Justia Construction Law Opinion Summaries

Cody McDonald was injured while working on the construction of a building. RTK Construction, Inc. hired Ponderosa Enterprises Inc. to frame the building, and Ponderosa hired McDonald as an independent contractor to assist with the framing. McDonald brought suit against Ponderosa and RTK, alleging, inter alia, negligence and violation of the Montana Occupational Safety and Health Act (MOSHA). The district court granted partial summary judgment on the MOSHA claims, concluding that because McDonald was an independent contractor at the time of his injury, Ponderosa and RTK did not owe him any duties of safety under MOSHA. RTK was subsequently dismissed from the case, and a jury found that Ponderosa was not negligent. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that MOSHA does not create a duty for employers to meet certain safety guidelines with respect to independent contractors. View "McDonald v. Ponderosa Enters., Inc." on Justia Law

In 2010, the United States Department of the Navy entered into an agreement with Contracting Systems, Inc. II ("CSI"), per which CSI served as the general contractor for the construction of an addition to, and renovations of, the Navy/Marine Corps Reserve Training Center in the Lehigh Valley. CSI, in turn, subcontracted with Appellee, Clipper Pipe & Service, Inc. for the performance of mechanical and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning work. Clipper filed suit against CSI and its surety, the Ohio Casualty Insurance Company (collectively "Appellants"), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, asserting that CSI had failed to pay approximately $150,000 to Clipper, per the terms of their agreement. Among other claims, Clipper advanced one under the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act (CASPA). Appellants moved for summary judgment, arguing that CASPA did not apply to public works projects, because a governmental entity does not qualify as an "owner" under the statutory definition, as such an entity is neither a "person" nor an "other association." The federal district court denied relief on Appellants' motion. Among other aspects of its holding, the court followed "Scandale Associated Builders & Eng'rs, Ltd. v. Bell" which held that a governmental entity may be an "owner" under CASPA, since the statutory definition of "person" does not exclude the federal government, and the purpose of CASPA is to protect contracting parties. Clipper prevailed at the subsequent jury trial, and the district court awarded interest, penalties, and attorney fees. Appellants appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court accepted certification from the Third Circuit to determine whether a CASPA applied to the public works project in this case. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that CASPA did not apply to a construction project where the owner was a governmental entity. View "Clipper Pipe v. Ohio Casualty Ins." on Justia Law

A homeowner sued a general contractor for allegedly shoddy and incomplete work in connection with a major home remodeling contract. The homeowner’s complaint also contained a cause of action against the general contractor’s license bond company, seeking to recover for the contractor’s having “grossly deviated” from the plans and specifications for the job. To support his action, the homeowner explicitly alleged in the complaint that the contractor was licensed at all times. The contractor cross-complained against the homeowner for unpaid work. The cross-complaint included a copy of their written contract which showed the contractor’s license number. To that, the homeowner simply filed a general denial of all allegations. When the case came to trial, the homeowner (contrary to the applicable local rule requiring plaintiffs to identify all controverted issues) did not identify licensure as a controverted issue. The contractor’s attorney did not obtain a verified certificate from the Contractors’ State License Board showing the contractor was licensed at all times during his performance. But when the contractor was about to rest his case on the cross-complaint, the homeowner’s attorney made a motion for nonsuit based on the absence of such a verified certificate as required under Business and Professions Code section 7031, subdivision (d). The trial judge deferred immediate ruling on the homeowner’s nonsuit motion. "As the contractor learned to his chagrin, it [...] takes at least six days to obtain a verified certificate from the License Board even if one drives overnight to Sacramento to pick it up in person." While the contractor was eventually able to obtain a verified certificate of licensure from the License Board, he could not do so until after the close of the trial, in which he prevailed on his claim for unpaid work from the homeowner. Because no certificate of licensure could be produced, the trial judge reluctantly granted the homeowner’s nonsuit motion, by judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). This appeal followed. After review, the Court of Appeal reversed that judgment in favor of the homeowner, with instructions to the trial judge to grant judgment in favor of the general contractor as against the homeowner. "We conclude this is one of those relatively rare cases where a party can be bound by a judicial admission made in an unverified complaint. Here, the judicial admission that the general contractor was licensed, compounded by the homeowner’s failure to comply with the local rule requiring identification of all controverted issues, rendered the question of licensure assuredly uncontroverted for purposes of section 7031. Because of the judicial admission, the rule of 'Advantec Group, Inc. v. Edwin’s Plumbing Co., Inc.' (153 Cal.App.4th 621 (2007)) does not apply." View "Womack v. Lovell" on Justia Law

In 2003, the governors of Cedar Rapids Lodge obtained the rights to build an AmericInn franchise. The company used Lightowler as the project architect. Lightowler used a standard form agreement that specified that its terms would be governed by the law of North Dakota. After changes requested by the Fire Marshal and for compliance with franchise standards, Lightowler submitted revised plans in February, 2004. Construction began in January 2004. In July, 2004, Lidberg of AmericInn led a construction site visit attended by the governors, and Olson, a Lightowler engineer. Lidberg and Olson prepared reports detailing deficiencies. The last act performed by Lightowler on the project was a response to the contractor in September, 2004. Lidberg led a second site visit in October, 2004, produced a report identifying additional deficiencies, and sent it to Siebert and Lightowler. The hotel opened for business in December, 2004, but problems continued. In December, 2009 Cedar Rapids Lodge brought claims against its former governors and others involved in the hotel project and alleging professional negligence by Lightowler. The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Lightowler, concluding that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations under either North Dakota or Iowa law. View "Cedar Rapids Lodge & Suites, LLC v. Lightowler Johnson Assocs., Inc." on Justia Law

At issue in this residential construction dispute was whether the statutory cap on exemplary damages is waived if not pleaded as an affirmative defense or avoidance. The trial court affirmed an exemplary damages award in excess of the statutory cap because Petitioner did not assert the cap until her motion for a new trial. The court of appeals affirmed the exemplary damages award, concluding that the statutory cap on exemplary damages did not apply because Petitioner failed to expressly plead the cap as an affirmative defense. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the court of appeals’ judgment in relation to the exemplary cap, holding (i) the exemplary damages cap is not a matter ”constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense” and need not be affirmatively pleaded because it applies automatically when invoked and does not require proof of additional facts, and (ii) because Petitioner timely asserted the cap in her motion for new trial, the exemplary damages must be capped at $200,000; and (2) affirmed in all other respects. View "Zorilla v. Aypco Constr. II, LLC" on Justia Law

Lori Ihli appealed a district court judgment dismissing her claims against Anthony Lazzaretto, d/b/a Lazzaretto Construction ("Lazzaretto"). In June 2011, Ihli's Minot home flooded. Ihli contacted Lazzaretto for an estimate to repair the home, and in February 2012, she accepted Lazzaretto's bid proposal. Lazzaretto began working on Ihli's home; however, a dispute arose between the parties regarding the quality of the work, and Lazzaretto ceased working on the home. In November 2012, Ihli applied for federal disaster relief funding to repair or replace her house through the City of Minot Disaster Recovery Homeowner Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Program. Ihli sought estimates from two construction companies, Real Builders, Inc. and Wright Brothers, to "repair" and complete the project. Ihli then sued Lazzaretto, alleging he damaged her property by performing remodeling work in a negligent manner. After commencing the suit against Lazzaretto, she learned she was eligible for the disaster relief funding in "late August 2013." In Ihli's deposition, Ihli stated that program administrators inspected the house and recommended the house be torn down and replaced, instead of being repaired. After Ihli commenced the suit against Lazzaretto and learned of her eligibility for disaster relief funding and after Ihli's counsel granted Lazzaretto's counsel an extension to file Lazzaretto's answer to Ihli's complaint, Ihli allowed the house to be demolished. Before the house was demolished, Ihli's attorney had advised Ihli to take photos or video of the property before the house was torn down. Ihli never informed Lazzaretto of the plan to demolish the house. After the house was demolished, Lazzaretto served its answer. In June 2014, Lazaretto moved for sanctions, requesting the case be dismissed due to Ihli's spoliation of evidence. Ihli then moved to amend her complaint, seeking to add a claim for breach of contract. After a hearing on both motions, the district court denied Ihli's motion to amend the complaint, granted Lazzaretto's motion for sanctions, and dismissed Ihli's claims. On appeal, Ihli argued the district court erred in dismissing her case as a sanction for spoliation of evidence because the sanction was overly severe and an abuse of discretion. Ihli also argued the district court erred in denying her motion to amend the complaint because Lazzaretto was on notice of the proposed breach of contract claim and would not have been prejudiced. Under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sanction of dismissal and denying Ihli's motion to amend. View "Ihli v. Lazzaretto" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Heidi and James Glassford appealed a superior court decision denying their motion for summary judgment and granting it to defendant Dufresne & Associates, P.C. on plaintiffs' claims of negligent misrepresentation and violation of the Vermont Consumer Protection Act (CPA). Plaintiffs were homeowners who purchased their home direct from the builder, D&L Homes by Design, LLC (D&L). D&L hired defendant to certify that the on-site mound sewage disposal system constructed for the home satisfied state permitting requirements. On April 19, 2005, the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources issued a Wastewater System and Potable Water Supply Permit for construction of the sewage disposal system on the property, subject to receiving a certification pursuant to 10 V.S.A 1973(e). On October 20, 2005, defendant's employee sent the certification required by the statute. On December 20, 2005, plaintiffs signed a purchase-and-sale agreement to purchase the home from D&L. Although the seller represented that the home and property had received all the necessary permits, plaintiffs never saw the certificate or the letter from the Agency stating that the certification requirement was satisfied. Sometime thereafter, plaintiffs hired an attorney in connection with the closing. On January 13, just prior, plaintiffs' attorney prepared a certificate of title that noted the wastewater and water supply permit. In February 2006, the sewage disposal system failed. In November 2008, plaintiffs hired defendant to investigate the system's failure because they knew defendant had inspected the system prior to their purchase. Defendant prepared a report stating that he had "completed the original" inspection in 2005 and found the system had been installed according to the permitted design. Plaintiffs received other opinions about the disposal system's failure both before and after hiring defendant to inspect the system. Plaintiffs filed a complaint in superior court alleging pecuniary losses from defendant's failure to properly inspect the sewage disposal system and subsequent misrepresentation about the construction of the system in the certification to the Agency. Upon review of the superior court decision, the Supreme Court found that the completion and filing of defendant's certificate was a prerequisite to D&L's ability to sell the home, the certificate was unrelated to the sale. The law required that it be sent only to the government agency that issued the permit. Furthermore, there was no allegation that D&L used the certificate as part of its sales pitch, and no allegation that defendant had any part in the sales. The standard for CPA liability required that a person be directly involved in the transaction that gave rise to the claimed liability. That standard was not met here. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the superior court's decision. View "Glassford v. Dufresne & Associates, P.C." on Justia Law

Plaintiff entered into a verbal contract with Jerry Morrison for the construction of a log home on her property. Plaintiff entered into a second verbal contract with James Phillips to build the basement walls and a chimney with two fireplaces. Concerned about the number of apparent defects in the construction and excessive costs of the labor and materials, Plaintiff fired Morrison. Plaintiff later filed suit against Morrison and Phillips (together, Defendants), alleging fraud and misrepresentation, breach of contract, and negligence, among other claims. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff only with respect to her negligence claim against Morrison. The jury further found that Plaintiff had failed to mitigate her damages and/or was comparatively negligent. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in (1) limiting the time the parties had to present the case to the jury; (2) placing limitations on expert testimony; (3) granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of Phillips; (4) denying Plaintiff’s motion for judgment as a matter of law with respect to her negligence and breach of warranty claims against Morrison; (5) instructing the jury on comparative negligence; (6) instructing the jury on outrageous conduct; and (7) denying Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. View "Sneberger v. Morrison" on Justia Law

Defendants hired various construction companies to assist in the construction of a house and barn on their property. Plaintiff was one of the subcontractors that worked on the project. Plaintiff brought this action against Defendants for breach of contract, book account, and unjust enrichment seeking payment for the work it had completed but for which it had not been paid. The superior court justice entered judgment for Plaintiff on its claim of unjust enrichment but entered judgment for Defendants on the remainder of Plaintiff’s claims. The trial justice also entered an order awarding costs to Plaintiff. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s judgment but vacated and remanded the order, holding (1) the trial justice correctly found the three elements that a Rhode Island plaintiff must prove to recover on a claim of unjust enrichment; and (2) the trial justice erred in awarding Plaintiff’s “Application for Taxation of Costs” because the order explicitly included the fee generated by expert testimony. View "South County Post & Beam, Inc. v. McMahon" on Justia Law

In spring of 2000, Plaintiffs hired Meyer Modernizing Company to install siding, soffits, and gutters on the home they were constructing. Plaintiffs moved into the home by late 2000. No later than 2002, Plaintiffs noticed water infiltration around window and door openings when it rained. Plaintiffs did not bring suit regarding their water infiltration claim until 2010. In 2013, Plaintiffs amended their complaint to include the assertion that Meyer concealed the absence of installed flashing. Under the applicable statute of limitations, Plaintiffs were permitted to file their cause of action within six years of its accrual. The circuit court granted Meyer’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that there were genuine disputes of material fact as to the beginning of the six-year limitations period, and Plaintiffs offered no reason why the period of limitation should be tolled. View "Gades v. Meyer Modernizing Co." on Justia Law