The Roads to Justice: Building New Bridges
August 23, 2021 —
Aileen Cho - Engineering News-RecordFormer U.S. Dept. of Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx grew up on “the wrong side of the tracks.”
“My home was a stone’s throw from Interstates 85 and 77,” recalls Foxx, who grew up in Charlotte, N.C., and served as DOT Secretary from 2013-17 under President Barack Obama. “The airport was nearby. Planes flew at low altitude over our house. Whether or not I was using the system, I sure heard and saw a lot of it.” Desirable areas to live were far away from transportation infrastructure, “and the property values of those living near these projects was diminished.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Aileen Cho, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Cho may be contacted at choa@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
3M PFAS Water Settlement Could Reach $12.5B
July 16, 2023 —
Jim Parsons, Debra K. Rubin3M Co. has offically moved to settle claims of fouled drinking water stemming from the use of so-called “forever chemicals,” striking a deal with U.S. public water systems that could total $10.5 billion to $12.5 billion over 13 years, it said in a June 22 federal filing.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record and
Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court of Appeals Finds Arbitration Provision Incorporated by Reference Unenforceable
September 20, 2021 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogSubcontractors have gotten accustomed to incorporation clauses in their contracts. While an incorporation clause can incorporate any document, most typically, it’s the prime contract between the general contractor and the project owner. Subcontractors will sometimes even accept these documents sight unseen which can be a recipe for disaster. But not in the next case.
In Remedial Construction Services, LP v. AECOM, Inc., Case No. B303797 (June 15, 2021), the 2nd District Court of Appeal examined whether a subcontractor was bound to an arbitration provision contained in a prime contract that was incorporated by reference into the subcontractor’s contract. In this case, it was the prime contractor who was in for a surprise.
The Remedial Construction Case
In 2015, Shell Oil Products US, LLC entered into a prime contract with AECOM Technical Services, Inc. for the demolition, remediation and restoration of the Gaviota oil terminal in Goleta, California. AECOM in turn entered into a subcontract with Remedial Construction Services, LP to perform portions of the work. When AECOM refused to pay Remedial for delay costs asserted by Remedial, Remedial filed suit.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Law Firm Settles Two Construction Defect Suits for a Combined $4.7 Million
October 25, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFConstruction Lawyers, LLP has announced that it has settled two Florida construction defect suits, both of which were filed by condominium associations. The first of these involved the Estates at Park Central Condominium Association, a 244-unit condominium complex in Orlando Florida. The condominium association alleged leaks into balconies and garages, and deficiencies in stucco application. After nearly three years since the filing of the lawsuit, and only weeks before the trial was to begin, the case was settled for $2 million.
The second case has also spent the last three years in mediation, however its trial date was further away. The Grand Venezia Condominium Owners Association alleged construction defects including leaking roofs and windows, and improperly installed stucco, leading to dry rot and water damage. The condominium community comprises 336 units in Clearwater, Florida and the units were originally built as apartments. Here, the settlement with the contractor was for $2.75 million. A lawsuit against the developer continues.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
2017 Legislative Changes Affecting the Construction Industry
July 13, 2017 —
Melinda S. Gentile – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.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
How Small Mistakes Can Have Serious Consequences Under California's Contractor Licensing Laws.
February 15, 2018 —
Eric Reed - Myers, Widders, Gibson, Jones & Feingold, LLPIn construction, some risks have nothing to do with how well a contractor executes a project. Licensing problems is one of these risks. Even a brief lapse caused by an unintentional administrative error can give the CSLB grounds to discipline a contractor, or enable a customer to seek disgorgement and other remedies provided by Business and Professions Code section 7031. This article discusses five tips for mitigating the liabilities associated with licensing problems.
Tip 1: Take workers' compensation insurance very seriously. Workers’ compensation insurance problems can trigger license suspension in California. Business and Professions Code section 7125.4 calls for automatic suspension if a contractor cannot provide proof of workers’ compensation insurance for any period of time. This is particularly serious for residential remodelers who claim exemption for workers’ compensation but are later discovered – usually during litigation with a homeowner – to have “off the books” workers helping them. Courts can declare the contractor retroactively unlicensed under these circumstances and order it to disgorge,
i.e., to pay back, every penny paid by the customer for the entire project (even for materials). (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7031, subd. (b);
Wright v. Issak (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1116.) The contractor will also find itself unable to collect any amounts owed to it by the customer. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7031, subd. (a).)
Tip 2: Watch out for licensing confusion after a merger or acquisition. The economic downturn of 2008 and 2009 resulted in consolidation throughout the building industry. The newly merged or acquired entities often allowed redundant licenses to expire, assuming they could complete all pending projects under the umbrella of the acquiring company's license. Many learned this was a mistake the hard way. Armed with the California Supreme Court's opinion in
MW Erectors, Inc. v. Niederhauser Ornamental & Metal Works Co., Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 412, customers began refusing to pay invoices and demanding disgorgement under Business and Professions Code section 7031 because the original contractor did not maintain licensure “at all times.” Many of these customers succeeded.
Tip 3: If a license suspension has occurred or is imminent, prepare to prove substantial compliance. Section 7031(a) and (b) give a disgruntled or indebted customer every incentive to capitalize on a contractor's licensing problems. Subdivision (e) is where a contractor must turn to protect its interests if this happens. It allows the contractor to prove “substantial compliance” with licensing requirements and avoid (a)’s and (b)’s sharp edges if it can show the following:
(1) The contractor “had been duly licensed as a contractor in this state prior to the performance of the act or contract”;
(2) It “acted reasonably and in good faith to maintain proper licensure”; and
(3) It “acted promptly and in good faith to remedy the failure to comply with the licensure requirements upon learning of the failure.”
The Court of Appeal confirmed in
Judicial Council of California v. Jacobs Facilities, Inc. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 882 that a contractor, upon request, is entitled to a hearing on these three factors before it is subjected to disgorgement under Section 7031(b). The legislature amended Section 7031 shortly after the Court of Appeal published this case. The Assembly’s floor analysis went so far as to directly quote the opinion’s observation that penalizing a construction firm for “technical transgressions only indirectly serves the Contractors Law’s larger purpose of preventing the delivery of services by unqualified contractors.” (Assem. Com. on Bus. and Prof., Off. of Assem. Floor Analyses, analysis of Sen. Holden's No. 1793 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.) as amended August 2, 2016, p. 2.) This echoed an industry consensus that clarifying the law was needed to ensure that properly licensed and law-abiding construction firms were not “placed at fatal monetary risk by malicious lawsuits motivated by personal gain rather than consumer protection.” (Assem. Com. on Judiciary, com. on Assem. Bill No. 1793 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.), pp. 6-7.)
Unfortunately, existing law does not give many examples of what it means to act “reasonably and in good faith to maintain proper licensure” or to act “promptly and in good faith” to fix license problems. A practical approach is for a contractor to work backwards by assuming it will need to prove substantial compliance at some point in the future. Designated individuals within the organization should have clear responsibility over obtaining and renewing the proper licenses and should keep good records. If necessary, these designees can testify about the contractor's internal policies and their efforts to fix licensing problems when they arose. For example, if the suspension resulted from not providing the CSLB proof of workers’ compensation insurance, the designee can testify about the cause (a broker miscommunication, transmission error,
etc.) and produce documents showing how he or she worked promptly to procure a certificate of insurance to send CSLB. Saved letters, emails, and notes from telephone calls will provide designees and their successors with an important resource months or years down the line if a dispute arises and the contractor is required to reconstruct the chronology of a licensing glitch and prove its due diligence.
Tip 4: Don't sign new contracts unless all necessary licenses are active and any problems are resolved. A recently-formed contractor should not begin soliciting and signing contracts until all required licenses are confirmed as “active.” The first requirement of substantial compliance – being “duly licensed as a contractor in this state prior to the performance of the act or contract” – cannot be met by a contractor that first obtains its license mid-project. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7031, subd. (e)(1);
Alatriste v. Cesar’s Exterior Designs (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 656.) A licensed contractor should also consider refraining from signing new contracts if there is any reason to believe its license might be suspended in the near future – especially if the suspension will be retroactive. Having a suspension on record at the time of contracting may complicate the question of whether the contractor was “duly licensed . . . prior to performance” for the purposes of substantial compliance.
Tip 5: Any judgment against a contractor can cause license suspension if not handled promptly and correctly. The Business and Professions Code authorizes the CSLB to suspend the license of a contractor that does not pay a construction related court judgment within 90 days. The term “construction related” is interpreted to include nearly all types of disputes involving a contractor. (16 Cal. Code Reg. 868;
Pacific Caisson & Shoring, Inc. v. Bernards Bros. Inc. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1254-1255.) This means a contractor should treat a judgment against it for unpaid office rent, for example, as one carrying the same consequences as one arising from a construction defect or subcontractor claim. The contractor should also not assume that filing an appeal, or agreeing with the other side to stay enforcement, automatically excuses the 90-day deadline in the eyes of the CSLB. It does not. A contractor must notify the CSLB in writing before this period expires, then post bond for the amount of judgment, if it wishes to delay payment for any reason. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7071.17, subd. (d).) A suspension may result if it does not. This applies even to small claims judgments.
Recent case law and the 2016 amendments to Business and Professions Code section 7031 provide some solace to those caught in the dragnet of California's licensing laws. But avoiding these problems altogether is preferable. Consider licensing the foundation of a successful business and deserving of the same attention as the structures a contractor builds.
Eric R. Reed is a business and insurance litigator in the Ventura office of Myers, Widders, Gibson, Jones & Feingold, LLP.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Eric Reed, Myers, Widders, Gibson, Jones & Feingold, LLPMr. Reed may be contacted at
ereed@mwgjlaw.com
WA Supreme Court Allows Property Owner to Sue Engineering Firm for Lost Profits
February 25, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFIn the Daily Journal of Commerce, Scott A. Smith and James H. Wendell discussed the recent Washington Supreme Court decision in Donatelli v D. R. Strong Consulting Engineers. The court’s ruling casts “doubt on a company's ability to limit its liability for economic losses arising out of a contract dispute.”
The Donatellis hired D. R. Strong Consulting Engineers to develop vacant land in King County, however, the “project did not go according to plan and the real estate market collapsed before the project was completed,” according to the Daily Journal of Commerce. The “Donatellis lost their property through foreclosure” and then “sued the engineering firm for more than $1.5 million in lost profits.”
D. R. Strong Consulting Engineers asked for the negligence claims to be dismissed “because the parties' contract contained a provision limiting the engineering firm's liability to the amount of its fee for ‘any injury or loss on account of any error, omission, or other professional negligence.’” However, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that “the case could proceed in the trial court on a theory that the engineers could be liable if they made negligent misrepresentations that induced the Donatellis to enter into the contract in the first place.”
Smith and Wendell stated that because of “this decision, engineering, architectural, construction, and other professional service companies may now face damage claims they thought they were contractually protected against.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Exact Dates Not Needed for Construction Defect Insurance Claim
March 01, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe 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 decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
