Construction & Infrastructure Law Blog : Construction & Infrastructure Lawyer & Attorney : Sheppard Mullin Law Firm : Public Works & Professional Liability

This article is the eighth, and final, in a series summarizing construction law developments for 2010.

By Candace Matson, Harold Hamersmith & Helen Lauderdale

1. Tverberg v. Fillner Construction, Inc., 49 Cal. 4th 518 (June 2010)

The peculiar risk doctrine is a judicially created exception to the common law rule that a person hiring an independent contractor to perform inherently dangerous work is generally not liable to third parties for injuries resulting from the work. Courts initially used the peculiar risk doctrine to impose upon landowners vicarious liability for the acts of their independent contractors when certain third parties – innocent bystanders or neighboring property owners – were injured by the contractors' work. It was not until courts expanded the doctrine to include another category of third parties, the employees of the independent contractors, that the Supreme Court stepped in to curtail the exception. In Privette v. Superior Court, 5 Cal. 4th 689 (1993), the Supreme Court held that a hirer of an independent contractor is not vicariously liable to the employees of the independent contractor for injuries caused by risks inherent in the work the contractor was hired to perform.
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This article is the seventh in a series summarizing construction law developments for 2010.

By Candace Matson, Harold Hamersmith & Helen Lauderdale

1. Forecast Homes, Inc. v. Steadfast Insurance Co., 181 Cal. App. 4th 1466 (4th Dist. Jan. 2010), rev. denied, 2010 Cal. LEXIS 4356

A home developer, acting as a general contractor, hired subcontractors to build homes. The subcontracts all required the subcontractors to defend and hold the developer harmless against any liability arising out of their work and to add the developer to their commercial general liability policies as an additional insured. A construction defect litigation was brought against the developer, but not against the subcontractors. The developer tendered its defense to Steadfast Insurance Company, which insured many of the subcontractors and on whose policies the developer was an additional insured. The insurer refused the tender, maintaining that only the named insured subcontractors could satisfy the per occurrence self-insured retention ("SIR") amounts and none of the subcontractors had done so because they did not incur defense or indemnity costs in the litigation.
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This article is the sixth in a series summarizing construction law developments for 2010.

By Candace Matson, Harold Hamersmith & Helen Lauderdale

1. Alameda County Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee v. Roadway Electrical Works Inc., 186 Cal. App. 4th 185 (1st Dist. June 2010)

A general contractor and its electrical subcontractor working on the project to rebuild the Bay Bridge were sued by various electrical unions, electrical contractors, and electrical contractors' associations. The plaintiffs asserted claims for unfair and unlawful competition under Business and Professions Code Section 17200 claiming that that defendants were using unauthorized workers to perform work that called for certified electricians under Labor Code Section 3099. The defendants succeeded in obtaining the dismissal of the lawsuit by arguing that the plaintiffs' claims raised issues with respect to the proper classification of workers, that it was up to the Department of Industrial Relations ("DIR") in the first instance to determine the scope of work that must be performed by certified electricians, and that plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies with the DIR before filing suit.
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This article is the fifth in a series summarizing construction law developments for 2010.

By Candace Matson, Harold Hamersmith & Helen Lauderdale

A. Bidding

1. Great West Contractors Inc. v. Irvine School District, 187 Cal. App. 4th 1425 (4th Dist. Aug. 2010)

In Great West Contractors, the Fourth District held that a public agency's rejection of a bid for a public works project on the basis that a corporate bidder did not list its officers' licenses is a question of bidder responsibility, not bid responsiveness, and therefore a due process hearing was required. The Court of Appeal said that the case is important for two reasons. First, it presents a challenging problem in public contracting law: how to distinguish a "non-responsive" bid from a de facto determination that the bidder is not a "responsible" bidder. Second, the case presents what the court called "an object lesson in how evidence that, at least on its face, tends to show favoritism – indeed, on this record, favoritism most foul – never got squarely presented to, or considered by, the trial court." The Court invited readers of the opinion to judge for themselves whether "stonewalling" might not be a better word than "delay" for describing the public agency's actions.
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link