THE IMPACT OF SB 474 – IS IT BIGGER THAN THE MAYAN PROPHECY?

Posted December 14, 2012

Notwithstanding the Mayan prediction of the end of the world on December 21, 2012 or the “fiscal cliff” of December 31, 2012, the greater change to the construction world will be accomplished by California Senate Bill 474 going into effect on January 1, 2013. On and after January 1, 2013, the risk allocation for subcontractors and contractors on commercial or public construction projects in California will fundamentally change. Historically, general contractors have included Type 1 indemnity provisions which shifted most of the contract risk to subcontractors. Not only was the liability risk shifted to subcontractors and their insurance companies, but the contracts required the subcontractor to defend almost any claims. The burden of defense was exacerbated by the Crawford decision issued in 2008, which made the defense obligation an independent obligation of the subcontractor.

The change to the law is being made through Civil Code 2782 et seq. Previously, any effort to shift indemnity for a party’s willful negligence was void. After January 1, 2013, any clause which attempts to relieve a public owner, commercial owner, general contractor or higher tier subcontractor of its active negligence is also void. Curiously, a public entity can require a general contractor to cover its active negligence. One can still seek indemnity for passive negligence, typically a failure to act when one should have acted.

General contractors in particular may want to cover the additional risk relating to their active negligence with insurance. In fact, wrap-up insurance policies are exempted. Many know of wrap-up policies as OCIPs and CCIPs.

Although the statute does not preclude a clause which requires reimbursement of defense fees and costs, it limits that recovery. There must be a written tender requesting the defense, which tender must reference the portions of a claim relating to the subcontractor’s scope of work. A subcontractor then has a choice. It can defend the claim as to its scope of work (including defense of the general contractor or CM to the extent the issues were caused by the subcontractor) OR the subcontractor can have the contractor perform the defense and the general contractor will then invoice the subcontractor for a reasonable allocation of the costs. Where an issue relates to several subcontractors, a single contractor no longer has to pull the entire load. The subcontractor must then pay within 30 days, or risk losing the protection of this code section. Even if the contractor cannot collect from one subcontractor, it can’t reallocate those costs to the other subcontractors.

These changes affect new contracts after January 1, 2013.

SUMMARY: General contractors need to make better use of insurance, particularly OCIPs and CCIPs. Subcontractors need to understand that their risk is less and that they have a fundamental choice of how to defend claims that are tendered to them.

The better question is, what will the courts deem to be “active negligence” in the years to come?

Larry Lubka
Lubka & White LLP
larry@lubkawhite.com
626-301-0700
This summary is made available by the lawyer or law firm publisher for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. Lubka & White LLP does not offer or dispense legal advice through such articles, blog posts, or other publications. This article is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified attorney licensed in your state.

AVAILABLE COURSE TOPICS

Listed below are just a few of the topics I have addressed in 30 years of giving seminars and courses regarding construction law, public works and government contracts. All of my courses are regularly updated to reflect changes in codes and regulations, as well as recent court decisions. If your organization, company or public entity is interested in a course focusing on one or more of the topics below, let us give you a proposal. A two hour course held at Lubka & White’s office can cost as little as $500.

We are willing to customize courses for your organization alone. By example, we can provide your people with a paragraph by paragraph review of your standard contract or we can examine a challenging situation your company has faced and provide guidance regarding how to handle that type of situation in the future.

1. FUNDAMENTALS

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTING
PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTING
COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
FEDERAL CONTRACTS
SUPPLIER CONTRACTS / UCC

2. TYPES OF CONTRACTS

LUMP SUM
INCENTIVE
GMAX
T&M
COST TYPE CONTRACTS
DESIGN BUILD
CM A RISK
LEASE – LEASE BACK
PPP

3. ACCOUNTING

CHANGE ORDER COST ACCOUNTING
G&A

4. LICENSING

PENALTIES FOR NONLICENSURE
RMO AND RME ISSUES

5. TERMS AND CONDITIONS

SCOPE
PAYMENT / PROMPT PAYMENT
INDEMNITY / MAJOR CHANGES FOR 2013
SCHEDULING
CLAIMS
CLAIMS PREVENTION
TERMINATION FOR CAUSE
TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE
FORCE MAJEURE
ESCALATION ISSUES

6. INSURANCE

TYPES OF INSURANCE
OCIP / CCIP

7. SURETY

BID BONDS
PAYMENT BONDS
PERFORMANCE BONDS

8. PUBLIC BIDDING

BIDDING PROCESS
SUBCONTRACTOR LISTING
SELECTION
BID PROTESTS / WRITS OF MANDATE
PREVAILING WAGE ISSUES
WHEN ARE CHANGE ORDERS ENFORCEABLE – A MAJOR CHANGE IN THE COURTS’ VIEW OF CHANGE ORDERS

9. CONTRACT MANAGEMENT

SCHEDULE
CHANGE ORDER REQUESTS

10. DISPUTES

DISPUTE AVOIDANCE
DISPUTE NOTICE
PREPARING A CLAIM
SUPPORTING A CLAIM
DELAY CLAIMS AND CRITICAL PATH
UNKNOWN CONDITIONS
MEDIATION AND OTHER ADR
ARBITRATION AND TRIAL
IMPACT OF REDUCED STATE RESOURCES

11. DEFECT CLAIMS AND SB 800

12. MECHANIC’S LIEN CLAIMS AND RECENT STATUTORY CHANGES

13. STOP PAYMENT NOTICES AND RECENT STATUTORY CHANGES

14. PAYMENT BOND CLAIMS AND RECENT STATUTORY CHANGES

15. PROMPT PAYMENT CLAIMS

16. FALSE CLAIMS ACT (FEDERAL AND STATE)

17. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

a. FEDERAL BIDDING AND BID PROTESTS
b. BCA CLAIMS
c. 8 (a) PROGRAM
d. FAR ISSUES

18. OVERVIEW COURSES (“BASICS OF ….”)

19. END OF YEAR STATUS COURSES