Consumer Protection Act Whacks Seattle Roofing Contractor
July 21, 2011 —
Douglas Reiser, Builders Council BlogIt’s been over 1 year since we last visited the CertainTeed Corp. v. Seattle Roof Brokers lawsuit. After my original post, the contractor, James Garcia, appeared at Builders Counsel in a comment to defend himself. It appears that 1 year later, the court decided to side with CertainTeed and award them significant attorneys’ fees. Ready for the whole story? Its a pricey one.
Back in July 2010, good friend Mike Atkins (Seattle Trademark Attorney) authored a post about a Seattle roofing contractor who had been sued for false advertising on his website. The lawsuit was raised by CertainTeed, a roofing material producer, whose products were the target of a Seattle contractor’s ire. Seattle Roof Brokers, owned by James Garcia, published content on its website, remarking that CertainTeed products have a history of “premature failure” and that they “will fail?.resale inspection after 15-20 years.”
CertainTeed filed its action to obtain an injunction and damages under the Consumer Protection Act.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Year 2010 In Review: Design And Construction Defects Litigation
February 25, 2011 —
Candace Matson, Harold Hamersmith, and Helen LauderdaleThis article is the first in a series summarizing construction law developments for 2010
1. Centex Homes v. Financial Pacific Life Insurance Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1995 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
After settling numerous homeowners’ construction defect claims — and more than ten years after the homes were substantially completed — a home developer brought suit against one of the concrete fabrication subcontractors for the development seeking indemnity for amounts paid to the homeowners, as well as for damages for breach of the subcontractor’s duties to procure specific insurance and to defend the developer against the homeowners’ claims. The subcontractor brought a motion for summary adjudication on the ground the developer’s claims were barred by the ten year statute of repose contained in Code of Civil Procedure Section 337.15.
The District Court agreed the developer’s claim for indemnity was barred by Section 337.15. And it held that because the damages recoverable for breach of the subcontractor’s duty to purchase insurance are identical to the damages recoverable through the developer’s indemnity claim, the breach of duty to procure insurance claim also was time-barred. The District Court, however, allowed the claim for breach of the duty to defend to proceed. The categories of losses associated with such a claim (attorneys’ fees and other defense costs) are distinct from the damages recoverable through claims governed by Section 337.15 (latent deficiency in the design and construction of the homes and injury to property arising out of the latent deficiencies).
2. UDC — Universal Development v. CH2M Hill, 181 Cal. App. 4th 10 (6th Dist. Jan. 2010)
Indemnification clauses in construction agreements often state that one party to the agreement — the “indemnitor” — will defend and indemnify the other party from particular types of claims. Of course, having a contract right to a defense is not the same as actually receiving a defense. Any indemnitor attempting to avoid paying for defense costs can simply deny the tender of defense with the hope that when the underlying claim is resolved the defense obligations will be forgotten. In the past, when parties entitled to a defense — the “indemnitees” — had long memories and pressed to recover defense costs, indemnitors attempted to justify denying the tender by claiming their defense obligations coincided with their indemnity obligations and neither arose until a final determination was made that the underlying claim was one for which indemnity was owed.
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Candace Matson, Harold Hamersmith, and Helen Lauderdale, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP. Ms. Matson can be contacted at cmatson@sheppardmullin.com, Mr. Hamersmith can be contacted at hhamersmith@sheppardmullin.com, and Ms. Lauderdale can be contacted at hlauderdale@sheppardmullin.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Are You Satisfying WISHA Standards?
October 23, 2018 —
Ceslie Blass - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC BlogMany general contractors and property management companies hand over project sites to subcontractors and have little, if anything, to do with the construction work that occurs. However, under RCW 49.17, the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA), general contractors and some property management companies/owners are still responsible for workplace safety for the employees of their subcontractors and independent contractors.
The Washington Supreme Court held in Stute v. PBMC that a general contractor could be held liable for injury to a subcontractor’s employee sustained as a result of a WISHA violation.[1] The Stute decision changed the landscape of workplace safety, imposing an expansive, per se liability on general contractors for workplace injuries. Stated differently, general contractors have a specific, non-delegable duty to ensure compliance with WISHA regulations, which extends to all employees on the project site.[2] Washington courts have held that such “expansive liability is justified because ‘a general contractor’s supervisory authority is per se control over the workplace.’”[3] Thus, the non-delegable duty requires general contractors to ensure care is exercised by anyone, even an independent contractor to whom the performance of the duty is entrusted.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ceslie Blass, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMs. Blass may be contacted at
ceslie.blass@acslawyers.com
How U.S. Design and Architecture Firms Can Profit from the Chinese Market and Avoid Pitfalls
December 23, 2024 —
Chengdong ("C.D.") Xing - The Dispute ResolverDespite recent challenges, including obvious political tensions, economic cooling in the PRC, and increased local competition, the Chinese market remains an attractive destination for U.S. design and architecture firms. For instance, PEI Architects has maintained its success in China through long-standing relationships with key clients and is currently involved in two major projects for the Bank of China: a 1.9 million-square-foot complex in Shanghai and a financial center in Haikou.[i] Similarly, NBBJ is playing a critical role in the development of Tencent’s Net City in Shenzhen, a 2-million-square-meter smart city project that aligns with China's goals of sustainable and tech-driven urbanization.[ii] These examples show that while the Chinese market presents challenges, it continues to offer significant opportunities, particularly in sectors where innovative and cutting-edge architectural solutions are in high demand. At the same time, U.S. firms should exercise care: proper advance planning and strategic alliances are crucial for profitable forays into the Chinese market.
JR Design Project: A Cautionary Tale
When operating in China, U.S. design firms often encounter regulatory challenges, particularly with respect to China’s strict qualification requirements for architectural design services. Failure to meet these requirements can result in serious legal issues, including the potential invalidation of design contracts, as demonstrated in a leading case decided by the Supreme People’s Court of PRC (the nation’s highest court).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Chengdong ("C.D.") Xing, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLPMr. Xing may be contacted at
chengdong.xing@rajahtann.com
Fixing the Problem – Not the Blame
November 30, 2016 —
Curtis W. Martin – Peckar & Abramson, P.C. BulletinWho is responsible for defective design under Texas law? The contractor, under Lonergan? The
owner, under Spearin? A recent Fifth Circuit decision suggests that in some cases this might be the
wrong question when design responsibility is disputed. The appellate court recently remanded a
case back to the district court to determine whether the contractor or owner breached an implied
duty to cooperate in discovering defects in design and subsequently pricing the change required
to correct the problem.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Curtis W. Martin, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Mr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@pecklaw.com
CGL Insurer’s Duty To Defend Broader Than Duty To Indemnify And Based On Allegations In Underlying Complaint
April 10, 2019 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThe duty to defend an insured with respect to a third-party claim is broader than the duty to indemnify the insured for that claim. The duty to defend is triggered by allegations in the underlying complaint. However, an insurer is only required to indemnify its insured for damages covered under the policy. A recent case example demonstrating the duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify can be found in Southern Owners Ins. Co. v. Gallo Building Services, Inc., 2018 WL 6619987 (M.D.Fla. 2019).
In this case, a homebuilder built a 270-unit condominium project where the units were included in 51-buildings. Upon turnover of the condominium association to the unit owners, the condominium association served a Florida Statutes Chapter 558 Notice of Construction Defects letter. There was numerous nonconforming work spread out among various subcontractor trades including nonconforming stucco work. The homebuilder incurred significant costs to repair defective work and resulting property damage, and relocated unit owners during repairs. The homebuilder then filed a lawsuit against implicated subcontractors. One of the implicated subcontractors was the stucco subcontractor.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Alleging and Proving a Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) Claim
December 13, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen it comes to construction disputes, a Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (known by its acronym “FDUTPA”) claim is not commonly asserted. A FDUTPA claim is a statutory claim under Florida Statute s. 501.201 en seq. This claim is NOT easy to prove, particularly in the construction context. Sometimes, a party will assert a FDUTPA claim to create a basis for attorney’s fees; however, that basis cuts BOTH ways, i.e., you can be liable for fees if you fail to prove the FDUTPA claim. In a construction dispute, a FDUTPA claim is one that really should be pled with caution after a party understands and fully considers what it MUST prove including the all-important consideration of how actual damages are determined under FDUTPA, which requires an actual loss. Nevertheless, it is good to know what you need to prove to support a FDUTPA claim in case you believe you have facts that can support a FDUTPA claim and actual damages under FDUTPA (known as benefit-of-the-bargain damages).
Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Former UN General Assembly President Charged in Bribe Scheme
October 21, 2015 —
Patricia Hurtado & Greg Farrell – BloombergA former president of the United Nations General Assembly and a billionaire Macau developer were accused of taking part in a four-year corruption scheme that included bribes to help fund a campaign for the post at the organization in exchange for the promotion of Chinese businesses.
John Ashe, president of the UN General Assembly from September 2013 to September 2014, accepted more than $1 million in payoffs from developer Ng Lap Seng and an associate to help persuade the international body to build a multibillion-dollar conference center in Macau and promote Chinese businesses, including a bank, in Antigua, according to the U.S.
The new charges, announced Tuesday, relate to an earlier case against Ng, 68, who has a personal net worth of about $1.8 billion. He’s been held in a federal jail in Manhattan since he was arrested Sept. 19, accused of bringing $4.5 million into the country and lying about its purpose to U.S. authorities.
Reprinted courtesy of
Patricia Hurtado, Bloomberg and
Greg Farrell, Bloomberg
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
