South Carolina Court of Appeals Diverges from Damico Opinion, Sending Recent Construction Defects Cases to Arbitration
October 24, 2023 —
Laura Paris Paton - Gordon Rees Construction Law BlogCould the latest opinion from the South Carolina Court of Appeals be the distant ringing of a death knell for runaway construction defects verdicts? On the heels of the Damico ruling earlier this year, the courts have issued several opinions distinguishing various arbitration agreements from the one analyzed in Damico and have sent subsequent cases to arbitration.
This summer, the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals compelled arbitration in Cleo Sanders v. Savannah Highway Automotive Company, et al. Appellate Case No. 2021-000137 / Opinion No. 28168 (petition for rehearing pending) and Joseph Abruzzo v. Bravo Media Productions, et al. Appellate Case No. 2020-001095 / Opinion 6004. Now, in the matter of Jonathan Mart, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Respondent, v. Great Southern Homes, Inc., Appellant, Appellate Case No. 2018-001598, the Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court’s order denying a homebuilder’s motion to dismiss and compelled arbitration in this action, which was brought by the homeowner, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated homeowners.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Laura Paris Paton, Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniMs. Paton may be contacted at
lpaton@grsm.com
Fix for Settling Millennium Tower May Start This Fall
August 17, 2020 —
Nadine M. Post - Engineering News-RecordWith the lengthy and complex permitting and approval process complete and almost all the other details worked out, construction could begin in mid-November on the estimated $100-million shoring fix for the 645-ft-tall Millennium Tower in San Francisco. The perimeter pile upgrade for the 58-story residential condominium building, which has settled more than 17 in. toward the northwest since its completion in 2009, was originally expected to begin earlier this year.
Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
How AB5 has Changed the Employment Landscape
March 16, 2020 —
Jason Morris – Newmeyer DillionAs a result of California's Assembly Bill 5, effective January 1, 2020, the California Supreme Court's ABC test is now the standard for evaluating independent contractor classifications for purposes of the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, California Labor Code, and the California Unemployment Insurance Code. That dramatically ups the ante for companies that rely on independent contractors, particularly those that have not re-evaluated such classifications under the ABC test.
Misclassification cases can be devastating, especially for misclassified non-exempt employees, and can result in minimum wage violations, missed meal and rest periods, unpaid overtime, unreimbursed business expenses, record-keeping violations, steep penalties, attorneys' fees, and even criminal liability, among other consequences. Misclassifying workers creates enormous risks for companies and is fertile ground for class actions and representative actions under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).
The Costs Of Misclassification Are Expensive, And Hope Is Not A Strategy
Many business owners I speak to understand AB5 has caused the ground to shift beneath their feet and recognize the resulting risks of misclassifying workers. Despite these risks, companies often balk at taking the necessary steps to evaluate their classifications and mitigate the risk of an adverse classification finding.
The most common reason I hear from resistant companies is the worker does not want to be reclassified as an employee and the company trusts the worker ("I've worked with her for years; she won't sue me because she wants to be a contractor"). I get it. Making the change from contractor to employee results in less flexibility and greater administrative burden for everyone involved. While I'm sympathetic, the government is not. Reluctance to change while acknowledging the associated risks amounts to a strategy based on hope. As we say in the Marine Corps, however, "hope is not a strategy."
Aside from the sometimes foolhardy belief that a misclassified worker can be trusted to not file suit after a business breakup (when the deposits stop and mortgage bill comes due, guess who's a prime target), companies often fail to recognize the numerous ways in which their classification decisions can be challenged even when they are in agreement with their (misclassified) contractors. Here are just three examples of how your classifications can be scrutinized despite the lack of a challenge by the worker:
- Auto Accidents: Whether delivering products, making sales calls, or traveling between job sites, independent contractors often perform work that requires driving. Of course, sometimes drivers are involved in automobile accidents. When accidents happen, insurance companies step in and look for sources of money to fund claims, attorneys' fees, costs, and settlements. One potential source is your insurance. "But the driver isn't my employee!," you say. You better buckle up because the other motorist's insurance carrier is about to challenge your classification in an attempt to access your insurance policies.
- EDD Audits: During the course of the last several years, the California Employment Development Department (EDD) has increased the number of verification (random) audits it performs in search of additional tax revenue. One reason government agencies prefer hiring entities classifying workers as employees rather than independent contractors is it's a more efficient tax collection method; employers collect employees' taxes on the government's behalf, which increases collection rates and reduces government collection costs. The consequences of misclassification include pricey fines, penalties, and interest.
- Unemployment Insurance, Workers' Compensation, and Disability Claims: In addition to verification audits, the EDD performs request (targeted) audits. Targeted audits may result when a contractor files an unemployment insurance, workers' compensation, or disability claim because independent contractors are ineligible for such benefits. Request audits, like verification audits, can result in costly fines, penalties, and interest if the EDD concludes you have misclassified your workers. Even so, that may not be the worst of it: the EDD often shares its findings with the Internal Revenue Service.
Your Action Plan
AB5 has changed the measuring stick, misclassification costs are high, and you do not have complete control of when the government or others can challenge your classifications. So what can you do? Here are several steps all prudent companies should take if they are using independent contractors:
- Conduct an audit of current classification practices;
- Review written independent contractor agreements;
- Implement written independent contractor agreements;
- Update workplace policies;
- Update organizational charts;
- Reclassify independent contractors as employees if necessary.
Jason Morris is a partner in the Newport Beach office of Newmeyer Dillion. Jason's practice concentrates on the areas of labor and employment and business litigation. He advises employers and business owners in employment litigation, as well as advice and counsel related to employment policies and investigations. You can reach him at jason.morris@ndlf.com.
About Newmeyer Dillion
For 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that achieve client objectives in diverse industries. With over 70 attorneys working as a cohesive team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, environmental/land use, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers holistic and integrated legal services tailored to propel each client's success and bottom line. 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 Nevada, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Fears El Nino's Dark Side Will Bring More Trouble
September 17, 2015 —
Brian K. Sullivan – BloombergA group of drought experts gathered in California this week, and it wasn’t long before the conversation turned to El Nino.
They weren’t touting it as the savior that will end the state’s four-year drought. Instead, they were looking at a darker scenario where the weather-changing phenomenon adds another year of dryness in the north while ravaging the south with floods.
“What do you say when the governor asks you what to do? ‘You prepare for flood and drought because there is a possibility you can get both,”’ said Mike Anderson, state climatologist.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brian K. Sullivan, Bloomberg
Claims for Negligence? Duty to Defend Triggered
July 09, 2019 —
Michael S. Levine & Adriana A. Perez - Hunton Andrews KurthOn June 17, 2019, the First Circuit held that an insurer’s duty to defend was triggered because the underlying complaint set forth claims that required a showing of intent as well as claims that sought recovery for conduct that “fits comfortably within the definition of an ‘accident.’” In Zurich American Ins. Co v. Electricity Maine, LLC, Zurich sought declaratory judgment that, under a D&O policy, it had no duty to defend the insured, Electricity Maine, an electrical utility company being sued in the underlying class action. Zurich argued it had no duty to defend because the underlying complaint failed to allege that Electricity Maine engaged in conduct that qualified as an “occurrence” or that caused “bodily injury” under the terms of the policy. The First Circuit disagreed.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Adriana A. Perez, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Ms. Perez may be contacted at aperez@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Reporting Requirements for Architects under California Business and Professions Code Section 5588
December 22, 2019 —
Jordan Golden - Gordon & Rees Construction Law BlogBelow is an overview of the changes to California Business and Professions Code Section 5588 and its effect on the reporting requirements, for architects, in the construction industry.
Section 5588 Prior to 2005 Legislative Changes
Section 5588 of the California Business and Professions Code sets forth the reporting requirements for many business professionals including architects. Since 1979, Section 5588 has required architects and their insurers to report to the California Architect Board (the Board) “any settlement or arbitration award in excess of five thousand dollars ($ 5,000) of a claim or action for damages caused by the license holder’s fraud, deceit, negligence, incompetency, or recklessness in practice.”1
The language of the code section left open for interpretation the question of what types of settlement claims must be reported to the Board. Thus, in 2004, the Attorney General of the State of California published an opinion stating that a reportable settlement includes “any agreement resolving all or part of a demand for money which is based upon an insured architect’s alleged wrongful conduct.”2 He then went on to conclude that the only qualifications placed on the term “claim” for purposes of Section 5588 is that “(1) the demand be premised on the license holder’s alleged ‘fraud, deceit, negligence, incompetency, or recklessness in practice,’ and (2) the value of the claim, as measured by the settlement amount or arbitration award, exceeds $5,000.”3
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jordan Golden, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
Arizona Rooftop Safety: Is it Adequate or Substandard?
October 01, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe Wall Street Journal reported that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recently “took the unprecedented step of formally proposing to take over construction workplace safety in Arizona because it said the state doesn't require proper fall protection.”
OSHA’s deputy director, Jordan Barab, told the Wall Street Journal, “We told them we did not think their standard…was at least as effective as ours.”
However, “[a] spokeswoman for Arizona's state workplace enforcement agency countered that the state's requirements are adequate, adding that it will respond to the federal notice ‘as appropriate.’”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Courts Take Another Swipe at the Implied Warranty of the Plans and Specifications
December 15, 2016 —
John P. Ahlers – Ahlers & Cressman PLLCImplied warranties are warranties created by law, legislation, or courts. In the construction industry, one of the most prominent implied warranties is that owners who provide plans and specifications to their contractors impliedly warrant the adequacy of their plans and specifications.[i] That implied warranty had its beginning in the 1918 US Supreme Court decision of U.S. v. Spearin[ii] and is, therefore, popularly known as the Spearin Doctrine. Under the Spearin Doctrine, if the contractor completes the work in accordance with the owner’s plans and specifications, but there is a deficiency or failure, the owner, not the contractor, is responsible. When the owner breaches its implied warranty, in most instances, the contractor is entitled to additional compensation for extra work performed, delays experienced, and other additional expense or loss occasioned by the warranty breach. A recent case demonstrates that this implied warranty is not “immunity.” The contractor must still act reasonably and diligently, particularly when the contract provisions so require.
In the recent Fifth Circuit case of Dallas/Ft. Worth International Airport v. INet Airport Systems,[iii] the court, despite the implied warranty that existed, did not grant the contractor summary judgment on claims involving admitted plan deficiencies, since factual issues existed regarding the contractor’s cooperation and participation in the solution to the defects.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John P. Ahlers, Ahlers & Cressman, PLLCMr. Ahlers may be contacted at
jahlers@ac-lawyers.com
