Residential Contractors, Be Sure to Have these Clauses in Your Contracts
December 23, 2023 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsI have often “mused” on the need to have a good solid construction contract at the beginning of a project. While this is always true, it is particularly true in residential contracting where a homeowner may or may not know the construction process or have experience with large scale construction. Often you, as a construction general contractor, are providing the first large scale construction that the homeowner has experienced. For this reason, through meetings and the construction contract, setting expectations early and often is key.
As a side note to this need to set expectations, the Virginia Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation (DPOR) and the Virginia General Assembly require certain clauses to be in every residential construction contract. DPOR strictly enforces these contractual items and failure to put them in your contracts can lead to fines, penalties and possibly even revocation of a contractor’s license.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
It’s a Bird, It’s a Plane . . . No, It’s a Drone. Long Awaited FAA Drone Regulations Finally Take Flight
September 22, 2016 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogIt’s a bird.
It’s a plane.
No, it’s a drone. Also known as an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) or unmanned aircraft (UA).
And, technically, they’ve been around a long time, since at least 1849 when the Australians attacked Italy with unmanned balloons loaded with explosives. Even a young Marilyn Monroe, when she was known simply as “Norma Jean,” worked at a company called Radioplane making unmanned aircrafts during World War II.
Since then, as technology has advanced, which, in turn, has made the cost of older technology go down, what was once old, is now new again. Drones are making regular appearances in the movies (think the Divergent Series: Allegiant). The paparazzi (who are apparently tired of getting punched in the face) are using them. And some day, perhaps very soon, they may just be delivering your packages (think Amazon Prime Air).
One of the earliest adopters of drones outside the military, however, has been the construction industry which has used drones to track the progress of construction projects and conduct site surveys such as this one showing the progress of Apple’s new campus in Cupertino[.]
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
Congratulations to BWB&O’s 2021 Super Lawyers Rising Stars!
July 05, 2021 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPBremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is excited to announce Partners Kyle Carroll, Nicole Nuzzo, and Michael D’Andrea, as well as Associates Andy Arakelian and Andrew Steinberg, have been selected to the 2021 Super Lawyers Southern California Rising Stars for their work in Civil and Family litigation!
Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The patented selection process includes independent research, peer nominations, and peer evaluations.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Texas and Georgia Are Paying the Price for Sprawl
March 15, 2021 —
Conor Sen - BloombergCities in the Sun Belt South have been needing a more modern development model for a while. That's created tensions, both economically and politically, that have only accelerated during the past year's pandemic. My colleague Noah Smith wrote a column about this specific to Texas, but it's broader than any one state and it's useful to think about how we got to this point and why these issues are relevant in 2021 in a way they weren't a generation ago.
There's an institutional reluctance to pivot away from the Sun Belt model defined by low taxes and cheap land because of how successful it was for key constituencies for decades. Coming out of World War II, there was a scramble nationwide to build more housing in response to soldiers coming home from war and pent-up demand for family formation.
The combination of the automobile as the nation's now-dominant form of transportation and the passage of the Federal Highway Act of 1956 made building out the suburbs of less-populated southern states an irresistible growth model for politicians and economic development interests alike. If it required tax breaks and fewer regulations to lure jobs and people from northern states to accelerate the process, so be it.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Conor Sen, BloombergMr. Sen may be contacted at
csen9@bloomberg.net
Litigation Counsel of America Honors Partner Victor Anderson with Peter Perlman Award
November 10, 2016 —
Victor R. Anderson, III – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPPartner Victor R. Anderson, III received the Peter Perlman Service Award in recognition of his efforts to improve the lives of others through his community service and charity work. The awards are presented to select attorneys throughout the year by the Litigation Counsel of America (LCA) to candidates whose exemplary contributions merit commendation.
The Litigation Counsel of America is a close-knit, peer-selected, and aggressively diverse honorary society of 3,500 of the best trial lawyers. Less than one-half of one percent of American lawyers, vigorously vetted for skills, expertise, and service are invited to be on the Counsel.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Victor R. Anderson, III, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPMr. Anderson may be contacted at
vanderson@hbblaw.com
SB800 Is Now Optional to the Homeowner?
August 30, 2013 —
James Ganion - Ulich & Terry, LLPThe following communication republished courtesy of James Ganion, Ulich & Terry, LLP
Dear Builders, Colleagues, and Interested Parties:
I attach for your review a copy of this week’s opinion of the California Court of Appeal in our case of Liberty Mutual v. Brookfield. This opinion represents a significant change to the right of California builders to repair homes under SB800, California’s Right to Repair Act.
In a nutshell, the Court determined that SB800 was not intended to replace prior applicable law, but merely be supplemental to prior law. Thus, a homeowner, or in this case the homeowner’s insurer, can pick and choose among SB800 and prior law, or even allege both in the alternative. In so deciding, the Court of Appeal reversed the holding of the trial court which had held, as so many trial courts have since 2003, that SB800 was intended to be the new exclusive remedy for construction defect claims.
While we of course take issue with most of what the Court of Appeal has to say, the real life net effect is that SB800 is now optional to the homeowner, meaning the “right” to repair now lies in the hands of the homeowner who can elect to simply bypass that law and proceed with the filing of a lawsuit under prior law. Hardly what any of us believe the legislature intended.
ULICH & TERRY LLP as counsel for Brookfield in this case will be filing a petition for rehearing with the Court of Appeal by September 6, 2013. Anyone interested in supporting the petition may file a letter with the Court of Appeal, preferably by September 13, 2013. Thereafter, assuming the Court of Appeal does not grant rehearing, we will be filing a petition for review with the California Supreme Court.
Our firm, as appellate counsel, has established a website
libertymutualvbrookfieldcrystalcove.com and through it will be providing information regarding the case, including copies of pleadings, orders, deadlines, and information on how to provide support for this case, which is of interest to the home building industry.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James Ganion James Ganion can be contacted at
jganion@ut-law.com
Traub Lieberman Partner Colleen Hastie and Associate Jeffrey George Successfully Oppose Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal
September 11, 2023 —
Colleen E. Hastie & Jeffrey George - Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman Partner Colleen Hastie and Associate Jeffrey George successfully opposed Plaintiff’s motion to vacate a prior dismissal of plaintiff’s medical malpractice action brought before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County.
The lawsuit, commenced by Plaintiff in 2015, alleged medical malpractice stemming from treatment Plaintiff received at a New York medical facility after falling out of a window at a rental property owned by Traub Lieberman’s client (“Property Owner”). Property Owner moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint or preclude Plaintiff from offering evidence in support of its claims, or in the alternative, compel plaintiff to produce all outstanding discovery. The Medical Facility cross-moved for the same relief. Defendants agreed to adjourn the motion until after plaintiff’s deposition, but plaintiff made no effort to secure an adjournment with the court and plaintiff filed no opposition to the motion, allowing the motion to be granted on default. Plaintiff waited nearly a year to file a motion to vacate the default judgment, despite receiving notification of the default from defense counsel. Property Owner, in opposing plaintiff’s motion, pointed to plaintiff’s long history of dilatory conduct and failure to comply with discovery orders in support of its position that plaintiff failed to show any good cause for its default on the motion to dismiss.
Reprinted courtesy of
Colleen E. Hastie, Traub Lieberman and
Jeffrey George, Traub Lieberman
Ms. Hastie may be contacted at chastie@tlsslaw.com
Mr. George may be contacted at jgeorge@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Damron Agreement Questioned in Colorado Casualty Insurance v Safety Control Company, et al.
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFSafety Control and EMC appealed the judgment in Colorado Casualty Insurance Company versus Safety Control Company, Inc., et al. (Ariz. App., 2012). The Superior Court in Maricopa County addressed “the validity and effect of a Damron agreement a contractor and its excess insurer entered into that assigned their rights to sue the primary insurer.” Judge Johnsen stated, “We hold the agreement is enforceable but remand for a determination of whether the stipulated judgment falls within the primary insurer’s policy.”
The Opinion provides some facts and procedural history regarding the claim. “The Arizona Department of Transportation (“ADOT”) hired DBA Construction Company (“DBA”) to perform a road-improvement project on the Loop 101 freeway. Safety Control Company, Inc. was one of DBA’s subcontractors. As required by the subcontract, Safety Control purchased from Employer’s Mutual Casualty Company (“EMC”) a certificate of insurance identifying DBA as an additional insured on a policy providing primary coverage for liability arising out of Safety Control’s work.”
A collision occurred on site, injuring Hugo Roman. Roman then sued ADT and DBA for damages. “Colorado Casualty tendered DBA’s defense to the subcontractors, including Safety Control. Safety Control and EMC rejected the tender. Roman eventually settled his claims against DBA and ADOT. DBA and ADOT stipulated with Roman for entry of judgment of $750,000; Roman received $75,000 from DBA (paid by Colorado Casualty) and $20,000 from ADOT, and agreed not to execute on the stipulated judgment. Finally, DBA, ADOT and Colorado Casualty assigned to Roman their rights against the subcontractors and other insurers.”
Colorado Casualty attempted to recover what “it had paid to defend DBA and ADOT and settle with Roman. However, Roman intervened, and argued that “Colorado Casualty had assigned its subrogation rights to him as part of the settlement agreement.” The suit was not dismissed, but the Superior Court allowed Roman to intervene. “Roman then filed a counterclaim against Colorado Casualty and a cross-claim against the subcontractors.”
All claims were settled against all of the defendants except Safety Control and EMC. “The superior court ruled on summary judgment that EMC breached a duty to defend DBA and that as a result, ‘DBA was entitled to settle with Roman without EMC’s consent as long as the settlement was not collusive or fraudulent.’ After more briefing, the court held the stipulated judgment was neither collusive nor procured by fraud and that EMC therefore was liable to Roman on the stipulated judgment and for his attorney’s fees. The court also held Safety Control breached its subcontract with DBA by failing to procure completed-operations insurance coverage and would be liable for damages to the extent that EMC did not satisfy what remained (after the other settlements) of the stipulated judgment and awards of attorney’s fees.” Safety Control and EMC appealed the judgment.
Four reasons were given for the decision of the ruling. First, “the disagreement between Roman and Colorado Casualty does not preclude them from pursuing their claims against EMC and Safety Control.” Second, “the settlement agreement is not otherwise invalid.” Third, “issues of fact remain about whether the judgment falls within the EMC policy.” Finally, “Safety Control breached the subcontract by failing to procure ‘Completed Operations’ coverage for DBA.”
In conclusion, the Superior Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded . “Although, as stated above, we have affirmed several rulings of the superior court, we reverse the judgment against EMC and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion to determine whether the stipulated judgment was a liability that arose out of Safety Control’s operations. In addition, we affirm the superior court’s declaratory judgment against Safety Control but remand so that the court may clarify the circumstances under which Safety Control may be liable for damages and may conduct whatever further proceedings it deems appropriate to ascertain the amount of those damages. We decline all parties’ requests for attorney’s fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01 without prejudice to a request for fees incurred in this appeal to be filed by the prevailing party on remand before the superior court.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
