Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)


Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

In this suit, a general contractor and its subs sued the LA school district for delay damages caused by construction stalled while cracks in the concrete foundation were repaired.  The contractors claimed that the cracks were caused by a design flaw--certain additional features should have been included in the foundation plan to avoid cracks.  The district claimed that the cracks… Read More

Owner sued waterproofing company in 2013 claiming its poor application of waterproofing materials on the roof of owner's building caused leaks in the roof.  The jury verdict was in favor of the waterproofing company.  Though finding it was negligent, the jury concluded defendant's negligence did not cause the leaks or other damage to the building.  Several years later, owner sued… Read More

During construction of a development in South Lake Tahoe, a worker for a subcontractor slipped on an icy floor, falling from a ladder and injuring himself.  This decision holds that the trial court granted defendant summary judgment based on the Privette doctrine which bars claims by an injured worker for an independent contractor against the hirer of that contractor.  This… Read More

The Right to Repair Act contains three provisions regarding roofs.  Civ. Code 896(g)(3)(A) states that manufactured products, including roofs, shall be installed so as not to interfere with the products’ useful life, if any.  Section 896(g)(3)(C) defines "manufactured products" to mean one assembled, in full, off-site.  Section 896(a)(4) states that roofs shall not permit water to pass around or through… Read More

The trial court erred in sustaining defendant's demurrer to this complaint seeking payment for construction work.  The demurrer claimed that the services had been provided by an unlicensed contractor and that B&P Code 7031 therefore barred recovery.  The issue in the case was which of two affiliated corporations had really contracted to and in fact provided the contracting services, the… Read More

This decision dismisses defendant's appeals from several trial court orders under the appellate disentitlement doctrine.  Defendant had refused to obey a long string of court orders in this long running dispute over a construction contract for defendant's casino.  Defendant refused to obey an order compelling arbitration.  Then it got an injunction against arbitration from its own newly formed tribal court,… Read More

Following E.J. Franks Construction, Inc. v. Sahota (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1123, this decision holds that Bus. & Prof. Code 7031 does not preclude a contractor's recovery of compensation where at all times during the performance of work under the construction contract, the contractor's corporation was duly licensed--even though when the contractor entered into the contract and when he assigned it… Read More

In a construction dispute that originally was over $22,096, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding plaintiff only $90,000 in attorney fees out of the $292,140 requested.  The case was relatively simple, ultimately turning on the contractor's lack of a license and proper insurance.  It involved only money, so it was reasonable to compare fees against recovery… Read More

Travelers insured several subcontractors who worked on two subdivisions developed by Pulte.  As required by their subcontracts, Pulte was made an additional insured under their Travelers policy.  When Pulte was sued for construction defects in the two subdivisions, Travelers provided a defense.  Later, it intervened to sue other subcontractors to recover its defense costs on an equitable subordination theory.  This… Read More

Lawsuit alleging that defendant had contaminated real property through its ordinary business operations on the site, which it had used as a bulk terminal for petroleum products, was barred by three-year statute of limitations applicable to injuries to real property.   Read More

The Right to Repair Act applies to all construction defects in new housing and affords an exclusive remedy, preempting any common law claims, even when the homeowner sustains actual damage. Read More

Nothing in the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Rehabilitation Act preempts a city's express indemnity claim against its architect and building contractor; although the city cannot escape its responsibilities under those acts, it may recoup from those whose errors caused the violations. Read More

A subcontractor need not indemnify a general contractor for liability arising from the general contractor’s own active negligence but must indemnify for added liability the general contractor incurs in the same action as a joint tortfeasor for injury caused by other tortfeasors’ acts.  Read More

1 2