Assembly Bill 1701 Contemplates Broader Duty to Subcontractor’s Employees by General Contractor
August 17, 2017 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq. & Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq. – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & BargerAB 1701 recently passed the Assembly and is pending in the Senate’s Labor and
Industrial Relations and Judiciary Committees. The Bill, if signed by the Governor, would
create a new section in the California Labor Code (Section 218.7) making “direct contractors” –
defined as a contractor “making or taking a contract in the state for the erection, construction,
alteration, or repair of a building, structure, or other private work” – liable for wages a
subcontractor or sub-subcontractor fails to pay to its employee for work included in the general
contractor’s contract with the project owner.
Under the new law, direct contractors would be liable for up to one year from the date of
completion of the work for unpaid wages, fringe benefits, health and welfare benefits, and
pension fund contributions, including interest and state tax payments owed to a subcontractor’s
employee. The employee, however, would not be able to recover penalties or liquidated
damages from the general contractor.
AB 1701 would give the employee, Labor Commissioner, or a joint labor-management
cooperation committee the right to enforce the direct contractor’s liability through a civil action.
It would also extend to third parties who are owed fringe or other benefit payments or
contributions on the employee’s behalf. Pursuant to the proposed language of the new statute, a
prevailing plaintiff in such an action would be entitled to their reasonable attorneys’ fees and
costs, including expert witness fees.
Although Labor Code § 218.7 would impose certain obligations on the subcontractor to
provide the direct contractor with relevant project and payroll records, the subcontractor’s failure
to comply with those obligations does not relieve the direct contractor from liability.
Impact
AB 1701’s apparent purpose is to protect employees, an undeniably important legislative
goal. However, if passed, the bill could greatly increase general contractors’ exposure when
subcontracting work and their cost of doing business. Especially because the new law would not
impact existing laws requiring a direct contractor to timely pay a subcontractor.
As a result, many coalitions against AB 1701 stress the halting effect this could have on
the construction industry as a whole, particularly private construction, which is not as heavily
regulated as public works.
CGDRB will continue to monitor this Bill and provide updates as developments occur.
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
#1 CDJ Topic: McMillin Albany LLC v Superior Court of California
December 30, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFStephen A. Sunseria of
Gatzke Dillon & Balance LLP discussed how the Fifth Appellate District court “issued a blistering criticism of the Fourth Appellate District’s prior opinion in Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Ca.App.4th 98, which severely limited the reach of the Act to actions not involving property damage and allowing property damage claims to proceed freely under common law without any constraints posed by the Act.” Sunseri stated that “McMillin is a great victory for homebuilders, but battle lines are now clearly drawn between the two appellate districts.”
Read the full story...
In another article regarding the McMillin Albany LLC case,
Garret Murai of
Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP posted an article on his California Construction Law Blog that went over the legal debate of California’s Right to Repair Act including Liberty Mutual, Burch v. Superior Court, and KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc. v. Superior Court and concluded with a discussion of the McMillin Albany case. Murai predicted, rightly it turned out, that the case would see a “final round before the California Supreme Court.”
Read the full story...
In their December 2, 2015 article, authors
Richard H. Glucksman,
Glenn T. Barger,
Jon A. Turigliatto, and
David A. Napper of
Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger reported that the California Supreme Court granted the petition for review of the McMillin Albany decision: “The holdings in Liberty Mutual and McMillin Albany present a conflict of authority that the California Supreme Court has appropriately deemed worthy of review. The parties will now be permitted to file briefs on the merits and amicus briefs will certainly be submitted by the defense and plaintiff bars.”
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
CA Homeowners Challenging Alternate Pre-Litigation Procedures
April 15, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFGarret Murai on his California Construction Law blog discussed how some homeowners have challenged homebuilders who use alternative pre-litigation procedures instead of the rules of California’s Right to Repair Act (SB 800).
“The Right to Repair Act, which was intended to help curb the then rising tide of residential construction defect litigation, provides mandatory pre-litigation procedures which must be followed in construction defect cases involving new residential construction,” Murai explained. “One of the major exceptions to the statutory pre-litigation procedures under SB 800, however, is that a homebuilder can opt to use its own alternative pre-litigation procedures if disclosed to a homebuyer.”
Murai used The McCaffrey Group, Inc. v. Superior Court case to demonstrate that homeowners can challenge the builder’s use of alternative pre-litigation procedures, and win if they can prove that the alternate procedures are “unconscionable.”
“For homebuilders, the take away is that, sure you can adopt your own alternative pre-litigation procedures under the Right to Repair,” Murai stated, “but if you do just know that they may be challenged by homeowners who may contend that they are unconscionable, which kinda defeats the whole idea behind SB 800 which was intended to reduce the amount of litigation the first place.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Seattle Condos, Close to Waterfront, Construction Defects Included
February 11, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThere's a cluster of eight condominium projects in Seattle, some within easy walking distance of each other, that are either in construction defect lawsuits, arbitration, or mediation. Jeff Reynolds, contributing a Seattle PI.com reader blog, notes that as Seattle condo projects have neared the end of the four-year warranty period, condo boards are being targeted by attorneys. Reynolds writes that "once [the attorneys] are hired by the associations, they retain specialists that test for any and all construction defects with the building envelope."
The problem that Reynolds sees is that that "major lending institutions stay away from condos with lawsuits." And so homeowners dealing with construction defects have apartments they can't sell to anyone who might want to use financing. This tightens Seattle's already limited inventory, leading to both frustrated sellers and frustrated buyers.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Attorneys Get an AI Assist in Document Crunch
May 20, 2024 —
Jeff Yoders - Engineering News-RecordArtificial intelligence is often touted as a gamechanger for construction processes, and Document Crunch, a company co-founded by a longtime construction attorney, is already changing up one key area: construction contracts.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jeff Yoders, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Yoders may be contacted at yodersj@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Landmark Towers Association, Inc. v. UMB Bank, N.A. or: One Bad Apple Spoils the Whole Bunch
May 12, 2016 —
Jean Meyer - Colorado Construction LitigationOn April 21, 2016, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued an opinion that immediately drew the ire of the greater real estate development industry and those concerned about affordable housing in a state in the midst of unprecedented soaring rent and housing prices. The Landmark Towers Assn., Inc. v. UMB Bank, N.A., 2016 COA 61, decision is the result of protracted litigation arising out of construction and sale of the ill-fated European Village (“Village”) residential community. For a thorough summary of the origins of the development and the unfortunate story of the man behind the curtain, review the Denver Post’s article titled “Zachary Davidson, Denver Landmark developer, and his fall from grace.” (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_22656011/fall-from-grace-zach-davidson-landmark denver)
Despite the unique facts and circumstances relating to the questionable dealings by the developer, Mr. Zachary Davidson, the decision now stands to turn the Colorado real estate development business on its head. Specifically, a group of condominium owners, who did not live in the Village, learned that their properties had been included in a special district, the Marin Metropolitan District (“District”), to finance the Village. Prior to their purchase, Mr. Davidson failed to disclose to the condominium owners that they would be responsible for financing the Village’s development through previously issued bonds by the District to be paid for through their property taxes. Understandably frustrated by this discovery the condominium owners, through the Landmark Towers Association, Inc. (“Landmark HOA”), investigated the origin of these unforeseen property taxes.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jean Meyer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. Meyer may be contacted at
meyer@hhmrlaw.com
How is Negotiating a Construction Contract Like Buying a Car?
January 04, 2018 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsOriginally Published by CDJ on March 1, 2017
I know, you’re probably looking for a punchline, and likely thinking something along the lines of “only a construction attorney would be sitting in his office and come up with such an analogy,” but I really do think it’s a good one.
When you are buying a car, you look for priorities. Is the color what you want? Is the motor a hybrid or a v-6? Does it have Android Auto? What is the fuel mileage? All of these things may be more or less important to you. If you can get your priorities for a price that is attractive, you will likely let some other less important items, e. g. trunk space or rear seat leg room, slide and purchase the car anyway. Furthermore, you may use these minor items as negotiating points to either get one of the priorities or a lower price. Of course the dealership will want to get its priorities, likely a sale and a profit, when negotiating and will have certain items that it won’t move on just as you have terms that you won’t move on.
Much like when you walk onto the car lot, and particularly as a subcontractor looking at a contract from a general contractor, or a GC looking at the contract from the owner of a project, a construction contract presented to you is the starting point. When looking at the contract, be sure to have some non-negotiable items in mind when taking a critical eye to the terms of that contract. Some of these terms may be more or less negotiable depending on your experience with the other party to the construction contract. For instance, striking a pay if paid clause may be less important with a paying party with whom you have a 10 year history without payment problems. On the other hand, if it is your first contract with the other party, a stricter list may be required. So, much like a dealer that you know will stand behind its cars, you may be more willing to take more “risk” in entering a construction contract with a trusted/known owner or GC.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Limits The Scope Of A Builder’s Implied Warranty Of Habitability
September 10, 2014 —
Edward A. Jaeger, Jr. and William L. Doerler – White and Williams LLPIn Conway v. Cutler Group, Inc., -- A.3d --, 2014 WL 4064261 (Pa.), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania addressed the question of whether a subsequent home buyer can recover from a home builder pursuant to the builder’s implied warranty of habitability, a warranty that protects those who purchase a newly constructed home from latent defects. Concluding that a builder’s warranty of habitability is grounded in contract, the Court held that a subsequent purchaser of a previously inhabited home cannot recover damages from a builder-vendor based on the builder-vendor’s breach of the implied warranty of habitability. The Court’s decision leaves unanswered the question of whether a purchaser who is also the first user-purchaser of a new home can pursue a breach of warranty action against a builder with whom the purchaser is not in privity of contract.
In Conway, the Cutler Group, Inc. (Cutler) sold a new home to Davey and Holly Fields. The Fields subsequently sold the home to Michael and Deborah Conway. After the Conways discovered water infiltration problems in their home, they filed a one-count complaint against Cutler, alleging that Cutler breached its implied warranty of habitability. In response to the Conways’ complaint, Cutler filed preliminary objections, arguing that the warranty of habitability extends from the builder only to the first purchaser of a newly constructed home. The trial court sustained Cutler’s preliminary objections based on the lack of contractual privity between the parties and the Conways appealed the trial court’s decision. On appeal, the Superior Court reversed, stating that the implied warranty of habitability is based on public policy considerations and exists independently of any representations by the builder, and even in the absence of an express contract between the builder and the purchaser. Cutler appealed the Superior Court’s decision to the Supreme Court.
To address the question of whether the implied warranty of habitability extends to a subsequent purchaser of a used residence, the Court discussed the history of the implied warranty of habitability in Pennsylvania. As stated by the Court, the Court adopted the implied warranty of habitability in the context of new home sales to reject the traditional doctrine of caveat emptor (buyer beware) because the purchaser of a new home justifiably relies on the skill of the developer. Thus, as between the builder-vendor and the buyer, the builder should bear the risk that the home he builds is habitable and functional. In adopting the doctrine, the Court noted that the doctrine is rooted in the existence of a contract – an agreement of sale – between the builder-vendor and the buyer.
Reprinted courtesy of
Edward A. Jaeger, Jr., White and Williams LLP and
William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Jaeger may be contacted at jaegere@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
