The economic loss rule is alive and well in California. In State Ready Mix, Inc. v. Moffatt & Nichol (2015) 232 Cal.App.4th 1227, the Court of Appeal ruled that a concrete supplier (State Ready Mix, Inc., or “Supplier”) could not seek equitable indemnity or contribution from an engineer for the cost to remove and replace Supplier’s concrete that was non-compliant with Supplier’s own contract. Although the Court minced no words when it described the factual basis for its ruling (“If [Supplier] wants to see who is at fault, it should look in the mirror.”), the most notable aspect of the opinion was its analysis and rejection of the legal theories of potential liability. Continue reading “Tort-Based Indemnity/Contribution Remedies Not Available to Shift Contract Damages”
Effective this month, the State of Texas joins the list of states with both anti-indemnity and anti-additional insured statutes. In legislation signed last summer by Gov. Rick Perry but not effective until January 1, 2012, Texas — previously viewed by construction law practitioners as a permissible venue which it came to risk shifting and indemnification — joined the now long list of states prohibiting clauses in construction contracts requiring indemnification of indemnitees for their negligence. Moreover, in so doing, Texas also joined the small but growing list of states prohibiting additional insured requirements – such as requirements in subcontracts requiring subcontractors to add contractors, construction managers and owners as additional insureds to the subcontractors’ policies. Other states on that list include: Colorado, Kansas, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah.