Filing Lien Foreclosure Lawsuit After Serving Contractor’s Final Payment Affidavit
June 06, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIf you are an unpaid contractor in direct contract with the owner of real property, you should be serving a Contractor’s Final Payment Affidavit prior to foreclosing on your construction lien. This should extend to any trade contractor hired directly by the owner. As a matter of course, I recommend any lienor hired directly by the owner that wants to foreclose its lien to serve a Contractor’s Final Payment Affidavit. For example, if you are a plumbing contractor hired by the owner and want to foreclose your lien, serve the Affidavit. If you are a swimming pool contractor hired by the owner and want to foreclose your lien, serve the Affidavit. You get the point. (If you are not in direct contract with the owner, you do not need to serve the Affidavit, but you need to make sure you timely served your Notice to Owner; when you are in direct contract with the owner, you do not need to serve the Notice to Owner because the owner already knows you exist.)
The Contractor’s Final Payment Affidavit is a statutory form. I suggest working with counsel to help execute to avoid any doubts with the information to include. The unpaid amount listed should correspond with the amount in your lien and you want to identify all unpaid lienors (your subcontractors and suppliers) and amounts you believe they are owed.
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
California Supreme Court Holds “Notice-Prejudice” Rule is “Fundamental Public Policy” of California, May Override Choice of Law Provisions in Policies
November 12, 2019 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia & Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLPOn August 29, 2019, in Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2019 Cal. LEXIS 6240, the California Supreme Court held that, in the insurance context, the common law “notice-prejudice” rule is a “fundamental public policy” of the State of California for purposes of choice of law analysis. Thus, even though the policy in Pitzer had a choice of law provision requiring application of New York law – which does not require an insurer to prove prejudice for late notice of claims under policies delivered outside of New York – that provision can be overridden by California’s public policy of requiring insurers to prove prejudice after late notice of a claim. The Supreme Court in Pitzer also held that the notice-prejudice rule “generally applies to consent provisions in the context of first party liability policy coverage,” but not to consent provisions in the third-party liability policy context.
The Pitzer case arose from a discovery of polluted soil at Pitzer College during a dormitory construction project. Facing pressure to finish the project by the start of the next school term, Pitzer officials took steps to remediate the polluted soil at a cost of $2 million. When Pitzer notified its insurer of the remediation, and made a claim for the attendant costs, the insurer “denied coverage based on Pitzer’s failure to give notice as soon as practicable and its failure to obtain [the insurer’s] consent before commencing the remediation process.” The Supreme Court observed that Pitzer did not inform its insurer of the remediation until “three months after it completed remediation and six months after it discovered the darkened soils.” In response to the denial of coverage, Pitzer sued the insurer in California state court, the insurer removed the action to federal court and the insurer moved for summary judgment “claiming that it had no obligation to indemnify Pitzer for remediation costs because Pitzer had violated the Policy’s notice and consent provisions.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Timothy Carroll, White and Williams and
Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams
Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Do You Really Want Mandatory Arbitration in Your Construction Contract?
June 25, 2019 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIf you are in construction, you have likley run across (or even drafted) a dispute resolution provision into your construction contract. If you’ve been building for any length of time, you’ve read dispute resolution provisions containing mandatory arbitration clauses. These clauses can be found in the AIA documents and in many of the contracts that I review for my clients in my role as construction lawyer and counselor. More often than not, these arbitration clauses require arbitration (read “private court”) and refer to one of several sets of rules, though most likely the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) Construction Industry rules. In Virginia, as in most of the United States, these clauses are read liberally and enforced by courts except in limited cases such as waiver.
The main justification for requiring arbitration over litigation is to avoid the fees and expense of the litigation process. In the right circumstances, arbitration does just that. With a carefully drafted arbitration clauses and with the right case that requires expertise in construction that a judge does not have (they have to liten to all manner of disputes so are necessarily generalists), arbitration can and should be a streamlined and less expensive version of litigation.
However, in my time as a construction attorney, I have more often run into situations where the arbitration process is at least equally expensive and frankly not much more streamlined. The additional administrative burden coupled with the possibility of paying for at least half of the hourly charges of one to three arbitrators is often not worth the additional expertise of those arbitrators. Many construction claims simply come down to non-payment and whether the work was performed properly. In my opinion, the fine judges in the Commonwealth of Virginia are more than capable of hearing this evidence and making a ruling.
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
Application of Frye Test to Determine Admissibility of Expert
April 03, 2019 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesFlorida went back to the Frye test/standard, instead of the Daubert test utilized in federal court, to determine the admissibility of expert testimony. The Frye test is more favorable to plaintiffs because it applies when an expert renders an opinion based on new or novel scientific principles. See D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Heron’s Landing Condominium Ass’n of Jacksonville, Inc., 44 Fla.L.Weekly D109b (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (“The supreme court has described the Frye test as one in which the results of mechanical or scientific testing are not admissible unless the testing has developed or improved to the point where the experts in the field widely share the view that the results are scientifically reliable as accurate. Stated differently, under Frye, the proponent of the evidence has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence with the general acceptance of the underlying scientific principles and methodology. However, as stated, the Frye standard only applies when an expert attempts to render an opinion that is based upon new or novel scientific principles.”).
In D.R. Horton, Inc., a condominium association sued the developer and general contractor (same entity) for construction defects that included claims in negligence, violation of building code, and breach of statutory warranties. The developer/general contractor moved in limine / to strike the association’s experts under, at the time, a Daubert analysis, but which became a Frye analysis during the pendency of the appeal. The expert opined as to construction defects and damage and the appropriate repairs – really, no different than any construction defect dispute, from what it appeared. The trial court denied the motion and during trial the experts testified and a sizable damages judgment was entered against the developer/contractor prompting the appeal. One issue on appeal was the admissibility of the expert’s opinion. The appellate court noted that a Frye analysis is not necessary because the experts used a scientifically reliable and peer-reviewed methodology.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Class Action Certification by Association for “Matters of Common Interest”
August 24, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesAssociations have authority to pursue as a class, on behalf of all of their respective members, lawsuits “concerning members of common interest to the members.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.221. This includes, but is not limited to, the common property or the areas in which the association is responsible. But, what about matters or elements for which the association is not responsible or does not own? For example, issues or damages relative to a specific unit or owner that are prevalent throughout?
The Third District Court of Appeal addressed this question in Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. Latitude on the River Condominium Association, Inc., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D1518a (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) when in affirmed a class certification by a condominium association relating to the removal and replacement of the condominium building’s defective fire sprinkler system. In affirming the class certification by the condominium association, the Third District maintained:
Rule 1.221 expressly authorizes condominium associations to “institute, maintain, settle, or appeal actions or hearings in its name on behalf of all association members concerning matters of common interest to the members.” “[A]s to controversies affecting the matters of common interest . . ., the condominium association, without more, should be construed to represent the class composed of its members as a matter of law.” “[T]he common interest provision of the rule has been interpreted to permit a class action by the association for a construction defect located physically within a unit, rather than in the common elements, if the defect is prevalent throughout the building.” We, therefore, cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in finding that damages resulting from the replacement of the fire-sprinkler system throughout the building were a matter of common interest for purposes of certification at this stage of the litigation.
Allied Tube and Conduit Corp, supra (internal citations omitted).
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
The Buck Stops Over There: Have Indemnitors Become the Insurers of First and Last Resort?
September 17, 2015 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogInsurance and indemnity are the primary risk management strategies on construction projects. Insurance, such as commercial general liability insurance, insures against third party claims for bodily injury and property damage, and in the case of builder’s risk insurance, insures against first party claims during construction.
Indemnity, on the other hand, shifts liability from one party to another and can be broader than the types of claims covered by insurance although anti-indemnity statutes can limit the breadth of those claims.
Sometimes though insurance and indemnity work in ways you might never have expected, like in the next case, Valley Crest Landscape Development, Inc. v. Mission Pools of Escondido, Inc., Case No. G049060 (July 2, 2015), in which the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District held a subcontractor liable in the face of both an indemnity claim brought by a general contractor as well as a subrogation claim brought by the general contractor’s insurance company.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
2017 Legislative Changes Affecting the Construction Industry
November 21, 2017 —
Melinda S. Gentile – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Originally published by CDJ on July 13, 2017
The 2017 Florida Legislative Session recently concluded, and a number of important construction-related House Bills (HB) and Senate Bills (SB) were presented during the Session, most notably SB 204/HB 377. These Bills may impact General Contractors and Construction Managers in a number of ways, not the least of which is the period of time that a cause of action may be initiated for the design, planning or construction of an improvement.
The following construction-related Bills passed in both the House and Senate and will become law if approved by the Governor.
Senate Bill (SB) 204/House Bill (HB) 377: Relating to the Statute of Repose for causes of action based on design, planning or construction of an improvement to real property. This bill passed both the House and the Senate and was approved by the Governor on June 14, 2017. This bill becomes effective on July 1, 2017.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melinda S. Gentile, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Ms. Gentile may be contacted at
mgentile@pecklaw.com
Defective Sprinklers Not Cause of Library Flooding
October 30, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFSprinklers are important in any public building, but libraries with their large collections of nicely flammable paper. Of course, you also want to keep those books dry. The Hilton Head Island library investigated its sprinklers after a malfunctioning sprinkler head flooded the Friends of the Library bookshop, ruining thousands of books.
The investigation found that, apart from the malfunction, the sprinklers had a defect that could have lead to their failure to operate in the event of a fire. The sprinklers had been the subject of a voluntary recall in 2001, however the 220 sprinkler heads were not replaced at that time. The county claimed that they were unaware of the recall at the time, and so failed to take advantage of program under which the manufacturer would pay for the recall. That program ended in 2007.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
