Justia Construction Law Opinion Summaries

Employers Mutual Casualty Company (Employers Mutual) appealed a circuit court's denial of its motion to intervene in a pending case. Holman Building Company was sued by multiple homeowners who claimed their homes were poorly built from inferior building materials with poor quality workmanship. In 2010, Employers Mutual moved to intervene in the action, asserting that it had issued Holman commercial general-liability and umbrella policies that covered some if not all of the allegations made by the homeowners. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Employers Mutual's permissive intervention: "given the complexity of this case, the trial court was clearly within ints discretion to deny Employers Mutual's request to intervene for the purpose of obtaining a bifurcated trial of insurance-coverage issues or a special verdict or a general verdict accompanied by answers to interrogatories ... this case provides a prime example of the need for discretion in a trial court's ruling on an insurer's motion for permissive intervention." Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court's decision to deny the insurance company's intervention. View "Employers Mutual Casualty Company v. Holman Building Co., LLC et al. " on Justia Law

While making a delivery during the course of his employment, Appellant George Pool walked through a stream of running water that flowed across a parking lot. As a result, Appellant slipped and fell on black ice and suffered injuries. Appellant sued Defendants, the construction company that allegedly pumped the water into the parking lot and the owner of the parking lot, alleging negligence. Several additional defendants were subsequently added. The trial judge granted summary judgment in favor of the original defendants and the two defendants named in Appellant's amended complaint on the ground that Appellant had assumed the risk of his injury. Appellant appealed. The Court of Appeals (1) reversed summary judgment entered in favor of the original defendants because Appellant did not assume the risk of his injury as a matter of law; (2) affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of one later-named defendant and the dismissal in favor of the other later-named defendant; and (3) disavowed the reasoning related to assumption of the risk in Allen v. Marriott Worldwide Corp. View "Poole v. Coakley & Williams Constr., Inc." on Justia Law

After the district court determined that the parties involved in this appeal were not in a special relationship, a jury found Appellants Eric Rolland and Rolland Building Corporation not negligent in an incident in which a skid loader attachment used to perform landscaping at Respondent Bradley Domagala's home fell on Respondent's foot, resulting in the amputation of three toes. The court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) Appellants did not have a specific legal duty to warn Respondent arising in the context of a special relationship, but (2) Appellants had a general duty to warn as an exercise of the general duty of reasonable care. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court's special instructions to the jury that Appellants had no duty to warn and no duty to protect Respondent were misleading as to the crucial elements of duty and breach of duty, and (2) the instructions were prejudicial to Respondent. Remanded for a new trial. View "Domagala v. Rolland" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court accepted a certified question from the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of appeals in "MCI Communications Services, Inc. v. Hagan" (641 F.3d 112 (5th Cir. 2011)): "[i]s the proposed jury instruction in this case, which state[d] that '(a) Defendant may be held liable for an inadvertent trespass resulting from an intentional act,' a correct statement of Louisiana law when the trespass at issue is the severing of an underground cable located on property owned by one of the alleged trespass[e]rs, and the property is not subject to a servitude by the owners of the underground cable but only to the contractual right to keep it, as an existing cable, underneath the property?" MCI alleged that co-Defendant James Joubert negligently excavated with a backhoe in violation of the Louisiana Damage Prevention Act. MCI alleged Defendant Wayne Hagan was vicariously liable because Joubert was acting as his agent at the time. The underground cable at issue was buried under land owned by Hagan. After a trial in the federal district court, a jury found for Hagan and Joubert. MCI appealed to the Fifth Circuit. Upon review of the issue presented by the Fifth Circuit, the Supreme Court answered the certified question in the negative: the proposed jury instruction in this case was not a correct statement of Louisiana law. View "MCI Communications Services, Inc. v. Hagan" on Justia Law

David and Kristine Anderson purchased an undeveloped lot of land from Country Living Development. After constructing a home on the lot, the Andersons' home developed structural problems resulting from excessive settling caused by unstable soil beneath their home's foundation. The Andersons filed suit against Matthew Kriser, an employee and shareholder of Country Living, for fraudulent nondisclosure. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Kriser. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court of appeals correctly concluded that a plaintiff must demonstrate that a defendant had actual knowledge of undisclosed information to satisfy the elements of a claim for fraudulent disclosure; (2) because the Andersons failed to set forth any evidence demonstrating that Kriser actually knew of the soil conditions below their home, summary judgment was proper; and (3) the court of appeals erred in relying on the Court's holding in Smith v. Frandsen to reach its conclusion that the law imposed no duty on Kriser to disclose information to the Andersons simply because he did not construct their home. View "Anderson v. Kriser" on Justia Law

Defendant contractor entered into a contract to replace a roof. When the newly installed roof developed leaks, Defendant hired an independent contractor to make repairs. While performing the work, the independent contractor caused a fire, resulting in a large insurance claim by the homeowners. As subrogor to the homeowners' rights and claims arising out of the fire, Plaintiff insurance company sued Defendant in tort and contract. The trial court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment on all claims, finding that because Defendant had subcontracted the work, he could not be liable. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant had an implied non-delegable duty to install the roof in a careful, skillful, diligent, and workmanlike manner. Remanded. View "Fed. Ins. Co. v. Winters " on Justia Law

CLR Properties and Choice Land Corporation (collectively, CLR) hired Waynco Construction (Waynco) as the general contractor for a commercial real estate improvement project. Waynco solicited a bid from AAA Construction of Missoula (AAA) to perform concrete work. After AAA submitted its bid, Waynco used AAA's bid to formulate Waynco's general contract bid to CLR. CLR accepted Waynco's bid. While AAA completed a majority of the work outlined in its bid by the time it left the project, a dispute arose between Waynco and AAA about the parties' subcontract agreement. Waynco eventually failed to pay AAA for any labor or materials. AAA filed a complaint against CLR and Waynco, alleging that Waynco had breached the contract and CLR had been unjustly enriched from AAA's work. The district court granted CLR's motion for summary judgment on the unjust enrichment claims and, after a trial, held for AAA. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly concluded that AAA's bid constituted a binding contract between the parties; (2) substantial evidence supported the district court's conclusion that Waynco was the materially breaching party; and (3) the district court properly denied CLR's claim for attorney fees. View "AAA Constr. of Missoula, LLC v. Choice Land Corp." on Justia Law

In 1999 plaintiff pled guilty to making false statements while working on a project funded by the Federal Highway Administration (18 U.S.C. 2, 1014, and 1020). The agreement prohibited plaintiff from participating in any FHWA-funded project for a year. Plaintiff challenged Puerto Rico agencies' subsequent actions. The parties negotiated settlements; plaintiff entered into an agreement allowing it to bid on FHWA projects. Puerto Rico then enacted Law 458, which prohibits award of government contracts to any party convicted of a crime constituting fraud, embezzlement, or misappropriation of public funds and requires rescission of any contract with a party convicted of a specified offense. The statute states that it does not apply retroactively. One agency cancelled plaintiff's successful bids, another withdrew its consent to the settlement. The district court rejected claims of violation of the federal Contracts Clause and breaches of contract under Puerto Rico law. The First Circuit affirmed with respect to the constitutional claim. Any breach of the settlement agreements did not violate the Contracts Clause, even if committed in an attempt to unlawfully enforce Law 458 retroactively; defendants have not impaired plaintiff's ability to obtain a remedy for a demonstrated breach. Given the stage of the litigation, the district court should have retained the breach of contract claims. View "Redondo Constr. Corp. v. Izquierdo" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued defendant alleging violations of Labor Law 240(1) and Labor Law 241(6), the latter pursuant to 12 NYCRR 23-3.3(b)(3) and (c) after plaintiff was injured while working on a demolition project on premises owned by defendant. At issue was whether the court's decision in Misseritti v. Mark IV Constr. Co. precluded recovery under labor Law 240(1) where a worker sustained an injury caused by a falling object whose base stood at the same level as the worker. The court held that such a circumstance did not categorically bar the worker from recovery under section 240(1). The court held that, however, in this case, an issue of fact existed as to whether plaintiff's injury resulted from the lack of a statutorily prescribed protective device. View "Wilinski v. 334 E. 92nd Hous. Dev. Fund Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an unlicensed subcontractor, filed a complaint against Defendants, licensed contractors, alleging that it was entitled to a judgment in the amount that Defendants agreed to pay for home improvement work that Plaintiff performed as a subcontractor for Defendants. The circuit court dismissed the complaint, finding that contracts made by unlicensed home improvement contractors or subcontractors were illegal. The court of appeals reversed and reinstated the complaint, holding that the Maryland Home Improvement Law, which regulates contracts between contractors and owners, did not bar Respondent from recovering on its subcontract with Petitioner. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Maryland Home Improvement Law did not render unenforceable a contract between a home improvement general contractor and an unlicensed subcontractor. View "Stalker Bros. v. Alcoa Concrete Masonry, Inc. " on Justia Law