Anaheim California Expert Witness Engineer Directory

Arizona Court Affirms Homeowners’ Association’s Right to Sue Over Construction Defects

October 15, 2024 — Melissa Kenney - White and Williams LLP
In Gallery Community Association v. K. Hovnanian at Gallery LLC, No. 1 CA-CV 23-0375, 2024 Ariz. App. Unpub. LEXIS 696 (Ct. App.), the Court of Appeals of Arizona (Court of Appeals) discussed whether a homeowners’ association can file an action for breach of the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability arising from construction defects. At issue was whether the implied warranty extended to the areas within the community that the association maintained, including the common areas. The Court of Appeals held that homeowners’ associations can sue builder-vendors for breach of the implied warranty arising from construction defects. In this case, a homeowners’ association, responsible for managing and maintaining a community of townhomes, sued the developer/builder for alleged construction defects in the common area and exteriors of homes that the association maintained for the homeowners in the community. The alleged defects included the pool cabana and staircase walls in the common areas and the exterior walls, roofs, and staircases on the separately owned townhomes in the community. The builder filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the implied warranty extended to dwelling actions initiated by homeowners – not homeowners’ associations – and that the alleged construction defects at issue were not related to a dwelling. The trial court granted the motion. The Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeals determined that both common law and statutory law authorized the homeowners’ association’s breach of implied warranty claim. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Kenney, White and Williams
Ms. Kenney may be contacted at kenneyme@whiteandwilliams.com

A New Study on Implementing Digital Visual Management

July 31, 2024 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
A new paper, “Implementing Digital Visual Management: A Case Study on Challenges and Barriers,” discusses situational management in complex infrastructure projects. It’s worth reading for anyone interested in improving project management with digital tools. A complex infrastructure project The authors interviewed nine project management professionals who worked for the client on constructing the western part of the Metro in Helsinki and Espoo, Finland. The project lasted eight years and had a budget of 1,200 million euros. The project used a Digital Visual Management (DVM) tool, and the paper discusses the challenges and barriers faced during the tool’s implementation. At the time of the study, the system was used to manage the final documentation and testing status. KPI management The project management team was involved in developing a system for combining collected data into a central dashboard and using it to manage the whole project. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

Federal Court Holds that Demolition Exclusion Does Not Apply and Carrier Has Duty to Defend Additional Insureds

September 02, 2024 — Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman
In the recent case of Travelers Indem. Co. v. Trisura Specialty Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101953 (S.D.N.Y. June 7, 2024), the court had occasion to consider the classic additional insured fact pattern of a construction accident. Travelers insured the general contractor and provided a defense to the general contractor as well as its wholly owned subsidiary. Trisura insured the subcontractor, who employed the injured worker. Travelers brought suit, alleging that Trisura is obligated to defend and indemnify the general contractor, its subsidiary, the owner of the building (The City of New York), and the tenant. Trisura denied any obligation to provide coverage due to the application of the “Demolition Exclusion” to the Trisura policy, which provides, in part, that there is no coverage for injury or damage arising out of the demolition of any building or structure which has original ground height in excess of three stories. The accident occurred during the interior demolition of the fifth floor of the building. The court held that the Demolition Exclusion applies only when there is a complete tearing down, razing, or destruction of an entire building. As the accident occurred during interior demolition, the exclusion did not apply. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

¡AI Caramba!

January 07, 2025 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
You can’t make this up. That’s what a federal judge in Texas told an attorney whom it was sanctioning for impermissible reliance on artificial intelligence in preparing a brief to the court. “Pending before the court is the question of whether Plaintiff's counsel… should be sanctioned for submitting a response brief to the court that includes case cites generated by artificial intelligence that refer to nonexistent cases as well as to nonexistent quotations.” Counsel for the defendant in the case – pursuing summary judgment for a tire manufacturer in a wrongful termination lawsuit – pointed up in a reply brief that the opposition brief of the plaintiff cited two purported – and as it turned out, nonexistent – unpublished decisions: Roca v. King's Creek Plantation, LLC, 500 F. App'x 273, 276 (5th Cir. 2012) and Beets v. Texas Instruments, Inc., No. 94-10034, 1994 WL 714026, at *3 (5th Cir. Dec. 16, 1994), and quotations from as many as six other apparently-existing cases but which were unable to be found within the reported decisions. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

Newport Beach Attorneys John Toohey and Nick Rodriguez Receive Full Defense Verdict

July 31, 2024 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara is pleased to report that Partner John Toohey and Senior Associate Nicholas Rodriguez received a complete defense verdict after a 5-week jury trial in Orange County Superior Court. The case involved a multimillion-dollar home in Orange County. Plaintiff had originally suffered a water loss throughout areas of the home. Our client, an Orange County restoration and construction company, was hired to provide on-going estimates and perform demolition. Plaintiff claimed that, in the course of the demolition process, asbestos containing material was disturbed and spread resulting in contamination throughout home. Plaintiff claimed contractor negligence and breach of contract against our client. Plaintiff sought millions against our client in general and special damages for whole home restoration and other related general damages. The jury found in complete favor of our client on all allegations and awarded zero dollars to the opposing party. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

2024 Update to CEB’s Mechanics Liens Now Available

October 15, 2024 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
For a number of years we have had the honor to serve as update authors for several publications of California’s Continuing Education of the Bar (CEB). I didn’t realize it until now but the CEB, a program of the University of California, was started more than 75 years ago following WWII to provide veterans who were attorneys with practical guidance on changes to the law as they returned to their practices following the war. Pretty cool! Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com Read the full story...

Deferred Maintenance?

December 17, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
A Tennessee-based “outsourced maintenance vendor” to an engine company filed suit in Louisiana state court seeking to recover nearly $150,000 on “open account,” for work previously performed. The engine company removed the case to the Federal District Court in New Orleans and asserted as a defense that the vendor lacked a proper Louisiana construction contractor’s license. The engine company filed a motion for summary judgment based on the defense. Under Louisiana law, a contract between parties is “absolutely null”--considered to have never existed--where one of the parties performed services without a required Louisiana contractor’s license, and the combined work reaches a $50,000 threshold. The engine company asserted that the vendor performed typical construction contractor work, including plywood flooring, applied epoxy to concrete flooring, erected part of a commercial carport, undertook certain heavy demolition, and installed fences, guardrails, and wire racks. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

New York Construction Practice Team Obtains Summary Judgment and Dismissal of Labor Law Claims

October 01, 2024 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
New York, N.Y. (August 23, 2024) – In Trujillo-Cruz v. City of New York, et al., New York Partner Inderjit Dhami, a member of New York Partner Meghan A. Cavalieri’s Construction Practice Team, recently obtained summary judgment and dismissal of the plaintiff's Labor Law §240(1), §241(6) and §200 claims dismissing the entire case against national developer and construction company clients. The plaintiff alleged to have sustained injuries as the result of a construction site accident occurring on July 11, 2018, while in the scope of his employment as a laborer in connection with the construction/renovation of a residential apartment building in Brooklyn, New York. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that he was injured when he was coming down from a ladder and fell on a 2”x 4”, causing him disabling injuries. The plaintiffs’ counsel articulated a $3 million settlement demand. Labor Law §240(1) imposes absolute liability on a defendant where an injured worker engaged in the performance of covered construction work establishes that a safety device proved inadequate to shield him from elevation-related harm, and that the defendant’s failure to provide an adequate safety device proximately caused the injuries alleged. The plaintiff first testified that he stepped on the 2” x 4” after he came down off of the ladder, but his counsel then prompted him to recalibrate his testimony by asking whether the accident arose when he was coming down the ladder or after he had come down off of the ladder. The plaintiff changed his testimony, alleging that the accident arose as he was coming down the ladder and that he remained partially on the ladder when he stepped on the piece of formwork and fell. Inderjit argued that the plaintiff’s reframing of his deposition testimony was immaterial for purposes of the Labor Law § 240 (1) analysis. Irrespective of whether the plaintiff was on solid ground or had one foot on the ladder at the time of the occurrence, his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was unavailing in that the accident did not arise as a result of the type of extraordinary elevation-related peril protected by Labor Law § 240 (1). Justice Maslow agreed and dismissed the plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240 (1) claims. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES