New Law Impacting Florida’s Statute of Repose
June 29, 2017 —
Meredith N. Reynolds & K. Stefan Chin – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.On June 14, 2017, Governor Scott signed House Bill 377 into law, clarifying that Florida’s ten-year
Statute of Repose commences either when the work is completed or when final payment becomes
due, whichever is latest. The new law resolves a problem for contractors created by a recent Florida
court ruling that held the Statute of Repose to commence as late as when the owner made final
payment. The applicable amendments to Florida Statute Section 95.11 take effect on July 1, 2017
and apply to all causes of action that accrue on or after that date.
Perhaps the most critical component of a construction professional’s risk management program is
the length of time that it is liable for the work performed on a project. While contractual warranty
periods typically run one or two years from substantial completion, the true length of a contractor’s
post-completion obligation is measured by the “Statute of Repose,” which establishes the period of
time following the completion of construction that a lawsuit can be filed for construction defects.
Reprinted courtesy of
Meredith N. Reynolds, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
K. Stefan Chin, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Ms. Reynolds may be contacted at mreynolds@pecklaw.com
Mr. Chin may be contacted at kschin@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
South Carolina Supreme Court Finds that Consequential Damage Arise From "Occurrence"
October 10, 2013 —
Tred Eyerly — Insurance Law HawaiiThe South Carolina Supreme Court held that continuing damage that was part of a continuum of property damage constituted an "occurrence." Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Rhodes, 2013 S.C. LEXIS 248 (Sept. 25, 2013).
Rhodes hired Eadon to design, fabricate, and erect three outdoor advertising signs on Rhodes' property bordering an interstate highway. After the signs were erected, one fell across the highway, blocking both lanes of southbound traffic. The state Department of Transportation ordered Rhodes to remove the remaining two signs and revoked Rhodes' permit to maintain signs on the property.
Rhodes sued Eaton. Eaton's insurer, Auto-Owners, filed a declaratory judgment action to determine whether there was coverage under the CGL policy. The trial court found the sign falling on the interstate constituted an "occurrence" that resulted in damages beyond the defective work to property other than the defective work itself.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred EyerlyTred Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Significant Victory for the Building Industry: Liberty Mutual is Rejected Once Again, This Time by the Third Appellate District in Holding SB800 is the Exclusive Remedy
December 15, 2016 —
Richard H. Glucksman & Ravi R. Mehta – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Bulletin I. Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court (Certified for Publication, Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016
The California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District recently elaborated on the scope of the Right to Repair Act, commonly known as SB-800 (“Act”). In
Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (Kevin Hicks, et al.) (certified for publication, Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016), the Court considered whether the Act (and specifically the Act’s pre-litigation procedure) applies, when homeowners plead construction defect claims based only on common law causes of action, as opposed to violations of the building standards set forth in the Act (
Civil Code §896). The Court answered this question affirmatively.
The homeowners of seventeen (17) single-family homes filed a Complaint against the builder of their homes, Elliott Homes, Inc. (“Elliott”), alleging common law causes of action for construction defects. Elliott filed a motion to stay the litigation on the ground that the homeowners failed to comply with the pre-litigation procedure set forth in the Act. The trial court denied the motion, agreeing with the homeowners that this pre-litigation procedure did not apply because the homeowners had not alleged a statutory violation of the Act. Elliott appealed. The Court of Appeal purely considered the question of whether the Act, including its pre-litigation procedure, applies when a homeowner pleads construction defect claims based on common law causes of action, and not on statutory violations of the Act’s building standards.
To answer this question, the Court analyzed a recent case decided by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District:
Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98. In this subrogation case, a builder’s insurer asserted common law causes of action (but not statutory building standard violations) alleging construction defects against the builder to recover amounts paid to the homeowner after a sprinkler system failure caused extensive damage to the subject property. The trial court sustained the builder’s demurrer to the Complaint on the ground that it was time-barred under the Act. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order, holding that common law construction defect claims arising from actual damages are not covered by the Act because “the Act does not provide the exclusive remedy in cases where actual damage has occurred.” (
Liberty Mutual, 219 Cal.App.4th 98, 109).
The
Elliott Court declined to follow
Liberty Mutual, finding that that Court failed to properly analyze the language of the Act. The
Elliott Court analyzed both the statutory scheme and the legislative history of the Act to arrive at the conclusion that common law causes of action for construction defects do indeed fall within the purview of the Act.
According to the
Elliott Court, the Act “broadly applies to
any action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in…residential construction and in such an action, a homeowner’s claims or causes of action shall be limited to violation of the standards set forth in the Act, except as specified.” Further, the Act expressly provides that “no other cause of action for a claim covered by this title or for damages recoverable under Section 944 is allowed.”
Civil Code §943(a). In turn,
Civil Code §944 allows for a recovery for the cost of repairing a building standard violation, or for the cost of repairing any damage caused by such a violation, among other things.
The limited exceptions to the Act’s applicability concern the enforcement of a contract, or any action for fraud, personal injury, or violation of a statute. Civil Code §943(a). Additionally, the Act does not apply to condominium conversions. Civil Code §896.
The Elliott Court explains that apart from these exceptions, the Legislature intended the Act to apply to all construction defect claims (regardless of damage) relating to the construction of residential properties whose sales contracts are signed after January 1, 2003. There is no exception in the Act, express or implied, for common law causes of action.
Next, the Court turns to the Act’s legislative history to buttress this conclusion. This history makes clear that the Act is a legislative response to the California Supreme Court’s holding in
Aas v. Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal.4th 627, that construction defects in residential properties are only actionable in tort when actual property damage manifests. Senate Judiciary Committee hearings indicate that the Act was the product of protracted negotiations between varying interested parties, including construction industry trade groups and consumer protection groups. The Legislature intended (1) to promulgate building standards, violations of which would be actionable, even without damage, and (2) to allow homeowners to recover for actual damage caused by construction defects not covered by the building standards. In other words, the Act was intended to provide homeowners redress regardless of whether damage had manifested.
Therefore, the Court concluded that common law causes of action for construction defects, regardless of damage, are subject to the pre-litigation procedure set forth in the Act. The Court issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its earlier order, and to enter a new order granting Elliott’s motion to stay the litigation until the homeowners (and Elliott) have satisfied the pre-litigation procedure of the Act.
II. McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132
Similar to the Third Appellate District Court’s ruling in
Elliott, the Fifth Appellate District Court also rejected the holding of
Liberty Mutual in a matter now pending before the California Supreme Court:
McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132 (review granted and opinion superseded sub nom.
Albany v. Superior Court 360 P.3d 1022). Also similar to
Elliott, in
McMillin a group of homeowners filed common law construction defect claims against the builder of their homes. The builder,
McMillin, moved to stay the litigation pending compliance with the Act’s pre-litigation procedure. The trial court denied the motion, holding that the Act does not apply because the homeowners have not asserted statutory building standard violations contained within the Act.
In reasoning substantially similar to that of
Elliott, the
McMillin Court rejected Liberty Mutual’s holding that the Act is not the exclusive remedy for pursuing construction defect claims, with or without damage. Thus, the
McMillin Court issued a writ of mandate to vacate the trial court’s earlier order and to enter a new order granting McMillin’s motion to stay.
On November 24, 2015, the California Supreme Court granted the homeowners’ petition for review. In August of 2016, briefing was completed and the matter is now awaiting the scheduling of arguments. CGDRB will continue to closely monitor the pending appeal of this matter to the California Supreme Court, as well as all related developments.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Ravi R. Mehta, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Mehta may be contacted at rmehta@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The NAR asks FAA to Amend their Drone Rules for Real Estate Use
September 24, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFHousing Wire reported that the National Association of Realtors (NAR) “is pushing for an exception for Realtors in the current rules on Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) technology since their motives don’t disrupt safety concerns, according to a letter sent on Tuesday to the FAA.”
According to Housing Wire, the NAR believes that real estate professionals would benefit from UAV technology, more commonly referred to as drones, in a variety of ways, “including, law enforcement, environmental scanning, geographical surveys and disaster recovery assessments.”
The NAR stated, as quoted in Housing Wire, “Use of UAV technology by the real estate industry is simple compared to other applications such as land surveying or law enforcement. The use of UAV technology would be limited in scope to the property itself. Properly written regulation would permit the use of UAV technology within the real estate industry, while maintaining safety in the NAS and privacy of citizens.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
In All Fairness: Illinois Appellate Court Finds That Arbitration Clause in a Residential Construction Contract Was Unconscionable and Unenforceable
August 22, 2022 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn Bain v. Airoom, LLC, No. 1-21-001, 2022 Ill. App. LEXIS 241, the Appellate Court of Illinois (Appellate Court) considered whether the lower court erred in enforcing an arbitration clause in a construction contract between the parties and, as a result, dismissing the plaintiff’s lawsuit. The Appellate Court found that even if the arbitration clause was enforceable, the appropriate action would have been for the court to stay the lawsuit, as opposed to dismissing the case entirely. The Appellate Court then considered the language of the arbitration clause and found that several provisions were substantively unconscionable, which rendered the entire arbitration clause unenforceable. The Appellate Court reversed the lower court’s decision compelling arbitration and reinstated the plaintiff’s complaint.
In 2018, the plaintiff, Ms. Bain, a disabled senior citizen, hired the defendant, Airoom, LLC (Airoom), to renovate her home. Airoom provided its “Cash Sales Contract,” which included a binding arbitration clause. The clause required that any dispute arising or relating to the contract be resolved by binding arbitration through the American Arbitration Association (AAA), using the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures (Construction Industry Rules).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and WilliamsMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
Buy Clean California Act Takes Effect on July 1, 2022
July 25, 2022 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogThe Buy Clean California Act (BCCA) – Public Contract Code section 3500 et seq. – requires state agencies to consider the carbon content of the following products when awarding contracts:
- Structural steel;
- Concrete reinforcing steel;
- Flat glass; and
- Mineral wool board insulation.
It is anticipated that additional products may be added through future legislation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Appropriation Bill Cuts Military Construction Spending
June 15, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Hill reports that HR 2055, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs (VA) and Related Agencies bill, has passed with only five votes in opposition. The bill cuts the budget for military construction spending by $2.6 billion due to anticipated base closures.
The bill includes $186 million for family housing construction by the Army, $100 million for family housing construction by the Navy and Marines, and $84 million for family construction by the Air Force, with an additional $50 million allocated for the DOD outside the military branches. By the act, these funds will remain available until September 30, 2016.
Read the full story…
Read HR 2055
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New York Team Secures Appellate Win on Behalf of National Home Improvement Chain
September 26, 2022 —
Lewis BrisboisNew York, N.Y. (August 12, 2022) - New York Appellate Partner Nicholas P. Hurzeler, with New York Partners John J. Doody and David M. Pollack, obtained a significant appellate victory on behalf of a national home improvement chain when a New York Appellate Division panel for the Second Department reduced a jury verdict by more than half.
In this matter, which was
covered by Law360, the plaintiff was a customer at one of the chain's stores when he was involved in a confrontation with a man and his wife as they exited the store. The chain's loss prevention official told police that the plaintiff had assaulted the female customer. As a result of the incident, the plaintiff was arrested, spent the night in jail, and was arraigned at the same courthouse where he worked as a staff attorney while wearing only an undershirt and jogging shorts. He also had to disclose his arrest on his judgeship nomination application. The charges against him were ultimately dropped after the chain's loss prevention official told prosecutors that surveillance video showed that the female customer’s assault claims were false.
The plaintiff subsequently sued the home improvement chain and its loss prevention official for allegedly causing his false arrest and interfering with his career goal of securing a New York state court judgeship. At the close of the trial in this case, the jury determined that the defendant was liable for battery and false imprisonment, and awarded the plaintiff $1.8 million for pain and suffering.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
