Florida Governor Signs Construction Defect Amendments into Law
September 17, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to Jeffrey Gilbert and Anaysa Gallardo Stutzman of Cozen O’Connor, Rick Scott, governor of Florida, signed HB 87 into law, which “amends the notice and opportunity to cure provisions of Chapter 558, Florida’s Construction Defect Statute.” The amendments go into effect October first.
HB 87 requires “property owners to provide concrete details of the alleged defects.” Gilbert and Stutzman claimed, “Overall, these amendments seek to further the intended public policy purpose of Chapter 558, which is to provide an alternative dispute resolution mechanism and result in fewer lawsuits and lower litigation costs incurred by parties involved in construction defect matters.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Another Exception to Fraud and Contract Don’t Mix
January 18, 2021 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsHere at Construction Law Musings, we’ve discussed the fact that, in Virginia, the “economic loss rule” generally renders claims of fraud and construction contracts like oil and water. This is true in most states, including Florida.
What this means is that as a general rule where any party is supposed to perform under a contract, and fails to do so, the Virginia courts will dismiss a fraud claim out of a desire to avoid turning any breach of contract (read “broken promise”) case into a claim for fraud. As you have likely gathered by the title of this post, there are exceptions. One is a properly plead Virginia Consumer Protection Act (“VCPA”) claim.
Another, found in a recent Loudoun County, VA Circuit Court opinion in Madison v. Milton Home Systems Inc., is so called fraud in the inducement (in other words, inducing a person to enter the contract under false pretenses). In Madison the Court analyzed several counts based upon a modular home contract and so called “performance agreement” guarantying that the home would be installed by the manufacturer in the event that it’s installer failed to perform.
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
Beyond the Statute: How the Colorado Court Upheld Modified Accrual in Construction Contracts
November 13, 2023 —
Hal Baker - Colorado Construction Litigation BlogIn a case of first impression, the First Division of the Colorado Court of Appeals recently reviewed whether parties may contractually alter the accrual time established by Colorado’s statute of limitations for construction defect actions, C.R.S. § 13-80-104, in South Conejos Sch. Dist. RE-10 v. Wold Architects, Inc., 2023 COA 85 (2023), decided on September 21, 2023. The Court held that sophisticated parties may contractually alter the accrual time standards, enlarging the accrual time as was the issue in this case. Notably, the Court’s decision was made in the context of commercial construction, not residential.
The issue in South Conejos Sch. Dist. RE-10 arose from the construction of a school in Antonito, Colorado. Prior to construction, the South Conejos School District RE-10 (the “School District”) and Wold Architects, Inc. (“Wold”) entered a contract that provided:
Unless a longer period is provided by law, any action against [Wold] brought to recover damages for deficiency in the design, planning, supervision, inspection, construction or observation of construction or for injury to person or property shall be brought within two years after the claim for relief arises and is discovered by [the District]; … “Discovered” as used herein means detection and knowledge by [the District] of the defect in the improvement that ultimately causes the injury, when such defect is of a substantial or significant nature.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hal Baker, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. Baker may be contacted at
baker@hhmrlaw.com
Stop by BHA’s Booth at WCC and Support the Susan G. Komen Foundation
May 12, 2016 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFIf you’re attending the annual West Coast Casualty Seminar at the Disneyland Hotel today and tomorrow, be sure to stop by the Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc., booth and
Sink a Putt for Charity. This year, participant’s efforts
on the green will help benefit the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure. As in years past, sink a putt in the BHA golf challenge and win a $25 Best Buy gift card, and for every successful putt made, BHA will make a $25 cash donation in the golfer’s name to the Susan G. Komen Foundation.
New this year, BHA is hosting three
Championship Rounds and during those periods BHA will double their charitable contributions. For every ATTEMPTED (sink or miss), BHA will make a $50 donation to Susan G. Komen, and for every putt MADE (sunk), the golfer will also win a $50 Best Buy gift card.
Championship rounds are going on today between the times of 10:30am-10:45 am, 3:00pm-3:30pm, and 5:30pm-6:30pm. So be sure to get over to the BHA booth for your chance to support important cancer research as well as possibly taking home a nice gift card for yourself.
BHA also wishes to thank Dave Stern for all of his hard work for the construction defect community in putting together this
must go to seminar and for promoting such worthwhile charities each year.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A Subcontractor’s Perspective On California’s Recent Changes to Indemnity Provisions
September 10, 2014 —
William M. Kaufman – Construction Lawyers BlogGreat news for California subcontractors and suppliers! “Type I” Indemnity provisions in California construction contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2013 are not enforceable. This change in the law prevents owners and general contractors from shifting enormous exposure and costs of litigation downstream to the little guy, namely subcontractors and suppliers. In October 2011, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 474 into law, which represented a major legislative victory for subcontractors and suppliers. The new law also imposed exacting limitations on contractors that attempt to require their subcontractors and suppliers to cover their defense fees and costs in litigation.
New Law Prevents Indemnity or Cost of Defense for Active Negligence
Under a "Type I" indemnity provision, the downstream subcontractor agrees to indemnify the owner or contractor, even against liability caused by the upstream owner/contractor's own "active negligence." A “Type I” indemnity provision in general contractors’ subcontracts often require their subcontractors to defend and indemnify them from liability regardless of whether the general contractor is partially at fault. Subcontractors and suppliers historically have complained that they have little bargaining power when entering into these contracts and these types of provisions can result in ruinous liability for those in the construction industry that are most vulnerable-subcontractors and suppliers. Before this change, the law allowed a general contractor who is 99 percent at fault for an injury or damage to shift the entire risk to a subcontractor who is only one percent at-fault or a subcontractor who is not at fault at all, but tangentially involved in the claim. Subcontractors and suppliers joined forces and lobbied the legislature. The legislature and Governor Brown agreed. Under the new law, such "Type I" indemnity provisions will no longer be enforceable. SB 474 adds Civil Code section 2782.05 that precludes indemnity where the party to be indemnified is "actively negligent" and makes void and unenforceable these types of clauses.
Reprinted courtesy of
William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP
Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Other Side of the North Dakota Oil Boom: Evictions
May 13, 2024 —
Sarah Holder - BloombergWilliams County, North Dakota, is one of the biggest beneficiaries of the state’s fracking boom. In the past decade, millions of barrels of oil have been pumped from its land, and the population of its largest city, Williston, has doubled.
But as the oil flowed and workers poured in to staff the rigs, housing options quickly ran dry. The region’s uneven expansion has led to an eviction crisis for the county’s 39,000 residents, according to a recent paper from a group of sociologists affiliated with Princeton University’s Eviction Lab.
Williams County saw its eviction rate go from “nearly non-existent” in 2010 to over 7% a decade later, the study found. By 2019, at the height of its oil boom — when the state accounted for 11% of the country’s oil production — its eviction filing rate was comparable to that of large, renter-heavy cities like New York City or Philadelphia, according to Eviction Lab. Though oil production peaked in 2019, the problem hasn’t abated: From January through November 2023, more than 550 evictions were recorded by the Williams County Sheriff’s office, up around 30% from the previous full year.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sarah Holder, Bloomberg
D&O Insurer Must Cover Mortgage Broker’s $15 Million Settlement of Alleged False Claims Act Violations
November 15, 2022 —
Michael S. Levine, Geoffrey B. Fehling & Matthew J. Revis - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogA Delaware court recently
granted summary judgment to a mortgage broker targeted in a federal government investigation for alleged False Claims Act violations, holding that the company’s directors and officers liability (“D&O”) insurer was required to indemnify more than $15 million in settlement costs with the U.S. Department of Justice. Guaranteed Rate, Inc. v. ACE American Insurance Company, No. N20C-04-268 MMJ CCLD (Del. Super. Ct. Sept. 6, 2022). We
previously reported on the policyholder’s earlier victory in this case, in which the court held that a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from federal authorities triggered the insurer’s obligation to pay defense costs under the D&O policy.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth,
Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Matthew J. Revis, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Revis may be contacted at mrevis@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman Partners Dana Rice and Jason Taylor Obtain Summary Judgment For Insurance Carrier Client in Missouri Federal Court Coverage Action
April 19, 2022 —
Dana A. Rice & Jason Taylor - Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman Partners Dana Rice and Jason Taylor were recently successful in obtaining summary judgment for a national insurance carrier client in a federal court declaratory judgment action pending in Missouri. The underlying lawsuit involved two wrongful death actions brought against an insured responsible for performing demolition work on a freight elevator shaft as part of a larger demolition project. The two decedents were operating a motorized wire rope pulley inside the shaft when the system failed, causing the work basket occupied by the decedents to fall and resulting in fatal injuries to the workers. Two state court actions followed against the general contractor on the project, the insured, and various other product suppliers and manufacturers of the freight elevator equipment.
The firm’s client issued commercial general liability insurance policy, which included an “Injury to Employees, Contractors, Volunteers and Other Workers” exclusion that precluded coverage for bodily injury to a broad variety of workers. As respects the insured, the underlying plaintiffs alleged that the decedent-workers were “employed by” the insured, such that the carrier argued the “Injury to Workers” exclusion barred coverage. The carrier filed a declaratory judgment action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri seeking a declaration that the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify its insured for the underlying state court actions under the exclusion, and moved for judgment on the pleadings. The carrier also claimed a related “Contractors and Subcontractors” exclusion barred coverage.
Reprinted courtesy of
Dana A. Rice, Traub Lieberman and
Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Rice may be contacted at drice@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
