Don’t Conspire to Build a Home…Wait…What?
June 08, 2020 —
Ben Volpe - Colorado Construction Litigation BlogIn 1986, the Colorado General Assembly enacted the Pro Rata Liability Act, codified at C.R.S. § 13-21-111.5, which eliminated joint and several liability for defendants in favor of pro rata liability.[1] The statute was “designed to avoid holding defendants liable for an amount of compensatory damages reflecting more than their respective degrees of fault.”[2] However, the following year, the Colorado legislature carved out an exception to preserve joint liability for persons “who consciously conspire and deliberately pursue a common plan or design to commit a tortious act.”[3] Because of this conspiracy exception, plaintiffs try to circumvent the general rule against joint and several liability by arguing that construction professionals defending construction defect cases were acting in concert, as co-conspirators. Plaintiffs argue that if they can prove that two or more construction professionals consciously conspired and deliberately pursued a common plan or design, i.e., to build a home or residential community, and such a plan results in the commission of a tort, i.e., negligence, the defendants may be held jointly and severally liable for all of the damages awarded.
Since 1986, Colorado courts have construed the “conspiracy” provision in § 13-21-111.5(4), but some have disagreed as to what constitutes a conspiracy for purposes of imposing joint liability.
Civil Conspiracy
In Colorado, the elements of civil conspiracy are that: “(1) two or more persons; (2) come to a meeting of the minds; (3) on an object to be accomplished or a course of action to be followed; (4) and one or more overt unlawful acts are performed; (5) with damages as the proximate result thereof.”[4]
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Benjamin Volpe, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. Volpe may be contacted at
volpe@hhmrlaw.com
The Hidden Dangers of Construction Defect Litigation: A Redux
January 17, 2013 —
David McLain, Higgings, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCI previously wrote an article entitled “The Hidden Dangers of Construction Defect Litigation” for the Common Interests magazine, the monthly periodical of the Rocky Mountain Chapter of the Community Associations Institute. In that article, I discussed the potential negative effects of homeowners associations bringing construction defect suits as anything other than a last resort. The purpose of this post is to bring to light, by way of a real life example, the problems discussed in my previous article.
I have recently seen a lawsuit filed by an individual homeowner within a common interest community against the homeowners association, its management company, and the attorneys retained by the association to represent it in a construction defect lawsuit against the original developer, general contractor, and one of the design professionals. In his suit, the homeowner complains that the association’s construction defect attorneys “neglected to amend [their] complaint to include only and specifically the claims for damages for those properties, those buildings or condominium units, either by owner or specific locations, which had sustained damages or had faulty construction for which damages were being sought.” As a result of claiming damages throughout the entire community, the homeowner alleged that the entire community was tarred “with the black brush of litigation.”
As the homeowner explained in his complaint, he purchased a condominium for his daughter-in-law when she moved to Colorado to care for him after the death of his wife.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLainMr. McLain can be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
BHA Announces New Orlando Location
September 30, 2019 —
Donald MacGregor - Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc., one of the country’s leading construction forensics and consulting firms has just announced the opening of their second Florida office. Located in Orlando, this new office will join BHA’s existing Miami location, expanding BHA’s presence in the state and increasing the firm’s ability to provide the highest level of services and logistic support to their clients in Central and North Florida, and in particular, the Orlando, Tampa, Jacksonville and Tallahassee markets.
Since 1993, BHA has been an industry leader in providing construction consulting and forensic services and has been a trusted partner with builders and insurance carriers, both large and small, across the United States. In Florida, BHA has been providing construction defect, storm, and general construction-claims related forensic expert services for the past decade with a proven track record of successful results.
With the addition of new offices in Orlando, Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc. offers the experience of over 20 years of service to carriers, defense counsel, and insurance professionals as designated experts in over 7,000 claims. BHA’s staff encompasses a broad range of Florida-licensed and credentialed experts in the areas of general contracting and specialty trades, as well as architects, and both civil and structural engineers, and has provided services on behalf of carriers, developers, general contractors and sub-contractors alike.
BHA’s new Orlando office is located in the Regions Bank Tower, 111 North Orange Avenue, Suite 800, Orlando FL, 32801.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Donald MacGregor, Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.Mr. MacGregor may be contacted at
donm@berthowe.com
Agree First or it May Cost You Later
May 08, 2023 —
Bill Wilson - Construction Law ZoneBusiness relationships often begin before parties execute a written agreement containing the terms and conditions by which the relationship will be governed. With little more than a Letter of Intent (“LOI”) or Letter of Award (“LOA”) one party is typically pressured to begin investing time and money to start preliminary work on a project. If such LOI or LOA contains nothing more than an agreement to agree later, the performing party should minimize its investment until the later agreement is executed. A recent court decision in New York confirmed the danger to the performing party under “agreement to agree” provisions.
In Permasteelia North America Corp. v. JDS Const. Group, LLC, 2022 WL 2954131 (N.Y. Sup. CT. 7/22/22), the plaintiff subcontractor allegedly performed $1.9 million worth of preliminary work under nothing more than a LOA with an agreement to agree provision. Issues arose, and the parties never entered any later written agreement. The general contractor refused to pay the plaintiff anything for its preliminary work. In response, the plaintiff filed suit against the general contractor asserting four counts: foreclosure of its lien, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and account stated. All four counts were based on an alleged oral “handshake deal” for subcontract work for the project. The general contractor’s LOA stated that neither party would be bound “unless and until the parties actually execute a subcontract.” During discovery, the plaintiff admitted that neither party intended to enter into any contract until its potential terms were negotiated, reduced to writing, and signed. Moreover, the plaintiff only offered one set of meeting minutes and a few project agendas to support its alleged “handshake deal.” Once these necessary undisputed facts were confirmed, the defendant moved for summary judgment on all four counts.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLPMr. Wilson may be contacted at
wwilson@rc.com
The Colorado Supreme Court holds that loans made to a construction company are not subject to the Mechanic’s Lien Trust Fund Statute
February 21, 2013 —
W. Berkeley Mann, Jr. — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCIn a prior blog post, we summarized the Court of Appeals decision in the case of AC Excavating, Inc. v. Yale, ___ P. 3d. ___, 2010 WL 3432219 (Colo. App. Sept. 2, 2010) which provided an interpretation of the Colorado Mechanic’s Lien Trust Fund Statute, C.R.S. § 38-22-127 (hereafter “the Trust Fund Statute”). A divided Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, and held that capital loans infused into a limited liability company which performed construction could be subject to the provisions of the Trust Fund Statute.
The Court of Appeals reasoned that this determination was necessary because the statute was considered applicable to “all funds disbursed on a construction project.” Additionally, the Court of Appeals held that the intent of the provider of funds was not relevant, and that the statute applied “irrespective of the [originator of the funds]’s intended use of the funds.”
This decision was reviewed by the Colorado Supreme Court in an opinion released on February 4, 2013, and it reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision. See, Yale v. AC Excavating, Inc., ___ P. 3d. ___, 2013 WL 441895 (Colo. Feb. 4, 2013). The Supreme Court strongly disagreed that loaned or infused capital funds which were obtained by the general contractor entity were “funds disbursed on a construction project,” simply because some of the infused monies were used for operational purposes to pay down specific project obligations.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
W. Berkeley Mann, Jr.mann@hlmrlaw.com
Ninth Circuit Court Weighs In On Insurance Coverage For COVID-19 Business Interruption Losses
October 11, 2021 —
Rondi J. Walsh - Newmeyer DillionOn October 1, 2021, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on a trio of cases involving COVID-19 business interruption losses, in a series of written opinions with results favoring the insurers. Despite the slate of wins for insurers in this round of cases, these rulings are limited to cases where policyholders either did not allege the presence of COVID-19 on their premises causing “physical alteration” of the property itself, or had a virus exclusion in their policy, or both. This leaves room for future cases potentially ruling in favor of coverage where the insureds allege the presence of coronavirus on the premises, and that there was a detrimental physical alteration of the property as a result. To date, the Ninth Circuit has not ruled on such a situation.
RULING 1: Mudpie v. Travelers Casualty Insurance Co. of America
The Ninth Circuit first considered a proposed class action brought by a children’s store operator, Mudpie. Mudpie sought business income and extra expense coverage from Travelers after California and local authorities issued shutdown orders impacting Mudpie’s operations due to COVID-19. (Mudpie, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America, Case No. 20-16858, --- F.4th --- (9th Cir. Oct. 1, 2021).) Travelers denied coverage, asserting that the claim did not involve “direct physical loss of or damage to” property “caused by or resulting from a covered Cause of Loss.” Travelers also denied coverage under language excluding “loss or damage caused by or resulting from any virus…that induces…physical distress, illness or disease.” Applying California law, the trial court agreed with Travelers on both accounts.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rondi J. Walsh, Newmeyer DillionMs. Walsh may be contacted at
rondi.walsh@ndlf.com
Architect Blamed for Crumbling Public School Playground
January 22, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe city School Construction Authority (SCA) in Staten Island, New York, wants Ennead Architects to pay them $1.4 million to repair the playground at the Jerome Parker Educational Complex, according to Silive.com. Ennead Architects, based out of Manhattan, designed the William J. Clinton Presidential Center, and is currently working on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Education Center in Washington, D. C. In the suit, as reported by Silive.com, SCA alleges, “the pavement has progressively cracked, buckled, become uneven and created pools of standing water, all presenting a safety hazard.” Silive.com stated that “an Ennead spokeswoman did not immediately return a telephone call” when asked to comment.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
DC Circuit Upholds EPA’s Latest RCRA Recycling Rule
September 23, 2019 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelOn July 2, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided the case of California Communities Against Toxics, et al. v. EPA. In this decision, the court rejected the latest petition to strike or vacate EPA’s 2018 revisions to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste recycling rules. In 1985, EPA promulgated a new regulatory definition of “solid waste,” which is the linchpin of the agency’s very stringent hazardous waste management rules. (See the rules located at 40 CFR Sections 260-268.) Unless a material is a “solid waste” as defined by the rules, it cannot also be a hazardous waste.
The 1985 rules grappled with the challenges posed by recycling practices, and attempted to distinguish between legitimate recycling which is not subject to hazardous waste regulation, and other more suspect forms of recycling. The rules are complex and replete with nuance. In doing so, EPA was adhering to RCRA’s statutory mandate that it develop appropriate rules to govern the treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste, while also promoting “properly conducted recycling and reuse.” The DC Circuit reviewed the 1985 rules in the seminal case of American Mining Congress v EPA, 824 F.2d 1177 (1987), (AMC) and stressed that only those materials that were truly discarded could be regulated as solid waste; for instance, those materials that were destined for immediate recycling or recovery in an ongoing production process were not discarded and hence were not solid waste. Over the years, the court has struggled to clarify the basic holding of AMC in numerous cases while EPA has frequently revised and amended the RCRA rules, and in particular the definition of solid waste, in an attempt to balance the policies mandated by the statute.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
