A NEW CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT OPINION AFFECTING THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY: TO DISCLOSE OR NOT DISCLOSE IS NO LONGER THE QUESTION
Construction claims for non-disclosure on public works projects got a little easier to prosecute yesterday with the publication of the California Supreme Court’s decision in Los Angeles Unified School District v. Hayward Construction. (PDF) The importance of this case is reflected by the list of attorneys who represented the parties, a veritable Who's Who in the legal community.The contractor and surety were represented by veteran construction lawyers John Immordino of Wilson Elser and Joseph Miller of Montelone & McCrory. The school district was likewise well represented by its General Counsel, Roberta Fesler, Gregory Bergman of Bergman & Darcey and lawyers at Jones Day, including Ellwood Lui, a former associate justice of the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division 3..
In the Hayward Construction case, and for the first time, the Court was asked to resolve a construction dispute brought solely on a theory of non-disclosure during the bidding phase of a project. The question was whether a contractor can recover extra costs of construction when the plans and specifications are correct, but the public entity failed to disclose information in its possession that materially affected the cost of performance.
The case is also important because it resolves conflicting opinions between four of the California Courts of Appeal. One Appellate Court, followed by the trial court in the Hayward Construction case, held that to recover for nondisclosure, the contractor must show the public entity affirmatively misrepresented or intentionally concealed material facts that rendered the furnished information misleading. Another Court of Appeal held a contractor need not prove an "affirmative fraudulent intent to conceal" when disclosure would have eliminated or materially qualified the misleading effect of facts disclosed. A third Appellate Court suggested that the careless failure to disclose information may allow recovery if the public entity possessed superior knowledge inaccessible to the contractor. And the Appellate Court in the Hayward Construction case broadly held that a contractor need show only that the public entity knew material facts concerning the project that would affect the contractor's bid or performance and failed to disclose those facts to the contractor.
SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
Hayward entered into a contract with a school district to complete the work of the original contractor who was in default. The scope of the work was based on a 108 page “pre-punch list” and required Haywood to correct the defective, missing and incomplete work on a time and material basis up to a guaranteed maximum price.
Shortly after beginning work, Hayward informed the district there were significant deficiencies in the existing work that had not been noted on the pre-punch list and could not have been detected by a visual inspection. As a result, Hayward made a claim for extra compensation to perform this additional work. The district then sued Hayward and its surety and Hayward filed a cross-complaint against the district, alleging misrepresentation and concealment. In support of these theories, Hayward alleged the district failed to disclose the extent of the defects in the existing construction, and failed to disclose information that would have put Hayward on notice that some of its assumptions about the scope of the required work were erroneous.
After losing a motion for judgment of the pleadings in the trial court, Hayward won at the Court of Appeal, and then the school district appealed to the California Supreme Court.
THE COURT'S DECISION
The California Supreme Court affirmed but narrowed the court of appeal’s opinion in Hayward Construction, holding that a contractor need not prove an affirmative fraudulent intent to conceal. Rather a public entity may be required to provide extra compensation if it knew, but failed to disclose, material facts that would affect the contractor's bid or performance.
In narrowing the Court of Appeal's opinion, the California Supreme Court stated:
[W]e conclude the Court of Appeal's rule was, in turn, overbroad in suggesting that recovery may be had for any failure to disclose material information. Rather, we hold that a contractor on a public works contract may be entitled to relief for a public entity's nondisclosure in the following limited circumstances: (1) the contractor submitted its bid or undertook to perform without material information that affected performance costs; (2) the public entity was in possession of the information and was aware the contractor had no knowledge of, nor any reason to obtain, such information; (3) any contract specifications or other information furnished by the public entity to the contractor misled the contractor or did not put it on notice to inquire; and (4) the public entity failed to provide the relevant information.
The Court noted the circumstances affecting recovery may include, but are not limited to, positive warranties or disclaimers made by either party, the information provided by the plans and specifications and related documents, the difficulty of detecting the condition in question, any time constraints the public entity imposed on proposed bidders, and any unwarranted assumptions made by the contractor. The public entity may not be held liable for failing to disclose information a reasonable contractor in like circumstances would or should have discovered on its own, but may be found liable when the totality of the circumstances is such that the public entity knows, or has reason to know, a responsible contractor acting diligently would be unlikely to discover the condition that materially increased the cost of performance.
The is an important case in the construction industry. The risks of the bidding process became a little less risky. The uphill battle for contractors claiming extra work for unknown conditions got a little easier. They will still have to overcome the Spearin rule stated by the U.S. Supreme Court nearly a hundred years ago, that a contractor can not avoid its contractual obligations or seek additional compensation for performing them merely because unanticipated circumstances are encountered. Contractors will still have to get past disclaimers and other contractual language that attempt to place the burden of unanticipated conditions on them. But the Hayward Construction case now gives them some relief when making a claim for non-disclosure: they do not have to prove an intent to defraud; only a failure to disclose material facts that would affect the contractor's bid or performance.When such a claim arises, the contractor should make a demand for all documents in the owner’s possession, custody or control relating to the conditions of the project.
As for the parties in the Hayward Construction case, they are back in the trial court preparing for trial.
NOTE: Nine amicus curiae (friends of the court) briefs were filed in the Supreme Court of California on behalf of various organizations. Such briefs are often filed in appeals concerning issues of broad public interest. Four amicus curiae briefs were filed on behalf of various construction industry organizations, including the Associated General Contractors Association of California and the American Subcontractors Association. Five amicus curiae briefs were filed on behalf of various governmental organizations, including the California School Boards Association and The League of California Cities. The filing of these briefs by outstanding lawyers and law firms is another indication of the importance of the Hayward Construction case to the respective interests of construction professionals and public entities in California.
.
It is an interesting paradox that construction professionals who devote their lives to building unique structures according to customized plans generally use "cookie cutter" form contracts to govern the duties and obligations of the parties. When a construction dispute arises, most construction professionals and their lawyers will spend many hours scrutinizing the contract documents to analyze their rights. Since so much time is spent evaluating the contract after the dispute, shouldn't there be at least an equal amount of time and thought put into it before the project begins? Instead of standard cookie cutter provisions, doesn't it make sense to think about the risks of the project and clearly define what will happen in the event of a dispute? I have been preaching this sermon for many years, and recently posted an article on the subject called, 