Cases: Construction

Allocation, Construction, Section 1717: Contractor Defeating Worker’s Compensation Insurance Claims Not Entitled To Contractual Fees, Which Needed To Be Apportioned On Remand

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Construction, Cases: Section 1717

No Contractual Fee Provisions Covered The Worker’s Compensation Issues.             Although apportionment is sometimes a discretionary exercise, it can be mandatory where there are non-fee entitlement issues which are likely disparate in nature.              Fernandez v. Escutia, Case Nos. H046529/H047015 (6th Dist. Feb. 24, 2021) (unpublished) is a situation where a contractor won a construction […]

Allocation, Construction, Insurance: Lower Court’s Denial Of Any Fee Recovery To General Contractor’s Insurer For Defending The GC, Based On Equitable Subrogation, Was Error

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Construction, Cases: Insurance

GC’s Insurer Was Entitled To Equitable Reimbursement Of Defense Costs Relating To Subcontractor Work As Well As A Reasonable Allegation Relating To Reasonable “Mixed” Defense Efforts.             In Pulte Home Corp. v. CBR Electric, Inc. (St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co.), Case No. E068353 (4th Dist., Div. 2 June 10, 2010) (published), a trial judge denied

Allocation, Construction, Reasonableness Of Fees: $222,202.75 Contractual Fee Award In Favor Of Property Owners And Against General Contractor, After Offsets, Was Not Erroneous Except For One Minor Deduction In Gnarly Construction Defect Dispute.

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Construction, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

$557,441.75 Was The Fee Request, But Owners’ Apportionment Not Credited Below Or On Appeal, So Reduced Award Was The Result.             In Stolp v. Murphy-True, Inc., Case Nos. A154770/A155426 (1st Dist., Div. 1 June 4, 2020) (unpublished), a litigation snafu resulted over a $3 million-plus remodel job at plaintiffs’ home, with plaintiffs suing for water

Construction, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Contract Between The Parties Not Required For Awarded Code Civ. Proc. § 1032 Fees Of $2,114,434 And Costs Of $104,498 Against Real Estate Agent Defendant For Violations Of Bus. & Prof. Code § 7160

Cases: Construction, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Defendant Had Fraudulently Induced Plaintiff To Enter Into Contract With Defendant’s Associates For Home Renovation Work.             Bus. & Prof. Code § 7160 allows for an award of reasonable attorney’s fees, in addition to penalties and damages, to “[a]ny person who is induced to contract for a work of improvement, including but not limited

Construction, Prevailing Party: General Contractor Plaintiff Prevailing In Litigation Matter Against Subcontractor Through A Summary Judgment Motion Entitled To Contractual Fees

Cases: Construction, Cases: Prevailing Party

General Contractor Won A Positive Recovery By Keeping A $125,000 Properly Withheld Retention As Against The Sub.             Justice Wiley of the 2/8 DCA is showing a lot of writing panache in recent opinions, with the one we now post on involving a contractual attorney’s fees issue.             In Regency Midland Construction, Inc. v. Legendary

Construction, Section 998: Defendant Pipe Supplier In Condo Construction Defect Suit Properly Denied HOA Section 998 Offer Of $325,000 As Too Token Given $22.7 Million Costs Of Repair For Defendant’s Scope Of Work

Cases: Construction, Cases: Section 998

HOA Sought To Recoup $298,178.69 In Costs, Including $176,870.54 In Expert Witness Fees.             In Acqua Vista Homeowners Assn. v. MWI, Inc., Case No. D073666 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 9, 2019) (unpublished), plaintiff homeowners association sued developer defendants as well as pipe supplier defendant MWI in a construction defect suit under the Right to

Construction, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: 4/1 DCA Affirms That Subcontractor Was Not Prevailing Party Because Its Post-Litigation Deposit Near The End Of The Litigation Was Not A Proper Tender Under Civil Code Section 1717(b)(2)

Cases: Construction, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Very Elaborate Discussion Of “Tender” Under Section 1717(b)(2), Which Appellant Did Not Meet.             D.R. Horton Los Angeles Holding Co., Inc. v. Milgard Mfg. Co., Inc., Case No. D074889 (4th Dist., Div. 1 March 29, 2019) (unpublished) is an interesting case which interpreted the nature of Civil Code section 1717(b)(2). That provision says that where

Construction, Indemnity, Insurance: Subcontrator’s Insurer On The Hook To Indemnify It To The Tune Of $1,532,973.87 In Damages And Fees, Plus Prejudgment Interest, Following Entry Of Default Judgment Against Subcontractor

Cases: Construction, Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Insurance

Homebuilder’s Insurer Sued Subcontractor’s Insurer After Fully Indemnifying Homebuilder In Underlying Action For Construction Defect Damages and Attorney Fees         The Insurance Company of The State of Pennsylvania v. American Safety Indemnity Company, Case No. B283684 (2d Dist., Div. 8 March 1, 2019) (published) involves a dispute between insurers resulting from an underlying case. The

Construction, Section 1717: Defendant Prevailing On Only One Payment Withholding Issue Not Entitled To Fee Recovery Under Prompt Payment Statutes And Plaintiff Only Entitled To Reasonable Fees Under Contractual Fees Clause

Cases: Construction, Cases: Section 1717

Plaintiff’s Request For Full Fees Ignores That Section 1717 Only Allow For Recovery Of Reasonable Fees.             Co-contributor Mike knew right away that McMahon Steel Co. v. Angeles Contractor, Inc., Case No. G054053 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 3, 2018) (unpublished) was written by Acting Presiding Justice Bedsworth. Here is how it opens: “The

Construction: California Supreme Court Decides That Prompt Payment Statutes Relating To Direct Contractor-Subcontractor Retention Withholdings Can Only Relate To The Relevant Specific Payment Otherwise Due Rather Any Dispute Between The Parties

Cases: Construction

Construction-Related Performance Relating To Retention Amount, Third Party-Lien Disputes, Or More Than Agreed-Upon Payments To Subcontractor Are Allowable Grounds For Delayed Payment, With The Holding Having Implication On Statutory Penalties and Attorney’s Fees For Delayed Payment Of Retentions.             California, for both private and public projects, has enacted prompt payment statutes relating to owner/direct contractor

Scroll to Top