Anaheim California Building Consultant Directory

Ethical Limits on Preparing a Witness for Deposition or Trial

October 28, 2024 — Stu Richeson - The Dispute Resolver
In this week’s blog post, we are going to take a brief look at ethical issues associated with preparing a witness for a deposition or to testify at trial. Most attorneys would agree that it is permissible to meet with a witness before the witness’s deposition to discuss what to expect. On the other hand, there is no question that advising a witness to provide false testimony would be improper. But what about the area in between those two extremes? For instance, can an attorney suggest to a witness how to phrase answers to anticipated questions that, while true, might not be the way the witness would have answered the question absent the attorney’s coaching? A little over a year ago, the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility issued ABA Formal Opinion 508: The Ethics of Witness Preparation. The opinion provides certain examples of things that are and are not permissible in preparing a witness for a deposition or trial. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stu Richeson, Phelps
Mr. Richeson may be contacted at stuart.richeson@phelps.com

Bright-Line Changes: Prompt Payment Act Trends

September 16, 2024 — Stephanie L. Cooksey - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Untimely payment by the owner for contract work and additional work on construction projects can place an unfair financial burden on contractors and subcontractors. Most states have attempted to eliminate or mitigate this inequity in construction contracting through Prompt Payment Acts that govern payment deadlines and provide remedies for untimely payment. This article addresses the legislative trends aimed at minimizing the risk of non-payment, overdue payment, and withholding retainage in favor of downstream parties to a construction contract. Fortifying Contractor Protections with “Bright-Line” Language Over the last decade, states have been tightening prompt payment laws by replacing broad, general statutory language with bright-line rules. What is a bright-line rule? A specific or definite figure, a quantifiable marker—i.e., something owners, contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers should be aware of. Practically speaking, the more bright-line a prompt payment statute is, the greater the likelihood it will affect a construction project in your state. A standard form construction contract, if not reviewed carefully, can create conflicts or confusion if it gives a party more leeway on payment deadlines than the applicable Prompt Payment Act. For example, consider an owner-issued Construction Change Directive (“CCD”) that requires a contractor to commence additional work immediately while a formal change order is negotiated. Consequently, a CCD can push financial burdens downstream, whether inadvertently or not, and may conflict with statutory payment deadlines. Nevertheless, an owner can be justified in its utilization of a CCD to maintain the project schedule. How should the parties competing interests be resolved? Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Peckar & Abramson, P.C.

Let’s Get Surety Podcast – #126 Building the Future: AI, Construction and Law

December 31, 2024 — Denis Serkin - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Denis Serkin, partner in P&A’s New York and New Jersey offices, joins the latest episode of the NASBP podcast “Let’s Get Surety” to delve into the transformative impact of AI on the construction industry and construction law. In this insightful discussion, Denis explores how AI tools are already enhancing design and supply chains and shares his vision for AI’s eventual integration across every facet of the industry. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Denis Serkin, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Serkin may be contacted at dserkin@pecklaw.com

Owners and Contractors are Liable for Injuries Caused by their Independent Contractors under the “Peculiar Risk Doctrine”

October 15, 2024 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
Many contractors and owners believe that if they hire an independent contractor to perform work and that independent contractor causes injury to others during the performance of that work, then it is the independent contractor alone who will be liable for those injuries. In most circumstances, this is correct. The owner or the contractor will not be held liable for injuries caused by his or her independent contractor. However, this is not always the case. Under the “Peculiar Risk Doctrine” and California cases interpreting the doctrine, a contractor or owner who hires an independent contractor to do work which is considered to be “inherently dangerous work” can be still be held directly liable for damages when that independent contractor causes injury to others by negligently performing the work. Such liability can generally be imposed on the one hiring the independent contractor under either of two branches of the peculiar risk doctrine. First, where a person hires an independent contractor to do inherently dangerous work, but fails to provide in the contract or in some other manner that special precautions must be taken to avert the peculiar risk of injury related to that work, then the one hiring the independent contractor can be held liable for injuries to others caused by the independent contractor’s negligence. (Restatement Second of Torts Section 413). For example, in Mackey v. Campbell Construction Co. 101 Cal. App. 3d 774, 162 Cal. Rptr. 64 (1980), Western Electric Company, the owner of the project, was found liable for the personal injuries of a subcontractor’s employee because Western’s representatives were on the job at all times, had doubts about the safety of scaffolding being used on the project, yet failed to require use of precautions that could have been taken to avoid injury. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (12/4/24) – Highest Rate of Office Conversions, Lending Caps for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Affordability Challenges for Homebuyers

December 23, 2024 — Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
In our latest roundup, infrastructure-related ballot initiatives, U.S. Green Building Council’s success stories, support for sustainable building, and more!

2024 is expected to see the highest rate of office conversions since CBRE began tracking them in 2016. (Nish Amarnath, SmartCities Dive)
The Federal Housing Finance Agency has established lending caps of $73 billion each for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, allowing them to purchase a total of up to $146 billion in multifamily loans in 2025. (Leslie Shaver, Multifamily Dive)
A number of infrastructure-related initiatives with the potential to impact facilities managers were on the ballot during the 2024 U.S. presidential election. (Joe Burns, Construction Dive)

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

Summary Judgment for Insurer on Construction Defect Claim Reversed

January 07, 2025 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's granting of summary judgment to the insurer on a construction defect claim asserted against the insured. TIG Ins. Co. v. Woodsboro Farmers Cooperative, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 24003 (5th Cir. Sept. 20, 2024). In March 2013, Woodsboro Farmers Cooperative contracted with E.F. Erwin, Inc. to construct two Brock 105' diameter grain silos. Erwin hired subcontract AJ Constructors, Inc. (AJC) to construct the silos. Erwin was responsible for supervising the work. Brock silos were kits shipped by the manufacturer and then assembled according to the manufacturer's manuals and specifications. The silos are constructed section by section. AJC began erecting the silos in May 2013 and completed its work in June or early July. Erwin occasionally inspected the work and found the silos were structurally sound and not defective. AJC left the job site after completing the assembly. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Fee Simple!

November 11, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
Following the grant of summary judgment by a Nebraska federal court on a construction claim, the prevailing subcontractor sought recovery of attorney’s fees, but received pushback from its opponent based upon the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The general contractor urged “that attorney’s fees are ‘special damages’ that must be specifically pleaded within a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(g).” The GC said that a prayer for “a judgment for… costs, interest, and attorney’s fees be entered” – without further asserting a statutory or factual basis for the recovery – is insufficient. The subcontractor shot back that “it complied with the requirements of Rule 9(g) because its prayer for relief expressly referenced attorney’s fees, and the request for such fees was based on the facts asserted in the pleadings themselves.” Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

“Since You Asked. . .”

October 15, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
… you must now pay. So said a California appellate court, affirming the trial court’s decision against a subcontractor suing for unpaid subcontract sums. Instead of being awarded those unpaid amounts, the subcontractor lost the case and was tagged with a $1.55 million attorney’s fees award and $270,000 costs award in favor of the defendants. What went wrong? California law requires a licensed contractor to maintain at all times proper workers’ compensation insurance coverage. The failure to maintain the coverage and have the certificate of coverage on file with the California Contractors State License Board results in “automatic and immediate suspension” of the contractor license. Retroactive reinstatement of the license may occur only if the contractor provides proof of the insurance within 90 days of the effective date of the insurance certificate – unless the contractor can show that failure to have the certificate on file was “due to circumstances beyond the control of the licensee.” Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA BUILDING CONSULTANT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES