SoCalLandscaper
Junior Member
What is the name of your state? CA
We are a licensed contractor in state with three classifications in landscape, pool, and concrete. We contracted to do a remodel on a job which included building a stucco deck/balcony. The stucco deck/balcony is non-watertight with travertine floor and wrought iron railing (wrought-iron contracted directly with homeowner). As in our state the description of non-watertight deck/balconies that a C-27 can build is a "grey" area according to the CSLB, we elected to subcontract that portion of the project to a "B" General Contractor whose license is higher than our three. The job is completed and all passed inspections by the city. The homeowner has now hired an attorney and is suing us for the entire amount of the project ($225,000.00) claiming we were not licensed under our classification to CONTRACT TO BUILD the stucco deck/balcony even though we subcontracted out to a B-General. The opposing attorney is siting the following cases: Calif. B & P Code 7031(b), Currie v. Stolowitz (1959) 169Cal.App.2d 810, 815; Vallejo Development Co. v. Beck Development Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 929, 941; and MW Erectors, Inc. v. Niederhauser Ornamental & Metal Works Co., Inc. (2005 36 Cal.4th 412, 425. Is there something in the IBC that states it's OK to sub to a B-General for work of this nature because the B-General's license is higher?
In all of these cases I've looked up it talks about UNLICENSED contractors signing contracts. We are not unlicensed. As this deck/balcony is "incidental" to the entire project, less than 10%, and we subbed it out to a B-General, how can this guy expect to win in court? There is absolutely nothing wrong with any of the work. That is not the question in the suit. I think this homeowner found this attorney just so he could try and get back all of his money on this project. How is this legal? Any help you can give with this would be greatly appreciated. We have hired an attorney, but I am trying to do research on my own about this as our family could not handle a loss of this nature. It would put us out of business. Thank you.
We are a licensed contractor in state with three classifications in landscape, pool, and concrete. We contracted to do a remodel on a job which included building a stucco deck/balcony. The stucco deck/balcony is non-watertight with travertine floor and wrought iron railing (wrought-iron contracted directly with homeowner). As in our state the description of non-watertight deck/balconies that a C-27 can build is a "grey" area according to the CSLB, we elected to subcontract that portion of the project to a "B" General Contractor whose license is higher than our three. The job is completed and all passed inspections by the city. The homeowner has now hired an attorney and is suing us for the entire amount of the project ($225,000.00) claiming we were not licensed under our classification to CONTRACT TO BUILD the stucco deck/balcony even though we subcontracted out to a B-General. The opposing attorney is siting the following cases: Calif. B & P Code 7031(b), Currie v. Stolowitz (1959) 169Cal.App.2d 810, 815; Vallejo Development Co. v. Beck Development Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 929, 941; and MW Erectors, Inc. v. Niederhauser Ornamental & Metal Works Co., Inc. (2005 36 Cal.4th 412, 425. Is there something in the IBC that states it's OK to sub to a B-General for work of this nature because the B-General's license is higher?
In all of these cases I've looked up it talks about UNLICENSED contractors signing contracts. We are not unlicensed. As this deck/balcony is "incidental" to the entire project, less than 10%, and we subbed it out to a B-General, how can this guy expect to win in court? There is absolutely nothing wrong with any of the work. That is not the question in the suit. I think this homeowner found this attorney just so he could try and get back all of his money on this project. How is this legal? Any help you can give with this would be greatly appreciated. We have hired an attorney, but I am trying to do research on my own about this as our family could not handle a loss of this nature. It would put us out of business. Thank you.