Safety Versus a False Sense of Security: Challenges to the Use of Construction Cranes
March 18, 2019 —
Christopher Machut - Construction ExecutiveThe history of safety is, in part, the history of resistance to safety. From transportation and travel to sports and entertainment, the safeguards taken for granted were once too allegedly controversial or costly for companies to grant to consumers. Imagine driving a car without a seatbelt or being a passenger in a minivan without side-impact airbags or anti-lock brakes, or playing football without a helmet or riding a roller coaster without a shoulder harness. Imagine, too, pulling out of parking space without a rear-view camera, unable to see passing cars or pedestrians.
Cameras are now as common among compact cars as on the most uncommonly expensive sports cars and sedans.
And yet, the technology that earns drivers a discount on car insurance is the same or mostly similar technology that insurers refuse to cover elsewhere. The technologies that makes parallel parking easier or easing a car into traffic a cinch is considered an extravagance on construction equipment, despite the dangers crane operators face but cannot see, despite what workers on the ground can see but not forecast, despite what cameras can record and capture.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Machut, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
How New York City Plans to Soak Up the Rain
May 02, 2022 —
Linda Poon - BloombergWhen the remnants of Hurricane Ida pummeled New York City with more than 3 inches of rain in just one hour, the city struggled to soak it up. Instead, streets and subways flooded as storm drains were overwhelmed, basement apartments were inundated, and more than a dozen people died.
That September 2021 storm and the ones before it, including a cloudburst downpour during Tropical Storm Elsa in July, have forced New York to take a hard look at becoming a “spongier” city — one that combines nature-based green infrastructure like street-side rain gardens with gray infrastructure like storm drains to divert or absorb water and prevent catastrophic flooding.
“New York City is preparing for both chronic storm events — these cloudburst events that we see occurring more and more frequently — as well as extreme storm events like Ida,” says Jennifer Cherrier, a professor of earth and environmental sciences at Brooklyn College. On top of that, the city also faces mounting risks from storm surges, like during Hurricane Sandy in 2012.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Linda Poon, Bloomberg
The Road to Rio 2016: Zika, Super Bacteria, and Construction Delays. Sounds Like Everything is Going as Planned
July 28, 2016 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogAthletes began to arrive at the Olympic Village in Rio de Janeiro on Sunday in anticipation of the 2016 Summer Olympics which begin on August 5th.
Perhaps the most closely watched event, however, has already begun; and it has no medals. And that is whether Brazil can successfully pull off the Olympics at all.
For a city known for its Carnival the months leading up to the Olympics have been just as crazy and chaotic as the days leading up to Mardi Gras. There’s the Zika virus, the discovery of a “super” bacteria, the impeachment of its President, and Brazil’s worst recession in 100 years. And that’s just a partial list.
And then, of course, there’s the construction.
Cities bidding to host the Olympics often cite revenue from tourism and long-term capital improvements which will benefit its populace long after the games have ended as economic justification for hosting the Olympics. However, the cost to host the Olympics is often underestimated and Rio is no exception, running an estimated $6 billion over budget.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
WCC and BHA Raised Thousands for Children’s Cancer Research at 25th West Coast Casualty CD Seminar
May 24, 2018 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThis year’s annual West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar was once again, a huge success. On May 16-18, 2018 attendees from the legal, insurance, builder, contractor, subcontractor and numerous other industries came from across the United States and several foreign countries to discuss current trends, learn about new laws and regulations affecting the construction defect industry, and meet up with colleagues.
Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.’s (BHA) Has a Nice Swing Golf Challenge raised $3,500.00 split evenly between the three deserving charities supported by West Coast Casualty:
Hawaii’s Children’s Cancer Foundation ,
St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, and
Shriners Hospital for Children.
The West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar has been promoting charitable work for the past twenty-five years. Each year, they promote different charities, and provide multiple ways for individuals and companies to contribute. Whether it’s Buy a Banner, Tennis Shoe Thursday, or Flip Flop Friday, industry members are given opportunities to support worthwhile causes.
WCC also supports charitable organizations through every award that they present each year. Donations are made in the winner’s name: For Jerrold S. Oliver Award of Excellence awardees,
Habitat for Humanity as well as a local California and Nevada charity; For Legend of an Era Award, the designated charity of West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar; and for The Larry Syhre Commitment to Service Award, a donation to The Larry Syhre Foundation.
BHA hopes to see you at the next West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar in 2019!
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mich. AG Says Straits of Mackinac Tunnel Deal Unconstitutional
June 03, 2019 —
Jeff Yoders - Engineering News-RecordMichigan Attorney General Dana Nessel (D) has declared unconstitutional a late-2018 law that would create an authority to oversee construction of a key tunnel. The tunnel would house an oil-and-gas pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jeff Yoders, ENRMr. Yoders may be contacted at
yodersj@enr.com
There’s the 5 Second Rule, But Have You Heard of the 5 Year Rule?
April 23, 2024 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogThey’re called deadlines for a reason. Usually, because something really bad could happen if you fail to meet the deadline.
For those in the construction industry, you probably aware of the “deadline” to bring a claim for latent defects (10 years from substantial completion); the deadline to file suit to foreclose on a mechanics lien (90 days from the date of recording the mechanics lien), and the deadline for serving a preliminary notice (generally, 20 days from the date labor and/or materials are first furnished).
Well, here’s another deadline: Under Code of Civil Procedure section 585.310, you have 5 years after a complaint is filed to bring a case to trial, absent the court granting relief. I could leave it at that, but in the next case, Oswald v. Landmark Builders, Inc., 97 Cal.App.5th 240 (2023), was too interesting to pass up.
The Oswald Case
On June 28, 2016, homeowners Jack Oswald and Anne Seley sued their general contractor and its subcontractors alleging construction defects at their home. Answers and cross-complaints were filed and on February 2017 the trial court determined the case to be complex and appointed a discovery master. A discovery master, for those who may be unfamiliar, is usually a retired judge or third-party lawyer appointed by a court to oversee discovery in a case such as written discovery, depositions, site inspections, etc.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Gaps in Insurance Created by Complex Risks
January 22, 2024 —
The Hartford Staff - The Hartford InsightsFrom slips, trips and falls to extreme weather and cyberattacks, businesses are regularly confronted with risks to operations and profitability. In 2023, elevated building costs, increased flooding, and growing ransomware attacks made it compelling for business owners to make sure they had adequate insurance to stay ahead of property and liability exposures. However, if left unchecked, these trends can lead to gaps in coverage. As 2024 approaches, now is the time to assess your risk and collaborate with the right resources to fill any potential voids in insurance.
Economic inflation for example has changed property valuations, which can result in coverage gaps if policyholders have not examined their replacement costs recently.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Hartford Staff, The Hartford Insights
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
