Approved by the California Legislature and signed into law on September 20, 2002, SB 800 promised to give construction contractors the “Right To Fix” claimed construction defects, rather than being launched into litigation. The law applies to sales of new home units beginning on January 1, 2003.
The original stated goal of Chapter 40 was to provide a pre-litigation process to allow construction defect claims the opportunity to settle without incurring the costs associated with litigation. However, since its inception, the Chapter 40 pre-litigation process has faced harsh criticism due in large part to its ineffectiveness to settle construction defect claims in a cost effective manner.
You already know that Cal-OSHA regulations can form the basis for claims by your employees or for fines levied by the State, but did you know that Cal-OSHA regulations can now be used as the basis of a third party tort claim?
Whether it’s a shopping center, office building or a house, some real estate brokers and agents have regrettably resorted to fraud in order to make a sale and earn a quick commission. In one example, a broker, in order to complete a difficult sale, told the buyer of a house that the roof was new, and therefore the buyer did not have to worry about leaks.
The California Legislature recently amended California Civil Code Sections 3084 and 3146 relating to mechanic’s liens. In particular, Assembly Bill (“AB”) 457 requires additional notices in order to preserve a lien claimant’s rights to enforce a mechanic’s lien.
In litigation, failing to work with a valid license would result in the other party receiving a complete recovery of all funds paid to contractor for the construction work.
Those who practice tort law routinely allege claims for future damages for, i.e., medical expenses or pain and suffering. But when can a plaintiff in a commercial case recover future damages? The issue is especially tricky in the context of breach of warranty claims.