James R. Lynch Appointed to the Washington State Capital Project Review Committee
June 22, 2016 —
Ahlers & Cressman Crew - Ahlers & Cressman Construction Law BlogJames R. Lynch, one of the attorneys at the law firm of Ahlers & Cressman PLLC, has been appointed to the Washington State Capital Project Review Committee (PRC). Created by the legislature in 2007, the PRC is responsible for reviewing and approving all public projects in the State of Washington using the General Contractor/Construction Manager (GC/CM) and Design-Build (D-B) delivery methods of construction. The PRC also certifies certain qualified government bodies to use these methods more broadly. The PRC consists of key representatives of Washington public project owners, designers, general contractors, specialty/subcontractors, construction managers, construction trades labor, and minority/women businesses. James has been appointed to the PRC’s Private Sector seat for a three-year term.
You may learn more about Ahlers & Cressman PLLC at www.ac-lawyers.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Contractors Must Register with the L&I Prior to Offering or Performing Work, or Risk Having their Breach of Contract Case Dismissed
March 27, 2023 —
Jill Guingcangco - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCThe Washington State Legislature has an interest in protecting the public from “unreliable, fraudulent, financially irresponsible, or incompetent contractors” (RCW 18.27.140), which is why contractors are required to register with the Department of Labor and Industries (“L&I”) before advertising, offering to do work, or performing any work as a contractor. RCW 18.27.020. Accordingly, if a contractor brings an action for the collection of compensation or sues for breach of contract for work they performed, that individual is required to allege and prove that, at the time they performed the work, they were a registered contractor. RCW 18.27.080.
In
Dobson v. Archibald,1 Dobson worked as a longshoreman, but also simultaneously performed home repair work for pay during her off time. Dobson never registered as a contractor with L&I. Dobson acquired customers for her home repair work through a referral process. Dobson was referred to Archibald through a mutual friend who Dobson performed some home repair work for. Archibald subsequently hired Dobson to refinish the hardwood floors in Archibald’s home.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jill Guingcangco, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMs. Guingcangco may be contacted at
jill.guingcangco@acslawyers.com
EPA Fines Ivory Homes for Storm Water Pollution
June 26, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF“Utah’s largest home builder [Ivory Homes] has agreed to a $250,000 fine and to take several steps…to comply with Clean Water Act requirements to control pollution associated with storm-water runoff from construction sites,” reported The Salt Lake Tribune.
David Broadbent, Ivory Homes’ chief operating officer, stated in an email to The Salt Lake Tribune: “We are proud of our environmental record, particularly our storm-water compliance record. We are the first and the only home builder in Utah to implement a robust, companywide program to safeguard against sediment from entering Utah waters as a result of home-building activities.” Furthermore, Broadbent declared that the “inspections that led to the violations notices” did not yield any evidence that their “home-building practices resulted in any sediment discharge in any amount, let alone harm, to Utah waters.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Significant Victory for the Building Industry: Liberty Mutual is Rejected Once Again, This Time by the Third Appellate District in Holding SB800 is the Exclusive Remedy
December 15, 2016 —
Richard H. Glucksman & Ravi R. Mehta – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Bulletin I. Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court (Certified for Publication, Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016
The California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District recently elaborated on the scope of the Right to Repair Act, commonly known as SB-800 (“Act”). In
Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (Kevin Hicks, et al.) (certified for publication, Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016), the Court considered whether the Act (and specifically the Act’s pre-litigation procedure) applies, when homeowners plead construction defect claims based only on common law causes of action, as opposed to violations of the building standards set forth in the Act (
Civil Code §896). The Court answered this question affirmatively.
The homeowners of seventeen (17) single-family homes filed a Complaint against the builder of their homes, Elliott Homes, Inc. (“Elliott”), alleging common law causes of action for construction defects. Elliott filed a motion to stay the litigation on the ground that the homeowners failed to comply with the pre-litigation procedure set forth in the Act. The trial court denied the motion, agreeing with the homeowners that this pre-litigation procedure did not apply because the homeowners had not alleged a statutory violation of the Act. Elliott appealed. The Court of Appeal purely considered the question of whether the Act, including its pre-litigation procedure, applies when a homeowner pleads construction defect claims based on common law causes of action, and not on statutory violations of the Act’s building standards.
To answer this question, the Court analyzed a recent case decided by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District:
Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98. In this subrogation case, a builder’s insurer asserted common law causes of action (but not statutory building standard violations) alleging construction defects against the builder to recover amounts paid to the homeowner after a sprinkler system failure caused extensive damage to the subject property. The trial court sustained the builder’s demurrer to the Complaint on the ground that it was time-barred under the Act. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order, holding that common law construction defect claims arising from actual damages are not covered by the Act because “the Act does not provide the exclusive remedy in cases where actual damage has occurred.” (
Liberty Mutual, 219 Cal.App.4th 98, 109).
The
Elliott Court declined to follow
Liberty Mutual, finding that that Court failed to properly analyze the language of the Act. The
Elliott Court analyzed both the statutory scheme and the legislative history of the Act to arrive at the conclusion that common law causes of action for construction defects do indeed fall within the purview of the Act.
According to the
Elliott Court, the Act “broadly applies to
any action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in…residential construction and in such an action, a homeowner’s claims or causes of action shall be limited to violation of the standards set forth in the Act, except as specified.” Further, the Act expressly provides that “no other cause of action for a claim covered by this title or for damages recoverable under Section 944 is allowed.”
Civil Code §943(a). In turn,
Civil Code §944 allows for a recovery for the cost of repairing a building standard violation, or for the cost of repairing any damage caused by such a violation, among other things.
The limited exceptions to the Act’s applicability concern the enforcement of a contract, or any action for fraud, personal injury, or violation of a statute. Civil Code §943(a). Additionally, the Act does not apply to condominium conversions. Civil Code §896.
The Elliott Court explains that apart from these exceptions, the Legislature intended the Act to apply to all construction defect claims (regardless of damage) relating to the construction of residential properties whose sales contracts are signed after January 1, 2003. There is no exception in the Act, express or implied, for common law causes of action.
Next, the Court turns to the Act’s legislative history to buttress this conclusion. This history makes clear that the Act is a legislative response to the California Supreme Court’s holding in
Aas v. Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal.4th 627, that construction defects in residential properties are only actionable in tort when actual property damage manifests. Senate Judiciary Committee hearings indicate that the Act was the product of protracted negotiations between varying interested parties, including construction industry trade groups and consumer protection groups. The Legislature intended (1) to promulgate building standards, violations of which would be actionable, even without damage, and (2) to allow homeowners to recover for actual damage caused by construction defects not covered by the building standards. In other words, the Act was intended to provide homeowners redress regardless of whether damage had manifested.
Therefore, the Court concluded that common law causes of action for construction defects, regardless of damage, are subject to the pre-litigation procedure set forth in the Act. The Court issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its earlier order, and to enter a new order granting Elliott’s motion to stay the litigation until the homeowners (and Elliott) have satisfied the pre-litigation procedure of the Act.
II. McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132
Similar to the Third Appellate District Court’s ruling in
Elliott, the Fifth Appellate District Court also rejected the holding of
Liberty Mutual in a matter now pending before the California Supreme Court:
McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132 (review granted and opinion superseded sub nom.
Albany v. Superior Court 360 P.3d 1022). Also similar to
Elliott, in
McMillin a group of homeowners filed common law construction defect claims against the builder of their homes. The builder,
McMillin, moved to stay the litigation pending compliance with the Act’s pre-litigation procedure. The trial court denied the motion, holding that the Act does not apply because the homeowners have not asserted statutory building standard violations contained within the Act.
In reasoning substantially similar to that of
Elliott, the
McMillin Court rejected Liberty Mutual’s holding that the Act is not the exclusive remedy for pursuing construction defect claims, with or without damage. Thus, the
McMillin Court issued a writ of mandate to vacate the trial court’s earlier order and to enter a new order granting McMillin’s motion to stay.
On November 24, 2015, the California Supreme Court granted the homeowners’ petition for review. In August of 2016, briefing was completed and the matter is now awaiting the scheduling of arguments. CGDRB will continue to closely monitor the pending appeal of this matter to the California Supreme Court, as well as all related developments.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Ravi R. Mehta, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Mehta may be contacted at rmehta@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Courts Take Another Swipe at the Implied Warranty of the Plans and Specifications
December 15, 2016 —
John P. Ahlers – Ahlers & Cressman PLLCImplied warranties are warranties created by law, legislation, or courts. In the construction industry, one of the most prominent implied warranties is that owners who provide plans and specifications to their contractors impliedly warrant the adequacy of their plans and specifications.[i] That implied warranty had its beginning in the 1918 US Supreme Court decision of U.S. v. Spearin[ii] and is, therefore, popularly known as the Spearin Doctrine. Under the Spearin Doctrine, if the contractor completes the work in accordance with the owner’s plans and specifications, but there is a deficiency or failure, the owner, not the contractor, is responsible. When the owner breaches its implied warranty, in most instances, the contractor is entitled to additional compensation for extra work performed, delays experienced, and other additional expense or loss occasioned by the warranty breach. A recent case demonstrates that this implied warranty is not “immunity.” The contractor must still act reasonably and diligently, particularly when the contract provisions so require.
In the recent Fifth Circuit case of Dallas/Ft. Worth International Airport v. INet Airport Systems,[iii] the court, despite the implied warranty that existed, did not grant the contractor summary judgment on claims involving admitted plan deficiencies, since factual issues existed regarding the contractor’s cooperation and participation in the solution to the defects.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John P. Ahlers, Ahlers & Cressman, PLLCMr. Ahlers may be contacted at
jahlers@ac-lawyers.com
Vietnam Expands Arrests in Coffee Region Property Probe
February 19, 2024 —
Mai Ngoc Chau - BloombergVietnam authorities detained the Communist Party chief of coffee-producing province Lam Dong as they expand an investigation into alleged bribery tied to a tourist and residential project, the public security ministry said in a website statement.
Party chief Tran Duc Quan was arrested for allegedly abusing his power and position, according to the statement. Quan allegedly violated the law while giving instructions to the Dai Ninh property project in the province, causing severe consequences, it said.
A Lam Dong Provincial Party Committee representative declined to provide a comment about the arrest. A representative for Quan was not available.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mai Ngoc Chau, Bloomberg
Hollywood Legend Betty Grable’s Former Home for Sale
June 30, 2014 —
Catherine Sherman – BloombergWhen it comes to Old Hollywood stars, Betty Grable was “the girl with the million-dollar legs.” She also lived in a million-dollar home just four blocks from the Hotel Bel-Air.
Located at 1280 Stone Canyon Rd, the house is currently on the market for $13.295 million.
“It’s a classic, Hollywood estate,” said listing agent Bjorn Farrugia of Hilton & Hyland. “It’s very picturesque — set back on one of the best streets in Bel-Air.”
Grable moved in after the home was built in 1937, the same year she married actor Jackie Coogan (aka “Uncle Fester” in the 1960s sitcom The Addams Family). Soon after, in 1939, the couple appeared in “Million Dollar Legs,” a movie giving rise to the actress’ nickname.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Catherine Sherman – Bloomberg
Contractors Can No Longer Make Roof Repairs Following Their Own Inspections
July 02, 2018 —
Jason Feld & Alex Chazen - Kahana & Feld LLPCalifornia law mandates that any person who conducts roof inspections for a fee can no longer effectuate the actual repairs to the same property. Effective January 1, 2018, Business & Professions Code Section 7197 (Unfair Business Practices) deems it to be an unfair business practice for a home inspector who charges a homeowner a monetary fee for inspecting the property, to perform or offer to perform additional repairs due to the inherent financial interest and conflict raised by identifying alleged defects necessitating repairs. The new law is a result of California AB 1357, which was signed into law on October 5, 2017. The goal of the new law is to disincentivize a roof inspector from creating a report for the sole purpose of obtaining a bid to perform those documented repairs. The roof contractor can perform repairs identified in their report only after a twelve month “cooling period” which provides the homeowner an opportunity to obtain multiple bids/estimates for repairs based upon the inspector’s report. The new law also discourages home inspectors from providing a list of contractors who provide monetary referral fees back to the home inspector upon receiving repair work from the homeowner based exclusively on the home inspection report.
The California Business & Professions Code Section 7195(a)(1) defines a “home inspection” as a “non-invasive, physical examination, performed for a fee in connection with the transfer…of the real property…or essential components of the residential dwelling.” Home inspection includes “any consultation regarding the property that is represented to be a home inspection or any confusingly similar term.” Business & Professions Code section 7195(a)(2) further defines a “home inspection” as including energy efficiency and solar. A “home inspection report” is a written report prepared for a fee issued after an inspection. Business & Professions Code section 7195(c). It is noted that a home inspector does not have to be a licensed architect, professional engineer, or general contractor with a Class “B” license issued by the California Contractors State License Board, but “it is the duty of a home inspector who is not licensed as a general contractor, structural pest control operator, or architect, or registered as a professional engineer to conduct a home inspection with the degree of care that a reasonably prudent home inspector would exercise. Business & Professions Code section 7196.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Feld, Kahana & Feld LLP and
Alex Chazen, Kahana & Feld LLP
Mr. Feld may be contacted at jfeld@kahanalaw.com
Mr. Chazen may be contacted at achazen@kahanafeld.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
