California Construction Law, Nineteenth Edition, provides both practical information that can be used by construction industry professionals as well as detailed legal analyses of California construction law.

Some of the important topics discussed in the Nineteenth Edition include the following:

• The one-year statute of limitation under California Code of Civil Procedure §430(a) applies to a disgorgement claim under Business and Professions Code §7031, the claim is not subject to tolling under the delayed discovery rule or other equitable doctrines, and such claim accrues when the unlicensed contractor completes or ceases performance of the act or contract at issue. See §1.01[A].

• Effective January 1, 2021, the Contractors State License Board added a new license classification, the B-2 Residential Remodeling Contractor, whose principal business is making improvements to wood-frame residential structures as more specifically set forth in section 7057.5 of the California Business and Professions Code. See §1.02.

• Liquidated damages provisions can be invalidated if proven unreasonable under California Civil Code §1671. See §5.02.

• In McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court held that the Right to Repair Act was intended to supplant common law with new rules governing the method of recovery in construction defect actions, unless the Act provided an explicit exception. See §5.08.

• In State Farm General Insurance Co. v. Oetiker, Inc., the California Court of Appeal further clarified the Right to Repair Act, and the court also held that the Act covers claims from work completed by nonbuilders based on negligence and breach of contract, but not those based on strict liability and breach of implied warranty. See §5.08.

• The California Supreme Court emphasized the distinction between breach of contract and tort actions in Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. See §5.13.

• California Rules of Court Emergency Rule 9, effective April 6, 2020, tolls the statutes of limitations for civil causes of action that exceed 180 days from April 6, 2020, until October 1, 2020. Civil causes of action with statutes of limitations of 180 days or less are tolled from April 6, 2020, until August 3, 2020. See §6.07[C][1].

• In Butler America, LLC v. Aviation Assurance Co., the California Court of Appeal found that a material breach of a settlement agreement terminates the parties' rights in the agreement and their releases. See §6.15.

• The California Supreme Court found in Kaanaana v. Barrett Business Services, Inc. that the definition of public works under Labor Code §1720(a)(2) was broad enough to cover workers who sorted items on conveyor belts at a county sanitation district's recycling facility; however, the same court, in Mendoza v. Fonseca McElroy Grinding Co., Inc., held that Labor Code §1722 did not provide a basis for requiring payment of prevailing wages to workers performing mobilization of heavy machinery transported to and from a public works site. See §13.02[A].

• In Wilson-Davis v. SSP America, Inc., the California Court of Appeal held that arbitrability must be decided by a court unless an arbitration provision explicitly provides otherwise, and the provision must clearly and unmistakably delegate the threshold issue of arbitrability. See §14.02[C].

• In Ali v. Daylight Transport, LLC, the California Court of Appeal held that an arbitration clause was procedurally unconscionable because the contract was presented as a contract of adhesion and consisted of a standardized, preprinted form in small font, with the arbitration provision appearing near the end of the 15th page. See §14.02[C][1].

• In Davis v. Kozak, the California Court of Appeal denied a motion to compel arbitration even though the contract had minimal procedural unconscionability, but had two substantively unconscionable terms involving limited discovery and non-mutuality. See §14.02[F][1].

• In Speier v. Advantage Fund, LLC, the California Court of Appeal held that an arbitrator's failure to disclose his ownership interest in the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) company or the extent of the company's business with the opposing firm would raise a doubt about the arbitrator's impartiality in an arbitration between sophisticated parties in a business dispute, where both parties were represented by large firms who frequently used the services of the same ADR service provider. See §14.02[H].

• In Roussos v. Roussos, the California Court of Appeal ruled that parties may not contract away California's statutory protections involving disclosure requirements. See §14.03[E].

• A discussion of amendment to California Evidence Code §1122 and addition of §1129. Effective January 1, 2019, California attorneys are required to provide written disclosures to their clients explaining the mediation confidentiality restrictions. See §14.03[E].