Life After McMillin: Do Negligence and Strict Liability Causes of Action for Construction Defects Still Exist?
January 24, 2018 —
Thomas Balestreri and Amanda Crawley - Balestreri, Potocki, & HolmesThe ruling is in but the battle will likely continue over the practical application of SB 800. On January 18, 2018 the California Supreme Court issued its decision in
McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (Van Tassel) (January 18, 2018, S229762) __ Cal.4th __, holding that the statutory prelitigation scheme in The Right to Repair Act (“the Act”) that provides for notice and an opportunity for the Builder to repair defects applies to all claims for construction defects in residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003, regardless whether the claim is founded on a violation of the Act’s performance standards or a common law claim for negligence or strict liability. (
McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (Van Tassel) (January 18, 2018, S229762) __ Cal.4th __.) With this holding, has the Court ruled that common law causes of action for construction defect still survive? If so, what will they look like and what standards will be applied?
The short answer is that it appears that common law causes of action still survive, at least for now, but it is not clear from this decision what they will look like and what standards will apply.
Portions of the decision seem to suggest that the Act is the sole and exclusive remedy for construction defect claims: “…even in some areas where the common law had supplied a remedy for construction defects resulting in property damage but not personal injury, the text and legislative history [of the statute] reflect a
clear and unequivocal intent to supplant common law negligence and strict product liability actions under the Act.” (
McMillin (January 18, 2018, S229762) __Cal.4th.__ [p. 6].) (Italics added for emphasis) However, at the end of the decision, the Court seems to be saying that there may still be a place for common law claims for negligence and strict liability alongside the Act but that these causes of action may be subject to the performance standards in the Act.
The
McMillin case went up to the Supreme Court on a procedural issue: whether a common law action alleging construction defects resulting in both economic loss and property damage is subject to the Act’s prelitigation notice and cure procedures. The Van Tassels had dismissed their claims under the Act opting to proceed solely on their common law claims including negligence and strict liability. McMillin sought a stay to force the Van Tassels to comply with the Act’s prelitigation procedures. The Supreme Court held that the Van Tassels must comply with the statutory procedures and affirmed the stay issued by the trial court. But the question remained: now that the Van Tassels were left only with common law claims, how would they proceed under the Act?
To understand how the Court dealt with this question, one must first understand how the Court dealt with the narrow procedural question presented by the case. The Court provides a very detailed, clear explanation of the reasons why it felt the Legislature intended for all construction defect claims involving residential construction must comply with the prelitigation requirements of the Act. In summing up its conclusions the Court makes three definitive holdings.
First, for claims involving economic loss only—the kind of claims involved in
Aas—the Court holds that the Legislature intended to supersede
Aas and provide a statutory basis for recovery. (
McMillin (January 18, 2018, S229762) __Cal.4th.__ [p. 10].) In other words, the Court clearly agrees that the Act was meant to allow recovery of damages based solely on economic damages. No surprise there. Second, the Court held for personal injuries, the Legislature made no changes to existing law that provides common law remedies for the injured party. (Id.) Nobody has ever contested that. Finally, the Court held that for construction defect claims involving property damage and not just economic loss “the Legislature replaced the common law
methods of recovery with the new statutory scheme.” (
Id.,) (Italics added for emphasis.)
In other words, the Court is not saying that negligence and strict liability are not permitted causes of action. The Court is merely stating that these causes of action must comply with the Act’s statutory scheme just as the same as a claim for economic loss. Here the Court is focusing on the procedure that must be followed. “The Act, in effect, provides that construction defect claims not involving personal injury will be treated the same procedurally going forward whether or not the underlying claims gave rise to any property damage.” (
Id.)
Having laid out its fundamental premise, the Court then deals with Plaintiff’s arguments regarding the intent of the Legislature and makes light work of them all. In the process, the Court disapproves
Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal. App. 4th 98, and
Burch v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 1411, to the extent they are inconsistent with the views expressed in the
McMillin opinion.
This is where the decision gets interesting. The Court reminds us that the Van Tassels had dismissed their statutory causes of action for violation of the performance standards under Section 896. One would think at that point that Plaintiffs had to be wondering if they had any claims left given that the Court had ruled that the Act was the sole means of recovery for construction defects. Not so fast. The Court points out that the complaint still rests on allegations of defective construction and that the suit remains an “ ‘action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in, the residential construction’ of the plaintiffs’ homes (§896)
and McMillin’s liability under the Van Tassels’ negligence and strict liability claims depends on the extent to which it [McMillin] violated the standards of sections 896 and 897.” (
McMillin (January 18, 2018, S229762) __Cal.4th.__ [p. 19].) (Emphasis added.) WHAT DID THE COURT JUST SAY? Did the Court just say that a plaintiff could bring a common law cause of action for negligence or strict liability based on a violation of the performance standards under Section 896? What exactly would that claim look like? What would be the elements of such a cause of action?
To answer these questions, the Court states in the very next paragraph, which also happens to be the last paragraph in the decision: “In holding that claims seeking recovery for construction defect damages are subject to the Act’s prelitigation procedures regardless of how they are pleaded,
we have no occasion to address the extent to which a party might rely upon common law principles in pursuing liability under the Act.” (
McMillin (January 18, 2018, S229762) __Cal.4th.__ [p. 19].) (Italics added for emphasis) Is the Court answering “No” to the questions posed above? Probably not. It is simply following the age old rule that an appellate court will
not rule on an issue that is not specifically presented by an appeal, leaving that question for another day.
All we know for sure from
McMillin is that every claim for construction defects falling within the scope of the Act must follow the prelitigation procedure. There are no hall passes for negligence and strict liability. The larger question posed by the last two paragraphs in the decision, is whether the law recognizes a cause of action for negligence and strict liability for construction defects based on the standards in Section 896. The answer will have to be worked out by judges and trial attorneys in courtrooms across the State! The parameters of this hybrid cause of action that the Court seems to have posited will need more careful consideration than can be offered on first reading of
McMillin v. Superior Court.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Balestreri, Potocki, & Holmes
ASCE's Architectural Engineering Institute Announces Winners of 2021 AEI Professional Project Award
April 19, 2021 —
American Society of Civil EngineersRESTON, Va. – The
American Society of Civil Engineers' (ASCE) Architectural Engineering Institute (AEI) is pleased to announce the 100 Mount Street project by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill and Billie Jean King Main Library, also by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill as Best Overall Projects winners for AEI's Professional Project Awards. The 100 Mount Street project won the award Best Overall Project Over $100 Million, while the Billie Jean King Main Library won the award for Best Overall Project Under $100 Million. Traditionally, AEI announces project winners during its in-person annual Awards Banquet; however, ASCE held the banquet virtually this year to follow CDC guidelines which suggest avoiding large gatherings.
The AEI Professional Project Award recognizes outstanding achievements in design and construction by honoring the art and science of an integrated approach to architectural engineering. The program focuses on high performance buildings including structural, mechanical, electrical and lighting systems as well as construction management and architectural engineering integration. Projects are evaluated on originality and innovative character, integration and collaboration, sustainability, energy efficiency and economics, effective use of technology and constructability and site logistics.
ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS
Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 150,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel.
About ASCE's Architectural Engineering Institute
Established in 1998, AEI is the premier organization for architectural engineering, promoting an integrated, multi-disciplinary approach to planning, design, construction and operation of buildings, by encouraging innovation, collaboration and excellence in practice, education and research of architectural engineering. For more information, visit www.asce.org/aei.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
American Society of Civil Engineers
Following Pennsylvania Trend, Federal Court Finds No Coverage For Construction Defect
December 08, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiBound by Pennsylvania law, the federal district court found there was no coverage for defects in the installation of a roof. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Kim's Asia Constr., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 5, 2016).
Kim's Asia Construction contracted to remove and dispose of Powerline Imports, Inc.'s roof, and then install a new roof. After completion of the project, Powerline sued, alleging that Kim's Asia's negligent construction of the roof caused the roof to leak, even in minor rain storms. Kim's Asia made additional repairs, but the leaks continued. Powerline had to hire a new contractor to remove and dispose of the roof and install another roof. Powerline then sued Kim's Asia.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
New York Court Rules on Architect's Duty Under Contract and Tort Principles
November 05, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP's blog, in a recent case, "which involved a five story expansion/conversion of an existing one story commercial building located in Brooklyn, New York," the architect was retained with obligations among five construction phases. Later, the condominium board alleged that construction defects existed and filed suit against contractors, engineers, and the architect.
The Court granted the Architect's motion to dismiss the complaint, holding "that the allegations of negligence under the circumstances were based on construction defects and 'as such, sound in breach of contract rather than tort.' This was so, even though plaintiff alleged 'breach of a duty of care,' a traditional tort liability concept. The Court dismissed the breach of contract claim as well, holding that a 'successor in interest' argument should not be permitted to erode the firmly established privity requirement for an architect’s contract-based liability."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Prevailing HOAs Not Entitled to Attorneys’ Fees in Enforcement Actions Brought Under Davis-Stirling
August 30, 2017 —
Lawrence S. Zucker II & Michael C. Parme – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Retzloff v. Moulton Parkway Residents’ Ass’n, (2017) Cal. App. LEXIS 727, the Fourth District Court of Appeal considered the novel question of whether attorneys’ fees can be included as part of the cost award to a ‘prevailing association’ under Cal. Civ. Code §5235(c).
Plaintiffs were former board members of Moulton Parkway Residents’ Association, No. One (“the Association”) who sued the Association for alleged violations of the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (Civ. Code §4000 et. seq.) which regulates the governance of common interest developments such as condominium communities and homeowners associations. Plaintiffs’ suit alleged that the Association regularly conducted business outside of scheduled board meetings and failed to make certain records available for inspection.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Michael C. Parme, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Mr. Parme may be contacted at mparme@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Evaluating Smart Home Technology: It’s About More Than the Bottom Line
May 03, 2021 —
James W. McPhillips & Rachel Newell - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogOutfitting a commercial real estate space with smart technology can be a significant cost. While the long-term benefits and strategic improvements we’ve discussed previously can make that investment worthwhile, the evaluation period is critical to ensure an impactful ROI. Property developers, owners, and managers should undertake a rigorous evaluation process to ensure the technology procurement aligns with the project’s overall financial plan. And this is not just about getting the cost right. If the technology does not meet the needs of the space, then all the smart technology in the world will not prevent the project from being a sunk cost.
Do the Research so You Know …
The Technology. While the RFP is a key step of the procurement process, a more informal research phase should be undertaken first. Smart technology is a rapidly evolving field, and before reaching out to vendors, the business should ensure that it understands what is available—both in terms of the kinds of technology that can be implemented, and the various companies that offer solutions. Gathering this information early will yield results that align more closely with a particular building’s needs.
Reprinted courtesy of
James W. McPhillips, Pillsbury and
Rachel Newell, Pillsbury
Mr. McPhillips may be contacted at james.mcphillips@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Newell may be contacted at rachel.newell@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ensuring Arbitration in Construction Defect Claims
February 04, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFJared E. Berg and John W. Mill of Sherman & Howard note that developers and general contractors would prefer that construction defect claims against them go to arbitration, instead of ending up in front of a jury. They say “there is a way to do this.” For the developer and general contractor, arbitration is “typically less costly and time consuming than litigation.”
On the other side, home owner associations “tend to prefer litigation because the up-front costs of arbitration are greater and they would rather have their cases tried to a jury than a panel of arbitrators in the belief juries offer greater potential for high damage awards. In order to avoid arbitration, “HOAs have taken advantage of their statutory rights to amend declarations by instructing their members to approve amendments removing arbitration clauses.
However, in a recent Colorado case, the developer had taken a precaution of including in the arbitration clauses that “they could not be removed from the declarations by amendment with the developer’s and general contractor’s consent.” The homeowners association had voted to remove these clauses, but the judge found that they could not do so.
Berg and Mill give the advice to “include in the declaration’s arbitration clause a provision making your consent required to amend or nullify the arbitration provision,” adding that “courts will enforce this kind of consent provision.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Civility Is Key in Construction Defect Mediation
February 12, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFEugene Heady of Smith Currie & Hancock reminds those involved in construction disputes to “lay down the swords.” Yes, it’s an adversarial situation, but “mediating parties must understand that courtesy, candor, and cooperation on the part of their respective lawyers will help contain the conflict and help resolve the dispute more quickly and efficiently.”
Instead of doing battle with the opposition, Mr. Heady says that one should “approach mediation as an opportunity to solve a complex problem, rather than an opportunity for conquest over one’s enemy.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
