Articles Posted in Real Estate Law

Published on:

By

In a previous post, I discussed the implications for Texas contractors and insurance companies and their attorneys of the decision of the Texas Supreme Court in Lamar Homes, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Company. The Court’s decision had a second element that is notable, and will be helpful to attorneys who are trying to collect an insurance claim from a carrier.

Texas has what is commonly referred to as the “prompt payment” statute (Texas Insurance Code § 542.051 ) which provides for additional damages against an insurer who wrongfully refuses or delays payment of a claim. A “claim” is defined as a first party claim “made by an insured or policyholder under an insurance policy or contract or by a beneficiary named in the policy or contract [that] must be paid by the insurer directly to the insured or beneficiary.” The problem has been that the Texas Insurance Code does not separately define “a first-party claim,” and Texas court decisions have been divided as to what it means. Some Texas Courts have defined a first party claim as a claim paid under a first party insurance policy, such a life insurance policy or an auto policy, where the insured is buying insurance to cover their own life or property. The reasoning here is that third party insurance, where the insured is purchasing insurance to cover a loss to others (such as the other guy in a car wreck) is not a first party claim and is therefore not covered by the prompt payment statute.

The Texas Supreme Court in the Lamar Homes case decided that the insurance company’s duty to defend Lamar Homes, even though the payment of attorney’s fees for defense would go to a third party (Lamar’s attorneys) was covered by the prompt payment statute. This part of the decision is, in my opinion, a good thing, because it requires insurance carriers to whom the statute applies to promptly review the claim, do their research and make a decision on the claim, rather than dragging their feet.

Published on:

By

A decision by the Texas Supreme Court either delighted or horrified Texas attorneys, depending on whether they represented consumers of construction services, construction companies or insurance companies. In Lamar Homes, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Company, an opinion delivered on August 31, 2007 and which became final in December 2007, the Texas Supreme Court held that unintended construction defects constitute property damage under a commercial general liability policy (“CGL” policy), triggering a duty by the insurer to defend the home builder and to pay damages on behalf of the builder when a home owner sued the builder for construction defects.This is a surprising decision in some ways because, in general, CGL policies in Texas cover claims for bodily injury, property damage, personal injury, and advertising injury (damage from slander or false advertising). A damage claim because something has been built defectively is usually not covered by a CGL policy. The CGL policy is intended to cover tort claims. A claim that something was built defectively is a breach of contract claim, As the dissent in this case so ably points out, this decision turns the construction industry and the CGL insurance industry on its head.

Attorneys representing home owners may smile at this decision, and think they have been handed another source from which to collect damages when a builder’s construction (or the work of the builder’s subcontractors) turns out to be defective. However, the real loser because of this decision may be the very person that this decision appeared to benefit: the consumer! If CGL insurers are now obligated to cover every real or imagined, major or minor, defect in new construction, then the premiums for those policies will most certainly rise. Those increased premiums paid by the contractor will be passed on to the consumer in both residential and commercial construction. Rents will ultimately increase. What this decision really does is spread the cost of construction defects among all of us. In addition, this decision really shields the bad builders in the short run: they can pass these costs on to their CGL carrier, rather than being liable themselves for shoddy work.

Published on:

By

A recent decision by the Texas Supreme Court contains some very specific lessons for attorneys who represent temporary labor services who supply workers for Texas construction projects.

Temporary staffing agencies or temporary labor services have become a popular and often cost effective way for a property owner or contractor to supplement a work crew or even to staff an entire construction job. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2005 there were 5.7 million temporary workers, or approximately 4% of the labor force in the United States, with the construction industry accounting for about 13% of that number. Such an arrangement has many advantages for the owner or contractor: the labor service recruits the workers, and is responsible for workers’ compensation and liability insurance, payroll and payroll taxes. The labor service simply presents an invoice for the use of the workers to the owner or contractor on a periodic (usually weekly) basis.It might seem obvious that workers from a temporary labor service should be considered as “labor” under the Texas mechanic’s lien statutes. Interestingly, however, this issue does not seem to have been decided by the Texas Supreme Court until recently. In Reliance National Indemnity Co., L&T Joint Venture and Lamar Construction Inc. v. Advance’d Temporaries, Inc., the Texas Supreme Court decided that a temporary staffing agency could indeed file a mechanic’s lien for unpaid labor invoices.

In this case, the general contractor and the surety on an apartment construction project in Corpus Christi, Texas, refused to pay the claim of a temporary labor agency (Advance’d) that had supplied labor to one of the subcontractors. The general contractor and surety argued that Advance’d did not actually furnish the labor to the apartment project because, in their view, the workers were really employees of the subcontractor, and not Advance’d. The Texas Supreme Court looked to the written contract signed by the subcontractor and Advance’d, noted that the parties had agreed in the contract that the workers were employees of Advance’d, even though the subcontractor directed their work, and decided that the Advance’d claim really was a claim for the furnishing of labor under the mechanic’s lien statutes.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Texas real estate law generally provides that a property owner in Texas is not required to ensure that an independent contractor perform its work in a safe and non-negligent manner. In the recent case of Central Ready Mix Concrete Company, Inc. v. Luciano Islas, the Texas Supreme Court reaffirmed that principle, and refused to accept some apparently novel arguments in support of changing that law. The Plaintiff was clearly trying to find the “deep pocket” here, and was making some pretty tenuous arguments to try to get there. The Court’s decision in this case makes sense.

Central, the property owner, was a ready-mix concrete company who hired an individual, Taylor, to come to the property owner’s business premises to clean out concrete trucks. All parties agreed that Taylor was an independent contractor, and was not an employee of the property owner. Islas, the Plaintiff, was injured when another of Taylor’s employee’s turned on a concrete truck’s drum while Islas was inside, severely injuring him. The Texas Supreme Court refused to extend premises liability law to cover this situation.It was important to the Court’s decision that the property owner had neither contractual nor actual control over the independent contractor’s employees. In ruling in favor of the property owner, the Court disagreed with the following arguments:

1. Islas claimed that the concrete truck contained a “concealed hazard”, and that the property owner had a duty to warn him of this hazard. The Court said that while a property owner does have a duty to warn an independent contractor of concealed and hazardous conditions on its real property, a property owner does not have a duty to warn an independent contractor about the hazards of the contractor’s own work.

Continue reading →