Virginia Real Estate, Land Use & Construction Law : Virginia Construction Lawyers & Attorneys : Bean Kinney & Korman Law Firm : VA Real Estate, Land Use & Zoning

Modular home construction presents significant potential improvements to home construction: significantly reduced construction time; less material waste; and reduced expense.  If not handled appropriately in terms of contracts and risk, modular homes can translate to a gigantic headache for both the designers, contractors, and the owner.

Last Thursday, Lisa Rein of the Washington Post wrote an article on mansions turning to modular construction to reduce time and costs.  The article caught my eye - while I have noticed this trend over the last 5 years or so, it was the first time I saw local mainstream press pick up on this.  My friend Jamie Baker Roskie at the always interesting Land Use Prof Blog picked up on the article and connected the thread towards local codes discouraging use of shipping containers as building materials. 

Adaptive reuse of discarded materials is one of the best ways to improve our economy's sustainability, and using shipping containers for modular construction is really an interesting approach.  Don't believe shipping containers make good construction materials?  Browse through a search of the articles at the highly informative Jetson Green blog that address containers and you will see some remarkable uses of containers, from emergency shelters for recovery in Haiti to very sweet, upscale small footprint breach structures.

Turning from containers to wood based modular construction, count me as a believer that we will see industry move towards more pre-fabricated assemblies to reduce cost and time of construction.  Despite my views on the future, I have particiated in some pretty ugly cases involving modular construction.  Based on the repetitive nature of these problems, I draw some conclusions about risks involving modular home construction that may help put the Washington Post's article into a legal context:

1. Prefabricated assemblies are sales of goods governed by Uniform Commercial Code not construction
2. Sales of goods involve different potential warranty theories and defenses than construction implied warranties
3. Sales of goods potentially have different statutes of limitations
4. While the install time may be shorter, manufacturing and delivery time may be a very different story
5. Most owner/contractor agreements involving modular construction are very weak on defining the remote manufacturer's role and responsibilities
6. Similarly, most owner/contractor agreements poorly define timing expectations until the modular unit is delivered and set on the building pad
7. Simple units seem to do pretty well; however, quality control seems to vary wildly amongst manufacturers and even within specific manufacturers depending on the specifics of a projects and the design complexity
8. As with other manufacturer's warranties, if there are problems, owners and contractors may struggly mightily to get manufacturers to respond appropriately to warranty complaints

This may be coming from the skewed perspective of seeing these projects in litigation, what do you think?  What have you seen?  Finally, how has the economic downturn improved or worsened working with modular manufacturers?

Images by Terretta

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (7)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As we watch Chinese drywall litigation erupt nationally, we see the rapid fallout: insurance companies denying coverage; suppliers going bankrupt; homeowners filing suit against all the parties in the food chain.  We have seen this story before.  In Virginia, the applicable could translate to some very harsh results even if owner plaintiffs can prove the drywall was defective and caused damages.

Why is that?  We have learned that Virginia requires a contract to recover "economic losses".  We have also discussed that this requirement extends to products liability cases for recovery of "consequential damages" despite a statute in the Uniform Commercial Code that appears to eliminate lack of privity as a defense.  We now need to see how these definitions play out in actual context.

For home owners, the owner may want to recover the cost of repair to their home associated with defective products.  Virginia courts appear to agree that owners purchase real estate from builder/sellers rather than goods and have no UCC remedies against manufacturers and sellers of goods.  Under the Sensenbrenner case, the owner's remedy for economic repairs sounds in breach of contract against the builder.  If the builder goes bankrupt, the owner may be completely out of luck.  If there are express warranties on products that were assigned to the owner, they may have an express warranty claim; however, it is quite rare that all those t's are actually crossed.

On the builder side, if a builder is sued by the owners, they might try to drag in all the contractors, subcontractors, suppliers and manufacturers to pass through the claimed repairs of the owners.  Virginia again applies conservative principles, even on products cases, and forces people to stick to the chain of privity.  On products cases in particular, in Pulte v. Parex, the Supreme Court of Virginia stated that a builder's attempt to pass through a home owner's damages were consequential damages and, "fit into this definition like a hand in a glove."  The Court applied a conservative analysis in blocking the builder's claims for breach of express and implied warranties, indemnification, and contribution.  (Disclosure - I represented the manufacturer in this case, so if there is any apparent bias here, guilty as charged).

What are the takeaways from this series of cases?

• Construction products liability cases face significant legal hurdles under Virginia law
• The basic requirement for privity of contract appears intact on Virginia products cases relative to attempts to pass through repair cost claims
• You should assume that you need to stick to the chain of privity to recover unless you get lucky
• A bankruptcy can cripple your ability to get to the responsible party

Image by St Stev

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (5)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We have seen waves of claimed problems with construction products over the last several decades: PVC plumbing fixtures and materials; fire retardant treated (FRT) plywood; exterior insulation and finish systems (EIFS).  We are on the front edge of another eruption with Chinese drywall, and indeed we have heard the first rumblings that the drywall problems may extended to materials manufactured in the United States.  It seems like the construction industry has become the Land of Misfit Toys from my favorite old school TV special, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer.  

Construction products liability cases present a very messy interaction between tort, contract, traditional economic loss principles, and the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).  We have previously discussed Virginia's economic loss rule which basically provides that in order to recover economic losses, you need to have a contract with the party you are suing.  To understand the interplay, we need to get a little more technical than we usually do here on the blog. 

The UCC states at Section 8.2-318, "Lack of privity ... shall be no defense in any action brought against the manfuacturer or seller of goods to recover damages for breach of warranty, express or implied, or for negligence [.]"  That should end the issue on products cases as the statute is clear, right?

Wrong.  The Supreme Court of Virginia found in the Beard Plumbing case that with regards to claims for consequential damages, the consequential damage statute was more specific and controlled over the general "anti-privity" statute.  The consequential damage allowed recovery of losses known by the seller "at the time of contracting ".  Thus, the court ruled that to recover consequential damages under the UCC, the claimant still has to demonstrate privity of contract despite the UCC anti-privity statute.

Next time, we will talk about what are direct versus consequential damages, in particular as it relates to privity and economic loss.  Teaser: if the plaintiff is stuck with the direct damages as precisely defined in the UCC, the plaintiff is one unhappy camper on a construction case.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (5)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last week we discussed the first Chinese drywall case going to trial in January involves Virginia plaintiffs.  We have two interesting reports that may constitute both shoes dropping at once.

First, Engineering News Record reported on November 25, 2009 that a federal study, "found 'a strong association' between imported wallboard made in China and metal corrosion in U.S. homes in which the drywall has been installed." (subscription required).  These tests results appear consistent with prior testing finding the presence of corrosive chemicals in the Chinese drywall.  Other experts claim that the chemical levels are too low to cause injuries.  The Proskauer Rose firm has analyzed the federal testing results released by the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission (USCPSC) and found that, "Indoor testing ... detected little or no indications of various sulfur compounds[.]"(free sign-up required)

The real potential bombshell is that some homeowners have raised similar complaints of sulfur stench and corrosion, but they have no Chinese drywall ... they have American made drywall.  Scott Wolfson, spokesman for the USCPSC, is quoted in the Washington Post on November 25 as saying, "We are not limited in the scope of our investigation to just Chinese drywall."  One homeowner complaining of problems similar to those alleged in the Chinese drywall cases had testing performed on their drywall which was purely American manufactured.  The tests revealed the drywall was comprised of 50% cellulose.  A report from an MIT professor in the matter indicated that the cellulose compound in the US manufactured drywall was releasing sulfurous gases leading to causing corrosion.  University of Florida tests comparing US and Chinese drywall have found in some instances that US drywall released higher quantities of sulfurous gases than the much derided Chinese drywall.

Where does this leave us?

• Proof of causation of personal injuries on products liability cases is very difficult
• The pending Chinese drywall cases are apt to be hotly contested, but even with proof difficulties, any defendants with means should be scared to death of jury trials
• The focus on Chinese drywall may be obscuring a broader risk in the US manufactured drywall markets that has yet to full materialize

Image by Steevven

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The first trial in the infamous Chinese drywall litigation will apparently involve seven Virginia homeowners.  The first case is currently set for a bench trial on January 25, 2010. 

We have written several times regarding the Chinese drywall litigation, including several months ago in Mid Atlantic Construction.  While Virginia plaintiffs will apparently occupy the first position on the trial docket, our area in Northern Virginia has thus far been very quiet to silent on this front.  The Tidewater area has been a little different as a supplier there sold a fairly significant quantity of the drywall that was used locally.

The Chinese drywall is just the most recent wave of products liability litigation to erupt across the construction industry.  The past several waves, such as the fire retardant plywood, plumbing material, and EIFS systems litigation, each pointed out that getting around the economic loss rule in Virginia is extremely difficult.  The economic loss rule in Virginia provides that a party suing for "economic losses" is seeking a contractual remedy and must demonstrate privity of contract to recover.

The economic loss rule and its various permutations is one of the most important legal issues in construction litigation in Virginia.  As such, we are going to take the change to explore the economic loss rule and discuss it over several posts moving forward.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link