Construction Law
Our Construction Law practice group is a committed partner through all phases of your construction project. Our attorneys are actively involved in matters encompassing:
- construction
- design
- construction site injuries
- contract disputes
- licensing
- liens and stop notices
- administrative actions related to safety or licensing
- insurance coverage
Our clients include property owners, developers, general contractors, public entities, architects, engineers, and product manufacturers. Within the last year alone, our Construction Law practice group has represented over 300 clients in nearly every California forum involving a broad range of construction issues.
Our Construction Law practice group members are experienced and prepared to confront the special challenges and nuances of the evolving economy and construction industry. The group’s members include the current Chairperson of the Southern California Region of the American College of Trial Advocates (ACTL) and five members of the American Board of Trial Advocacy (ABOTA). Our attorneys also hold advanced degrees in architecture and tax, and are certified specialists in appellate law by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization.
Representative Experience:
Defense of Target Trade in Multi-Home Litigation
Represented concrete contractor in litigation arising from the construction of 34 single family homes in Ranch Cucamonga, California. Plaintiffs’ repair costs exceeded $4.5 million. According to defense experts, the contractor’s work raised serious liability issues with respect to foundation, geotechnical issues, water intrusion, drainage, and structural deficiencies. Despite our client’s exposure, the case settled for approximately $150,000. Adverse evidence of the client’s liability remained confidential.
Fifty-Two Single Family Home Development Litigation
Defended concrete subcontractor in construction litigation involving 52 single family homes in Moreno Valley, California. Plaintiffs alleged severely cracked flatwork, garage slab cracks, house slab cracks, and resultant damage to vinyl, wood, and marble flooring. Developer had minimal insurance and limited contribution from additional insureds, which precipitated an inflated settlement demand. After a critical scope of work issue was resolved in favor the our client, it settled all claims for $14,000.
Representation of Condominium Developer
Represented developer against claims by a homeowners’ association demanding $5 million for a 53 unit condominium alleging design defects, structural problems, and failure of the building’s exterior siding. A cross-complaint was filed on behalf of the developer and Crawford tenders sent to all subcontractors. With the trade insurers participating in the developer’s defense, the developer was able to settle for less than 15 % of the initial demand. The developer then prosecuted its cross-complaint against the non-settling subcontractors and obtained a judgment against a recalcitrant subcontractor approximately equivalent to the amount paid in settlement.
Representation of Sheet Metal Contractor
Retained to represent sheet metal contractor for massive apartment complex. The Plaintiffs’ cost of repair claimed there were 130 leaking decks. Plaintiffs’ demand to client was $3.5 million. After several weeks of trial, the client settled for $400,000.
Defense Under Burning Limits Policy
Represented developer in lawsuit by homeowners association arising from the construction of a 24 unit condominium project in Canyon Country, California. The allegations focused on visible deflections and sagging in the roof, stucco cracking, and cracks in driveways, garage slabs, and flatwork. A cross-complaint was filed on behalf of our client against the subcontractor trades involved in the project. Crawford tenders were immediately provided to the trades and their insurers to preserve available reserves under the client’s defense within limits policy. Through strict enforcement of the subcontractors’ duty to defend, the client’s burning limits policy was preserved thereby allowing funds to be allocated toward settlement.
Representation of Drilling Company in Multi-Unit Ocean Front Property Litigation
Substituted in as counsel for a drilling company late in the litigation concerning multi-unit ocean front rental property in Venice Beach, California. The allegations against multiple defendants alleged soils movement and resultant structural damage to the plaintiff’s property. Our client’s prior counsel recommended paying the lion’s share of a seven figure settlement. Nevertheless, by leveraging the client’s contractual indemnity rights as an additional insured, settlement was reached for substantially less than the amount originally forecasted.
Establishing Compliance with Building Standards
Defended stucco contractor in litigation involving 26 homeowners. The client used a three step process instead of a five step process, which raised the issue of whether he had complied with the standard of care. The client proved through expert testimony and other evidence he had used reasonable care and the homeowners’ damage claim was excessive. Settled was reached before trial.
Worksite Injury
Represented drywall company in lawsuit by drywall installer who fell from the roof of a home while it was under construction. Plaintiff alleged the drywall company had failed to provide adequate fall protection. Guardrails on the roof had been removed by the drywall company in the days preceding the accident. The defense refuted that the mere absence of guardrails constituted a dangerous condition.
Reshaping Construction Defect Litigation in San Diego
Represented excess insurer in construction litigation that evolved into one of the biggest construction defect cases in the history of San Diego. The claims arose from 1,632 homes on 350 acres belonging to members of a premier country club in Oceanside, California. The litigation reshaped the way construction defect cases are handled in San Diego.
Representation of Framer
Defended framer against property damage claims by homeowners, which included alleged framing deficiencies and resultant water intrusion. Plaintiffs' initial demand for indemnity was more than $170,000. Numerous issues were raised with respect to whether particular contractors were properly licensed, maintained valid corporate status, and/or obtained the required insurance. Our client obtained a favorable result, paying only $8,000 in settlement.
Representation of Sewer Inspection Contractor
Plaintiffs alleged property damage and other related damages after a pipe running underneath plaintiffs’ retail store burst and sent water into the store damaging merchandise and retail space. After a five-day jury trial, a unanimous verdict was rendered finding that the defendant was not at fault.