Real Estate and Construction Law Blog

Landale-Cameron Court, Inc. v. Ahonen (Oct. 10, 2007, B190309 [2^nd Dist., Div. 2]), ___ Cal. App. 4th ____; http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/opinions

By Thomas B. Snyder and Andriana Ledesma

In Landale?Cameron, the homeowner's association of a condominium complex ("HOA"), discovered various water leaks to the building and subsequently sued the builder-developers Arnold and Helen Kaufman ("Kaufman") and Petri Ahonen dba Riteway Decking and Flooring ("Riteway") for negligence and contract causes of action.  Riteway moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the complaint was barred because it was filed after the expiration of the three-year statute of limitations for actions involving injury to real property under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 338.

Greystone Homes, Inc. v. Cake37 Cal. Rptr. 3d 183 (2005)

By Matthew W. Holder

The California Court of Appeal recently affirmed a 2004 Supreme Court decision that impacts when prevailing wages need to be paid on projects where the contract was signed before January 1, 2001. At issue in Greystone Homes, Inc. v. Cake, 37 Cal. Rptr. 3d 183 (2005), was whether a 134-unit housing development project constituted a "public work," and thus required the payment of prevailing wages. The awarding body for the project was the Pleasant Hill Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency"). The Agency had contributed three forms of public funds to the project:

1. it had conveyed one parcel of property (out of 29 total parcels used) to the developer for use in the project
2. it paid a $200,000 "Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee" to the developer, and
3. it reimbursed the developer for upwards of $2.5 million in land acquisition costs. The total estimated cost of the project was $31.3 million.

McCrary Construction Company v. Metal Deck Specialists, Inc., California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, November 14, 2004

By Robert T. Sturgeon

In McCrary, a general contractor sought indemnity from two of its subcontractors for damages arising from the death of a construction worker who fell through a hole in the metal roof of the project. One subcontractor, Metal Deck Specialists, Inc., was responsible for installing the metal deck system on the roof, and had cut the hole in the roof and left it uncovered. The other subcontractor, Horizon Sheet Metal Co., covered the hole with plywood at the request of the general contractor, but failed to secure the plywood to the metal decking. The accident occurred when the worker lifted the plywood up, and not realizing there was hole beneath it, stepped into the hole and fell to his death.

BFGC Architects Planners, Inc. v. Forcum/Mackey Construction, Inc.
119 Cal. App. 4th 848 (4th Dist. Jun. 21, 2004)

A school district contracted with an architect for construction of a high school and contracted with two general contractors for the same project. The District filed claims for breach of contract and professional negligence against the architect, who filed a cross-complaint against both general contractors. The architect sought equitable indemnity for the contractors' alleged failure to perform work in a timely manner, thus delaying the project and causing the architect damages.

The trial court sustained the contractors' demurrers without leave to amend and the Court of Appeal affirmed, finding that there is no basis for equitable indemnity where no action sounding in tort is alleged. The doctrine of equitable indemnity is "based on a duty owed to the underlying plaintiff." Here, where designer's allegations flowed only from contractors' alleged breach of contract, the designer's claims were "an improper attempt to recast a breach of contract cause of action as a tort claim."