LEGAL MEMOS

American Building Innovation LP v. Balfour Beatty Construction LLC (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 954. The Court finds that a subcontractor pursuant to Business and Professions Code § 7031 was barred from maintaining an action seeking payment for work performed by the subcontractor when at the time of the work the subcontractor was not licensed in the State of California. The subcontractor was not entitled to retroactive reinstatement of its license under Business and Professions Code § 7125.2. The insurance policy cancellation and failure to have insurance on file were within the subcontractor’s control. The Court further found that the trial court correctly awarded over $1.55 million dollars in attorney’s fees to the Defendants when Plaintiff filed to enforce the subcontract, thereby triggering the subcontract’s attorney’s fees provision and as the prevailing party the Defendants were entitled to attorney’s fees.

Grossman v. Wakeman, Jr. (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 1012. This is a case in which a legal malpractice judgment was entered against an attorney who had prepared estate planning documents that disinherited family members of the attorney’s client. The Court reversed, finding that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish that the attorney and the attorney’s law firm owed any duty of care to family members who were non-clients.

Lynch v. Peter & Associates etc. (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 1181. The seller’s engineering firm allegedly performed an inadequate geotechnical inspection of an excavated footing trench for a home remolding project and was subsequently sued for professional negligence. The Court held that although the firm was hired by the general contractor and was not in privity with the homeowner, the seller’s engineering firm nonetheless owed the homeowner a duty of care to perform its work with the skill expected of a professional in its position. The transaction was intended to affect the homeowner, who would foreseeably be harmed by inadequate performance. The homeowner could proceed with a nuisance claim against the seller’s engineering firm which was also found not to be duplicative of a professional negligence claim even though it relied on the same facts.

/ilc