On May 16, 2019, I will chair The Seminar Group’s Construction Defect Litigation seminar in Portland, Oregon. The seminar will include a panel of knowledgeable lawyers with broad experience litigating construction defect and related insurance disputes. Among those presenting will be two of my colleagues Lou Ferreira and Andrew Gibson. Click here to learn
Think the ADA preempts contractual risk shifting? Not so fast, says the Ninth Circuit.
Rejecting an argument that the ADA preempts all contractual claims for indemnity and contribution, the Ninth Circuit recently upheld a public owner’s right to seek contribution for damages arising out of ADA violations caused by the designer and contractor of a transportation facility. See City of Los Angeles v. AECOM Services, Inc. (here).
Alter Ego: The $5MM personal danger of neglecting corporate formalities and utilizing substandard building materials
Many building developers utilize a single purpose entity limited liability company (an “LLC”) to purchase and develop property, such as an apartment complex, a subdivision, or a shopping center. Generally, an LLC’s debts, whether incurred or judicially imposed, belong only to the LLC, not to its members. However, an LLC’s individual member may be subject to personal liability under the doctrine of alter ego liability if (1) the individual and the LLC share a unity of interest and ownership such that the separate personalities of the two no longer exist, and (2) treating the debts as the LLC’s alone would impose an inequitable result that rewards the bad faith of the individual. A recent legal decision from Southern California highlights the dangers of disregarding an LLC’s corporate formalities during any construction project.
Under California’s Right to Repair Act, Ignore Deadlines at Your Own Peril
In a very recent decision, the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Blanchette v. Superior Court affirmed the plain language of the Home Builder’s Right to Repair Act, holding that even a facially insufficient notice of defect triggers the obligation of a builder to respond within 14 days. The statute, Civil Code section 895 et.
One Unanticipated Cost of Being an Owner-Builder in California: Liability for Retained Control over Safety
Many times I hear from people who want to “save money” and serve as their own “owner-builder” under the exemption to the California Contractor’s Licensing law, which generally requires that any “construction” work over $500 to be performed by a licensed California contractor in the absence of an exemption. (Bus. & Prof. Code section
Self-Imposed ADA Audits: The Developer’s Best Option
Recent rulings indicate that courts across the country view project owners’ and developers’ liability for ADA claims differently than they do other compliance violations. Owners’ attempts to raise questions of contractor negligence, breach of contract or breach of warranty are being rejected. So what can a project owner do? In my recent article for the
“All Risk” Coverage Is Not Equal to “All Loss” Coverage Under Customary Provisions in California Builder’s Risk Policies
A common insurance question asked by our owner/developer clients when they discover that their completed project has defects is whether their own insurance will cover the cost to fix the defect or any damage from the defect. While trying hard not to sound like the proverbial lawyer, we often have to say “it depends.” What
Architect Off the Hook for ADA Defects
Continuing a disturbing trend, another recent case finds that an architect is not liable for a design that failed to comply with the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (RA). In Chicago Housing Authority v. DeStefano & Partners, Ltd. (here), an Illinois appellate court followed several other federal and state decisions
On Guard: A Look at Subcontractor Default Insurance
Whether you call it SDI or SubGuard, subcontractor default insurance is yet another consideration for public and private project owners as they look at protection from subcontractor default. But what exactly is this relatively new option and when is it most appropriate? In my recent article for the Daily Journal of Commerce, I discuss
KIRO 7 Interviews Joe McCarthy on Pitfalls of Washington Condo Act – Developers Beware!
Joseph McCarthy, a real estate attorney in Stoel Rives’ Seattle office, was recently interviewed by television station KIRO 7 in Seattle for a segment titled “Law meant to protect Wash. homeowners instead pushing up condo prices.” The piece discusses how the consumer warranties contained in the Washington Condominium Act, found at Chapter 64.34 RCW, fostered