During these challenging times, Severson & Werson remains open and in full operation, consistent with the firm’s previously established contingency planning. While many of our attorneys and staff will be working remotely, as a firm, we continue in full operation. We are here to help, as always.


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.

A plaintiff-buyer’s notice that does not satisfy the Right to Repair Act’s requirement of describing a construction defect in reasonable detail nevertheless is sufficient to trigger the builder's 14 day time period for acknowledging receipt of the notice.  Read More

A materials supplier may be held liable under Civil Code 895 for defects in newly built residences only if (a) the supplier is strictly liable in tort, or (b) the supplier contributed to the defects by its own negligent act or omission or breach of contract.  Read More

Insurer owed no duty to indemnify an insured construction contractor under a CGL policy for damages it paid the owner of a building for injury to the building's flooring, since the injury occurred because the insured performed a deliberate, non-accidental act—ordering the subcontractor to lay the flooring over wet concrete—and there was no additional, unexpected, unforeseen or independent event that… Read More

The Right to Repair Act, which requires compliance with rules requiring pre-litigation notice and opportunity to repair faulty construction prior to the filing of a suit, was intended to apply to any action for damages arising from deficiencies in new residential construction which was purchased after January 1, 2003.  Read More

CGL insurer owed its insured, a contractor, a duty of defense against claim that the insured’s mis-installation of a chimney caused a fire that destroyed the house; even though the fire occurred outside the policy period, the wood surrounding the chimney may have suffered progressive deterioration starting in the policy period and ultimately leading to the fire.  Read More

In lawsuit by a subcontractor’s worker who was injured on the job, summary judgment was properly entered in favor of defendant general contractor, because a general is not responsible for injuries to a sub’s workers unless the general either contributed to the injury or breached a non-delegable duty it owed to the worker, and neither of those exceptions applied here.  Read More

A judgment in favor of a contractor's injured employee and against the homeowner who hired the contractor is affirmed under the “retained control exception” to the independent contractor rule, since the homeowner retained control by assuming responsibility for obtaining building permits and city inspections—one purpose of which is to assure that the work is safely carried out.  Read More

In this suit for extra compensation under plaintiff's subcontract to supply expansion joints for a bridge overpass construction project, extra compensation was reasonably calculable as it depended solely on the difference in price between cheaper two expansion joint assemblies and the four expansion joint assemblies that the defendant belatedly insisted on, so trial court should have awarded pre-judgment interest.  Read More

The trial court properly denied a general contractor’s promissory estoppel claim as the general could not show it reasonably relied on the defendant subcontractor’s bid price while seeking to renegotiate the accompanying conditions to the sub’s bid.  Read More

An insurer that was assigned its insured’s claim against its subcontractor could continue the suit in the insured’s name under CCP 368.5 after the assignment, but could not use that procedural convenience to avoid liability for the subcontractor’s attorney fees when it lost. Read More

1 2 3