in construction, and the builder failed to warn its subcontractors or anyone else on the project that exposure to asbestos could harm them.
Builders have unique legal defenses to claims brought by employees of subcontractors who have developed asbestos-related disease. For example, the California Supreme Court in Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, held that an injured employee of a subcontractor cannot maintain a claim against the hirer (builder) for the employee’s injury absent affirmative contribution on the part of the builder to the injury. Thus the first line of defense in an asbestos exposure case is to argue that the developer had no direct role in the plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos and therefore the Privette doctrine precludes the plaintiff from suing the builder. But resourceful plaintiff lawyers are coming up with arguments to get around this so-called Privette defense in asbestos lawsuits by claiming that builders’ activities such as cleanup of asbestos-containing materials, or assertion of control over the work of the subcontractor, directly contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries and therefore provide exceptions to Privette and allow the claim to proceed.
A practical question is raised in asbestos cases: How is a plaintiff able to prove, decades after working on a project, what building materials contained asbestos, or that a builder knew or should have known in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s that asbestos-containing materials were used on their project, or that asbestos presented a health risk? To answer the first part of the question (what building materials contained asbestos), plaintiff’s experts will say that during the relevant timeframe asbestos was a common ingredient in many building products, e.g., drywall joint compounds, stucco/plaster/gun cement, acoustic ceiling products, cement pipe, insulation, roofing mastic, caulk and plumber’s putty; this can be further proven by reference to product manufacturers’ disclosures made pursuant to the Asbestos Information Act. Also, through the decades of asbestos litigation against product manufacturers and suppliers, resourceful plaintiff lawyers have developed vast banks of data and documentation identifying the manufacturers of asbestos-containing building products, the end-users of those products, and the projects where those products were supplied. With this bank of knowledge, all that is necessary for them to make the claim against a builder is to have the plaintiff identify a construction project where he or she remembers working during the relevant timeframe. Once that identification is made, it is a simple matter for the lawyers to dig and find out who developed the building/project, who then becomes a defendant in an asbestos lawsuit.
The answer to the second part of the question (whether the developer knew or should have known that the products brought to their projects contained asbestos) requires a detailed investigation into the dates at which the products were supplied to the project, the manufacturer of the product, and what information was available in the market place about the material content of the particular product.
The answer to the third part of the question (knowledge that asbestos presented a health risk) is trickier. One of the first standards set by OSHA in 1972 related to permissible levels of exposure to asbestos. It is a common tactic for plaintiff lawyers to argue that the existence of OSHA standards created a presumption of knowledge in the building industry about the dangers of asbestos. But what about pre-OSHA knowledge? Here plaintiff lawyers will argue that well before OSHA, going back as far as 1936, exposure to asbestos was regulated in California under General Industry Safety Orders relating to Dusts, Fumes, Mists, Vapors and Gases. They argue that the General Industry Safety Orders put builders “on notice” of the dangers of asbestos by virtue of being regulated by the State of California, and, by extension, builders had “knowledge” of the health risks associated with asbestos.
There are defenses that skilled defense counsel can utilize to defeat asbestos claims, assuming the Privette defense is not available. The first is to thoroughly investigate and evaluate all of the plaintiff’s potential exposures to asbestos throughout his entire lifetime, and identify those sources that likely were the major contributors to his disease. Next, counsel has to properly investigate the project at which the plaintiff is alleged to have been exposed to asbestos, identify all of the possible sources of exposure, i.e., the products that were used or might have been used at the project, and finally how the plaintiff was allegedly exposed at the project. As most builders do not maintain records of what products were used in their projects dating back 15 years or more, let alone the identities of the trades that worked on the projects, knowledgeable defense counsel can be a valuable partner in unearthing the brands of products typically in use in the locale where the construction took place, and identifying the manufacturers of those products. Defense counsel must analyze the frequency, duration, proximity and intensity of the exposure, as well as the type of asbestos the plaintiff was allegedly exposed to (not all asbestos is created equal – some types are more toxic than others). This will involve careful evaluation of the levels of exposure created by the alleged activity of the builder, to determine, through experts and a thorough understanding of the scientific and medical studies on the subject, whether the levels of asbestos exposure created by the activity could be considered a “substantial factor” in contributing to the risk of the plaintiff’s development of his asbestos-related disease.
Asbestos lawsuits present a significant risk to the unsuspecting and unprepared builder. Money damages available to a plaintiff are substantial. Medical expenses for treatment of asbestos-related disease typically run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, lost income (including retirement benefits) can also be significant, and jury awards for pain, suffering and emotional distress can be staggering - often millions of dollars. In some cases punitive damages are even awarded.
The bottom line is that a builder runs a big risk if it treats an asbestos claim like any other claim. The level of analysis and investigation to properly defend against the claim requires prompt action by knowledgeable counsel, and frequently there is no insurance coverage.
David J. Byassee is an attorney with the firm
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP, and is a litigator who has devoted nearly a decade to representation of real estate developers and builders. He can be reached at: dbyassee@bremerwhyte.com.
Timothy A. Gravitt is an attorney with the firm
Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld, LLP who is devoted to defending real estate developers and builders in a variety of litigation. He can be reached at: tgravitt@ulichlaw.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Safeguarding the U.S. Construction Industry from Unfair Competition Abroad
November 07, 2022 —
Ric Macchiaroli - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogIn April 2015, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issued an exclusion order prohibiting the importation of certain foreign-made crawler cranes into the United States for a period of at least 10 years. That order was the result of a 20-month investigation by the ITC, initiated by a Wisconsin-based crane manufacturer based on allegations of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation by a China-based company. Defined by powerful injunctive remedies, unique rules, and a lightning-fast docket, the ITC can help protect American industry from unfair acts in the importation of articles into the United States. This post explores the traits that make the ITC an attractive venue for potential complainants.
ITC Site Plan
The ITC is a specialized trade court located in Washington, D.C., that has broad authority to investigate and remedy unfair trade practices. One of the ITC’s primary functions is to conduct unfair import investigations, also known as “section 337” investigations, after the authorizing statute. A section 337 investigation can be instituted based on any number of unfair acts, including, but not limited to, patent infringement (utility and design), registered and common law trademark infringement, copyright infringement (including violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act), trade dress infringement, and trade secret misappropriation. Business torts such as passing off, false advertising, and tortious interference with business relations have also formed the bases of investigations.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ric Macchiaroli, PillsburyMr. Macchiaroli may be contacted at
ric.macchiaroli@pillsburylaw.com
COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims Four Years Later: What Have We Learned?
September 23, 2024 —
Patrick McKnight - The Dispute ResolverFour and half years ago the COVID-19 pandemic spread around the globe, bringing with it interesting, but challenging, legal problems for construction attorneys. Construction projects ground to a halt. Ever-changing guidance from authorities ranging from the U.S. Department of Labor to local health authorities resulted in a web of evolving obligations for general contractors and subs alike. One of the most closely watched legal questions was the wave of business interruption claims filed by plaintiffs, many of whom owned businesses impacted by government shutdowns. During the opening months of the pandemic, I
noted that hundreds of business interruption claims had been filed by insureds across the country. At that time, the only thing certain was that although the outcome remained unknown, virus exclusions were likely to become more likely in the future. Needless to say, much has happened since early 2020.
What does the data say about the outcome of business interruption claims?
In sum, plaintiffs have had an uphill battle. A helpful resource for analyzing the outcome of business interruption suits is the
Covid Coverage Litigation Tracker (“Tracker”), an insurance law analytics tool offered by Penn Carey Law of the University of Pennsylvania. According to its website, “[t]he Covid Coverage Litigation Tracker is a multi-sourced database and dashboard through which to view the unfolding insurance litigation arising out of the pandemic in federal and state courts. Widely cited in briefs, judicial opinions, and the press, the tracker also serves as a proof of concept for new methods to identify, track, and understand emerging case congregations in real time.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick McKnight, Fox Rothschild LLPMr. McKnight may be contacted at
pmcknight@foxrothschild.com
A Vision and Strategy for the Adoption of Open International Standards
November 18, 2019 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessThe final report of RASTI is now available in English. The project outlined a national vision and strategy for the adoption of open international standards in the real estate and construction industries. The Finnish version includes several appendices.
One of the frameworks that RASTI devised was a built environment life-cycle process map. It is derived from the model of Antti Autio of the Ministry of the Environment.
The map presents the processes of the four “lanes”: the customer’s/users value creation processes, public sector processes, information work, and production. Ideally, data and information flow across the processes, using open standards.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
U.S., Canada, Mexico Set New Joint Clean-Energy Goal
June 30, 2016 —
Tom Ichniowski – Engineering News-RecordThe U.S., Canada and Mexico have agreed to boost their combined clean-energy generation to 50% of electricity production by 2025, from 37% last year.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-RecordMr. Ichniowski may be contacted at
ichniowskit@enr.com
Shimmick Gets Nod for Second Pilot Pile at Settling Millennium Tower
December 13, 2021 —
Nadine M. Post - Engineering News-RecordAfter the successful installation of a 24-in.-dia permanent pilot pile at the troubled foundation upgrade of the settling Millennium Tower in San Francisco, the Dept. of Building Inspection (DBI) has given Shimmick Construction Co. permission to install a second pilot pile, beginning Dec. 1.
Reprinted courtesy of
Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Unlicensed Contractors Caught in a Sting Operation
March 19, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFSeven suspects were cited for contracting without a license after being caught by the Contractors State License Board (CSLB), reported CBS local news, and eighty-five people may face criminal charges. The undercover sting operations occurred over a two day period in Rancho Mirage, California. A hearing is scheduled for June 3rd at Riverside County Superior Court.
CSLB Registrar Cindi A. Christenson told CBS, “Several of the suspects we targeted turned out to be repeat offenders and individuals with a criminal history and drug violations. If you knew their backgrounds, you'd never allow them near your home or family."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
