The home owner should make sure the contract contains an “option to terminate—time of the essence” clause. In Call v. Alcan Pac. Co., 251 Cal. App. 2d 442 (3d Dist. 1967) the court considered such a clause. This type of clause provides that if the contractor does not prosecute the work diligently, the owner may
ADU’s Build Them While You Can SB 13 — Government Code §65852.2
The legislature has passed several bills promoting additional housing loosening up restrictions on building Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s). Until 2025, new for January 2020, Senate Bill 13 adds Government Code §65852.2, and removes Health and Safety Code 17980.12 restrictions as to land use. The new law now allows ADU’s up to 1,200 sq. feet to
Mechanic’s Lien Problems with Multiple Contracts (Civil Code §8186)
Multiple contracts invoke Civil Code §8186 (former §3117) which can be fatal to mechanic’s lien claims. Section 8186 provides when projects are built pursuant to more than one “direct” contract, with each contract covering a particular portion of the work, the owner may record separate notices of completion for each particular portion of the work performed under each contract, rather than waiting for completion of the project as a whole. This affects the time to record a mechanics lien. (See also Gunther v. McCormick (1922) 60 Cal.App. 350) For example ….
Continue Reading Mechanic’s Lien Problems with Multiple Contracts (Civil Code §8186)
General Contractors Now Liable for Sub Contractors’s failure to pay Subs’ employees! Labor Code 218.7
New Labor Code Section 218.17 (AB 1701) makes a general contractor jointly liable for the unpaid wages, fringe benefits, or other benefit payments or contributions of a subcontractor (at any tier).
Labor Code 218.7 provides “down-the-chain protection” to a sub-contractor’s employees if they are misclassified as as independent contractors or not paid. The bill applies
Cases holding General Contractor and Developer Liable (“Anti Privette Doctrine”)
Privette is alive and well, but an injured sub-contractor’s employee can argue the following to try to hold the general contractor or property owner liable. These are for very bad general contractors and property owners who deserve to be nailed.
Continue Reading Cases holding General Contractor and Developer Liable (“Anti Privette Doctrine”)
Cases helping General Contractors, Developers and Property Owners to avoid liability for injuries to subcontractors
Some strong cases extending the 1993 “Privette doctrine”, Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, holding that if an independent contractor’s employee is injured on the job and subject to workers’ compensation coverage, he cannot seek recovery of tort damages from someone who hired the contractor, but did not cause the injury, have been expanded. Plaintiffs still will try to show that the hirer retained control over the cause of the accident. But these cases help refute many of plaintiff’s arguments such as:
Continue Reading Cases helping General Contractors, Developers and Property Owners to avoid liability for injuries to subcontractors
General Contractor’s still “generally” not liable for their sub’s employee’s injuries (“Privette Doctrine” Remains)
“ Generally, when employees of independent contractors are injured in the workplace, they cannot sue the party that hired the contractor to do the work.” (SeaBright Ins. Co. v. US Airways, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 590, 594.) This rule has been known as the “Privette doctrine” since 1993 when the Supreme Court decided Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, holding that when an independent contractor’s employee is injured on the job and thus subject to workers’ compensation coverage, he cannot seek recovery of tort damages from someone who hired the contractor, but did not cause the injury. Thus, a roofing employee injured carrying buckets of hot tar up a ladder could not sue the property owner for injuries compensable under the workers’ compensation system. But there are some exceptions:
Continue Reading General Contractor’s still “generally” not liable for their sub’s employee’s injuries (“Privette Doctrine” Remains)