Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Limits The Scope Of A Builder’s Implied Warranty Of Habitability
September 10, 2014 —
Edward A. Jaeger, Jr. and William L. Doerler – White and Williams LLPIn Conway v. Cutler Group, Inc., -- A.3d --, 2014 WL 4064261 (Pa.), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania addressed the question of whether a subsequent home buyer can recover from a home builder pursuant to the builder’s implied warranty of habitability, a warranty that protects those who purchase a newly constructed home from latent defects. Concluding that a builder’s warranty of habitability is grounded in contract, the Court held that a subsequent purchaser of a previously inhabited home cannot recover damages from a builder-vendor based on the builder-vendor’s breach of the implied warranty of habitability. The Court’s decision leaves unanswered the question of whether a purchaser who is also the first user-purchaser of a new home can pursue a breach of warranty action against a builder with whom the purchaser is not in privity of contract.
In Conway, the Cutler Group, Inc. (Cutler) sold a new home to Davey and Holly Fields. The Fields subsequently sold the home to Michael and Deborah Conway. After the Conways discovered water infiltration problems in their home, they filed a one-count complaint against Cutler, alleging that Cutler breached its implied warranty of habitability. In response to the Conways’ complaint, Cutler filed preliminary objections, arguing that the warranty of habitability extends from the builder only to the first purchaser of a newly constructed home. The trial court sustained Cutler’s preliminary objections based on the lack of contractual privity between the parties and the Conways appealed the trial court’s decision. On appeal, the Superior Court reversed, stating that the implied warranty of habitability is based on public policy considerations and exists independently of any representations by the builder, and even in the absence of an express contract between the builder and the purchaser. Cutler appealed the Superior Court’s decision to the Supreme Court.
To address the question of whether the implied warranty of habitability extends to a subsequent purchaser of a used residence, the Court discussed the history of the implied warranty of habitability in Pennsylvania. As stated by the Court, the Court adopted the implied warranty of habitability in the context of new home sales to reject the traditional doctrine of caveat emptor (buyer beware) because the purchaser of a new home justifiably relies on the skill of the developer. Thus, as between the builder-vendor and the buyer, the builder should bear the risk that the home he builds is habitable and functional. In adopting the doctrine, the Court noted that the doctrine is rooted in the existence of a contract – an agreement of sale – between the builder-vendor and the buyer.
Reprinted courtesy of
Edward A. Jaeger, Jr., White and Williams LLP and
William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Jaeger may be contacted at jaegere@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
GSA Releases Updated Standards to Accelerate Federal Buildings Toward Zero Emissions
August 12, 2024 —
The U.S. General Services AdministrationWASHINGTON — The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) is advancing progress toward the Biden-Harris Administration's federal sustainability goals by releasing updated standards for federal buildings. P100 Facilities Standards for the Public Buildings Service establish mandatory design and construction standards and performance criteria for 300,000 federal buildings nationwide. The updated standards will help advance the adoption of cleaner, more efficient technologies for buildings; lead the way towards realizing the goals of the Federal Sustainability Plan to achieve net-zero emissions from all federal buildings by 2045; and promote the use of American-made, low carbon construction materials.
P100 requires that facilities adopt advanced energy conservation strategies and eliminate on-site fossil fuel use, directives that align with federal sustainability goals and will accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy. The industry-leading standard calls for grid-interactive efficient buildings, leverages innovative technologies through GSA's Green Proving Ground, requires the use of low-embodied carbon materials, and directs potable water reuse. These comprehensive measures ensure that new and renovated federal facilities achieve peak performance while minimizing environmental impact.
The 2024 P100 establishes exceptional benchmarks for:
- Electrification: New standards for building equipment and systems to be powered by clean energy sources.
- Embodied Carbon: Requirement to utilize low-embodied carbon materials, including salvaged, reused, regenerative, and biomimetic options.
- Energy Efficiency: Enhanced building envelope performance to minimize energy loss and improve overall efficiency.
- Grid-Interactive Efficient Buildings: New measures to support a more resilient, responsive grid.
- Water Reuse: Mandating that buildings have a 15% potable water reuse rate.
- Construction Decarbonization: Ground breaking new low-carbon methods for constructing federal buildings including clean energy operations, material salvage, and offsite assemblage.
- Labor Practices: New standards protecting workers from unfair or unsafe labor practices, ensuring supply chains are free from child and forced labor and that workers are protected from the impacts of extreme heat.
P100 is updated and published every three years. For more detailed information on the 2024 P100 and other GSA initiatives, visit www.gsa.gov/p100.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Asbestos Exclusion Bars Coverage
February 05, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe broad asbestos exclusion found in a Business Owners policy barred coverage for the insured after it sold a building in which asbestos was discovered. Phillips v. Parmelee, 2013 Wisc. LEXIS 747 (Dec. 27, 2013).
Prior to purchasing an apartment building, the insured had the building inspected. The report indicated that the building's heating supply ducts likely contained asbestos. The insured then sought to sell the building. The Real Estate Condition Report stated the insured was not aware of "asbestos or asbestos-containing materials on the premises."
The buyers purchased the property. A contractor cut through asbestos-wrapped ducts, dispersing asbestos throughout the building. The buyers sued the insured for breach of contract/warranty and negligence in failing to adequately disclose defective conditions including asbestos.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Contractual Warranty Agreements May Preclude Future Tort Recovery
January 11, 2022 —
Taylor Ostrowski - Colorado Construction Litigation BlogWhen a buyer purchases a product that is later discovered to be defective, the court offers a remedy to make the buyer whole. Such remedies can arise either out of a contract, including express and/or implied warranties, or under common law through a tort theory. However, what happens when a buyer has already received the remedy specified in the contractual warranty, only to discover the product manufacturer misrepresented the quality of its product by failing to disclose a defect? Can the buyer subsequently recover for the same product under a tort theory of recovery? The Colorado Court of Appeals analyzed such questions in its December 2021 decision in Dream Finders Homes, LLC v. Weyerhaeuser NR Co., 2021 COA 143.
In Dream Finders, the court examines the rights of sophisticated buyers who purchased defective products and received a warranty from the product manufacturer with purchase. The court specifically determines whether such buyers may recover under the tort theory product misrepresentation and failure to disclose when the buyers have already received the remedy specified and the warranty expressly excludes the type of damage the buyer now seeks.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Taylor Ostrowski, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMs. Ostrowski may be contacted at
ostrowski@hhmrlaw.com
Consequential Damages Flowing from Construction Defect Not Covered Under Florida Law
November 17, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly -Insurance Law HawaiiInterpreting Florida law, the United States District Court found there was no duty to defend a contractor against construction defect claims. Evanston Ins. Co. v. Dimmucci Dev. Corp. of Ponce Inlet, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123678 (M.D. Fla. Sept 13, 2016).
The insured built condominiums and townhomes. It held three successive CGL policies issued by Evanston. The "your work" exclusion in the policies barred coverage as follows:
"Property Damage" to "your work" arising out of it or any part of it and included in the "products-completed operations hazard."
This exclusion does not apply if the damaged work or the work out of which the damage arises was performed on your behalf by a subcontractor.
The insured constructed the Towers Grande Condominium. In 2012 the Towers Grande Condominium Association, Inc. initiated the underlying action alleging that the insured's failure to construct the Towers Grande properly resulted in building defects and deficiencies. Damage to the roof, generator exhaust pipe, and HVAC system was alleged. Further, water intrusion and decking/structural issues were claimed. In addition to the construction defects, the Association also alleged that the insured's faulty work led to additional damages.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
The Show Must Go On: Shuttered Venues Operators Grant Provides Lifeline for Live Music and Theater Venues
March 29, 2021 —
David Rao - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogAlthough it’s been a tough twelve months for many live music venues, movie theaters, and performing arts organizations, help may finally be around the corner. On December 27, 2020, the Economic Aid to Hard-Hit Small Businesses, Nonprofits, and Venues Act was signed into law, creating a $15 billion fund for grants to shuttered venues to be administered by the Small Business Administration’s (“SBA”) Office of Disaster Assistance. The law states that Shuttered Venues Operator Grants (“SVOGs”) will be made available to the following entities and individuals:
- Live venue operators or promoters;
- Theatrical producers;
- Live performing arts organization operators;
- Relevant museum operators, zoos, and aquariums which meet specific criteria;
- Movie theater operators;
- Talent representatives; and
- Each business entity owned by an eligible entity that also meets the eligibility requirements.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Rao, Snell & WilmerMr. Rao may be contacted at
drao@swlaw.com
Subcontractor Not Liable for Defending Contractor in Construction Defect Case
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe California Court of Appeals has ruled on January 9, 2012 in Hensel Phelps Construction Company v. Urata & Sons Cement, upholding the judgment of the lower court.
Hensel Phelps was the general contractor for a high-rise in Sacramento. They were sued by the owners of the building after problems were discovered in the concrete slabs of the building’s parking garage. Instead of welded steel wire mesh, the slabs had been constructed with fiber mesh. Hensel Phelps filed a cross-complaint against Urata Cement, the subcontractor that had performed the cement work. Urata refused to defend Hensel Phelps. The owners’ case was subsequently dismissed due to the statute of limitations.
Although the original case was over, Hensel Phelps continued in their claims against Urata. “Urata argued that a handwritten interlineation required Hensel Phelps to prove Urata was at fault for the injury alleged in the building owners’ complaint before Urata was obliged to defend Hensel Phelps in that action.”
The lower court concluded that Urata would have been obligated to defend Hensel Phelps if the owners’ lawsuit had alleged that the damage was due to the subcontractor’s work or if evidence at trial established this. The lower court found neither of these true. Instead, the use of the fiber mesh was a design issue and “that decision was outside the scope of the subcontractor’s work.”
During the trial, Hensel Phelps conceded that Urata was not at fault. The appeals court could find no reading of the contract that would cause Urata to be obligated to defend Hensel Phelps, calling Hensel Phelps’s reading of the contact as “grammatically infeasible.”
Judges Nicholson, Raye, and Butz upheld the decision of the lower court and awarded costs on appeal to Urata.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Is Your Contract “Mission Essential?” Recovering Costs for Performing During a Force Majeure Event Under Federal Regulations
May 10, 2022 —
Joneis M. Phan & Sarah K. Bloom - ConsensusDocsFederal contractors have faced unprecedented challenges performing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additional costs have included delays and inefficiencies, site closures, quarantines, unavailability of supplies and materials, and full shutdowns of subcontractor operations. For contractors performing under fixed price contracts, the cost impact of COVID-19 was likely severe.
The Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) recognizes “epidemics” as a force majeure event that may excuse non-performance. Many federal contracts include some version of the Default clause, which prevents the government from terminating a contractor for default due to impacts of force majeure events that are beyond a contractor’s control, such as an epidemic. See, e.g., FAR 52.249-10. See also Pernix Serka Joint Venture v. Dep’t of State, CBCA No. 5683 (Apr. 20. 2020). The Default clause, however, operates as a shield from liability, not a sword authorizing recovery. Contractors are now left wondering whether any avenue exists to recover additional costs incurred after performing in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic.
In response to a likely influx of claims and requests for equitable adjustment due to COVID-19 impacts, the federal government largely took the position that contractors were entitled to extensions of time, but not to additional costs. This article explores the avenues that may be available for contractors to recover costs for performing during a force majeure event that would otherwise be non-compensable.
Reprinted courtesy of
Joneis M. Phan, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs and
Sarah K. Bloom, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs).
Mr. Phan may be contacted at jphan@watttieder.com
Ms. Bloom may be contacted at sbloom@watttieder.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
