Consequential Damages From Subcontractor's Faulty Work Constitutes "Property Damage" and An "Occurrence"
September 03, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe New Jersey appellate court found that the unintended and unexpected consequential damages caused by the subcontractor's defective work constituted "property damage" and an "occurrence." Cypress Point Condo. Ass'n v. Adria Towers, L.L.C., 2015 WL 4111890 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. July 9, 2015).
The insured developer hired subcontractors to perform all of the construction work at a condominium project. The subcontractors failed to properly install the roof, flashing, gutters and leaders, brick and EIFS facade, windows, doors and sealants. The AOAO sued the developer, who served as the general contractor, its insurers, and various subcontractors.The AOAO conceded that replacement costs did not constitute "property damage" and an "occurrence" under the policy.
The faulty workmanship, however, also caused consequential damages to the common areas and unit owners' property, including damage to steel supports, exterior sheathing and interior sheathing and sheetrock, insulation and other interior areas of the building. Nevertheless, the trial judge determined there was no property damage or "occurrence", and granted summary judgment to the insurers.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Texas Shortens Cut-Off Date for Suits Against Homebuilders Who Provide a 6-Year Written Warranty
June 26, 2023 —
Kim Altsuler - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Summary of the new law as it pertains to builders of new homes:
The existing 10-year statute of repose for builders of new homes (the ultimate cut-off date for filing suit) has been shortened to 6 years if the builder provides a 1-2-6 written warranty (1-year workmanship and materials; 2-year plumbing, electrical and HVAC; 6-year structural).
Extended time to bring suit if written claim presented during the period of repose:
If a written claim for damages, contribution, or indemnity is presented to the builder during the applicable limitations period and the 6-year statute of repose applies, the time to sue is extended one year from the date the claim is presented. In practical effect, this means that if a written claim is presented and the statute of repose expires before suit is filed, suit may still be filed provided it is within one year of the date the written claim was made.
When the new law goes into effect:
The new law is effective as of June 9, 2023 and applies to suits commenced on or after that date. However, if the contract under which the claim is brought was entered into before June 9, 2023, the former 10-year version of the statute of repose applies. In other words, the statute applies to contracts entered into on or after June 9, 2023, if the contract has at least a 1-2-6 warranty.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kim Altsuler - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Ms. Altsuler may be contacted at
kaltsuler@pecklaw.com
World’s Biggest Crane Gets to Work at British Nuclear Plant
October 07, 2019 —
Jeremy Hodges - BloombergThe world’s largest crane is getting ready to hoist more than 700 of the heaviest pieces of the first new nuclear plant being built in Britain in decades.
The machine, affectionately known as “Big Carl” after an executive at Belgian owner Sarens NV, is in place at Electricite de France SA’s 19.6 billion-pound ($24.1 billion) Hinkley Point C project in southwest England. It can carry as much as 5,000 tons, or the same weight as 1,600 cars, in a single lift and arrived on 280 truck loads from Belgium. It has taken about three months to build.
Nuclear power makes up about a fifth of Britain’s electricity. Most of those plants are near the end of their lives and will close in the next decade. Replacing them won’t be easy—as the scale of the project shows.
Earlier this year, EDF poured 9,000 cubic meters of cement, the biggest single biggest pour of concrete ever recorded in Britain. It was reinforced by 5,000 tons of steel built into a nest 4 meters high that’ll serve as the base of the first new reactor in the U.K. since 1995.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jeremy Hodges, Bloomberg
Land Planners Not Held to Professional Standard of Care
October 10, 2013 —
Heather Anderson — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC.Recently, the Colorado Court of Appeals indicated that there is no professional duty of care applicable to land planners. See Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. v. Coleman Brothers Constr., LLC, 297 P.3d 1042 (Colo. App. 2013). Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. (“SCA”) agreed to provide land planning services to Coleman Brothers Construction, LLC (“Coleman”) for property referred to as Crown Mountain in a letter and then verbally agreed to provide a development analysis for another property, located on Emma Road in Basalt, Colorado. Thereafter, SCA sent letters to the defendant concerning the possible subdivision and development of the Emma Road property.
Approximately two years later, SCA sued Coleman for breach of the verbal agreement concerning the Emma Road property. Coleman then asserted counterclaims against SCA for negligently providing inaccurate advice about whether the Emma Road property could be subdivided and developed, and that the county had denied the planned unit development sketch plan SCA prepared and submitted on behalf of Coleman. The district court granted SCA’s motion for summary judgment thereby concluding that the economic loss rule barred Coleman’s negligence counterclaims. The Court of Appeals agreed.
In its opinion, the Court of Appeals reiterated the economic loss rule espoused in the Colorado Supreme Court in the Town of Alma v. AZCO Constr., Inc., 10 P.3d 1256, 1264 (Colo. 2000) case. “Under the economic loss rule, ‘a party suffering only economic loss from the breach of an express or implied contractual duty may not assert a tort claim for such a breach absent an independent duty of care under tort law.’”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Heather AndersonHeather Anderson can be contacted at
anderson@hhmrlaw.com
Delaware Supreme Court Allows Shareholders Access to Corporation’s Attorney-Client Privileged Documents
August 13, 2014 —
Marc S. Casarino and Lori S. Smith – White and Williams LLPDelaware corporations may be required to turn over internal documents of directors and officers, including those of in-house counsel, where the factors enumerated in Garner v. Walfinbarger, 430 F.2d 1093 (5th Cir. 1970) weigh in favor of disclosure. In a July 23, 2014 decision of first-impression, the Delaware Supreme Court ruled in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Indiana Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund IBEW, that the Garner doctrine applies to plenary shareholder/corporation disputes, as well as to books and records inspection actions under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. The Garner doctrine provides that a shareholder may invade the corporation’s attorney-client privilege in order to prove fiduciary breaches by those in control of the corporation upon a showing of good cause. The non-exhaustive list of factors by which a finding of good cause should be tested are:
“(i) the number of shareholders and the percentage of stock they represent; (ii) the bona fides of the shareholders; (iii) the nature of the shareholders’ claim and whether it is obviously colorable; (iv) the apparent necessity or desirability of the shareholders having the information and the availability of it from other sources; (v) whether, if the shareholders’ claim is of wrongful action by the corporation, it is of action criminal, or illegal but not criminal, or of doubtful legality; (vi) whether the communication is of advice concerning the litigation itself; (vii) the extent to which the communication is identified versus the extent to which the shareholders are blindly fishing; and (viii) the risk of revelation of trade secrets or other information in whose confidentiality the corporation has an interest for independent reasons.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Marc S. Casarino, White and Williams LLP and
Lori S. Smith, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Casarino may be contacted at casarinom@whiteandwilliams.com; Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ohio Condo Development Case Filed in 2011 is Scheduled for Trial
April 09, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFIn a recent hearing regarding the Cleveland, Ohio case Stonebridge Towers Homeowners v K&D Group, Judge John O’Donnell scheduled a trial for May 28th. Lead attorney for the homeowners stated that they would settle for “ten million and change,” according to The Plain Dealer. However, an attorney for K&D Group retorted that “the damaged condos could be fixed for much less money.”
“The lawsuit claims negligent design, poor construction and multiple defects resulted from fraud and bribe-paying by the developers,” reported Plain Dealer.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
2015-2016 California Labor & Employment Laws Affecting Construction Industry
October 28, 2015 —
Steven M. Cvitanovic, David A. Harris, & Kristen Lee Price – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPEarlier this month, California Governor Jerry Brown signed dozens of bills that affect employers. Many of these bills have special significance to the construction industry. Here is a brief review:
Assembly Bill 219 – Prevailing Wages for Concrete Delivery on Public Projects
AB 219 continues California’s aggressive expansion of prevailing wages. This bill expands the definition of “public works” for purposes of state prevailing wage law to include the hauling or delivery of ready-mixed concrete for a public works project.
Previously, delivery drivers hired by a material supplier were exempted from the prevailing wage. Before AB 219, labor law made a distinction between “suppliers” and “contractors.” Thus, ready-mixed concrete was held to be a finished product, and treated differently from a product that was assembled on site. The new law eliminates this distinction.
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel attorneys
Steven M. Cvitanovic,
David A. Harris and
Kristen Lee Price
Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com
Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com
Ms. Price may be contacted at kprice@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Open & Known Hazards Under the Kinsman Exception to Privette
February 15, 2018 —
Frances Ma & Lawrence S. Zucker II – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Publications & InsightsGonzalez v. Mathis, 2018 WL 718528 confirms the difficulties a defendant will face when trying to overcome the Kinsman exception to the
Privette doctrine on a dispositive motion when dealing with an open and obvious hazard. There, a professional window washer fell off a roof while walking along a parapet wall constructed by the owner of a home.
The window washer filed suit against the homeowner and alleged three dangerous conditions on the roof: (1) the parapet wall forced those who needed to access a skylight to walk along an exposed two-foot ledge that lacked a safety railing; (2) dilapidated and slippery roof shingles; and (3) the lack of tie off points that would allow maintenance workers to secure themselves with ropes or harnesses. The homeowner filed a motion for summary judgment under
Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 and its progeny which prohibits an independent contractor from suing his or her hirer for workplace injuries (
“Privette doctrine”).
There are two exceptions to the
Privette doctrine. First, a hirer cannot avoid liability when he or she exercises control over the manner and means in which a contractor does his or her work and that control contributes to the injuries sustained – known as the
“Hooker exception” (premised on the holding of
Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198). Second, a hirer may be found liable if he or she fails to warn the contractor of a concealed hazard on the premises – known as the
“Kinsman exception” (premised on the holding of
Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. (2005)).
Reprinted courtesy of
Frances Ma, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Ma may be contacted at fma@hbblaw.com
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
