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
Discussion of History of Construction Defect Litigation in California
September 10, 2014 —
William M. Kaufman – Construction Lawyers BlogCalifornia literally wrote the book on construction defect litigation. Construction defects began to surface after World War II due to cheap track homes being constructed haphazardly on a large scale. Throughout the 1960s, developers began utilizing the services of subcontractors to build massive developments. Rather than having their own employees perform the work, developers began relying more heavily on the specialty subcontractors to perform quality control functions. In 1969, the California Supreme Court expanded liability for developers with respect to residential housing through the concept of strict liability for mass produced homes. Strict liability defendants in construction defect cases may include builders of mass-produced homes, building site developers, component part manufacturers, and material suppliers. Courts have noted that there is little distinction between the “mass production and sale of homes and the mass production and sale of automobiles, and the pertinent overriding policy considerations are the same.” Kriegler v. Eichler Homes, Inc. (1969) 269 Cal. App. 2d 224, 227 (1969). Accordingly, developers of mass-produced tract homes may be held strictly liable whether or not there is privity of contract. Ibid. Courts have held, however, that there is no strict liability against contractors or sub-contractors. See Ranchwood Communities v. Jim Beat Construction (1996) 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 386; La Jolla Village Homeowners’ Assn., Inc. v. Superior Court (1989) 261 Cal.Rptr. 146. Within ten years, attorneys in California were using strict liability theories to seek compensation for homeowners. The initial strict liability lawsuits in California in the 70s and 80s generally applied to condominium projects. The Construction defect “industry” began to take off in the 1980s due to the housing boom and the enforcement of strict liability claims by the courts.
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
Leonard Fadeeff v. State Farm General Insurance Company
September 21, 2020 —
Michael Velladao - Lewis BrisboisIn Fadeeff v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 50 Cal.App.5th 94 (May 22, 2020), the California Court of Appeal reversed the entry of summary judgment in favor of State Farm General Insurance Company (“State Farm”) in connection with a smoke and soot damage claim made by Leonard and Patricia Fadeeff (the “Fadeeffs”) for damage sustained by their home due to the 2015 Valley Fire. The parties’ dispute arose out of the Valley Fire, which took place in Lake County, California. The Fadeeffs’ home was located in Hidden Valley Lake.
The Fadeeffs submitted a claim to State Farm under their homeowners policy. Initially, after an adjuster inspected the home and noted that it was “well maintained” with no apparent maintenance issues, State Farm made a series of payments and arranged for ServPro to clean the smoke and soot damage. Subsequently, the Fadeeffs retained an independent adjuster and submitted a supplemental claim in the amount of $75,000. State Farm retained a different unlicensed adjuster to investigate the claim and retained expert, Forensic Analytical Consulting Services (FACS) to inspect the Fadeeffs’ home, and another company referred to as HVACi, to inspect the Fadeeffs’ HVAC system.
The independent adjuster used to investigate the Fadeeffs’ supplemental claim failed to follow company guidelines in connection with using experts, which required specific questions to be addressed by the expert. In addition, FACS only took surface samples of the walls in the Fadeeffs’ home. Ultimately, the reports prepared by FACS and HVACi concluded that no additional work was required to remediate the damage sustained by the Fadeeffs’ home. Thereafter, State Farm denied the Fadeeffs’ supplemental claim.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Velladao, Lewis BrisboisMr. Velladao may be contacted at
Michael.Velladao@lewisbrisbois.com
Defense for Additional Insured Not Barred By Sole Negligence Provision
August 11, 2011 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiA general contractor was entitled to a defense as an additional insured when the underlying complaint did not allege it was solely negligent. A-1 Roofing Co. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 2011 Ill. App. LEXIS 656 (Ill. Ct. App. June 24, 2011).
A-1 was the general contractor for a roof resurfacing job at a high school. Jack Frost Iron Works Inc. (“Frost”) was one of A-1’s subcontractors. Frost had a CGL policy with Navigators Insurance Company under which A-1 was an additional insured.
An employee of Frost’s subcontractor Midwest Sheet Metal Inc. was killed at the job site when a boom-lift he was operating flipped over. The boom-lift had been leased by another Frost subcontractor, Bakes Steel Erectors, Inc. (BSE). The deceased's estate filed suit against A-1, BSE and two other defendants.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Owner Bankruptcy: What’s a Contractor to Do?
February 28, 2018 —
Troy R. Covington and Stephen M. Parham - Construction Executive MagazineBankruptcy of the owner or developer of a real estate construction project can be very unsettling to contractors. But a declaration of bankruptcy by the developer, in and of itself, does not constitute a breach of contract such that the contractor can stop working. Contract provisions providing that the contract is terminated if a party becomes insolvent or files for bankruptcy are generally unenforceable.
Partially-performed construction contracts are executory contracts, meaning that the obligations of the parties to the contract have not yet been fully performed. The Bankruptcy Code allows a bankruptcy trustee (in a Chapter 7 dissolution case) or the debtor-in-possession (in a Chapter 11 reorganization case) either to assume or to reject an executory contract. A debtor-in-possession has until the time of the confirmation of its plan of reorganization to decide if it will assume or reject the contract. The contractor may ask the bankruptcy court to require the debtor-in-possession to make a decision on the contract sooner, but the court will most likely give the debtor-in-possession a fair amount of time to make the decision.
Reprinted courtesy of
Troy R. Covington and
Stephen M. Parham, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Mr. Covington may be contacted at sparham@bloomparham.com
Mr. Parham may be contacted at tcovington@bloom-law.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Homebuyers Aren't Sweating the Fed
December 17, 2015 —
Rani Molla – BloombergGadflyHome prices are escalating, but the culprit isn't the Federal Reserve.
The Fed is expected to raise its benchmark rate for the first time since 2006, meaning mortgage rate hikes are likely to follow. Small mortgage-rate increases and, by extension, incrementally higher monthly mortgage payments, usually won't undermine sales because buyers aren't sensitive to small payment changes.
Mortgage rates, still at historic lows, have already baked in an expected rate increase of 25 basis points, according to PwC Real Estate Advisory Leader Mitch Roschelle. The National Association of Home Builders Chief Economist David Crowe agrees, adding that the housing market could even digest a cumulative 50 basis point hike by the end of 2016.
The real stress in the housing market is coming from somewhere else: labor shortages.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rani Molla, BloombergGadfly
Too Late for The Blame Game: Massachusetts Court Holds That the Statute of Repose Barred a Product Manufacturer from Seeking Contribution from a Product Installer
March 21, 2022 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Wangs Alliance Corp., No. 21-cv-10389-AK, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26712, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (District Court) considered whether a product manufacturer was barred by the Commonwealth’s six-year statute of repose for improvements to real property from joining the installer of the product as a third-party defendant. The court denied the defendant’s motion for leave to file a third-party complaint to join the installer, finding that the installer completed its work more than six years prior to the motion being filed. This case reminds us that Massachusetts’ six-year statute of repose for improvement to real property also bars a defendant’s contribution claims against third parties.
The Wangs Alliance case involves a subrogation action filed by State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance (Insurer) against Wangs Alliance Corp. (Wangs), a manufacturer of rope lighting. Insurer insured the homeowners, who experienced a fire in their home in 2018. The home was originally built in 2002 by Wellen Construction (Wellen). As part of the original construction, Wellen installed rope lighting manufactured by Wangs in the house.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and WilliamsMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
Construction Defects in Home a Breach of Contract
September 09, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Supreme Court of North Dakota has ruled in Leno v. K & L Homes, affirming the verdict of the lower court. K & L Homes argued that district court had erred in several ways, including by refusing to instruct the jury on comparative fault, denying a request for inspection, and not allowing a defendant to testify on his observations during jury viewing.
The Lenos purchased a home constructed by K & L Homes, after which they alleged they found cracks, unevenness, and shifting, which they attributed to improper construction. They claimed negligence on the part of K & L Homes. K & L Homes responded that the Lenos were responsible for damage to the home. The Lenos dropped their negligence claim, arguing breach of contract and implied warranties.
Before the trial, after the discovery period had passed, K & L Homes requested to inspect the home. This was rejected by the court. Kelly Moldenhauer, the owner of K & L Homes sought to testify about his observations during the jury’s viewing of the house. The court denied this too. The jury found that K & L was in breach of contract and awarded damages to the Lenos.
The North Dakota Supreme Court noted that K & L Homes gave “warranties that the home had been built according to local building codes and laws, and that the house was fit for its particular purpose as a residence.” The court found that a defective home breached this warranty. Further, the home violated an implied warranty of fitness.
The district court had denied K & L’s request to inspect the home, as the discovery period had ended and it would not give the Lenos time to do further discovery of their own. At the time of the request, there was only twenty-two days before the trial. The Supreme Court ruled that this was not an abuse of discretion of the part of the district court.
The Lenos had requested that Moldenhauer’s testimony not be permitted, as it would “have the same effect as if the court had granted K & L Homes’ pretrial request for inspection.” K & L Homes agreed to this in court, replying, “okay.”
The decision affirms the judgment of the district court and the damages awarded to the Lenos by the jury.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
