Is Your Home Improvement Contract Putting You At Risk?
February 10, 2020 —
Hannah Kreuser - Porter Law GroupIf you are like many contractors, odds are that your home improvement contract (HIC) is not compliant with California law, putting you at risk for disciplinary action, voiding of the contract, and even criminal prosecution.
Generally, the laws allow parties to contract how they wish. However, California HICs are an exception and California Business and Professions Code (BPC) requires much in the way of content, form and formatting for a HIC to meet the legal requirements. This is because California has written its laws to provide broad protections to homeowners when it comes to construction work performed at their residence. However, in attempting to promote this goal, the laws surrounding HICs have produced requirements that are confusing and fail to account for the realities of a home improvement project, making it difficult and uncomfortable for contractors to comply.
A HIC is required for home improvement projects that change a residence or property. Specifically, the law defines a “home improvement” as “the repairing, remodeling, altering, converting, or modernizing of, or adding to, residential property and shall include, but not be limited to, the construction, erection, replacement or improvement of driveways, swimming pools, including spas and hot tubs, terraces, patios, awnings, storm windows, landscaping, fences, porches, garages, fallout shelters, basements, and other improvements of the structures or land which is adjacent to a dwelling house.” (BPC section 7151.) A HIC is not required for new residential construction; for work priced at $500 or less; the sale, installation, and service of a fire alarm or burglar system; or a service and repair contract (which has its own requirements).
When a HIC is used, BPC section 7159 specifies certain content, form, and format requirements, all of which must be followed to produce a compliant HIC. While this article will not discuss all of these requirements, it will discuss some of the problems commonly seen in HICs.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hannah Kreuser, Porter Law GroupMs. Kreuser may be contacted at
hkreuser@porterlaw.com
St. Mary & St. John Coptic Orthodox Church v. SBS Insurance Services, Inc.
January 18, 2021 —
Michael Velladao - Lewis BrisboisIn St. Mary & St. John Coptic Orthodox Church v. SBS Insurance Services, Inc., ----Cal.App.5th--- (November 23, 2020), the California First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's entry of judgment in favor of SBC Insurance Services ("SBC") regarding a claim for water damage sustained by a residence owned by St. Mary & John Coptic Church ("St. Mary") under property coverage afforded by a policy issued by Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company ("Philadelphia"). The policy was procured by SBC on behalf of St. Mary. Philadelphia denied coverage of the claim based on the vacancy exclusion in its policy, but entered into a settlement and loan receipt agreement, whereby St. Mary gave Philadelphia the right to control litigation in St. Mary’s name against SBC or third parties who might be liable for the loss in exchange for a loan of money to repair and remediate the damage sustained by the residence. The loan was to be repaid out of any recovery made against SBC or third parties. After a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of SBC and held that the vacancy exclusion was ambiguous. Essentially, the exclusion did not apply to the time period prior to the time St. Mary purchased the residence, such that the 60-day vacancy requirement could not be satisfied. The trial court reasoned that since St. Mary did not have an insurable interest in the property before it purchased the property, the 60-day requirement did not include the period before such residence was purchased and St. Mary held an insurable interest.
The parties’ dispute arose of out of the Pope of the Coptic Church requesting St. Mary to purchase a home to be used as his papal residence in the Western United States. St. Mary also intended to use the home as a residence for visiting bishops. The home was purchased on May 28, 2015. As part of the purchase, SBC placed the home under St. Mary’s commercial policy, rather than purchasing a separate homeowner’s policy for the residence. Subsequently, the home sustained water damage due to a broken pipe. The water damage was discovered on July 24, 2015, 57 days after the inception of the Philadelphia policy and the loss. St. Mary tendered the property loss to Philadelphia, which denied coverage of the claim based on the reasoning that the home had been vacant for 60 consecutive days prior to the loss. Subsequently, St. Mary filed suit against SBC after securing the loan receipt agreement with Philadelphia based on the argument that the vacancy exclusion barred coverage of the claim and SBC breached its duty of care by not securing the proper coverage of the home. The trial court entered judgment in favor of SBC finding that the vacancy exclusion did not apply to bar coverage of the loss, such that SBC did not breach its duty of care owed to St. Mary as its broker.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Velladao, Lewis BrisboisMr. Velladao may be contacted at
Michael.Velladao@lewisbrisbois.com
Question of Parties' Intent Prevents Summary Judgment for Insurer
December 02, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe insurer's and insured's intent as to which entities were to be insured prevented the insurer's motion for summary judgment. Chaus v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136311 (E.D. La. Oct. 5, 2015).
Water damage from a broken pipe occurred at the insured's building. Blaze Chaus LLC owned the building.The building was occupied by two entities which provided health care services: Dr. Kelly G. Burkenstock, M.D. and Azure Spa, Inc. Dr. Burkenstock was the sole owner of all three entities.
The application for commercial insurance was submitted by "Dr. Kelly G. Burkenstock, d/b/a/ Blaze Chaus LLC." The application requested a "Physicians and Surgeons Endorsement" and reflected that the business activities of the applicant as "Internal Medicine Doctor."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Landmark Contractor Licensing Case Limits Disgorgement Remedy in California
November 09, 2020 —
Candace Matson - Construction & Infrastructure Law BlogContractors performing work in California are required to be licensed by the California State License Board (“CSLB”). Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §7065. Except for sole proprietors, contractors are typically licensed through “qualifiers,” i.e., officers or employees who take a licensing exam and meet other requirements to become licensed on behalf of the contractor’s company. Contractors who perform work in California without being properly licensed are subject to a world of hurt, including civil and criminal penalties (see, e.g., Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 7028, 7028.6, 7028.7, 7117, and Cal. Labor Code §§ 1020-1022), and the inability to maintain a lawsuit to recover compensation for their work. Cal. Bus & Prof. Code § 7031(a); Hydra Tech Systems Ltd. v. Oasis Water Park, 52 Cal.3rd 988 (1991).
But arguably the worst ramification of not being property licensed is that established in Business & Professions Code Section 7031(b), which provides that any person who uses the services of an unlicensed contractor may bring an action for the return of all compensation paid for the performance of the work, commonly known as “disgorgement.” This remedy is particularly harsh (often described as “draconian”) because it makes no allowance for the fact that an unlicensed contractor will likely have already paid out the bulk of its compensation to its subcontractors, suppliers and vendors, but nevertheless can be ordered to disgorge all compensation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Candace Matson, Sheppard MullinMs. Matson may be contacted at
cmatson@sheppardmullin.com
New York High Court: “Issued or Delivered” Includes Policies Insuring Risks in New York
December 20, 2017 —
Bethany Barrese & Samantha Martino - Case Alert BlogOn November 20th, the New York Court of Appeals reinstated a case seeking more than six million dollars in damages against the insurers for DHL Worldwide Express Inc. (“DHL”), originating from a fatal head-on car crash between Claudia Carlson and a truck owned by MVP Delivery and Logistics Inc. (“MVP”), a DHL contractor. The truck, which bore DHL’s logo, was owned by MVP and driven by an MVP employee. The MVP employee was running an errand unrelated to his job at the time of the accident. Mrs. Carlson’s husband sued the employee, DHL, and MVP. The jury award of $20 million was reduced to $7.3 million by the Appellate Division. MVP’s insurer paid Mr. Carlson just over $1 million, and the employee assigned his rights to any other insurance coverage to Mr. Carlson
Mr. Carlson sued DHL and its insurers, seeking the balance of the outstanding judgment pursuant to New York Insurance Law § 3420. The defendants successfully moved to dismiss Mr. Carlson’s claims, which dismissal was affirmed by the Appellate Division on the basis that § 3420 did not apply since the policies in question were not “issued or delivered” in New York; they had been issued in New Jersey and delivered in Washington and Florida. The Court of Appeals was subsequently presented with two questions: (1) whether the DHL policies fell within the purview of Insurance Law § 3420 as policies “issued or delivered” in New York; and (2) whether MVP was an “insured” pursuant to the “hired auto” provisions of DHL’s policies.
Reprinted courtesy of
Bethany Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Samantha Martino, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Barrese may be contacted at blb@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Martino may be contacted at smm@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Equities Favor Subrogating Insurer Over Subcontractor That Performed Defective Work
August 04, 2015 —
Christopher Kendrick and Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Valley Crest Landscape v. Mission Pools (No. G049060, filed 6/26/15, ord. pub. 7/2/15), a California appeals court held that equities favor an insurer seeking equitable subrogation over a subcontractor that agreed to defend and indemnify claims arising out of its performance of work under the subcontract.
Valley Crest contracted to build a pool at the St. Regis Hotel in Dana Point. Valley Crest subcontracted with Mission Pools to perform the work. The master contract contained an indemnity clause in favor of St. Regis, and the subcontract contained an indemnity clause in favor of Valley Crest. An intoxicated guest who was rendered quadriplegic after diving in the shallow end of the pool sued the hotel, Valley Crest, Mission and others involved in the design, construction and operation of the pool. The suit included allegations that the pool depth was improperly marked; there was inadequate warning signage; and the pool finish caused the pool to appear deeper than it was. Valley Crest tendered its defense to Mission Pools under the subcontract’s indemnity agreement. When Mission did not respond, Valley crest filed a cross-complaint for indemnity. All parties ultimately reached a settlement with the injured plaintiff, leaving Valley Crest’s cross-complaint against Mission Pools.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com; Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
OSHA Again Pushes Back Record-Keeping Rule Deadline
November 30, 2017 —
Tom Ichniowski - Engineering News-RecordThe federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration is extending again—this time, by two weeks—the compliance date for its rule requiring companies to file annual electronic reports of workplace injuries and illnesses.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tom Ichniowski, ENRMr. Ichniowski may be contacted at
ichniowskit@enr.com
A Landlord’s Guide to the Center for Disease Control’s Eviction Moratorium
October 05, 2020 —
Colton Addy - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogThe Center for Disease Control and Prevention (the “CDC”) and the Department of Health and Human Services (the “HHS”) has issued an order to temporarily halt a landlord’s right to evict certain residential tenants to prevent the further spread of COVID-19 (the “CDC Order”).
The CDC Order is effective through December 31, 2020.
Applicability of the CDC Order. The CDC Order does not apply in jurisdictions that have a moratorium on residential evictions in effect that provides the same or greater level of protection than the CDC Order, and the CDC Order permits local jurisdictions to continue to pass more restrictive eviction moratoriums. To invoke the protection provided by the CDC Order, a landlord’s tenants must deliver an executed declaration (a “CDC Declaration”) form to the landlord that includes the following statements: (i) the tenant has used best efforts to obtain all available government assistance for rent or housing; (ii) expects to earn no more than $99,000 in annual income in 2020 (or $198,000 if filing joint tax returns), was not required to report income in 2019, or received an Economic Impact Payment under the CARES Act; (iii) the tenant is unable to pay the full rent due to substantial loss of household income, loss of work or wages, or extraordinary out-of-pocket medical expenses; (iv) the tenant is using best efforts to make partial payments that are as close to the full rental payments as the tenant’s circumstances permit; and (v) the eviction would likely render the individual homeless or force the individual to move into and live in close quarters or shared living space.
Effect of the CDC Order The CDC Order prevents landlords from evicting tenants for the non-payment of rent or similar housing-related payments that have sent their landlord a CDC Declaration. The CDC Order does not relieve tenants of the obligation to pay rent or other charges owed under their leases and does not preclude a landlord from charging late fees, penalties, or interest for missed payments.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Colton Addy, Snell & WilmerMr. Addy may be contacted at
caddy@swlaw.com
