Condo Collapse Spurs Hometown House Member to Demand U.S. Rules
July 19, 2021 —
Parker Purifoy - BloombergA Florida congresswoman called for stricter federal building-safety standards on Thursday to prevent a repeat of the condominium collapse that killed at least 60 people and left dozens more missing in her state.
Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Democrat whose congressional district includes the condo development in Surfside, said more buildings could collapse or break down as they age and the federal government needed to have a “minimum floor” of safety requirements.
“We do have standards that are tangentially related at the federal level and so I do think it’s important to look into what standards should be adopted at the national level, at a minimum, because this is a tragedy of epic proportions,” she said on Bloomberg Television’s “Balance of Power” with David Westin. “We can’t allow this to ever happen again.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Parker Purifoy, Bloomberg
Winning Attorney Fees in Litigation as a California Construction Contractor or Subcontractor
December 27, 2021 —
William L. Porter - Porter Law GroupThe General Rule in California: The Winner Does NOT Receive Attorney Fees and Costs:
There is a common misconception that court decisions require the loser in a lawsuit to reimburse the winner for the fees and costs incurred during the lawsuit. Reliance on this misconception in developing a legal strategy for dealing with disputes is a serious strategic error. Where the legal issue is, for example, “breach of contract,” the general rule in California is that there are only two methods by which the winning litigant will be awarded the attorney fees and costs incurred in bringing or defending the lawsuit. The first of these is if the contract in question contains an effective attorney fee clause specifically providing that the prevailing party will recover their attorney fees and costs. The second is if there is a statute on point which provides that the prevailing party will be awarded those fees and costs. The general rule in California is that each party pays their own attorney fees and costs, unless there is an independent legal basis that provides otherwise. This is known as the “American Rule,” used throughout most of the country.
The Issue is Important Because Spending More Money Than You Can Be Awarded is a Losing Strategy:
The importance of whether the prevailing party in a lawsuit will be awarded their fees and costs cannot be underestimated. The party contemplating whether to bring a lawsuit must seriously consider whether it is even worth the trouble. In many cases, unless the one bringing the lawsuit (the “plaintiff”) is entitled to be reimbursed for the considerable attorney fees and costs incurred in bringing the case, it is just not worth doing so. There is no point spending $50,000 on attorneys on a $40,000 claim unless the plaintiff can be awarded both the $40,000 and the $50,000 if the plaintiff wins. Unless fees and costs are awarded, the plaintiff will still be out $10,000 in the very best of cases. For a party sued (the “defendant”) a similar situation arises in that the defendant faces the reality that it may be less expensive to just pay on a frivolous or false claim than to fight it. Either scenario is unsatisfactory. On the whole, it is beneficial to have an attorney fee clause in a contract when either a plaintiff or a defendant must vindicate its rights. Both deserve to be fully compensated to achieve justice. It is also beneficial to have an attorney fee clause in a contract to encourage the one who is at fault to resolve the case rather than risk paying the fees and costs of the other party who is likely to win the case. In either case, the presence of an attorney fee clause facilitates the party in the right and encourages resolution outside of litigation. These are admirable societal goals.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Porter, Porter Law GroupMr. Porter may be contacted at
bporter@porterlaw.com
Texas Court of Appeals Conditionally Grant Petition for Writ of Mandamus to Anderson
April 25, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFThe Texas Court of Appeals conditionally grant mandamus relief to Anderson Construction Company and Ronnie Anderson (collectively “Anderson”)… from the trial court in a construction defect lawsuit filed by Brent L. Mainwaring and Tatayana Mainwaring. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.001-.007 (West 2000 & Supp. 2010). Relators contend the trial court abused its discretion by compelling discovery while the case was abated by operation of law.
The Court of Appeals opinion describes what led up to the proceedings: “The Mainwarings’ original petition identified certain defects in their Anderson-constructed home. Those defects concerned the roof trusses and framing, air conditioning, mortar and masonry, exterior doors and windows, and weep holes. With respect to the five areas of defects identified in their original petition, the Mainwarings gave Anderson the statutorily required notice on January 13, 2010. After implementing agreed extensions, Anderson made an offer of settlement for the defects the Mainwarings identified in their notice. Almost eight months later, the Mainwarings filed an amended petition adding defects they had not included in their original petition and notice. The additional defects the Mainwarings included in their amended petition had not been addressed by Anderson’s offer of settlement.”
Following these events, Anderson claimed the Mainwarings did not respond in writing to their settlement offer. “Anderson filed a verified plea in abatement on December 2, 2010. In the trial court, Anderson claimed that the Mainwarings failed to respond in writing to Anderson’s settlement offer, as required by Section 27.004(b) of the RCLA. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(b)(1). The Mainwarings moved to compel discovery responses from Anderson. The Mainwarings alleged that they rejected Anderson’s settlement offer, and that if their response was insufficient, they contend that Anderson’s offer was rejected by operation of law on the twenty-fifth day after the Mainwarings received it. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(i). The Mainwarings’ motion to compel was not supported by affidavit. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(d)(2). On January 13, 2011, Anderson filed a verified supplemental plea in abatement. Anderson alleged that the Mainwarings failed to provide written notice concerning the newly alleged defects and complained the Mainwarings were attempting to circumvent the inspection and resolution procedure of the RCLA. Over Anderson’s objection that the lawsuit had been abated, the trial court granted the Mainwarings’ motion to compel discovery.”
After listening to both sides, the Court of Appeals offered this reasoning for their opinion: “The parties do not dispute that Anderson inspected the property before the Mainwarings alleged the existence of additional defects in their amended pleading, nor do the Mainwarings claim that Anderson has been given an opportunity to inspect the additional defects the Mainwarings identified in their amended pleadings. We conclude the trial court did not have the discretion to deny or lift the abatement until the Mainwarings established their compliance with the statute. In other words, the Mainwarings are required to provide Anderson a reasonable opportunity to inspect the additional defects identified by their amended pleading, which will allow Anderson the opportunity to cure or settle with respect to the newly identified defects.”
The Court of Appeals spoke directly on the issue of mandamus relief: “The Mainwarings contend that mandamus relief is not available because the trial court’s ruling does not prevent Anderson from making settlement offers during the discovery process. ‘An appellate remedy is “adequate” when any benefits to mandamus review are outweighed by the detriments.’ In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004). The failure to abate a case is typically not subject to mandamus. See In re Allstate Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co., 85 S.W.3d 193, 196 (Tex. 2002) (citing Abor v. Black, 695 S.W.2d 564, 567 (Tex. 1985)). In this case, however, the case was abated by operation of law. By ignoring the statutory abatement, the trial court interfered with the statutory procedure for developing and resolving construction defect claims. See In re Kimball Hill Homes Tex., Inc., 969 S.W.2d 522, 525 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, orig. proceeding) (An appeal provides an inadequate remedy for the trial court’s failure to observe automatic abatement pursuant to the RCLA.). The benefits of mandamus review are not outweighed by the detriments of mandamus review in this case.“
In conclusion, “The trial court had no discretion to compel discovery while the case was abated, and Anderson, who has been compelled to respond to discovery during a period the case was under an automatic abatement, has no adequate remedy on appeal. Accordingly, we conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus. The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to vacate its order of February 3, 2011, and fails to refrain from proceeding with the case until a motion to reinstate is filed that establishes compliance with the notice and inspection requirements of the Residential Construction Liability Act.”
Read the trial court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ex-Corps Worker Pleads Guilty to Bribery on Afghan Contract
July 26, 2017 —
Tom Ichniowski - Engineering News-RecordA former Army Corps of Engineers contracting official has pleaded guilty to a federal charge that he took $320,000 in bribes from a contractor in exchange for help on a U.S. road contract in Afghanistan, the Dept. of Justice says.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tom Ichniowski, ENRMr. Ichniowski may be contacted at
ichniowskit@enr.com
The EPA’s Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule: Are Contractors Aware of It?
March 12, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFRemodeling Magazine reported recently that some remodelers are unaware of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) rule despite that it took effect back in April of 2010.
“There are still quite a few remodelers who have never heard of RRP,” Mark Schlager, president of Access Training Services, an EPA and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) trainer in Pennsauken, N.J. told Remodeling Magazine.
According to the article, “The RRP rule applies to homes, apartments, and child-occupied commercial facilities built before 1978.” There are two RRP certifications required on every job: “a “Firm” certification for the company that contracts to do the work, and a “Renovator” certification for the person overseeing the work. A solo operator needs both certifications, which are good for five years.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
TRI Pointe Merges with Weyerhaeuser’s Real Estate Company
July 09, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to Big Builder, “TRI Pointe settled--expectedly--on its mammoth $2.8 billion deal to acquire Weyerhaeuser's five home building operations in the Northwest, California/Nevada, Arizona, Texas, and the Mid-Atlantic regions, a talent-rich operator group, 27,000 building lots, and power brand names via a complex Reverse Morris Trust financial transaction.”
This now makes TRI Pointe “one of the top 10 largest public homebuilders in the United States by equity market capitalization based on the closing price of TRI Pointe common stock on July 8, 2014,” according to their press statement, as quoted in Big Builder.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
CA Supreme Court: Right to Repair Act (SB 800) is the Exclusive Remedy for Residential Construction Defect Claims – So Now What?
January 31, 2018 —
Steven M. Cvitanovic & Omar Parra - Publications & InsightsA torrent of alerts have been flooding e-mail inboxes regarding the California Supreme Court’s decision in
McMillin v. Superior Court, to reverse the Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) case, but with little discussion about the practical effects of the ruling. This alert will discuss how this ruling affects litigation of SB 800 Claims and Builders.
Background on Liberty Mutual Case
In 2002, the California Legislature enacted comprehensive construction defect litigation reform referred to as the Right to Repair Act (the “Act”). Among other things, the Act establishes standards for residential dwellings, and creates a prelitigation process that allows builders an opportunity to cure the construction defects before being sued. Since its enactment, however, the Act’s application has been up for debate. Most notably, in
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District held the Act was the exclusive remedy only in instances where the defects caused only economic loss, and that homeowners could pursue other remedies in situations where the defects caused actual property damage or personal injuries.
Reprinted courtesy of
Steve Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Omar Parra, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com
Mr. Parra may be contacted at oparra@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurance Alert: Insurer Delay Extends Time to Repair or Replace Damaged Property
November 26, 2014 —
Valerie A. Moore & Christopher Kendrick – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Stephens & Stephens XII v. Fireman's Fund Ins. (No. A135938, filed November 24, 2014), the plaintiffs obtained property insurance on a warehouse. Within a month, it was discovered to be stripped of all wiring and metal. Fireman's Fund paid for emergency repairs but nothing more, concerned that the damage had occurred outside the policy period.
The policy provided for valuation of either "replacement cost," meaning the expenditure required to replace the damaged property with "new property of comparable material and quality," or "actual cash value," defined as the actual, depreciated value of the damaged property. For replacement cost, Fireman’s Fund was not required to pay "until the lost or damaged property is actually repaired ... as soon as reasonably possible after the loss or damage," and only "[t]he amount [the insured] actually spend[s]...."
In the subsequent bad faith lawsuit, the jury awarded the full cost of repair, despite there being no repairs. The appeals court reversed, holding that there was no right to an immediate award for the costs of repairing the damage; however, the court nonetheless held that the insured was entitled to a "conditional judgment," awarding those costs if repairs were actually made.
Reprinted courtesy of
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
