Ultimately, improving our companies, like improving ourselves, is up to us and our own diligence and persistence in identifying and implementing improvements on an ongoing basis. A strong market as we start 2019 means a great opportunity to review for and ensure solid implementation of legal compliance and financial goals for your construction projects –

Tamara Boeck
Tamara Boeck routinely advises owners, developers and general contractors primarily in California, Idaho and Nevada. Tami works with clients on a wide range of projects including commercial, residential and mixed-use projects, as well as construction-related aspects of oil and gas, mining, food processing, solar, wind, geothermal, biofuel, wastewater treatment and other industrial facilities.
In addition to counseling her clients on ways to avoid protracted litigation through thoughtful negotiations and effective contracts, she handles construction disputes from mediation through litigation or arbitration, which often encompass significant business conflicts, project delay, workmanship and performance deficiency claims, as well as those matters involving lien laws, insurance coverage disagreements with insurers, claims involving toxic tort, product liability and catastrophic injuries. With her depth of experience, she is able to assist and protect her clients in arbitration or trial when a pragmatic business resolution is not available. Tami has been listed in Best Lawyers in America© for Construction Law since 2010. She is immediate past chair of the firm’s Real Estate, Development & Construction group.
Click here for Tamara Boeck's full bio.
Reminder of January 1, 2019 Mandatory New Notice Requirement by CA Residential Solar Contractors
In 2017, the California Legislature passed a bill that resulted in Business and Professions Code (BPC) section 7169, which ultimately would require Home Improvement Contractors, which include contractors that install solar systems on residences, to issue specific disclosures to any residential consumers who may want to purchase, finance or lease, and install a solar system on their property. Recently in August, the California Public Utilities Commission “endorse[d] the solar energy systems disclosure document as being compliant with [BPC section 7169]….” The Disclosure terms include:
- The total cost for the solar system, including financing and energy/power costs (if applicable);
- The statutory License Board Disclosure statement for contractors and / or the home improvement salesperson who sold the system information regarding with whom to file if there are complaints; and
- The statutory Three-Day Right to Cancel Disclosure if the contract is not negotiated at the contractor’s place of business.
California Court Finds Coverage When “Property Damage” Doesn’t Require Physical Injury By Definition
Although it may seem strange at first, the recent ruling by the California Fourth Appellate District Court in Thee Sombrero, Inc. v. Scottsdale Co., (2018 EL 5292072), holding that an insurer must pay for a claim where there was no actual physical property damage, is not as odd as it may seem to non-insurance…
Developers and Builders Gain Time from Permit Expiration in California with AB 2913
After decades of dealing with a hodgepodge of local adoption (or not) of administrative codes relating to building permit extensions, California Governor Brown’s September 21, 2018 signature on AB 2913 is a welcome addition of at least six months to the existing statutory commencement of work period. AB 2913 allows a uniform 12-month period across…
California Contractors State License Board (CSLB) Issues FAST FACTS for Contractor Referral Businesses
There is no doubt that our national economy relies heavily on e-commerce. This is true with regard to contractors in California as well. As individuals and businesses look for quality builders, trades and services in the construction field, they look for sources of on-line information to evaluate whom to hire. Would you think that an…
Solar PPA Provider That Only “Arranges” Installation of System It Owns Is Not a “Contractor” in California
In the recently issued but unpublished decision Reed v. SunRun, Inc. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC498002, Feb. 2, 2018), the Second District Court of Appeal ruled that a solar power purchase agreement (“PPA”) provider that only sells solar energy to homeowners is not required to be a licensed California contractor under certain…
What is Imputed Agent Knowledge Under California’s Real Estate Disclosure Rules
Recently, in RSB Vineyards LLC v. Orsi, the First Appellate District Court of Appeal confirmed the long-standing rule in California: sellers must disclose all known material matters. While this affirmed rule was not surprising, the court was very helpful in providing the first detailed framework for what it means for a seller to have…
Is “As-Is” Really “As-Is” in Real Estate Contracts? Tell the Truth, the Whole Truth, or Risk Liability for Nondisclosure
The inclusion of an “as-is” clause in a contract for a real estate transaction has led courts in Oregon to allow parties to a deal to allocate the risk as to the property differently than through the historic concept of “caveat emptor” (let the buyer beware), which permitted a seller to shift the obligation to…
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.…
Is Late Notice A Big Deal? Ninth Circuit Asks For An Opinion From CA Supreme Court On Insurance Question
So, what’s the big deal if you’re a little “late” in giving your insurer notice of the claim or lawsuit against your company? That’s the question, albeit in essence, that the Ninth Circuit has posed to the California Supreme Court recently in an Order Certifying Questions, Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Co.
Specifically, the Ninth Circuit is asking for legal insight as to the following:
1. Is California’s common law notice-prejudice rule a fundamental public policy for the purpose of choice-of-law analysis? May common law rules, other than unconscionability not enshrined in statute, regulation, or the constitution, be fundamental public policies for the purpose of choice-of-law analysis?
2. If the notice-prejudice rule is a fundamental public policy for the purpose of choice-of-law analysis, can a consent provision in a first-party claim insurance policy be interpreted as a notice provision such that the notice-prejudice rule applies?