Case Updates Archive

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.

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.