Checking the Status of your Contractor License During Contract Work is a Necessity: The Expanded “Substantial Compliance” under B&P 7031 is Here
June 05, 2017 —
Ivo G. Daniele – Newmeyer & Dillion LLP News AlertIt is paramount that a contractor diligently maintains its license prior to and during the performance of any contract work. Failure to do so could result in barring a contractor from receiving payment and/or disgorgement of profits received under the construction contract.
California Business and Professions Code section 7031 is part of the Contractors State License Law (Business & Prof. section 700 et seq.), and is both feared and loathed by all contractors performing work in the state of California. This draconian statute is known as the “Shield” and was enacted over 70 years ago for the singular purpose to bar all actions by contractors seeking compensation for unlicensed contract work – even precluding a contractor from enforcing his or her mechanic’s lien rights. However, a contractor could potentially avoid the harshness of B&P 7031 by establishing that he or she had substantially complied with the appropriate licensing requirements.
SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH LICENSE REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO 2017 AMENDMENT
The substantial compliance exception is found in section B&P 7031(e), which authorizes the court to determine that there has been substantial compliance with licensure requirements, if the contractor has shown at an evidentiary hearing that he or she engaged in the unlicensed work had:
- Been duly licensed as a contractor in this state prior to the performance of the act or contract;
- Acted reasonably and in good faith to maintain the license;
- Did not know or reasonably should not have known that he or she was not licensed when he or she performed the work; and
- Acted promptly and in good faith to reinstate the license once it learned the license had lapsed.
Although not impossible, satisfying all four requirements of the exception was challenging for the contractor, specifically, requirement # (3) – the lack of knowledge that he or she was unlicensed during performance of work.
SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE POST 2017
Fortunately, Governor Brown heard the collective cry for relief and signed Assembly Bill 1793 (“AB 1793”) into law. The new bill revises the criteria for the court to determine if a contractor is in substantial compliance with the licensing requirements by deleting requirement # (3) in its entirety and modestly amending requirement # (4) to require the contractor to act promptly and in good faith to remedy the failure to comply with the licensure requirements upon learning of the failure.
As a result, the substantial compliance exception under B&P 7031(e) reads as follows:
(e) The judicial doctrine of substantial compliance shall not apply under this section where the person who engaged in the business or acted in the capacity of a contractor has never been a duly licensed contractor in this state. However, notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section 143, the court may determine that there has been substantial compliance with licensure requirements under this section if it is shown at an evidentiary hearing that the person who engaged in the business or acted in the capacity of a contractor
(1) had been duly licensed as a contractor in this state prior to the performance of the act or contract, (2) acted reasonably and in good faith to maintain proper licensure, and (3) acted promptly and in good faith to remedy the failure to comply with the licensure requirements upon learning of the failure.
This new legislation has tempered the burden of proof born by the contractor in establishing substantial compliance, although be it minor in its modification, the fact of the matter remains the same – be diligent in maintaining your license during all phases of contract work.
Ivo Daniele is a seasoned associate in the Walnut Creek office focusing his practice on commercial transactions and business and construction litigation. For questions regarding California Business and Professions Code section 7031, please feel free to contact Ivo Daniele at (925) 988-3222 or ivo.daniele@ndlf.com.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Texas Central Wins Authority to Take Land for High-Speed Rail System
October 03, 2022 —
Barclay Nicholson & Erica Gibbons - Sheppard Mullin Construction & Infrastructure Law BlogMove over luxury bus lines and quick flights. Central Texans should be on the lookout for bulldozers and train stops. On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court of Texas held that Texas Central Railroad & Infrastructure, Inc. and related entities (collectively “Texas Central”) have eminent domain authority to acquire property for a proposed high-speed rail system between Dallas and Houston.
[1] Specifically, the Court held that the corporation qualifies as an “interurban electric railway company” under the Texas Transportation Code. This ruling grants Texas Central the broad condemnation authority to procure land for the project.
Texas Central has Statutory Authority to Take Land
The plaintiff in the matter, a farm owner with property south of Dallas along the proposed path of the bullet train, challenged the companies power to condemn land. The landowner’s declaratory judgment action challenged Texas Central’s eminent-domain authority. Under Texas law, condemnation power must be conferred by the legislature, either expressly or by necessary implication.
[2]
Here, Texas Central was created for the purpose of constructing, acquiring, maintaining, or operating lines of electric railway between Texas municipalities. The Court found that Texas Central is engaged in activities to further that purpose. Therefore, the Court concluded, that although legislators did not contemplate high-speed railways at the time of drafting the Transportation Code, Texas Central nonetheless qualified as “interurban electric railway companies” under the statute.
Reprinted courtesy of
Barclay Nicholson, Sheppard Mullin and
Erica Gibbons, Sheppard Mullin
Mr. Nicholson may be contacted at bnicholson@sheppardmullin.com
Ms. Gibbons may be contacted at egibbons@sheppardmullin.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Performance Bonds: Follow the Letter of the Bond and Keep The Surety Informed
December 06, 2021 —
Bill Shaughnessy, Jones Walker, LLP - ConsensusDocsConstruction surety bonds are risk management tools utilized by parties on large construction projects. However, bonds are not insurance, and a surety is not an “insurer” of the project. Different from insurance, a surety’s obligation to act typically arises if the principal fails to perform in accordance with the construction contract, and if the claimant satisfies the conditions precedent to enforcing the bond.[1]
This article focuses exclusively on performance bonds on private projects,[2] and highlights practical considerations and surety defenses to enforcement of the performance bond.[3] Spoiler alert – the party making a claim on the bond must strictly adhere to the conditions precedent set forth in the bond throughout the construction project and when calling upon the surety to take action, otherwise the performance bond may be rendered void and unenforceable.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bill Shaughnessy, Jones Walker, LLPMr. Shaughnessy may be contacted at
bshaughnessy@joneswalker.com
Courthouse Reporter Series - How to Avoid Having Your COVID-19 Expert Stricken
September 25, 2023 —
Andrew G. Vicknair - The Dispute ResolverExpert witnesses play a key role in litigation, especially when dealing with construction issues. The testimony of an expert at trial can be a deciding factor in helping persuade a jury or judge in your client’s favor. Thus, it is imperative that your expert’s opinion meet the proper legal standard.
In Polaris Engineering, Inc. v. Texas International Terminals, LTD, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas reiterated the importance of an expert’s opinion complying with the applicable legal standards governing expert testimony. 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109413 (S.D. Tex. June 26, 2023).
The legal standard at issue in Polaris was Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Polaris involved a suit arising from a contract related to the design, engineering, and construction of a terminal and crude-oil processing facility for Texas International Terminals in Galveston, Texas. There were four separate contracts that governed the Project. One of the contracts governed the creation of the 50,000 barrel per day crude processing unit. Because the parties wanted to move quickly, they agreed to certain assumptions about the Project and specifically designed a change order process whereby the price and schedule could be adjusted if the agreed upon assumptions were incorrect.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Andrew G. Vicknair, D'Arcy Vicknair, LLCMr. Vicknair may be contacted at
agv@darcyvicknair.com
The Washington Supreme Court Rules that a Holder of a Certificate of Insurance Is Entitled to Coverage
March 09, 2020 —
Sally Kim & Kyle Silk-Eglit - Gordon & Rees Insurance Coverage Law BlogThe Washington courts have historically found that the purpose of a certificate of insurance is to advise others as to the existence of insurance, but that a certificate is not the equivalent of an insurance policy. However, the Washington State Supreme Court recently held that, under certain circumstances, an insurer may be bound by the representations that its insurance agent makes in a certificate of insurance as to the additional insured (“AI”) status of a third party. Specifically, in T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of America, the Supreme Court found that where an insurance agent had erroneously indicated in a certificate of insurance that an entity was an AI under a liability policy, that entity would be considered as an AI based upon the agent’s apparent authority, despite boilerplate disclaimer language contained in the certificate. T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of America, Slip. Op. No. 96500-5, 2019 WL 5076647 (Wash. Oct. 10, 2019).
In this case, Selective Insurance Company of America (“Selective”) issued a liability policy to a contractor who had been retained by T-Mobile Northeast (“T-Mobile NE”) to construct a cell tower. The policy conferred AI status to a third party if the insured-contractor had agreed in a written contract to add the third party as an AI to the policy. Under the terms of the subject construction contract, the contractor was required to name T-Mobile NE as an AI under the policy. T-Mobile NE was therefore properly considered as an AI because the contractor was required to provide AI coverage to T-Mobile NE under the terms of their contract.
However, over the course of approximately seven years, Selective’s own insurance agent issued a series of certificates of insurance that erroneously identified a different company, “T-Mobile USA”, as an AI under the policy. This was in error because there was no contractual requirement that T-Mobile USA be added as an AI. Nonetheless, the certificates stated that T-Mobile USA was an AI, and they were signed by the agent as Selective’s “authorized representative.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Sally S. Kim, Gordon & Rees and
Kyle J. Silk-Eglit, Gordon & Rees
Ms. Kim may be contacted at sallykim@grsm.com
Mr. Silk-Eglit may be contacted at ksilkeglit@grsm.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
San Diego Appellate Team Prevails in Premises Liability Appeal
December 06, 2021 —
Corinne Bertsche, Jeffry Miller & Tracy Forbath - Lewis BrisboisSan Diego, Calif. (October 28, 2021) - San Diego Appellate Practice Partners Jeffry A. Miller and Corinne C. Bertsche, along with Associate Tracy D. Forbath, recently obtained a win on appeal when California's Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District, Division Four affirmed the trial court’s grant of a client homeowners association’s motion for summary judgment. In the underlying matter, the plaintiff alleged claims for premises liability and negligence for injuries he sustained when tripping over an uplift of two misaligned adjacent slabs of concrete sidewalk, measuring 1.25 inches and located next to a condominium complex.
The appellate court agreed that the defect in question was a trivial defect as a matter of law, despite the plaintiff’s arguments that there was a triable issue of material fact as to whether the uplift’s dangerousness was exacerbated by the presence of aggravating factors. The appellate court found that the plaintiff’s expert declaration did not support the alleged aggravating factors with admissible evidence, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding it.
Reprinted courtesy of
Corinne Bertsche, Lewis Brisbois,
Jeffry Miller, Lewis Brisbois and
Tracy Forbath, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Bertsche may be contacted at Corinne.Bertsche@lewisbrisbois.com
Mr. Miller may be contacted at Jeff.Miller@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Forbath may be contacted at Tracy.Forbath@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Charges in Kansas Water Park Death
March 28, 2018 —
David Suggs - CDJ STAFFCaleb Schwab, a 10-year old boy was killed by decapitation on a water slide at a Kansas City water park, Schlitterbahn in 2016. Thirteen other people had suffered injuries on the ride prior to Caleb’s death ranging in severity from broken toes to concussions. Schlitterbahn employees have since claimed that park officials covered up past occurrences of water slide injuries.
Three people have been indicted in this case according to a CNN report by Marlena Baldacci, Sheena Jones and Hollie Silverman. Jeffrey Henry, the co-owner of the Schlitterbahn water park, Tyler Austin Miles, the park’s former director of operations and John Schooley.
Charges include second-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter, aggravated battery and aggravated child endangerment. Caleb suffered a fatal injury when the raft that he and the two women who were riding with him became airborne and contacted the netting attached overhead.
Investigators have found maintenance issues and ride design flaws that violate safety standards leading to lack of prevention of rafts becoming airborne during the ride. Caleb’s family will receive nearly $20 million in the settlement. Caleb’s father Scott, released a statement about placing full trust in the Attorney General Derek Schmidt who is presiding over the investigation and indictments.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Second Circuit Affirms Win for General Contractor on No Damages for Delay Provision
September 02, 2024 —
Bill Wilson - Construction Law ZoneIn NASDI, LLC v. Skanska Koch Inc. Kiewit Infrastructure Co. (JV), 2024 WL 1270188 (2d Cir. Mar. 26, 2024), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing a subcontractor’s delay claim against a general contractor on a public project in New York state. The Court enforced a typical no-damages-for-delay provision to bar the subcontractor’s breach of contract claim. The no-damages-for-delay provision in the subcontract at issue provided:
NO DAMAGE FOR DELAY. Except as otherwise provided …, Subcontractor agrees that it shall have no Claim against Contractor for any loss or damage it may sustain through delay, disruption, suspension, stoppage, interference, interruption, compression, or acceleration of Subcontractor’s Work (‘Delay Damages’) caused or directed by Contractor for any reason, and that all such Claims shall be fully compensated for by Contractor’s granting Subcontractor such time extensions as it is entitled to as a result of any of the foregoing.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLPMr. Wilson may be contacted at
wwilson@rc.com
