Anaheim California Building Consultant Directory

What Construction Firm Employers Should Do Right Now to Minimize Legal Risk of Discrimination and Harassment Lawsuits

October 07, 2024 — Anthony LaPlaca, Dawn Solowey, Andrew Scroggins & Adrienne Lee
Seyfarth Synopsis: In June 2024, Seyfarth published a blog article warning construction industry employers of recent anti-harassment guidelines issued by the EEOC. We predicted that the EEOC has “put the construction industry squarely in its sights.”[1] In this follow-up Alert, we discuss recent cases confirming the renewed regulatory focus on the construction sector, which demonstrate the need to put in place sound practices for non-discriminatory recruitment, hiring, and training of the work force in order to be prepared for this heightened risk of government scrutiny. Recent EEOC Settlements The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has indicated, in no uncertain terms, that over the next five years it intends to prioritize the mitigation of systemic workplace problems and the historical underrepresentation of women and workers of color in the construction sector.[2] Two recent cases confirm that the EEOC is true to its word when it comes to tackling racial and gender disparities in the construction work force. In August 2024, the EEOC secured two consent decrees with two separate construction firms in Florida, totaling nearly $3 million. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony LaPlaca, Seyfarth, Dawn Solowey, Seyfarth, Andrew Scroggins, Seyfarth and Adrienne Lee, Seyfarth Mr. LaPlaca may be contacted at alaplaca@seyfarth.com Ms. Solowey may be contacted at dsolowey@seyfarth.com Mr. Scroggins may be contacted at ascroggins@seyfarth.com Ms. Lee may be contacted at aclee@seyfarth.com Read the full story...

Definitions Matter in Illinois: Tenant Held Liable Only for Damage to Apartment Unit

September 09, 2024 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Phila. Indem. Ins. Co. v. Gonzalez, No. 1-23-0833, 2024 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1372, the Appellate Court of Illinois considered whether the terms of a lease agreement limited a tenant’s liability for fire damages, a fire caused by her negligence, to her apartment unit only. The plaintiff insured the subject apartment building, which incurred damage to several units as result of a fire in the tenant’s unit. The lease defined “Premises” as the specific apartment unit occupied by the tenant and held the tenant responsible for damage caused to the Premises. While the court found that the lease permitted the plaintiff to subrogate against the tenant, it held that the lease terms limited the damages to the tenant’s apartment unit only. In Gonzalez, the plaintiff’s insured owned a multi-unit apartment building in Chicago. In September 2019, the building owner entered into a lease agreement with the defendant for apartment Unit 601. The lease stated that Unit 601 was the “Leased Address (Premises).” Another provision stated that building owner “hereby leases to Tenant(s) and Tenant(s) hereby leases from Landlord(s) for use as a private dwelling only, the Premises, together with the fixtures and appliances (if any) in the premises…” The lease also stated that “Tenant shall be liable for any damage done to the premises as a result of Tenant’s or Tenant’s invitees, guests or others authorized to reside in the Premises [sic] direct action, negligence, or failure to inform Landlord of repairs necessary to prevent damage to the Premises.” Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

Preserving Lien Rights on Private Projects in Washington: Three Common Mistakes to Avoid

September 16, 2024 — Kristina Southwell - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
The Washington Construction Lien Statute, RCW 60.04 et seq., exists to help secure payment for work performed for the improvement of real property.[1] The statute grants “any person furnishing labor, professional services, materials, or equipment for the improvement of real property” the authority to claim “a lien upon the improvement for the contract price of labor, professional services, materials, or equipment furnished.” RCW 60.04.021. Exercising lien rights is one of the most useful tools available to a contractor or supplier trying to recover payment owed on a project. A properly recorded lien binds the project property, which is typically the most valuable asset held by the owner, as security for the amounts owed to the lien claimant. Additionally, the lien statute provides a basis for the claimant to recover the costs of recording the lien and its attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in litigating the foreclosure of the lien. While the lien statute authorizes the right to lien, it also provides a series of strict requirements and procedures that a claimant must follow to properly exercise its rights. The claimant must carefully comply with all statutory requirements. This article does not endeavor to explain all the intricacies of the lien statute, but rather discusses three of the most common mistakes that result in the loss of lien rights. See our lien and bond claim manual for a more detailed guide to construction liens in Washington. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kristina Southwell, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ms. Southwell may be contacted at kristina.southwell@acslawyers.com

Lawsuit Gives Teeth to Massachusetts Pay Law

September 16, 2024 — Joseph Barra - Robinson+Cole
“The Massachusetts Legislature passed the state’s Prompt Pay Act 14 years ago to improve the downstream flow of money on most large-scale private construction projects. While the act established detailed protocols for administering applications for payment and other important construction phase processes, several questions about its interpretation and impact remained unanswered. Over the years, I watched as a significant portion of the Massachusetts design and construction community either ignored the law’s exacting requirements or were unaware of their applicability. The first indication of how the act would be interpreted came in 2022, when the state appeals court decided Tocci Building Corp. v. IRIV Partners LLC. In that case, the court strictly construed the act. It held that an owner (and its agent) who failed to promptly advise the project’s general contractor of specific factual and legal reasons why it was withholding payment, coupled with a failure to certify that funds were being withheld in good faith, violated the law—making the contractor liable for the unpaid funds. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Joseph Barra, Robinson+Cole
Mr. Barra may be contacted at jbarra@rc.com

Update: Amazon Can (Still) Be Liable in Louisiana

December 31, 2024 — Michael Ciamaichelo - The Subrogation Strategist
On November 25, 2024, in Pickard v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 5:20-cv-01448, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215377, the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (District Court) ruled that Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon) could be liable for manufacturer-seller liability under the Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA) for a defective product sold by a third-party seller through the “Fulfillment by Amazon” program (FBA). The court also dismissed two tort claims against Amazon as follows: (i) Amazon does not qualify as a “seller” for purposes of non-manufacturer seller liability (because passing title is required for that claim); and (ii) there is insufficient evidence to prove the decedent, Archie Pickard (Pickard), relied on Amazon’s safety practices when purchasing the defective product, precluding a claim for negligent undertaking. Background Pickard died from injuries sustained in a house fire allegedly caused by a defective battery charger he purchased on Amazon. Jisell, a Chinese company and a third-party seller, manufactured and sold the charger. Amazon never took title to the charger but stored it in its warehouse and delivered it to Pickard through the FBA. Pickard’s children filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Amazon alleging three claims: (i) manufacturer-seller liability under the LPLA; and tort-based claims of (ii) non-manufacturer seller liability and (iii) negligent undertaking. After Amazon moved for summary judgment on all claims, the District Court certified questions to the Supreme Court of Louisiana (Supreme Court) seeking guidance as there was minimal guidance regarding the application of products claims to online marketplaces. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael Ciamaichelo, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at ciamaichelom@whiteandwilliams.com

“For What It’s Worth”

October 21, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
The legal doctrine of quantum meruit is essentially referring to recovering “for what it’s worth,” incorporating the Latin phrase for “as much as one has deserved.” Quantum meruit recovery occurs when there is no contract between parties for the particular item for which recovery is sought. Hence, quantum meruit recovery is generally a means of last resort to endeavor to make oneself whole. So, it was for a subcontractor seeking nearly $14,000,000 for work it performed on a construction project in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. The subcontractor sued on contract as well as quantum meruit/unjust enrichment. The court initially dismissed the quantum meruit/unjust enrichment claims – because there was a contract claim – whereupon the contract claim was dismissed on summary judgment: the subcontractor failed to timely submit change proposals and, consequently, “lost contract remedies available to recover amounts it sought in the change proposals.” Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

Congratulations to Partner Alex Giannetto for Being Named to San Diego Business Journal’s Top 100 Leaders in Law List

December 03, 2024 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Congratulations to Partner Alexander Giannetto for being selected as a “2024 Leaders of Influence in Law” by the San Diego Business Journal! To read and download the SDBJ publication, please click here. Alex Giannetto is a managing partner with Bremer, Whyte, Brown & O’Meara LLP’s San Diego office. He has extensive experience in all aspects of civil litigation handling liability matters including slip and falls, catastrophic injuries, wrongful death, traumatic brain injuries, landslides, and construction claims. He has obtained favorable trial results defending clients on personal injury and premises matters in San Diego and Los Angeles. He also has appellate experience. He is an AV-rated attorney by Martindale-Hubbell who has been voted Best of the Bar in San Diego as well as a Top Lawyer in San Diego. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Federal District Court Addresses Material Misrepresentation in First Party Property Damage Claim

August 26, 2024 — James M. Eastham - Traub Lieberman
In Pittsfield Dev. LLC v. Travelers Indem. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117530 (N.D. Ill. July 3, 2024), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois addressed an alleged material misrepresentation by an insured during the course of the adjustment of a water loss claim at an insured property. Subsequent to a pipe burst event which caused damage to a number of the floors in the insured building, the insured submitted a claim to Travelers and also submitted, with the assistance of a retained public adjuster, a damage estimate of the damages at the property. Included within the estimate submitted by the insured was a line item for "Lead Paint & Asbestos Removal" with a corresponding dollar amount of $1,140,000. It was this line item which formed the basis of Travelers' claim of misrepresentation. At his deposition, the public adjuster testified that the $1,140,000 figure was an oral estimate received over the phone from an asbestos remediation company. Travelers disputed the testimony and contended that no such estimate was ever provided. For support, Travelers pointed to deposition testimony from a remediation company employee that while rough estimates were occasionally given verbally, the largest over the phone estimate she could recall was in the $20,000-$25,000 range. It was also disputed that the company would ever provide an oral quote of that magnitude sight unseen, especially since the largest project the remediation company had ever completed was less than $250,000. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Eastham may be contacted at jeastham@tlsslaw.com

ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA BUILDING CONSULTANT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES