California Clarifies Its Inverse Condemnation Standard
December 30, 2019 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn City of Oroville v. Superior Court, 446 P.3d 304 (Cal. 2019), the Supreme Court of California considered whether the City of Oroville (City) was liable to a dental practice for inverse condemnation damages associated with a sewer backup. The court held that in order to establish inverse condemnation against a public entity, a property owner must show that an inherent risk in the public improvement was a substantial cause of the damage. Since the dental practice did not have a code-required backwater valve — which would have prevented or minimized this loss — the court found that the city was not liable because the sewage system was not a substantial cause of the loss. This case establishes that a claim for inverse condemnation requires a showing of a substantial causal connection between the public improvement and the property damage. It also suggests that comparative negligence can be a defense to inverse condemnation claims.
In December 2009, a dental practice, WGS Dental Complex (WGS), located in the City, incurred significant water damage as a result of untreated sewage from the City’s sewer main backing up into WGS’ building. WGS submitted a claim to its insurance carrier, The Dentists Insurance Company (TDIC) and, in addition, sued the City for its uninsured losses, alleging inverse condemnation and nuisance. TDIC joined the litigation, alleging negligence, nuisance, trespass and inverse condemnation. Under California law, when a government entity fails to recognize that an action or circumstance essentially amounts to a taking for public use, a property owner can pursue an inverse condemnation action for compensation. The City filed a cross-complaint against WGS for failing to install a code-required backwater valve on their lateral sewer line, which would have prevented or minimized the backup.
The City filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court denied. WGS then sought a judicial determination on the issue of inverse condemnation. The City presented evidence that the sewage system was designed in accordance with industry standards, and that WGS failed to comply with the City’s plumbing code by failing to install a backwater valve on its private sewer lateral. The trial court found the City liable for inverse condemnation because the blockage that caused the backup originated in the City’s sewer line. The court held that the blockage was an inherent risk of sewer operation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, holding that the City would have had to prove that the WGS’s lack of a backwater valve was the sole cause of the loss in order to absolve itself of liability.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and WilliamsMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
Heads I Win, Tails You Lose. Court Finds Indemnity Provision Went Too Far
May 25, 2020 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogWe all love David and Goliath stories. The underdog winning against the far stronger (and dastardly) opponent. Think Rocky Balboa versus Ivan Drago, the Star Wars Rebellion versus the Galatic Empire, Indiana Jones versus a good chunk of the Third Reich. And now, we have Margaret Williams.
The Story of Margaret Williams and her LLC
The story, told in Long Beach Unified School District v. Margaret Williams, LLC, Case No. B290069 (December 9, 2019), is about Margaret Williams. Ms. Williams (we’ll just call her “Margaret” going forward because it just sounds better when telling a story) worked for nearly ten years full-time for the Long Beach Unified School District, toiling day in and day out doing construction management and environmental compliance work, including work involving the clean up of material at a school construction site contaminated with arsenic.
Although she worked full-time for the District for nearly ten years, she wasn’t an employee. Rather, she was a contractor. And, on top of it all, as a condition of working for the District, the District required that she form a company in order to contract with the District. According to Margaret, “In order to work with the District, I was directed . . . to form a corporation or partnership. This was the only way I could work for the District: I could not enter into a contract with the District as an individual.” So, in 2006, she formed a company, simply called Margaret Williams, LLC.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Dreyer v. Am. Natl. Prop. & Cas. Co. Or: Do Not Enter into Nunn-Agreements for Injuries that Occurred After Expiration of the Subject Insurance Policy
January 20, 2020 —
Jean Meyer - Colorado Construction LitigationWhile Nunn-Agreements[1] may be appealing for both plaintiffs and defendants where an insurer unreasonably fails to defend a lawsuit, a recent opinion from The Honorable Marcia Krieger in the United States District Court of Colorado[2] (“Opinion”) demonstrates the importance of first confirming that there exists a viable insurance claim before proceeding with such a Nunn- Agreement.
The facts giving rise to the Opinion were as follows. In March 2015, a Homeowner couple (the “Homeowners”) suffered damages to their home resulting from a brushfire. Fortunately, the Homeowners were insured, they submitted their claim to their homeowners’ insurance carrier which was in effect at the time of the brushfire (the “Insurance Carrier”), and the Insurance Carrier paid the claim. Ostensibly as part of the Homeowners’ remediation efforts to their home they removed a large bush which left a hole in the ground. After paying the claim, in August 2015 the Insurance Carrier cancelled or elected not to renew the Homeowners’ policy. In October 2015, a repairman working on the Home (the “Repairman”) was injured after his ladder fell over allegedly because of the hole in the ground caused by the bush that had been removed.
As a result of injuries caused by the fall from the ladder, the Repairman brought suit against the Homeowners. In response to the Repairman’s claim, the Homeowners again tendered to their Insurance Carrier. This time, however, the Insurance Carrier denied coverage on the basis that the Repairman’s injuries occurred after the expiration of the relevant policy. Without insurance coverage, the Homeowner’s entered into a Nunn-Agreement with the Repairman, conceding liability, and assigning any claims they might have had against the Insurance Carrier in lieu of execution of any judgment against the Homeowners.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jean Meyer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. Meyer may be contacted at
meyer@hhmrlaw.com
“Families First Coronavirus Response Act”: Emergency Paid Leave for Construction Employers with Fewer Than 500 Employees
March 30, 2020 —
Sidney Lewis & Alex Glaser, Jones Walker LLP - ConsensusDocsCOVID-19 has already taken a toll on construction projects across the nation. Construction industry participants, including general contractors, now face risks and challenges that are exceedingly difficult to anticipate and plan for. The spread of this virus has and will continue to create new labor force issues and amplify existing ones.
On March 18, 2020, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 6021, the “Families First Coronavirus Response Act,” which, contains provisions related to mandatory paid leave for employers with fewer than 500 employees. This legislation and the substantial obligations it imposes apply to the overwhelming number of general contractors in the nation—those with less than 500 full-time employees! The bill mandates up to 80 hours of “emergency paid leave” related to COVID-19, and not just for those who contract the illness. However, contractors with less than 50 employees may seek exemption.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sidney Lewis, Jones Walker LLP and
Alex Glaser, Jones Walker LLP
Mr. Lewis may be contacted at slewis@joneswalker.com
Mr. Glaser may be contacted at aglaser@joneswalker.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Randy Okland Honored as 2019 Intermountain Legacy Award Winner
January 06, 2020 —
Jennifer Seward - Engineering News-RecordA passion for construction is in Randy Okland’s blood. His family’s business, Salt Lake City’s Okland Construction, was founded in 1918 by his grandfather, John Okland, a Norwegian immigrant and shipbuilder. Randy swept the floors and cleaned and fueled company vehicles while working as a laborer and later as a carpenter and concrete former. After graduating from the University of Utah, Randy worked full time at Okland, eventually taking over leadership of the company from his father in 1980.
Jennifer Seward, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Does a No-Damage-for-Delay Clause Also Preclude Acceleration Damages?
January 27, 2020 —
Ted R. Gropman & Christine Z. Fan - ConsensusDocsConstruction contracts often include a “no damage for delay” clause that denies a contractor the right to recover delay-related costs and limits the contractor’s remedy to an extension of time for noncontractor-caused delays to a project’s completion date. Depending on the nature of the delay and the jurisdiction where the project is located, the contractual prohibition against delay damages may well be enforceable. This article will explore whether an enforceable no-damage-for-delay clause is also a bar to recovery of “acceleration” damages, i.e., the costs incurred by the contractor in its attempt to overcome delays to the project’s completion date.
Courts are split as to whether damages for a contractor’s “acceleration” efforts are distinguishable from “delay” damages such that they may be recovered under an enforceable no-damage-for-delay clause. See, e.g., Siefford v. Hous. Auth. of Humboldt, 223 N.W.2d 816 (Neb. 1974) (disallowing the recovery of acceleration damages under a no-damage-for-delay clause); but see Watson Elec. Constr. Co. v. Winston-Salem, 109 N.C. App. 194 (1993) (allowing the recovery of acceleration damages despite a no-damage-for-delay clause). The scope and effect of a no-damage-for-delay clause depend on the specific laws of the jurisdiction and the factual circumstances involved.
There are a few ways for a contractor to circumvent an enforceable no-damage-for-delay clause to recover acceleration damages. First, the contractor may invoke one of the state’s enumerated exceptions to the enforceability of the clause. It is helpful to keep in mind that most jurisdictions strictly construe a no-damage-for-delay clause to limit its application. This means that, regardless of delay or acceleration, courts will nonetheless permit the contractor to recover damages if the delay is, for example, of a kind not contemplated by the parties, due to an unreasonable delay, or a result of the owner’s fraud, bad faith, gross negligence, active interference or abandonment of the contract. See Tricon Kent Co. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc., 186 P.3d 155, 160 (Colo. App. 2008); United States Steel Corp. v. Mo. P. R. Co., 668 F.2d 435, 438 (8th Cir. 1982); Peter Kiewit Sons’ Co. v. Iowa S. Utils. Co., 355 F. Supp. 376, 396 (S.D. Iowa 1973).
Reprinted courtesy of
Ted R. Gropman, Pepper Hamilton LLP and Christine Z. Fan, Pepper Hamilton LLP
Mr. Gropman may be contacted at gropmant@pepperlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mississippi Supreme Court Addresses Earth Movement Exclusion
December 09, 2019 —
Anthony Hatzilabrou - Traub LiebermanRecently, the Mississippi Supreme Court held that structural damages to the foundation of an insured’s home came within the earth movement exclusion in a homeowner’s policy, notwithstanding a provision in the policy which provided coverage for water damage resulting “from accidental discharge or overflow of water … from within … [p]lumbing, heating, air condition or household appliance.”
In Mississippi Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Smith, 264 So. 3d 737 (Miss. 2019), the appellee, Smith, filed a lawsuit against her homeowner's insurance company, Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company (“Farm Bureau”) for its refusal to pay for repairs to the foundation of Smith’s home. Smith alleged that the refusal to pay for repairs amounted to breach of contract and asserted claims for bad faith and tortious breach of contract. In response, Farm Bureau filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis of the policy’s earth-movement exclusion, which provided that Farm Bureau “did not insure for loss caused directly or indirectly by…Earth Movement…[which] means…[a]ny other earth movement including earth sinking, rising or shifting... caused by or resulting from human or animal forces.” Smith filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment on the basis that the earth-movement exclusion did not preclude coverage because her insurance policy also contained a clause expressly covering water damage.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony Hatzilabrou, Traub LiebermanMr. Hatzilabrou may be contacted at
thatzilabrou@tlsslaw.com
Bay Area Counties Issue Less Restrictive “Shelter in Place” Orders, Including for Construction
May 04, 2020 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogThe short story: Construction can resume. The long story: Construction can resume beginning Monday, May 4, 2020,
with extensive and detailed restrictions.
Six Bay Area Counties Loosen Shelter-in-Place Restrictions Including Allowing Construction to Resume
Earlier this week, six Bay Area counties and the City of Berkeley issued new orders requiring the use of face coverings when in public. The six Bay Area counties, which also happen to be the first counties in the nation to issue shelter-in-place orders, are Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara.
When do the revised shelter-in-place orders take effect?
The revised shelter-in-place orders take effect at 11:59 p.m. on May 3, 2020 and will remain in effect until 11:59 p.m. on May 31, 2020 unless extended, rescinded, superseded, or amended. Thus, effectively, the new orders take effect on Monday, May 4, 2020.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
