California Cracking down on Phony Qualifiers
July 23, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFGarret Murai in his California Construction Law Blog stated that “California’s Senate Bill 862, and amended Business and Professions Code 7068.1” has given the California Contractors State License Board (CSLB) “additional enforcement authority to crack down on phony qualifiers by allowing the CLSB to take disciplinary action against a qualifier and a licensee if the qualifier is not actively involved in the construction activities of the licensee’s business.”
Murai explained that “[r]enting a qualifier means that you pay an individual who holds a California contractor’s license to act as the Responsible Managing Officer (RMO) or Responsible Managing Employee (RMO) of a construction company when they have no actual involvement in the day-to-day operations of the company.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sometimes You Just Need to Call it a Day: Court Finds That Contractor Not Entitled to Recover Costs After Public Works Contract is Invalidated
June 29, 2020 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogJanuary was a tough month in the courts for Hensel Phelps Construction Company. Hot off the heels of Hensel Phelps Construction Co. v. Superior Court, a case concerning the 10-year statute of limitations under Civil Code section 941, comes Hensel Phelps Construction Co. v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Case No. B293427 (January 28, 2020), a bid dispute case . . .
The Tale of a Bid, a Bid Protest, and Two Cases
A. The Bid and Bid Protest
On March 15, 2015, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) issues an Invitation for Bid for the HVAC project at the Ironwood State Prison. The deadline to submit bids was April 30, 2015. Hensel Phelps Construction Co. submitted a timely bid and was determined to be the “apparent low bidder” with a bid of $88,160,000.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
How Retro-Commissioning Can Extend the Life of a Building—and the Planet
July 10, 2023 —
Matthew Zweibruck - Construction ExecutiveSustainability initiatives in the built environment need not be limited to new construction or other large expenditures. Aging facilities have the potential to extend their years of service while also combating greenhouse gas emissions. But what is the best course of action? From building design initiatives such as net zero and electrification to renewables and green building certifications, it can be a complicated and overwhelming field to navigate.
Building owners and property managers may question if they are pursuing the correct programs to minimize their organization’s negative impacts on the environment. With all the initiatives, buzzwords and fancy awards surrounding these initiatives, there are energy-efficiency strategies available to buildings that cut through this noise—strategies that are cost effective, quick to implement, widely abundant and result in an immediate reduction in a building’s impact on climate change.
Reprinted courtesy of
Matthew Zweibruck, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The California Legislature Passes SB 496 Limiting Design Professional Defense and Indemnity Obligations
June 15, 2017 —
Mark Himmelstein & Jenny Guzman – Newmeyer & Dillion LLPSince 2008 when the California legislature limited subcontractor indemnity obligations, the design professional community has been shouting “what about us?” Well, the legislature finally responded and a new law that limits design professional’s defense and indemnity obligations to their percentage of fault goes into effect on January 1, 2018.
THE NEW LAW – SB 496
SB 496 amends California Civil Code section 2782.8 and states that indemnity agreements must be limited to the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the indemnitee (i.e. no more Type I indemnity with design professionals). The amendment also provides that “in no event shall the cost to defend charged to the design professional exceed the design professional’s proportionate percentage of fault”, with a limited opportunity for reallocation in the event another defendant is judgment proof.
However, the duty to defend still remains and still arises at the time of the tender of the defense (both issues that were unsuccessfully targeted by the design professional lobbyists).
WHAT CAN BE DONE NOW?
Developers and Owners should strongly consider reviewing and revising the indemnity provisions in their consultant contracts to comply with the new legislation before the first of the year. This includes master agreements because project addenda entered into after January 1 are subject to the new law. The statute does not apply to current contracts, so these do not need to be amended.
Questions? Newmeyer & Dillion is happy to assist in navigating the process to ensure you are compliant prior to January’s deadline. Please let us know how we can help.
Mark Himmelstein is a partner focused in the areas of construction, real estate, business and insurance litigation. He has an in-depth experience in drafting and negotiating construction and real estate contracts. You can reach him at mark.himmelstein@ndlf.com.
Jenny Guzman is a litigation associate in the Newport Beach office, focusing her practice in the areas of business and real estate litigation and transactions. You can reach her at jenny.guzman@ndlf.com.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. 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 have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit http://newmeyeranddillion.com/
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
No Coverage for Construction Defects Under Arkansas Law
January 13, 2017 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii The federal district court found there was no coverage for the insured contractor under Arkansas law when sued for construction defects by two homeowners. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Hambuchen Constr., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160364 (W.D. Ark. Nov. 18, 2016).
In one case, the Pierces hired Hambuchen, the insured contractor for the construction of a new home, which was completed in 2006. Two years after moving in, the Pierces experienced water leaks at various locations inside the home and the basement flooded. Water damage rendered the back deck unstable. In 2010 and 2011, Hambuchen made repairs to stop leaks on the decks, but in 2012 the back deck again showed signs of water damage. The Pierces sued, and Auto-Owners provided a defense under a reservation of rights.
In the second case, the Lessmanns hired Hambuchen in 2005 as general contractor to construct their new home. Following completion of the home, the Lessmanns complained about scratched windows. The Lessmanns filed suit against Hambuchen for breach of the construction contract by failing to build their home in a workmanlike manner. The Lessmanns filed suit in May 2009. Auto-Owners was not aware of the suit until 2015 when it received notice that the Lessmanns had filed an amended complaint. The Lessmans' suit went to trial and Hambuchen prevailed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Insurance Law Alert: California Supreme Court Limits Advertising Injury Coverage for Disparagement
June 18, 2014 —
Valerie A. Moore and Chris Kendrick - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Hartford Casualty Ins. v. Swift Distribution (No. S207172, filed 6/12/14), the California Supreme Court affirmed a 2012 appeals court holding that there is no advertising injury coverage on a theory of trade disparagement if the competitor's advertisements do not expressly refer to the plaintiff's product and do not disparage the plaintiff's product or business. In doing so, the Supreme Court expressly disapproved Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 969 ("Charlotte Russe"), which held that coverage could be triggered for "implied disparagement" by allegations that a retailer's heavy discounts on a manufacturer's premium apparel suggest to consumers that the manufacturer's products are of inferior quality.
In Hartford v. Swift the plaintiff, Dahl, held a patent for the "Multi-Cart," a collapsible cart that could be manipulated into different configurations. When Dahl's competitor Ultimate began marketing the "Ulti-Cart," Dahl sued alleging that Ultimate impermissibly manufactured, marketed, and sold the Ulti-Cart, which infringed patents and trademarks for Multi-Cart and diluted Dahl's trademark. Dahl alleged patent and trademark infringement, unfair competition, dilution of a famous mark, and misleading advertising arising from Ultimate's sale of Ulti-Carts. However, the advertisements for Ulti-Cart did not name the Multi-Cart, Dahl, or any other products beside the Ulti-Cart.
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
What is Toxic Mold Litigation?
April 11, 2018 —
Vik Nagpal – Bremer Whyte BlogTo understand what
Toxic Mold Litigation is, it is important to first identify and understand what toxic mold is. Mold is a fungus which is essentially everywhere, and certain types of mold, known as toxic mold, may cause severe personal injuries and/or property damage. Toxic mold refers to those molds capable of producing mycotoxins which are organic compounds capable of initiating a toxic response in vertebrates. Toxic mold generally occurs because of water intrusion, from sources such as plumbing problems, floods, or roof leaks.
It is this ageless life form that has spawned a new species of toxic tort claims and has had legal and medical experts debating the complex health implications that follow. Here is some information as to what toxic mold litigation is and when you should hire a lawyer for toxic mold.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Vik Nagpal Mr. Nagpal may be contacted at
vnagpal@bremerwhyte.com
Arizona Court Affirms Homeowners’ Association’s Right to Sue Over Construction Defects
October 15, 2024 —
Melissa Kenney - White and Williams LLPIn Gallery Community Association v. K. Hovnanian at Gallery LLC, No. 1 CA-CV 23-0375, 2024 Ariz. App. Unpub. LEXIS 696 (Ct. App.), the Court of Appeals of Arizona (Court of Appeals) discussed whether a homeowners’ association can file an action for breach of the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability arising from construction defects. At issue was whether the implied warranty extended to the areas within the community that the association maintained, including the common areas. The Court of Appeals held that homeowners’ associations can sue builder-vendors for breach of the implied warranty arising from construction defects.
In this case, a homeowners’ association, responsible for managing and maintaining a community of townhomes, sued the developer/builder for alleged construction defects in the common area and exteriors of homes that the association maintained for the homeowners in the community. The alleged defects included the pool cabana and staircase walls in the common areas and the exterior walls, roofs, and staircases on the separately owned townhomes in the community. The builder filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the implied warranty extended to dwelling actions initiated by homeowners – not homeowners’ associations – and that the alleged construction defects at issue were not related to a dwelling. The trial court granted the motion. The Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeals determined that both common law and statutory law authorized the homeowners’ association’s breach of implied warranty claim.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Kenney, White and WilliamsMs. Kenney may be contacted at
kenneyme@whiteandwilliams.com
