Developer’s Fraudulent Statements Are His Responsibility Alone in Construction Defect Case
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Texas Court of Appeals ruled on December 21 in the case of Helm v Kingston, a construction defect case. After purchasing what was described as “an extremely well-built” two-bedroom townhouse, Mr. Kingston made complaints of construction defects. Greenway Development did not repair the defects to Kingston’s satisfaction, and he filed notice of suit. In his suit, he claimed that GDI and its president, John Helm, had committed fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Kingston claimed that Helm “fraudulently induced Kingston to believe that the townhouse evidenced the highest quality of workmanship when in fact the quality of workmanship was atrocious.” Helms brought a counterclaim that Kingston’s suit was frivolous.
About four years after Kingston purchased the townhome, the suit proceeded to trial. The trial court determined that Helm was not “liable in his individual capacity,” but this was reversed at appeal.
A second trial was held ten years later on the question of whether Kingston’s unit was a townhome or an apartment. A jury found that Helm “engaged in a false, misleading or deceptive act or practice that Kingston relied on to his detriment.” Kingston was awarded $75,862.29 and an additional $95,000 in attorney fees by the jury. Helms made an unsuccessful appeal to the Appeals Court, after which Kingston was awarded an additional $10,000. Helms then made an unsuccessful appeal to the Texas Supreme Court, which lead to an additional $3,000 for Kingston. There was also a verdict of $48,770.09 in pre-judgment interest and “five percent post-judgment interest accruing from the date of the judgment until the time the judgment is paid. Helm appealed.
In his appeal, Helm raised seven issues, which the court reorganized into five Kingston raised one issue on cross-appeal.
Helms’ first claim was that Kingston “failed to satisfy the requirement of” Texas’s Residential Construction Liability Act and that by not filing under the RCLA, Kingston’s fraud and misrepresentation claims were preempted. Further Helms claimed that the RCLA limited Kingston’s damages. The court rejected this, as the RCLA deals with complaints made to a contractor and not only did Helm fail to “conclusively establish” his “status as a ‘contractor’ under the statutory definition,” Helm testified that he was “not a contactor” at the pre-trial hearing.
Helms’s second claim was that Kingston’s later claim of a misconstructed firewall should be barred, claiming that Kingston “‘had knowledge of a defect in the firewall’ as early as 1997 but did not assert them until 2007.” The court rejected this because Kingston’s claim was that “Helm ‘fraudulently induced Kingston to believe that the townhouse evidenced the highest quality of workmanship when in fact the quality of the workmanship was atrocious.’”
Helms also challenged whether his statements that the residence was of “good quality” constituted fraud and misrepresentation under Texas’s Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. The court concluded that Helm was in a position to make knowledgeable statements and further that “residential housing units are not artistic works for which quality is inherently a matter of subjective judgment.” Helm also claimed that Kingston could have avoided certain repair expenses through the “exercise of reasonable care.” Helms argued that the repairs could have been made for $6,400. The court disagreed, as these claims were cited only to invoke the DTPA, and that later petitions established additional defects.
Helms’s next claim was that he was not allowed to designate responsible third parties. The court rejected this because there GDI represented matters concerning the residence only through Helm’s statements. The court noted that “Helm is correct that?third parties may be liable for fraud if they ‘participated in the fraudulent transactions and reaped the benefits,’” but they note that “Helm never specifically alleged that GDI or CREIC participated in Helm’s alleged fraudulent transactions.
The final issue in the decision was about court costs, and here the court denied claims on both sides. Helm argued that the award of legal fees were excessive, as they exceeded the actual damages. The court noted that they “may not substitute our judgment for that of the jury,” and also that “the ratio between the actual damages awarded and the attorney’s fees is not a factor that determines the reasonableness of the fees.” But the court also rejected Kingston’s claim for post-judgment interest on $10,312.30 that Helm had deposited in the trial court’s registry. The court noted that the monies were to be paid out upon final judgment, but the mandate did not include any reference to interest.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
It’s Time to Include PFAS in Every Property Related Release
June 01, 2020 —
John Van Vlear & Gregory Tross - Newmeyer DillionWhile the federal government and states (including California) are working on establishing standards and how to manage the toxic chemicals known as PFAS (as defined below), certain states and banks are requiring testing for PFAS to approve no-further-action (NFA) determinations or to underwrite loans. PFAS do not easily fit within standard definitions of hazardous substances used in today’s agreements. Thus, if you want to ensure you and your successors are released for PFAS which later environmental testing may reveal, ensure such is specifically listed in your releases.
What Are PFAS
As depicted in the recent major-release movie Dark Waters, PFAS are a group of very stable man-made chemicals that are both toxic and ubiquitous. They are long-chain chemicals which means they do not naturally degrade easily.
Reprinted courtesy of
John Van Vlear, Newmeyer Dillion and
Gregory Tross, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Vlear may be contacted at john.vanvlear@ndlf.com
Mr. Tross may be contacted at greg.tross@ndlf.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pennsylvania Reconstruction Project Beset by Problems
October 15, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that “[t]he Penn Avenue reconstruction project in Garfield, described as ‘a comedy of errors’ by one neighborhood leader, remains months behind schedule and has gone well over budget.”
The $4.7 million construction budget has increased “by at least $800,000,” according to the Pittsburgh post-Gazette. Problems included the underground utilities not on maps or mapped inaccurately, water lines breaking, and old streetcar tracks were discovered to have contaminated soil.
Rick Swartz, executive director of the Bloomfield-Garfield Corp., told the Gazette that the project has been “plagued with problems and poor communication from the very start.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Selected to the 2016 Southern California Super Lawyers Lists
June 09, 2016 —
Newmeyer & Dillion LLPNEWPORT BEACH, Calif. – JUNE 6, 2016 – Prominent business and real estate law firm
Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is pleased to announce that three of the firm’s attorneys,
Jennifer L. Ferrentino,
Robyn E. Frick and
Michael B. McClellan were selected to the
Southern California Super Lawyers 2016 Rising Stars list for business litigation. Each year, no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are selected by Super Lawyers to receive this honor. The attorneys will be recognized in the July 2016 issues of Super Lawyers Magazine, Los Angeles Magazine and Orange Coast magazine.
In addition, twelve of the firm’s Newport Beach attorneys were selected to the
2016 Southern California Super Lawyers list, an honor given to no more than five percent of the lawyers in California.
Michael S. Cucchissi, Real Estate
Mark S. Himmelstein, Construction Litigation
Jane M. Samson, Real Estate
Jeffrey M. Dennis, Construction Litigation
Charles S. Krolikowski, Eminent Domain
Robert K. Scott, Insurance Coverage
Gregory L. Dillion, Business Litigation
Thomas F. Newmeyer, Business Litigation
Michael J. Studenka, Employee Litigation: Defense
Joseph A. Ferrentino, Construction Litigation
John A. O'Hara, Construction Litigation
Carol S. Zaist, Business Litigation
Making the list since it was originally published in 2004 is co-founding litigation partner
Greg Dillion who was again selected to the
Top 50: 2016 Orange County Super Lawyers List. In addition,
Jennifer L. Ferrentino, Robyn E. Frick, Jane M. Samson and
Carol S. Zaist were listed in the
2016 Top Women Attorneys in Southern California by Super Lawyers.
Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The patented selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. The Rising Stars list is developed using the same selection process except a candidate must be either 40 years old and younger or in practice for 10 years or less.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Legislative Update on Bills of Note (Updated Post-Adjournment)
March 27, 2019 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIn two prior posts, one specifically relating to a bill that was introduced to apply a statute of limitatons on state agencies for construction projects and one more general, I discussed some of the legislation pending in the Virginia General Assembly that could be of interest to construction professionals.
This post will update the status of these bills and add one that I neglected to highlight in the prior posts. I’ll begin with the oversight.
HB 2218 Makes the unlawful and unlicensed practice of contracting, real estate brokering, or real estate sales, in connection with a consumer transaction, unlawful under the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. In short, it makes explicit what was implicit, namely that contractors that perform work without a license are in violation of the VCPA. This bill has passed the house by unanimous vote and is in committee at the Senate.
UPDATE– As of February 20, 2019, this bill has passed both houses, all that is left is the paperwork. Post Adjournment Update: This bill passed and awaits Governor’s signature.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Courthouse Reporter Series: Two Recent Cases Address Copyright Protection for Architectural Works
January 16, 2024 —
Stu Richeson - The Dispute ResolverRecent decisions by the Seventh Circuit and the Eight Circuit have addressed the scope of protection afforded to architectural works under copyright law. The Seventh Circuit case of Design Basics, LLC v. Signature Constr., Inc., 994 F.3d 879 (7th Cir. 2021), took a somewhat narrow view of the copyright protection afforded to the design of an “affordable, multipurpose, suburban, single-family home.” In Designworks Homes, Inc. v. Columbia House of Brokers Realty, Inc., 9 F.4th 803 (8th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 2888, 213 L. Ed. 2d 1103 (2022) the Eight Circuit held that the publication of floor plans of a house in a real estate listing was not protected from claims of copyright infringement.
Design Basics, LLC v. Signature Constr., Inc., involved a plaintiff that the court described as holding registered copyrights in thousands of floor plans for suburban, single-family homes that are basic schematic designs, largely conceptual in nature, and depict layouts for one- and two-story single-family homes that include the typical rooms: a kitchen, a dining area, a great room, a few bedrooms, bathrooms, a laundry area, a garage, stairs, assorted closets, etc. The court described the plaintiff as a “copyright troll” and noted that litigation proceeds had become the principal revenue stream for the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued a contractor and related businesses contending hat the defendants had infringed plaintiff’s copyrighted floor plans.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stu Richeson, PhelpsMr. Richeson may be contacted at
stuart.richeson@phelps.com
Surviving a Tornado – How to Navigate Insurance Claims in the Wake of the Recent Connecticut Storm
May 24, 2018 —
Geoffrey Miller - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Five minutes after I parked my car, a tree fell on it.
On Tuesday, May 15th I pulled into my driveway, in my small Connecticut neighborhood, under a grey sky. As soon as I walked in the house, the lights flickered. And then suddenly there was a loud “Crack!” and “Crash!” and the sound of breaking glass. I looked out the window and trees were bent 90 degrees, then snapping, and then flying up instead of falling down.
As quickly as it came, it passed. When I stepped outside, my first thought was that my car has seen better days.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Geoffrey Miller, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Miller may be contacted at
gjm@sdvlaw.com
More on Duty to Defend a Subcontractor
March 29, 2021 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsWhile we don’t often discuss insurance coverage issues here at Construction Law Musings, occasionally a case comes up that makes the grade for a post. One such case was Erie Insurance Exchange v. Salvi, where the question of an “occurrence” that warranted coverage and defense under an insurance policy was at issue. That case discussed this key question in a residential construction context based upon poor workmanship. A recent case out of the Western District of Virginia federal court analyzed this coverage issue in the commercial context.
In Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Strongwell Corp., the Court considered a challenge by the insurance company, Nautilus, to its duty to defend based on both the definition of “occurrence” and the definition of “property damage.” Nautilus filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that it need not either defend or indemnify because the extrinsic evidence (as distinguished from the “eight corners” of the policy) precluded coverage for the types of claims made by an owner and by extension a general contractor in a separate lawsuit.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
