Monthly Archives: March 2014

Cool Down Period Now Required

hot-sunIf it is over 85 degrees amended Labor Code Section 226.7 allows penalties to be imposed for the failure to provide cool down and rest areas at the rate of one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each work day that recovery period is not provided.

The Heat Illness Prevention regulations apply to Agriculture, Construction, Landscaping, Oil and Gas extraction and transportation or delivery of agricultural products, construction materials or Continue reading

Burch v Superior Court 2014 DJDAR 1991

The Right To Repair Act does not provide a homebuyer’s exclusive remedies for construction defects and does not bar common law claims for negligence or breach of implied warranty where defects results in property damage. A contractor which builds a new home under a contract with a developer/home seller may have a duty of care to prospective purchasers with whom the contractor is not in privity, and may be liable to prospective purchasers for breach of implied warrant under a theory that the home buyer is a third party beneficiary of the construction contract between the developer/seller and the contractor.

General Liability Policy Exclusions – How to Plug the Holes

By: Bob Mahan, Esq. 

As published in the AGC Constructor, March/April 2014

Every General Liability (GL) and excess policy issued to a subcontractor has a myriad of limiting and exclusionary policy language. As a GC, how do you know that your subs or even your own policies are providing the maximum coverage? Here is a quick look at what may be contained in – or excluded from – your policy, and Continue reading

Bay Cities Paving & Grading Inc v City of San Leandro

GavelBay Cities Paving & Grading Inc v City of San Leandro–Oliver DeSilva Inc dba Gallagher & Burk– Real Party in Interest2014 DJDAR 1909 (2014

This case involved a bidder ( Gallagher & Burk) who filed a Bid Bond with the first page missing and was the lowest contractor in this project with the city of San Leandro. The city found that the Bid Bond was signed by G&B and that the failure of G&B to submit the first page was a “minor irregularity”. G&B used the City’s standard Bid Bond Form. The City found that the signed Bid Bond page 34 referred to the prior text on page 33 and that the signature page independently identified the project.. The City reasonably concluded that a court would read page 34 (the second page) of the Bid Bond in the context of the form bid bond and enforce the bid bond under Civil Code section 1647. Continue reading

Senate Bill 474 Changes the Rules for Indemnity Between a General and a Subcontractor

The California Legislature and Governor Brown recently approved California Senate Bill 474, which general provides that in all construction contacts for private commercial project entered on or after January 1, 2013 any indemnity obligations (including cost to defend) arising out of the active negligence or willful misconduct of the indemnified party are void and unenforceable. Continue reading