How California’s Construction Industry has dealt with the New Indemnity Law
October 22, 2014 —
Mark S. Himmelstein, Esq. - Newmeyer & DillionIt has been almost two years since the California legislature enacted changes to the state’s indemnity law affecting commercial construction contracts. Although we do not yet have any court opinions analyzing the new statutes, the attorneys at
Newmeyer & Dillion now have real world experience in negotiating such indemnity provisions. It is time to evaluate how the construction community has reacted to the changes. In this article, we examine the practical applications of the new law to various construction agreements.
Enacted on January 1, 2013, the new legislation was the latest in a series of efforts by subcontractors and their insurers to eliminate “Type I” indemnity clauses. Under a Type I provision, a subcontractor has a duty to indemnify the developer or general contractor for the negligence of the developer or general contractor or other subcontractors, in addition to the negligence of the subcontractor itself. In 2006, the law was changed to preclude Type I provisions regarding “For Sale” residential construction defect claims. At that time, there was no such restriction enacted for commercial construction contracts. However, since then, commercial subcontractors have been seeking similar legislation. Their efforts culminated in the 2013 revisions regarding commercial contracts.
Commercial Subcontracts
Pursuant to the new indemnity statute — Civil Code section 2782.05 — we have revised our clients’ commercial subcontracts to:
(a) Eliminate the requirement that the subcontractor indemnify the general contractor for the general contractor’s “active negligence;” and
(b) Include the subcontractor’s options for defending claims for which they have an indemnity obligation.
Many subcontractors have responded: “Hey, wait a minute, the new legislation eliminated Type I indemnity so you (general contractor) cannot still require any indemnification for the general contractor’s negligence”. Well, that might be the rumor in subcontractor circles, but the new statute does not eliminate indemnity for the general contractor’s passive fault. In addition, the Civil Code lists 13 instances where the new indemnity restrictions do not apply.
Residential Subcontracts
The legislature did not make anyone’s job easier by drafting a different indemnity provision for commercial subcontracts than for residential subcontracts. In fact, the residential and commercial statutes are different in several critical respects. First, the restrictions on indemnity in the residential statute apply only to construction defect claims in newly constructed “For Sale” houses. The statute does not preclude Type I indemnity provisions for any other claims arising out of residential subcontracts. In contrast, the indemnity restrictions in the commercial statute apply to all claims arising out of commercial subcontracts. In addition, the commercial statute allows indemnity for the general contractor’s passive fault. Since some subcontractors on “residential” projects perform off-site “commercial” work as well, we have amended even residential subcontracts to address the subcontractors’ various indemnity obligations for different parts of their work (e.g., residential work versus commercial work).
Owner-Contractor Agreements
The January 1, 2013 new indemnity provisions apply not only to subcontracts, but also to owner-contractor agreements. Civil Code section 2782(c)(1) precludes indemnity for an owner’s active negligence. Interestingly, the exclusions contained in Civil Code section 2782.05 for subcontracts do not apply, and the statute does not provide contractors with the option of defending claims set forth in the sections concerning subcontracts. Therefore, we have revised the indemnity provisions in owner-contractor agreements to exclude indemnity for the owner’s active negligence.
Design Professional Agreements
The 2007 revisions with respect to “For Sale” residential contracts (discussed above), and the 2013 revisions for commercial contracts do not apply to design professionals. The new indemnity statute concerning commercial subcontracts specifically excludes design professionals from the “anti-indemnity” benefits provided to subcontractors. Therefore, Type I indemnity provisions are fair game and can still be included in design professional contracts.
Conclusion
In sum, Civil Code sections 2782 et seq. now contain an increasingly complex framework for indemnity rules in construction contracts. For example, there is one set of rules for “For Sale” residential construction defect claims (no indemnity for the developer’s active or passive negligence), another for any other claims arising out of residential construction (Type I indemnity is permitted), another for commercial subcontracts (no indemnity for the general contractor’s active negligence, but indemnity for the general contractor’s passive negligence unless any of the exceptions apply, in which case Type I indemnity is permitted), and yet another for commercial owner contractor agreements (no indemnity for the owner’s active negligence, but indemnity for the owner’s passive negligence with no exceptions).
California’s indemnity laws are complex, and rumors as to the impact of the new legislation have made it even more difficult to negotiate these provisions. It is imperative that indemnity clauses in construction contracts clearly delineate the obligations for the specific type or types of work contemplated by the contract. The legislature’s attempt to simplify indemnity obligations has actually made such provisions lengthier and more cumbersome. As experienced construction attorneys, our task is to draft indemnity provisions that comply with the laws, address potential claims, and are understandable.
Mr. Himmelstein is a partner in the Newport Beach office of Newmeyer & Dillion and practices in the areas of construction, real estate, business and insurance litigation. He also specializes in drafting and negotiating construction and real estate contracts. Mark can be reached at mark.himmelstein@ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Collapse of Underground Storage Cave Not Covered
June 29, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Eighth Circuit faced unusual facts in determining that the collapse of a cave serving as a storage facility was not covered under the policy. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Interstate Underground Warehouse & Storage, Inc., 2020 U. S. App. LEXIS 83 8th Cir. Jan. 3, 2020).
Interstate operated an underground storage facility in a cave that formerly housed a limestone mine. In 2014, Interstate experienced a series of "dome-outs," in which layers of rock destabilized, detached, and collapsed from above into the cave.
Interstate's policy with Westchester included coverage for collapse of a "building" caused by "building decay." Westchester sought a declaratory judgment that Interstate's loss was not covered. The district court granted summary judgment for Westchester because the cause of the loss was not "building decay" within the meaning of the primary policy.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Miller Act Claim for Unsigned Change Orders
June 30, 2016 —
David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal UpdatesContracts and subcontracts often contain language that requires
change orders to be in writing and that no change order work shall be performed unless agreed to in advance in a signed change order. Oftentimes change order work is performed but the parties have not complied with the strict requirements of the contract by having this work signed off by the parties in a change order prior to the commencement of the work. Well, can such requirements be
waived? If so, can such change orders form the basis of a
Miller Act claim? The answer is generally yes provided the party arguing waiver can support the waiver with evidence (that the other party voluntarily relinquished the requirements through its course of conduct / actions).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David M. Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Contractor Gets Benched After Failing to Pay Jury Fees
April 11, 2022 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogTrial by jury is a fundamental right under the U.S. and California Constitutions. However, to avail yourself of this right, you not only have to declare that in advance that you intend to try your case to a jury but post jury fees as well. In TriCoast Builders, Inc. v. Fonnegra, a contractor who failed to timely post jury fees, discovered on the day of trial that it waived the right to insist on a jury trial when the defendant pulled an “I gotcha” and waived his right to a jury trial.
The TriCoast Case
In May 2014, Nathaniel Fonnegra house was damaged by fire. The following month, Fonnegra entered into a construction contract with TriCoast Builders, Inc. to repair the property. Dissatisfied with the work, Fonnegra terminated the contract, and TriCoast in turn filed a complaint against Fonnegra for unpaid work.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Up in Smoke - 5th Circuit Finds No Coverage for Hydrochloric Acid Spill Based on Pollution Exclusion
October 19, 2020 —
Kerianne E. Kane & David G. Jordan - Saxe Doernberger & VitaThe Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that an insurer was not obligated to pay damages associated with a hydrochloric acid spill based on a pollution exclusion in the policy.
In Burroughs Diesel, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of America,1 a trucking company sued its property insurer, Travelers Indemnity Company of America (“Travelers”) when it refused to pay a claim for a storage tank leak which resulted in over 5,000 gallons of hydrochloric acid entering the property and causing significant damage to buildings, vehicles, tools, and equipment. The acid was initially dispensed in liquid form, but quickly became a cloud that engulfed the property. Travelers denied coverage for the claim based on the pollution exclusion because “acids” fell within the policy’s definition of “pollutants.”
The trucking company sued Travelers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, alleging breach of contract and breach of good faith and fair dealing for refusing to pay the claim. The trucking company argued that coverage was warranted because there is an exception to the pollution exclusion if “the discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape is itself caused by any of the ‘specified causes of loss,’” and the hydrochloric acid cloud was a form of “smoke,” which is a specified cause of loss covered by the policy. The District Court entered summary judgment in favor of Travelers, finding that the trucking company failed to demonstrate that an exception to the pollution exclusion applied. The trucking company appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kerianne E. Kane, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and
David G. Jordan, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Ms. Kane may be contacted at kek@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Jordan may be contacted at dgj@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Georgia Passes Solar CUVA Bill
April 20, 2017 —
David R. Cook Jr. - Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLPGeorgia House Bill 238 authorizes the withdrawal of property from a conservation use covenant for purposes of developing a solar generation plant. Before the law was passed, subject to certain limited exceptions, properties under a conservation use covenant generally could not be developed without breaching the covenant. The new law permits the removal of a portion of the property to be used for solar development without breaching the covenant for the rest of the property.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David R. Cook, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLPMr. Cook may be contacted at
cook@ahclaw.com
U.S. District Court of Colorado Interprets Insurance Policy’s Faulty Workmanship Exclusion and Exception for Ensuing Damage
August 15, 2022 —
Carin Ramirez - Colorado Construction LitigationRecently, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado interpreted a faulty workmanship exclusion in a property insurance policy in The Lodge at Mountain Village Owner Association v. Eighteen Certain Underwriters of Lloyd’s of London, 22 U.S Dist. Ct LEXIS 48883*, decided on March 18, 2022. The Court held that the faulty workmanship exclusion at issue extended to preclude coverage for later ensuing damage that arose from the faulty workmanship, even though the damage was weather related, because faulty workmanship was the primary cause of the ensuing damage.
The claims in The Lodge at Mountain Village arose from maintenance work performed on log siding at three multi-unit condominium buildings in Telluride. The maintenance work to the log siding included staining, finishing, and chinking repairs to joints between the logs. About a year after completion of the work, The Lodge at Mountain Village Owners Association (“The Lodge”) notified the maintenance contractor that logs were extremely weathered and that its work was defective. The Lodge retained an expert who prepared a report stating that the log finish and underlying wood was deteriorating because of the contractor’s work and that some areas were not properly protected from exposure to snow, rain, and brine from ice-melting salt. The Lodge pursued and settled its claims against the contractor.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Carin Ramirez, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMs. Ramirez may be contacted at
ramirez@hhmrlaw.com
Look Up And Look Out: Increased Antitrust Enforcement Of Horizontal No-Poach Agreements Signals Heightened Scrutiny Of Vertical Agreements May Be Next
November 28, 2022 —
John F. Finnegan, III & Dominick Weinkam - ConsensusDocsIn the current regulatory environment, it is important for contractors to remain vigilant of heightened anti-competitive enforcement in the construction and procurement spheres by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ). Such vigilance should include, among other things, regular review of applicable laws and implementation of related updates to compliance policies, as well as careful evaluation of joint venture (JV), subcontractor, and teaming agreements.
Recent DOJ Activity Opens The Door To Broader Antitrust Exposure For Contractors
Many contractors include exclusivity and non-compete clauses in their vertical agreements, including subcontractor agreements and certain types of JV and teaming agreements. In fact, many widely available “checklists” for drafting these agreements recommend including such provisions; however, under U.S. antitrust law, particularly as enforced by the DOJ in the last 1-2 years, exclusivity and non-compete clauses may be construed as unduly competition-restricting. Although no court has yet held that exclusivity and non-compete clauses in vertical agreements violate antitrust laws, recent aggressive enforcement activity by the DOJ with regard to horizontal no-poach agreements suggests that the investigatory headwinds may be blowing in that direction.
Reprinted courtesy of
John F. Finnegan, III, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs) and
Dominick Weinkam, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Mr. Finnegan may be contacted at jfinnegan@watttieder.com
Mr. Weinkam may be contacted at dweinkam@watttieder.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
