Justia Construction Law Opinion Summaries

This appeal stemmed from a dispute over the construction of a backyard patio at Defendant’s property. Defendants, the property owners, hired a general contractor, who contracted with Plaintiff for masonry work. Plaintiff filed suit, asserting that Defendants owed it money beyond that paid to it by the general contractor. At issue during the bench trial was whether Plaintiff was paid to construct Defendants’ backyard patio. The trial justice ultimately entered judgment for Defendants. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the trial justice erred in his factual determinations and credibility assessments. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice neither overlooked nor misconceived material evidence. View "A. Salvati Masonry Inc. v. Andreozzi" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted for, inter alia, two counts of first degree premeditated murder. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from his residence, ruling that the Exclusionary Rule Reform Act applied to the case despite ex post facto concerns. The jury then convicted Defendant as charged. The jury sentenced Defendant to life sentences without the possibility of parole for the murders. The court of criminal appeals upheld Defendant’s convictions and sentences. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court should modify the Tennessee ex post facto analysis found in Miller v. State in light of Collins v. Youngblood. The Supreme Court affirmed on separate grounds, holding (1) Miller v. State is overruled; (2) the ex post facto clause of the Tennessee Constitution has the same definition and scope as the federal ex post facto clause; (3) the application of the Exclusionary Rule Reform Act to this case was not an ex post facto violation; (4) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a search warrant; and (5) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his remaining issues. View "State v. Pruitt" on Justia Law

At issue in this case is when a notice of completion has been “issued” for purposes of determining the commencement date under Nev. Rev. Stat. 11.2055(1)(b) for Chapter 11’s construction defect statutes of repose. Appellants owned homes developed by Respondent. Approximately ten years after notices of completion of Appellants’ residences were signed, notarized, and recorded, Appellant served notices of construction defect on Respondent. Respondent moved to dismiss the claims on the grounds that their claims were untimely under Chapter 11’s statutes of repose for construction defect claims. Appellants opposed the motion to dismiss, arguing that the statutes of repose began to run on the date the notices of completion were recorded rather than the dates the notices of completion were signed and notarized. The district court dismissed the claims, concluding that they were time-barred under the ten-year statute of repose in Nev. Rev. Stat. 11.203. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a notice of completion is “issued” on the date it is recorded, not when it is signed and notarized. View "Dykema v. Del Webb Communities, Inc." on Justia Law

Navigators Specialty Insurance Company (Navigators) issued commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policies (the Policies) to Moorefield Construction, Inc. (Moorefield), a licensed general contractor. At issue in this appeal was the meaning, scope, and application of two standard provisions of the Policies. Moorefield appealed the judgment in favor of Navigators, where Navigators sought a declaration of its rights and duties under the Policies. Navigators' lawsuit was corollary to construction defect litigation arising out of the construction of a building to be used as a Best Buy store in Visalia. During the course of litigation, evidence obtained in discovery showed the most likely cause of flooring failure was that flooring tiles had been installed on top of a concrete slab that emitted moisture vapor in excess of specifications. Evidence also showed that Moorefield knew of the results of two tests showing excessive moisture vapor emission from the concrete, yet had directed the flooring subcontractor to install the flooring anyway. Evidence also established the cost to repair the flooring was $377,404. The litigation settled for $1,310,000. On Moorefield's behalf, Navigators contributed its policy limits of $1 million toward the settlement. Moorefield independently contributed an additional $150,000. The remaining $160,000 was made up of contributions from Best Buy Stores, LP (Best Buy), and the defendant subcontractors. In the meantime, Navigators filed this lawsuit seeking a declaration it had no duty under the Policies to defend or indemnify Moorefield. Navigators contended the flooring failure was not a covered occurrence under the Policies because it was not the result of an accident. Following a bench trial, the trial court found there was no covered occurrence under the Policies because Moorefield had directed the flooring subcontractor to install the flooring despite Moorefield's knowledge that moisture vapor emission from the concrete slab exceeded specifications. The trial court found that Moorefield had not met its burden of proving what portion, if any, of the $1 million paid by Navigators came within the supplementary payments provision of the Policies. The trial court also found that Navigators had no duty to make payments under the supplementary payments provision because Moorefield's liability arose from a noncovered claim. The judgment required Moorefield to reimburse $1 million to Navigators. Moorefield's appeal raised two primary issues, one related to the coverage "A" provision of the Policies and the other related to the supplementary payments provision of the Policies. The Court of Appeal found that Navigators had no duty to indemnify Moorefield and was entitled to recoup that portion of the $1 million paid toward settlement that was attributable to damages. The Court also found that Navigators had a duty to compensate Moorefield under the supplementary payments provision of the Policies. That duty was not extinguished by the determination that Navigators had no duty to indemnify. The Court of Appeal therefore affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a new trial limited to the issue of the amount of the $1 million paid by Navigators that was attributable to damages, not attorney fees and costs of suit under the supplementary payments provision. View "Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. v. Moorefield Const." on Justia Law

Lumber Specialties was hired as a subcontractor on a construction project to provide the truss package and certain engineering services. Dinsdale Construction was hired to supply the labor and building materials on the project. During a visit to the site, an employee of Lumber Specialties supplied false information to the builder regarding the structural integrity of the building. The visit was done was a courtesy to the builder and for the general goodwill of the business. The structure subsequently collapsed due to inadequate temporary bracing of the trusses. Dinsdale had not followed the industry standard temporary bracing plan. Dinsdale Construction brought suit against Lumber Specialties, alleging breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. The jury returned a verdict for Dinsdale Construction on the negligent misrepresentation claim. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals and reversed the district court judgment, holding (1) a defendant who is not acting in its information-giving capacity does not have a duty of care under the negligent misrepresentation tort; and (2) Lumber Specialties’ employee’s statements were excluded from the imposition of duty under the tort. View "Dinsdale Construction, LLC v. Lumber Specialties, Ltd." on Justia Law

Advent was the general contractor for the Aspen Village project in Milpitas. Advent subcontracted with Pacific, which subcontracted with Johnson. Advent was covered by a Landmark insurance policy and a Topa excess insurance policy. Johnson was covered by National Union primary and excess policies. Kielty, a Johnson employee, fell down an unguarded stairway shaft at the site and sustained serious injuries. Kielty sued Advent, which tendered its defense to its insurers and to National Union. National Union accepted under a reservation of rights. Kielty settled for $10 million. Various insurers, including Topa and National Union (under its primary policy), contributed to the settlement. National Union did not provide coverage under its excess policy. Advent sought a declaration that it was an “additional insured” under that excess policy. Topa intervened, seeking equitable contribution from National Union, and equitable subrogation. Advent dismissed its complaint with prejudice. Summary judgment was entered against Topa, for National Union. The court of appeal affirmed. While Topa’s policy was vague, National Union’s excess policy states that coverage will not apply until “the total applicable limits of Scheduled Underlying Insurance have been exhausted by the payment of Loss to which this policy applies and any applicable, Other Insurance have been exhausted by the payment of Loss.” View "Advent, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh" on Justia Law

Twalker Development, LLC appealed a judgment granting KLE Construction LLC's claim for unjust enrichment and ordering Twalker to pay $87,958.74 in damages. KLE and Twalker engaged in negotiations for KLE to provide construction services to Twalker in exchange for four lots located in Twalker's development. KLE and Twalker never executed a written contract finalizing the terms of an agreement. KLE began performing construction services on the property, including preliminary dirt work related to clearing and scraping the property. KLE also hired an engineering firm to create plans to subdivide the property for future sales. KLE and Twalker disagreed about certain aspects of the project, and Twalker terminated KLE's services. Twalker continued to develop the property and did not compensate KLE for the services it provided. KLE sued Twalker for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and forbearance. After a bench trial, the district court dismissed KLE's breach of contract claim, finding KLE failed to establish the existence of a contract. The court dismissed KLE's forbearance claim, stating forbearance was not a separate and distinct claim. The court granted KLE's unjust enrichment claim and found KLE was entitled to $90,857 in damages. The court ordered each party pay the other party's costs and disbursements. A judgment was entered in favor of KLE for $87,958.74. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in granting KLE's unjust enrichment claim and awarding damages. View "KLE Construction, LLC v. Twalker Development, LLC" on Justia Law

Arundel Valley, LLC, the developer of a facility for a butter manufacturer, filed a complaint against Branch River Plastics, Inc., a manufacturer and distributor of insulated roofing panels, alleging, inter alia, defects in roofing panels that Branch River had manufactured and supplied to Arundel Valley for a construction project. A jury found in Arundel Valley’s favor on its claims that Branch River breached implied warranties by supplying defective roofing panels. Branch River filed a motion for a new trial, which the court denied. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in declining to adjudicate whether Branch River had disclaimed implied warranties. Remanded. View "Arundel Valley, LLC v. Branch River Plastics, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant Veterans Parkway Developers, LLC (“VPD”) appealed a Superior Court order granting injunctive relief and requiring an accounting in this suit by RMW Development Fund, II, LLC (“RMW”) stemming from VPD’s management of Veterans Parkway Apartments, LLC (the “Company”). The order at issue granted RMW an interlocutory injunction: (1) enjoining VPD from using funds in its possession or control to construct a second entrance to an apartment complex in Columbus (the “Property”), constructed and managed by the Company; (2) prohibiting VPD from using funds for any purpose other than the normal day-to-day expenses of the Property; and (3) requiring VPD to submit a monthly report of its expenses to the superior court, with copies to counsel for the parties. RMW filed suit against VPD alleging VPD’s breach of contract by its entering into an unauthorized management agreement and thereby paying an unauthorized management fee, and a claim for “promissory estoppel,” stemming from VPD’s alleged failure to use some of the Company’s funds for partial repayment of a development loan; RMW asked for VPD’s removal as manager of the Company and for the costs of litigation. Prior to the filing on the complaint, the Company had purchased a 60-foot strip of land for the purpose of creating a second entrance to the Property. At a hearing on the injunction, RMW argued that it could not undo any construction of the second entrance to the Property. VPD countered that RMW was, in reality, concerned about money being spent on the construction of the second entrance instead of being used to repay the loans made by RMW, and that any appropriate redress was monetary damages. Ultimately the injunction was granted and VPD appealed. The Supreme Court found after review of this matter that the trial court's injunction was not supported by the record, and that court abused its discretion in granting the injunction. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court and remanded this matter for further proceedings. View "Veterans Parkway Developers, LLC v. RMW Development Fund II, LLC" on Justia Law

The State of Michigan contracted with E.L. Bailey to construct a prison kitchen. After delays, the parties sued each other for breach of contract. Bailey had obtained surety bonds from Great American Insurance Company (GAIC) and had agreed to assign GAIC the right to settle claims related to the project if Bailey allegedly breached the contract. Exercising that right, GAIC negotiated with the state without Bailey’s knowledge, then obtained a declaratory judgment recognizing its right to settle. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting, for insufficient evidence, a claim that GAIC settled Bailey’s claims against the state in bad faith. Although “there can be bad faith without actual dishonesty or fraud,” when “the insurer is motivated by selfish purpose or by a desire to protect its own interests at the expense of its insured’s interest,” “offers of compromise” or “honest errors of judgment are not sufficient to establish bad faith.” There was no evidence that GAIC’s settlement of Bailey’s claims was undertaken with selfish purpose at Bailey’s expense. GAIC and Bailey shared an interest in securing the highest settlement possible from the state. Even if GAIC misunderstood Michigan law, leading it to miscalculate its liability and accept a lower settlement, “honest errors of judgment are not sufficient to establish bad faith.” View "Great American Insurance Co. v. E.L. Bailey & Co." on Justia Law