Did the Court of Appeals Just Raise the Bar for California Contractors to Self-Report Construction-Related Judgments?
June 10, 2015 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogAn interesting construction case just came out from the California Court of Appeals for the Second District this past month – Pacific Caisson & Shoring, Inc. v. Bernards Bros., Inc., California Court of Appeals for the Second District, Case No. B248320 (May 19, 2015) – which discusses a number of intertwining issues that can be faced by contractors in California and concludes with a result that I’m not sure I quite agree with.
Among the issues discussed by the Court of Appeal were:
- The application of the dreaded Business and Professions Code section 7031 which: (1) precludes a contractor from making a claim for payment for work performed; and (2) requires a contractor to disgorge all monies received for work performed, if the contractor was not properly licensed at all times that work was performed;
- The impact of an unsatisfied judgment against one contractor on the license of another “related” contractor; and
- Whether a stipulated judgment providing for payments over time is an unsatisfied final judgment under the Licensing Law.
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
OSHA’s COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard Is in Flux
December 06, 2021 —
Megan E. Baroni & Jonathan H. Schaefer - Construction ExecutiveOn Friday, Nov. 5, 2021, Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard was issued, with most requirements set to go into effect on Dec. 5. The ETS applies to employers with a total of 100 or more employees company-wide. Employers covered by the ETS would be required to develop, implement and enforce a mandatory vaccination policy, subject to limited exemptions, or allow unvaccinated employees to test regularly and be subject to a mask policy, among other associated recordkeeping, reporting and training requirements.
Almost immediately, the ETS was hit with a number of legal challenges in various courts across the country. On November 6, just a day after the ETS was issued, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an order staying the implementation of the ETS until further notice. The Court’s order was not a final ruling on the validity of the ETS but has halted implementation of the ETS, at least for the time being. Other legal challenges are already in process, further complicating the issue of if and when the ETS will become effective.
As of November 2021, the ETS is on hold, at least temporarily. That could change any day and the ETS could be back in effect, in whole or in part, or permanently halted. The legal challenges to the ETS are unlikely to end, or diminish, until the Supreme Court has weighed in, making for a few uncertain months ahead.
Reprinted courtesy of
Megan E. Baroni and Jonathan H. Schaefer, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Ms. Baroni may be contacted at mbaroni@rc.com
Mr. Schaefer may be contacted at jschaefer@rc.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Housing Starts Surge 23% in Comeback for Canadian Builders
July 15, 2019 —
Theophilos Argitis - BloombergCanadian housing starts unexpectedly surged in April, in another sign of recovery for the nation’s battered real estate market.
Builders started work on an annualized 235,460 units last month, the highest level in 10 months and up 23 percent from 191,981 units in March, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. reported Wednesday. The gain was driven by new multi-unit construction in Toronto and Vancouver.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Theophilos Argitis, Bloomberg
Traub Lieberman Partner Gregory S. Pennington and Associate Emily A. Velcamp Obtain Summary Judgment in Favor of Residential Property Owners
December 13, 2022 —
Gregory S. Pennington & Emily A. Velcamp - Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman Partner Gregory S. Pennington and Associate Emily A. Velcamp obtained summary judgment in favor of their clients, owners of a residential property [the “Owners” or “Defendants”] used as a short-term rental in Beach Haven, New Jersey. Plaintiff alleged injuries resulting from a fall into an open water meter pit, located in the public sidewalk abutting the Owners’ property during the time within which the property was rented to plaintiff and his family. According to plaintiff, defendants breached their duty owed to him, relying on a Borough of Beach Haven Ordinance, thereby allowing the water meter pit to be raised in an unsafe manner, which resulted in plaintiff’s fall and subsequent injuries.
After the Court denied defendants’ initial Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that issues of material fact existed regarding defendants’ duty and the alleged breach of that duty, a Motion for Reconsideration was filed. Mr. Pennington and Ms. Velcamp argued that their clients, as residential landowners, owed no duty of care to plaintiff for the raised condition of the water meter pit lid, located in the abutting sidewalk, as they did not cause or contribute to the alleged condition. Defendants further argued that even if a duty of care existed, no breach occurred given the lack of notice to defendants, either actual or constructive. Plaintiff attempted to argue that defendants had constructive notice of the lid’s raised condition, relying on his expert report and the fact that defendants had 3.5 months from the date the property was purchased, to the date of the subject accident to discover the lid’s raised condition. Mr. Pennington and Ms. Velcamp successfully argued that despite plaintiff’s allegations and the findings contained in plaintiff’s expert report, authored 2 months after the alleged accident, there was still no credible, material evidence to say how long the water meter pit lid was in that raised condition to allow defendants a reasonable time to discover it, remedy it, or report it to the Borough.
Reprinted courtesy of
Gregory S. Pennington, Traub Lieberman and
Emily A. Velcamp, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Pennington may be contacted at gpennington@tlsslaw.com
Ms. Velcamp may be contacted at evelcamp@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Float-In of MassDOT Span Sails, But Delay Dispute Lingers
December 08, 2016 —
Johanna Knapschaefer – Engineering News-RecordThe Massachusetts Dept. of Transportation and a contracting team are in discussions regarding fabrication issues that caused a two-year delay in the completion of a key crossing between Quincy and Weymouth. The full completion of the $244-million Fore River Bridge replacement, originally slated for Jan. 5, 2017, is now projected for February 2019.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Johanna Knapschaefer, Engineering News-RecordENR may be contacted at
enr.com@bnpmedia.com
Does the New Jersey Right-To-Repair Law Omit Too Many Construction Defects?
January 06, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFA post on the blog of Liberty Building Forensics Group find fault with the New Jersey Home Warranty and Builders’ Registration Act for not being stringent enough. The poster notes the coverage given under the bill. In the first year, builders are responsible to remedy faulty workmanship and materials and major structural defects. While other protections expire in the first or second year, there is a ten year coverage of major construction defects.
The blogger finds fault with the exclusion New Jersey law places on these claims, arguing that “due to the stringent definition of ‘major construction defects,” the warranty affords no coverage unless the house is practically collapsing.” The bill excludes leaks, cracks, and mold, and further limits claims if the homeowner has failed to inform the builder or insurer of defects, failure to maintain the home, and alterations made by the homeowner.
The intent of the New Jersey law is given as “requiring that newly constructed homes conform to certain construction and quality standards as well as to provide buyers of new homes with insurance-backed warranty protection in the event such standards are not met.” It’s argued in the piece that it instead serves to “strip homeowners of any meaningful means of recovery for discovered construction defects.”
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Attorney-Client Privilege in the Age of Cyber Breaches
October 18, 2021 —
Shaia Araghi - Newmeyer DillionInvestigations and forensic reports relating to a cybersecurity breach may not always be protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product protection. Companies seeking such reports after a data breach must take caution to protect them from a possible waiver of privilege in the event of subsequent litigation relating to a data breach. The following recent cases highlight the potential waiver of privilege in light of the preparation of a forensic report.
- In re Capital One Consumer Data Security Breach Litigation, 2020 WL 3470261 (E.D. Va. June 25, 2020)
- After a data breach occurred, Capital One retained a law firm that later entered into an agreement with Mandiant for various cyber-related services (including incident remediation), which required that Mandiant provide deliverables to the firm, rather than to Capitol One. In re Capital One Consumer Data Security Breach Litigation, 2020 WL 2731238, at *1 (E.D. Va. June 25, 2020). Plaintiffs sought release of the report created by Mandiant (regarding the factors leading to the breach), arguing that it was prepared for business and regulatory purposes and therefore was not privileged, while Capital One argued that the report was privileged because it was prepared in anticipation of litigation. Ibid. The Court determined that Capital One did not carry its burden of establishing that the report was protected by the attorney work-product doctrine and ordered that Capital One produce the report. Id. at *7. In its reasoning, the Court stated that the fact that there is litigation does not, by itself, provide prepared materials with work-product protection. Ibid. The work-product protection applies when a party faces a claim following an event that may result in litigation, and the work product would not have been prepared in a substantially similar form but for the prospect of that litigation. Ibid.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Shaia Araghi, Newmeyer DillionMs. Araghi may be contacted at
shaia.araghi@ndlf.com
Requesting an Allocation Between Covered and Non-Covered Damages? [Do] Think Twice, It’s [Not Always] All Right.
October 12, 2020 —
Todd Likman - Colorado Construction LitigationAs is often the case in construction defect and other insurance defense litigation, a plaintiff’s claims for relief typically encompass both covered and uncovered damages. Obviously, it is in the insured’s best interests to have as many damages covered by insurance as possible. From the insurer’s perspective and against the backdrop of owing duty of good faith and fair dealing to its insureds, however, it is generally better to have an allocation of covered vs. non-covered damages. This places the insurer, insured, and insurance retained defense counsel in a difficult position.
A recent opinion from U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, Rockhill Ins. Co. v. CFI-Global Fisheries Mgmt, Civil Action No. 1:16-CV-02760-RM-MJW, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35209 (D. Colo. Mar. 2, 2020), sheds light on the issue, even though some may feel it only further muddies already murky waters.
Rockhill involved review of an arbitration proceeding that property-owner, Heirloom I, LLC (“Heirloom”) filed against CFI-Global Fisheries Management (“CFI”). Rockhill Insurance Company (“Rockhill Insurance”) was asked to defend the arbitration as CFI’s professional and general liability insurer. At issue in the arbitration was Heirloom’s claim that CFI defectively designed and constructed a fisheries enhancement that was destroyed by natural processes four times in three years.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Todd Likman, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellMr. Likman may be contacted at
likman@hhmrlaw.com
