The Drought Is Sinking California
August 19, 2015 —
Jennifer Oldham – BloombergLand in California’s central valley agricultural region sank more than a foot in just eights months in some places as residents and farmers pump more and more groundwater amid a record drought.
The ground near Corcoran, 173 miles (278 kilometers) north of Los Angeles, dropped about 1.6 inches every 30 days. One area in the Sacramento Valley was descending about half-an-inch per month, faster than previous measurements, according to a report released Wednesday by the Department of Water Resources. NASA completed the study by comparing satellite images of Earth’s surface over time.
“Groundwater levels are reaching record lows -- up to 100 feet lower than previous records,” Mark Cowin, the department’s director, said in a statement. “As extensive groundwater pumping continues, the land is sinking more rapidly and this puts nearby infrastructure at greater risk of costly damage.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jennifer Oldham, Bloomberg
Motion to Dismiss Denied Regarding Insureds' Claim For Collapse
October 29, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court denied the insurer's motion to dismiss claims for loss due to the imminent collapse of the insureds' basement walls. Belz v. Peerless Ins. Co., 2014 WL 4364914 (D. Conn. Sept. 2, 2014).
The insureds noticed cracks throughout their basement walls. It was discovered that the condition was the result of a chemical compound used in the concrete of certain basement walls in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The insureds contended that due to the cracking, the basement walls suffered a substantial impairment to their structural integrity making it only a matter of time until the walls collapsed.
The insureds notified their insurer, Peerless. An engineer hired by Peerless determined the walls' condition was caused by poor workmanship and defective materials. On this basis, Peerless denied coverage.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Gillotti v. Stewart (2017) 2017 WL 1488711 Rejects Liberty Mutual, Holding Once Again that the Right to Repair Act is the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims
June 05, 2017 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq. & Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq. - Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger BulletinBackground
In Gillotti v. Stewart (April 26, 2017) 2017 WL 1488711, which was ordered to be published on May 18, 2017, the defendant grading subcontractor added soil over tree roots to level the driveway on the plaintiff homeowner’s sloped lot. The homeowner sued the grading subcontractor under the California Right to Repair Act (Civil Code §§ 895, et seq.) claiming that the subcontractor’s work damaged the trees.
After the jury found the subcontractor was not negligent, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the subcontractor. The homeowner appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly construed the Right to Repair Act as barring a common law negligence theory against the subcontractor and erred in failing to follow Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98. The Third District Court of Appeal disagreed and affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the subcontractor.
Impact
This is the second time the Third District Court of Appeal has held that Liberty Mutual (discussed below) was wrongly decided and held that the Right to Repair Act is the exclusive remedy for construction defect claims. The decision follows its holding in Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court (Hicks) (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 333, in which the Court of Appeal held that the Right to Repair Act’s pre-litigation procedures apply when homeowners plead construction defect claims based on common law causes of action, as opposed to violations of the building standards set forth in the Right to Repair Act. Elliott is currently on hold at the California Supreme Court, pending the decision in McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132, wherein Liberty Mutual was rejected for the first time by the Fifth District. CGDRB continues to follow developments regarding the much anticipated McMillin decision closely, as well as all related matters.
Discussion
The Right to Repair Act makes contractors and subcontractors not involved in home sales liable for construction defects only if the homeowner proves they negligently cause the violation in whole or part (Civil Code §§ 911(b), 936). As such, the trial court in Gillotti instructed the jury on negligence with respect to the grading subcontractor. The jury found that while the construction did violate some of the Right to Repair’s building standards alleged by the homeowner, the subcontractor was not negligent in anyway. After the jury verdict, the trial court found in favor of the grading subcontractor.
The homeowner moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial on the grounds that the trial court improperly barred a common law negligence theory against the grading subcontractor. The trial court denied the motions on the grounds that “[t]he Right to Repair Act specifically provides that no other causes of action are allowed. See Civil Code § 943.” The trial court specifically noted that its decision conflicted with Liberty Mutual, in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the Right to Repair Act does not eliminate common law rights and remedies where actual damage has occurred, stating that Liberty Mutual was wrongly decided and that the Liberty Mutual court was naïve in its assumptions regarding the legislative history of the Right to Repair Act.
In Gillotti, the Third District Court of Appeal stated that the Liberty Mutual court failed to analyze the language of Civil Code § 896, which “clearly and unequivocally expresses the legislative intent that the Act apply to all action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in, residential construction, except as specifically set forth in the Act. The Act does not specifically except actions arising from actual damages. To the contrary, it authorizes recovery of damages, e.g., for ‘the reasonable cost of repairing and rectifying any damages resulting from the failure of the home to meet the standards....’ ([Civil Code] § 944).”
The Court also disagreed with Liberty Mutual’s view that because Civil Code §§ 931 and 943 acknowledge exceptions to the Right to Repair Act’s statutory remedies, the Act does not preclude common law claims for damages due to defects identified in the Act. The Court stated: “Neither list of exceptions, in section 943 or in section 931, includes common law causes of action such as negligence. If the Legislature had intended to make such a wide-ranging exception to the restrictive language of the first sentence of section 943, we would have expected it to do so expressly.”
Additionally, the Court of Appeal rejected the argument that Civil Code § 897 preserves a common law negligence claims for violation of standards not listed in Civil Code § 986. It explained that the section of Civil Code § 897, which provides, “The standards set forth in this chapter are intended to address every function or component of a structure,” expresses the legislative intent that the Right to Repair Act be all-encompassing. Anything inadvertently omitted is actionable under the Act if it causes damage. Any exceptions to the Act are made expressly through Civil Code §§ 931 and 934. The Court concluded in no uncertain terms that the Right to Repair Act precludes common law claims in cases for damages covered by the Act.
The homeowner further argued that she was not precluded from bringing a common law claim because a tree is not a “structure,” and therefore the alleged tree damage did not fall within the realm of the Right to Repair. The Court of Appeal also rejected this argument, holding that while the tree damage itself was not expressly covered, the act of adding soil to make the driveway level (which caused the damage) implicated the standards covered by the Right to Repair Act. The Court explained that since under the Act a “structure” includes “improvement located upon a lot or within a common area” (Civil Code § 895(a)), as the driveway was an improvement upon the lot, the claim was within the purview of the Right to Repair Act. As the soil, a component of the driveway, caused damage (to the trees), it was actionable under the Act.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Chelsea L. Zwart, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Subsequent Owners of Homes Again Have Right to Sue Builders for Construction Defects
October 07, 2016 —
Mark L. Parisi – White and Williams LLPOwners of homes with damage from construction defects have long had the standing to sue the builders of their homes using the legal theories of 1) breach of contract, 2) breach of implied warranty, and 3) breach of Pennsylvania’s consumer fraud statute, the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL).
Before the 2014 decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Conway v. Cutler, even owners who were not the original purchasers of their homes, so-called subsequent owners, had a right to sue the builder of their homes using implied warranty as the legal theory. But the Supreme Court in Conway said in 2014 that even though an implied warranty theory is not based on a written contract, it is a quasi contract theory and because subsequent owners never had a contractual relationship with the builder of their home, the implied warranty cause of action was not available. Subsequent purchasers were thus left without a remedy for damage from defective construction in their homes and builders had a second safe harbor from claims regarding homes they built. The first safe harbor is Pennsylvania’s Statute of Repose. If the home was completed more than 12 years before a lawsuit was filed, the Statute of Repose bars the claim. But after Conway, if the home was sold, this also cut off a builder’s potential liability for construction defects in the home.
ENTER THE UTPCPL
On July 26, 2016 the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the case of Adams v. Hellings Builders issued a non-published (and therefore non-precedential) decision in a stucco construction defect case that held that subsequent purchasers could sue their home’s builder under the UTPCPL because the Act had no requirement that the purchaser of a product, or home, be the original purchaser. The decision cites several other appellate cases not involving construction defect claims that held that the UTPCPL was a valid legal theory for claims regarding products purchased second hand by the plaintiffs in those other cases. The court in Adams held that there was no reason that a suit regarding construction defects in a home should be treated any differently.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mark L. Parisi, White and Williams LLPMr. Parisi may be contacted at
parisim@whiteandwilliams.com
Can a Receiver Prime and Strip Liens Against Real Property?
September 20, 2021 —
Ben Reeves - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogCourts overseeing receivers generally enjoy broad discretion in directing and approving a receiver’s proposed actions. But does that authority extend to a receiver not only granting a super-priority lien ahead of existing liens, but also selling the real property free and clear of all liens? In County of Sonoma v. Quail, 56 Cal.App.5th 657 (Ct. App. 2020), the California Court of Appeals answered that question in the affirmative.
Quail involved a 47,480 square-foot lot with two houses, a few garages, several outbuildings, and numerous trailers surrounded by a veritable junk yard. Despite many of these structures being uninhabitable, unsanitary, and dangerous, multiple families resided on the lot. Although Sonoma County (the “County”) ordered the owner to remediate the property several times, he failed and refused to do so. After several years of these violations going unabated, the County ultimately sought and obtained the appointment of a receiver over the real property.
To obtain funds necessary to repair the property, the receiver asked the court for permission to borrow money through the issuance of a receivership certificate to be secured by a super-priority lien—i.e., a lien ahead of all other liens—against the real property. Although the trial court initially declined to prime existing liens, when the receiver could find no one to lend money (since the land lacked equity), the trial court relented and approved a super-priority lien despite the senior secured lender’s objection (the “lender”).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ben Reeves, Snell & WilmerMr. Reeves may be contacted at
breeves@swlaw.com
Construction May Begin with Documents, but It Shouldn’t End That Way
March 02, 2020 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsFor this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Musings, we welcome back Rob Mathewson. In his role as CEO, Rob handles strategy and partnerships for Geedra in addition to overseeing technology architecture and implementation. He has spent twenty years in sales and marketing management roles with experience in industrial, consumer and construction markets. Rob believes the construction industry is ripe for innovation, based on its massive size, yet low productivity. Even with such inefficiencies, a building still rises from the ground. Rob’s goal with Geedra is to leverage technology to increase transparency and communication so that projects can be completed with less risk, effort and cost. Prior to founding Geedra, Rob was the Chief Marketing Officer for Construction Documentation Services, where he was responsible for sales, marketing and business development. He spent 15 years in the chemical distribution business, including eleven years as the Northwest Branch Manager of a $50 million distributor. Rob was the founder and CEO for On The Spot Games, a board game startup. He is currently in the midst of a streak of over 2,900 consecutive days without a bad hair day.
An avid mentor himself, his own business inspirations come from problem solvers like Dean Kamon, innovative communicators like Seth Godin, fierce competitors like Lance Armstrong and global gurus like Thomas Friedman. When he’s not creating innovations in the construction industry, his passions include bike riding, throwing the ball around with his kids, and cooking. He is an accomplished public speaker and is a past president of Emerald City Toastmasters. Rob holds a B.S. in Manufacturing Engineering from Boston University and a MBA from Seattle University.
Construction folks are a focused bunch. Once a contractor signs a deal for a project, its team will immediately get to work generating and then executing a construction document set. For the entire duration of the schedule to follow, the construction team eats, sleeps and dreams about those documents. Their monomaniacal efforts continue until a building rises up from a patch of dirt in a matter of months.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Construction Costs Must Be Reasonable
May 17, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen it comes to proving a construction cost, particularly a cost in dispute, the cost must be REASONABLE. Costs subject to claims must be reasonably incurred and the party incurring the costs must show the costs are reasonable.
An example of the burden falling on the contractor to prove the reasonableness of costs is found in government contracting.
“[T]here is no presumption that a [government] contractor is entitled to reimbursement ‘simply because it incurred…costs.’” Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. Secretary of Army, 973 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). Stated differently, a federal contractor is not entitled to a presumption of reasonableness just because it incurs costs. Id.
In government contracting, the Federal Acquisition Regulations (known as “FAR”) puts the burden of reasonableness on the contractor that incurred the costs. Id.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Construction Companies Must Prepare for a Surge of Third-Party Contractors
February 08, 2021 —
Kim Holly - Construction ExecutiveEconomists agree that the trajectory of the current recession has been different from any other. Looking back at the 2008 economic crisis, there are noticeable trends in the construction space that indicate a surge in third-party contractor hiring could be coming in 2021.
The demand for more contract work will come as no surprise for seasoned construction executives—the share of contractors at U.S. businesses has increased by 15% in the last decade. Contractors are a valuable asset in the construction industry, but organizations will need to prepare for the coming influx to ensure third-party contractors and full-time employees are set up for success to keep operations running smoothly.
THE CONTRACTOR SURGE BLUEPRINT
Managing a substantial influx of contractors on construction worksites can be an overwhelming task. However, with guiding principles in place, construction executives can successfully incorporate more contractors into their operations and effectively manage associated risks.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kim Holly, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
