SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Significant Issues Test Applies to Fraudulent Claims to Determine Attorney’s Fees

January 13, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Construction lienors need to appreciate on the frontend that recovering statutory attorney’s fees in a construction lien action is NOT automatic—far from it. This is because the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees in a construction lien action is determined by the “significant issues test,” a subjective test with no bright line standards based on who the trial court finds prevailed on the significant issues in the case. If you want to talk about the subjective and convoluted nature of recovering attorney’s fees in a construction lien action under the significant issues test, a recent opinion by the Fourth District Court of Appeal is unfortunately another nail in the coffin. In Newman v. Guerra, 2017 WL 33702 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017), a contractor recorded a construction lien on a residential renovation project and filed a lien foreclosure lawsuit. The homeowner countersued the contractor and asserted a fraudulent lien claim pursuant to Florida Statute s. 713.31. An evidentiary hearing was held on whether the lien was a fraudulent lien and the trial court held that the lien was fraudulent (therefore unenforceable) because it included amounts that were not lienable under the law. The remaining claims including both parties’ breach of contract claims proceeded to trial. There was no attorney’s fees provision in the contract. At the conclusion of the trial, the court found that the contractor was entitled a monetary judgment on its breach of contract claim. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

---

California Supreme Court to Examine Arbitration Provisions in Several Upcoming Cases

December 09, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

Glen C. Hansen, writing on Abbott & Kinderman’s Land Use Law Blog looks at several cases pending before the California Supreme Court which ask if a developer can insist on arbitration of construction defect claims, based on provision in the CC&Rs. Currently, there is a split of opinions in the California appeals courts on the issue.

Four of the cases are in California’s Fourth Appellate District. In the earliest case, Villa Milano Homeowners Association v. Il Davorge, from 2000, the court concluded that the arbitration clause was sufficient to require that construction defect claims undergo arbitration. However, the Fourth Appellate District Court concluded in three later cases that the arbitration clauses did not allow the developer to compel arbitration. In two cases, argued in 2008 and 2010, the court concluded that to do otherwise would deprive the homeowners of their right to a jury trial. In the most recent case, Villa Vicenza Homeowners Association v. Nobel Court Development, the court decided that the CC&Rs did not create contractual rights for the developer.

The Second Appellate District Court came to a similar decision in Promenade at Playa Vista Homeowners Association v. Western Pacific Housing, Inc. In their decision, the court noted that CC&Rs could be enforced by homeowners and homeowners associations, but not developers.

Read the full story…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Cybersecurity "Flash" Warning for Construction and Manufacturing Businesses

April 26, 2021 — Jeffrey M. Dennis - Newmeyer Dillion
The FBI recently released its 2020 Internet Crime Report (Report), which details and analyzes complaints received through the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3). In 2020, IC3 received a record number of complaints – nearly 800,000, with reported losses in excess of $4.1 billion. Companies must acknowledge that cybercrime is a real, dangerous threat to their business, and understand how, and why, these threats continue to escalate. At a minimum, businesses should take several proactive steps to protect themselves. What is IC3? IC3 is an online platform hosted by the FBI, which exists to provide the public with a trusted place to report cybercrime to the FBI. Since its inception in 2000, the IC3 has received 5.6 million complaints, and has averaged approximately 440,000 complaints over each of the last five years. The complaint figure for 2020 is nearly double that average. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey M. Dennis, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Dennis may be contacted at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com

---

Miller Act Payment Bond Surety Bound to Arbitration Award

December 29, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Here is an interesting case binding a Miller Act payment bond surety to an arbitration award against its prime contractor (bond principal) that it received sufficient notice of. Notice is the operative word. The surety could have participated in the arbitration, elected not to, and when its prime contractor (bond principal) lost the arbitration, it was NOT given another bite out of the apple to litigate facts already been decided. In BRC Uluslararasi Taahut VE Ticaret A.S. v. Lexon Ins. Co., 2020 WL 6801933 (D. Maryland 2020), a prime contractor was hired by the federal government to make security upgrades and interior renovations to a United States embassy in the Czech Republic. The prime contractor hired a subcontractor to perform all of the installed contract work. The prime contractor terminated the subcontractor for default during the course of construction. The subcontractor demanded arbitration in accordance with the subcontract claiming it was wrongfully terminated. The subcontractor also filed a lawsuit asserting a Miller Act payment bond claim against the prime contractor’s surety (as well as a breach of contract action against the prime contractor). The subcontractor made clear it intended to pursue its claims in arbitration and hold the payment bond surety jointly and severally liable. The parties agreed to stay the lawsuit since the facts were identical to those being arbitrated. The arbitration went forward and an award was entered in favor of the subcontractor and against the prime contractor for approximately $2.3 Million. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Exact Dates Not Needed for Construction Defect Insurance Claim

March 01, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The Texas Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court in Vines-Herrin Custom Homes v Great American Lloyds Insurance Company on December 21, 2011. Vines-Herrin Custom Homes built a single-family home in Plano, Texas in 1999. They obtained a commercial general liability policy from Great American, later purchasing coverage from Mid-Continent, which the decision describes as “a sister company of Great American.”



While the home was under construction, Emil G. Cerullo sought to purchase it. At the time, it was under contract to another buyer. Two months later, Vines-Herrin told Cerullo that the deal had “fell through.” Cerullo bought the house with modifications from the original plan. Upon moving in, Cerullo began having water intrusion and other problems. “Cerullo noticed water gathering on window sills and damage to the sheetrock and baseboard.” Additional problems followed, including cracks, leaks, “and in early 2002, the ceiling and roof began to sag.”



Cerullo sued Vines-Herrin, claiming negligent construction. Vines-Herrin filed a claim seeking defense and indemnification under the insurance policies. Coverage was denied and Vines-Herrin filed suit to require coverage and also bringing claims for “breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, breach of contract, and DTPA and insurance code violations.”



In May, 2006 Vines-Herrin stated that it had no more defense funds and went into arbitration with Cerullo. The underlying construction defect action was settled for about $2.5 million. As part of the settlement, “Cerullo became the rightful owner of all remaining claims, rights, and causes of action against” Vines-Herrin’s insurers. He then joined the coverage lawsuit.



The non-jury trial was held under the controlling law of the time which “imposed a duty to defend only if the property damage manifested or became apparent during the policy period.” The court concluded in Cerullo’s favor. During the post-judgment motions, the Texas Supreme Court rejected the manifestation rule. Under this ruling, the trial court set aside its judgment and found in favor of the insurance companies. The trial court noted that although “the Residence was covered by an uninterrupted period of insurance (which began before the Residence was constructed) and that the damages to the Residence manifested during the uninterrupted period of insurance coverage,” “Mr. Cerullo failed to allege the date when actual physical damage to the property occurred.”



The first claim by Cerullo and Vines-Herrin was that the “Final Judgment” occurred in October 2004, and that all proceedings thereafter were void. The court rejected this as the “final judgment” is not “final for the purposes of an appeal unless it actually disposes of every pending claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and all parties.” Despite the use of the word “final,” the trial court’s decision did not do this.



The second issue was the application of the Texas Supreme Court case Don’s Building Supply Inc. v. OneBeacon Insurance. In this case, framing rot due to defective stucco was not discovered until after the end of the policy period. The Supreme Court noted that “the key date is when injury happens, not when someone happens on it.”



The appeals court found that the trial court misapplied the Don’s Building Supply decision. Rather than an exact date, “so long as that damage occurred within the policy period, coverage was provided.” The appeals court noted that “Cerullo alleged the house was constructed in 1999 and he purchased it in May 2000.” “By April of 2001, Cerullo noticed that the windowsills in the study were showing signs of leakage and water damage.” As the court put it, “the petitions then alleged a litany of defects.”



The court noted that coverage by Great American was in effect from November 9, 1999 to November 9, 2000. In May of 2000, the house suffered “substantial flooding from a rainstorm that caused damage.” This was during the policy period. “As a matter of law, actual damages must occur no later than when they manifest.”



The court concluded that as damage manifested during the period of coverage, so must have the damage. The court ruled that “contrary to the trial court’s determination otherwise, the evidence showed Great American’s duty to indemnify was triggered, and expert testimony establishing the exact date of injury was not required to trigger the duty.”

Read the court’s decision…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Insurer Liable for Bad Faith Despite Actions of Insured Contributing to Excess Judgment

January 02, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Reversing the intermediate appellate court, the Florida Supreme Court held the insurer liable for bad faith despite imperfect actions by the insured. Harvey v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 2018 Fla. LEXIS 1705 (Fla. Sept. 20, 2018). Insured James Harvey was involved in an auto accident in which the other driver, 51 year old John Potts, was killed. Harvey's vehicle was registered in both his name and his business's name, and was covered under a $100,000 liability policy. Harvey reported the accident to his insurer, GEICO. The claim was assigned to a claims adjuster, Fran Korkus. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

10 Answers to Those Nagging Mechanics Lien Questions Keeping You Up at Night. Kind of

November 05, 2014 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Construction lawyers may not ponder the great questions in life. We leave that to the estate planning attorneys. But ponder we do. And the next case, as I’ll explain below, “kind of” answers 10 important mechanics lien questions we construction attorneys toss and turn over at night. Background In Palomar Grading & Paving, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, Case Nos. G049907 and G049910 (October 14, 2014), developer Inland-LGC Beaumont, LLC (“Inland”) hired general contractor 361 Group Construction Services, Inc. (“361″) to construct a Kohl’s department store in Beaumont, California. The Kohl’s department store was to be constructed on one parcel of a three-parcel tract. Inland later sold the parcel on which the Kohl’s department store was to be located to Kohl’s and the two other parcels were later acquired by Wells Fargo who foreclosed on the construction loan for the project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@kmtg.com

---

Preparing for the 2015 Colorado Legislative Session

November 26, 2014 — David M. McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation
As Colorado starts to prepare for the 2015 legislative session, construction defect reform is shaping up to be another key issue under the Capitol dome. Once again, the Homeownership Opportunity Alliance (HOA) will be leading the charge. The HOA is a coalition of Coloradans working to open the doors to homeownership by: 1) protecting consumers from unknowingly entering into litigation and establishing solid processed through which homeowners and developers can work together to achieve a positive resolution to identified defects in construction, and 2) increasing the supply of attainable, affordable housing while protecting the rights of consumers to take legal action. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

---