Experience Archive

The California Fifth Appellate District Court of Appeal recently handed down a decision which significantly impacts a home builder's right to repair construction defects. 

The provision in a commercial general liability insurance policy requiring the insurer to "defend the insured against any 'suit' seeking. . .damages" includes the duty to defend the insured in proceedings under the Calderon Act (California Civil Code § 1375, et seq.)

Under the peculiar risk doctrine, a general contractor cannot be held vicariously liable for job site injuries suffered by an independent contractor, even if the independent contractor is not an employee and so is not entitled to receive workers compensation benefits for the injuries.

In a stop notice claimant who has relied upon seemingly correct lender information provided by an owner and/or general contractor is not required to provide proof of checking the county records (i.e., building permit and recorded deed of trust) in order to prove that when it served the preliminary 20-day notice on the wrong lender it held a good faith belief that the "reputed" construction lender was the actual construction lender.

On December 18, 2009, in Suarez v. Pacific Northstar Mechanical, Inc., the California Court of Appeals created a duty mandating employers at multi-employer construction sites to report hazards at the site to which its employees have been exposed. The duty applies to all hazards at the site whether or not the employer installed, worked on or was otherwise responsible for the condition. Under California law, an employer who breaches such a duty is liable in tort.

The California Court of Appeal's decision on December 2, 2009 in Tarrant Bell Property, LLC v. The Superior Court of Alameda County and Spanish Ranch I, L.P. v. The Superior Court of Alameda County gives the trial court discretion in determining whether to enforce a judicial reference provision in the agreements between the owners of a mobile home park and the residents. The court specifically noted that this breadth of discretion did not exist where the agreement required arbitration.

A decision issued on November 24, 2009 by the Second District of the California Court of Appeal may substantially aid defendants seeking to challenge allegations of injury due to secondary exposure to chemicals and other toxic substances. It may also assist defendants in defending all toxic tort claims filed in California.

An Alameda County jury just delivered a defense verdict in favor of an engineer/general contractor in a closely watched asbestos trial.  This two month trial is significant in that a jury exonerated the sole remaining defendant from any liability, despite evidence that the plaintiff, a prominent dentist, developed mesothelioma following exposure to asbestos fibers. The same jury rejected a claim for loss of consortium brought by the plaintiff's wife.

Late Friday, January 23, 2009, an Orange County Jury returned a unanimous defense verdict in favor of our client, Birdwell Holdings L.P.  Our client was sued by Hunt Investors for intentional interference with contractual relations relating to the failed negotiations to purchase an engine testing laboratory.  The co-defendant was Extengine Transport Systems, who also received a defense verdict.  Plaintiff initially sought millions of dollars in damages, which were significantly reduced during the trial due to successful motions in limine.

As we do at the beginning of each year, we are forwarding our 2009 annual mold litigation update. These updates have chronicled the rise and fall of mold litigation during the last decade.

This recent California Court of Appeals decision held that though the statute of limitations generally begins at the date of completion, developers may have a safe haven by completing construction projects but maintaining possession of properties until the market improves. The court rejected the plaintiff homeowner's argument that because the developer continued to own the home for a 16-month period before sale, the 10-year statute was tolled.

Kevin Smith received an overwhelmingly favorable jury verdict this afternoon in a wrongful death trial in Bakersfield, Silva v. Ortiz.   

Shea Homes was absolved of any liability for damages that a Stevenson Ranch family alleged had arisen out of mold  exposure in their home. Jurors in the closely watched personal injury suit returned a defense verdict for Shea, the nation’s largest private home builder, following a three week trial.