BILL ANALYSIS Ķ
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2015-2016 Regular Session
SB 885 (Wolk)
Version: April 18, 2016
Hearing Date: May 3, 2016
Fiscal: No
Urgency: No
TH
SUBJECT
Construction Contracts: Indemnity
DESCRIPTION
This bill provides that a design professional, as defined, shall
only have the duty to defend himself or herself from claims and
lawsuits that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to, the
negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the design
professional, as specified. This bill provides that a design
professional shall have no duty to defend claims and lawsuits
against other persons or entities, and that a design
professional shall be obligated to reimburse reasonable defense
costs incurred by other persons or entities, limited to the
design professional's degree of fault, as determined by a court,
arbitration, or negotiated settlement. This bill would apply to
contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2017.
BACKGROUND
During the past several years, the Legislature has enacted a
number of measures intended to address the use of certain types
of risk shifting in indemnity agreements, particularly those
that appear in contracts for residential construction and public
works.
In 2005, AB 758 (Calderon, Ch. 394, Stats. 2005) was enacted to
address alleged abuses of "Type I" indemnification clauses in
contracts imposed on subcontractors by builders. These clauses
typically required the subcontractor to assume liability for the
builder's negligence and misconduct, beyond what the
SB 885 (Wolk)
Page 2 of ?
subcontractor would be obligated to pay under tort law in the
absence of the Type I agreement. Under AB 758, all provisions
contained in residential construction contracts entered into
after January 1, 2006, that purport to indemnify the builder by
a subcontractor against liability for claims of construction
defects are unenforceable to the extent the claims pertain to,
or relate to the negligence of the builder or his or her agents.
These provisions of existing law may not be waived or modified
by contractual agreement, act, or omission of the parties.
The following year, the Legislature built upon AB 758 by
enacting AB 573 (Wolk, Ch. 455, Stats. 2006) in response to
concerns that local public agencies were requiring broad
indemnity agreements in contracts with design professionals.
Those agreements were generally requiring the design
professional to hold the public agency harmless against the
conduct of the public agency or other third parties in a public
works project. AB 573 provided that, for contracts entered into
on or after January 1, 2007, with a public agency for design
professional services, all provisions that purport to indemnify
the public agency against liability for claims against the
public agency, are unenforceable, except for claims that arise
out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness,
or willful misconduct of the design professional.
That same year, the Legislature enacted SB 138 (Calderon, Ch.
32, Stats. 2007), which provided that in residential
construction contracts, provisions that purported to require
subcontractors to indemnify a general contractor or contractor
not affiliated with the builder would be unenforceable to the
extent they related to the negligence of the non-affiliated
general contractor or contractor. SB 138 sought to end a
practice in residential construction contracting where existing
laws limiting risk shifting agreements were being circumvented
through hiring an unaffiliated general contractor or contractor
to act in the builder's stead in contracting with
subcontractors.
Subsequently, AB 2738 (Jones, Ch. 467, Stats. 2008) was enacted
as a follow up to AB 758 due to concerns that builders had been
circumventing the intent of AB 758 by requiring subcontractors
to pay for the builder's defense costs that had no relation to
the contractor's work. AB 2738, among other things, provided
that a subcontractor would have no defense or indemnity
obligation to a builder or general contractor for a construction
SB 885 (Wolk)
Page 3 of ?
defect claim unless, and until, the builder or general
contractor provides a written tender of the claim to the
subcontractor which includes all of the information provided to
the builder or general contractor by the claimant or claimants
relating to claims caused by that subcontractor's scope of work.
Finally, SB 972 (Wolk, Ch. 510, Stats. 2010) was enacted to
address issues left unresolved by prior legislation with respect
to a design professional's exposure to liability for defense
costs in indemnity agreements contained in contracts with public
agencies. SB 972 provided, with respect to contracts and
solicitation documents between design professionals and public
agencies, that all provisions which purport to require the
design professional to defend the public agency under an
indemnity agreement, including the duty and the cost to defend,
are unenforceable, except for claims that arise out of, pertain
to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful
misconduct of the design professional.
This bill would extend the protections for design professionals
that were enacted in SB 972. Specifically, the bill would state
that a design professional shall only have the duty to defend
himself or herself from claims and lawsuits that arise out of,
pertain to, or relate to, the negligence, recklessness, or
willful misconduct of the design professional, commencing with
contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2017, whether with
a public agency or with another party. The bill would state
that design professionals have no duty to defend claims and
lawsuits against other persons or entities, and that design
professionals are obligated to reimburse reasonable defense
costs incurred by other persons or entities, limited to the
design professional's degree of fault, as determined by a court,
arbitration, or negotiated settlement. This bill would not
apply to contracts where a project-specific general liability
policy insures all project participants for general liability
exposure on a primary basis, or to design professionals who are
party to a written design-build joint venture agreement.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law provides that specified rules are to be applied in
the interpretation of a contract of indemnity, unless a contrary
intention appears. Pursuant to these rules, an indemnity
against claims, or demands, or liability, embraces the costs of
SB 885 (Wolk)
Page 4 of ?
defense against such claims, demands, or liability. (Civ. Code
Sec. 2778.)
Existing law provides that the person indemnifying is bound, on
request of the person indemnified, to defend actions or
proceedings brought against the latter in respect to the matters
embraced by the indemnity. However, the person indemnified has
the right to conduct those defenses, if he or she chooses to do
so. (Civ. Code Sec. 2778.)
Existing case law states that, unless otherwise provided, a duty
to defend under the above provisions arises out of an indemnity
obligation as soon as the litigation commences, and regardless
of whether the indemnitor (the person indemnifying) is
ultimately found negligent. (Crawford v. Weather Shield (2008)
44 Cal.4th 541; see also UDC-Universal Development, L.P. v. CH2M
Hill (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 10.)
Existing law states, for all contracts, and amendments thereto,
entered into on or after January 1, 2007, with a public agency
for design professional services, all provisions, clauses,
covenants, and agreements contained in, collateral to, or
affecting any such contract, and amendments thereto, that
purport to indemnify, including the duty and the cost to defend,
the public agency by a design professional against liability for
claims against the public agency, are unenforceable, except for
claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the
negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the design
professional. (Civ. Code Sec. 2782.8.)
Existing law specifies, for purposes of the above provision,
that "design professional" includes all of the following:
an individual licensed as an architect, and a business entity
offering architectural services, as specified;
an individual licensed as a landscape architect, and a
business entity offering landscape architectural services, as
specified;
an individual registered as a professional engineer, and a
business entity offering professional engineering services as
specified; and
an individual licensed as a professional land surveyor, and a
business entity offering professional land surveying services,
as specified.
This bill states that commencing with contracts entered into on
SB 885 (Wolk)
Page 5 of ?
or after January 1, 2017, a design professional shall only have
the duty to defend himself or herself from claims and lawsuits
that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to, the negligence,
recklessness, or willful misconduct of the design professional.
This bill states that a design professional shall have no duty
to defend claims and lawsuits against other persons or entities.
This bill states that a design professional shall be obligated
to reimburse reasonable defense costs incurred by other persons
or entities, limited to the design professional's degree of
fault, as determined by a court, arbitration, or negotiated
settlement.
This bill specifies that its provisions do not apply to either
of the following:
a claim, lawsuit, or arbitration demand where a
project-specific general liability policy insures all project
participants for general liability exposures on a primary
basis and also covers all design professionals for their legal
liability arising out of their professional services on a
primary basis; or
a design professional who is a party to a written design-build
joint venture agreement.
This bill specifies that its provisions shall not be waived or
modified by contract, that contract provisions in violation
these provisions are void and unenforceable, and that the duty
of a design professional to defend is limited as provided in the
above provisions.
This bill makes related findings and declarations.
COMMENT
1.Stated need for the bill
According to the author:
Senate Bill 885 prohibits contracts that require state
licensed design professionals, including engineers, land
surveyors, architects, and landscape architects, to defend
claims made against other persons or entities involved in
construction projects. A design professional's Errors &
Omissions professional liability insurance does not provide
SB 885 (Wolk)
Page 6 of ?
coverage for the defense of claims against other persons and
entities involved in construction projects. It only covers
claims related to the negligent acts of the design
professional. A first-dollar expense obligation essentially
converts the design professional's firm into the functional
equivalent of an unlicensed insurance company. It is in the
public's best interest for all persons and entities in
projects to defend themselves against claims of negligence or
error. Design professionals will pay their proportional share
of defense costs. However, when insurance coverage is not
available, it is unfair to obligate them to defend lawsuits
against other persons or entities.
This bill:
Maintains the current requirement that design
professionals have the duty to defend claims that are the
result of their misconduct.
Specifies that design professionals do not have an
immediate and uninsurable duty to defend claims against
other persons or entities with whom they contract.
Requires that design professionals reimburse reasonable
defense costs incurred by other persons or entities with
whom they contract, tied directly to the design
professional's degree of fault.
1.Crawford v. Weather Shield
In Crawford v. Weather Shield (2008) 44 Cal.4th 541, the
California Supreme Court considered whether, by their particular
terms, the provisions of a pre-2006 residential construction
subcontract obliged a subcontractor to defend its indemnitee,
the developer-builder of the project, in lawsuits brought
against both parties, even though (1) a jury ultimately found
that the subcontractor was not negligent, and (2) the parties
had accepted an interpretation of the subcontract that gave the
builder no right of indemnity unless the subcontractor was
negligent. In the contract at issue, Weather Shield (the
subcontractor) promised to (1) "indemnify and save [contractor]
harmless against all claims for damages ? losses, ? and/or theft
growing out of the execution of [Weather Shield's] work," and
(2) "at [its] own expense to defend any suit or action brought
against [the contractor] founded upon the claim of such
damage[,] loss, ? or theft." (Id. at 547-548.)
The Court held that the terms of the agreement, even if strictly
SB 885 (Wolk)
Page 7 of ?
construed in Weather Shield's favor, obligated Weather Shield to
defend, from the outset, any suit against the general contractor
insofar that the suit was founded upon claims alleging damage or
loss arising from the Weather Shield's negligence. The Court
interpreted Civil Code Section 2778(d), as placing in every
indemnity contract, unless otherwise provided, a separate duty
to assume the indemnitee's defense if tendered against all
claims embraced by the indemnity. The Court further held that
this duty does not depend on the outcome of the litigation, and
the subcontractor thus had a contractual duty to defend the suit
even thought it was later found not to be negligent.
In reaching this decision, the Court noted that, in noninsurance
contexts, the indemnitee often has superior bargaining power,
which it may utilize to unfairly shift a disproportionate share
of the financial consequences of its own legal fault onto
someone else. (Id. at 552.) The Court further noted that these
policy reasons have been the basis for statutory limits on the
enforceability of noninsurance indemnity agreements in the
construction industry. (Id.) However, focusing on the specific
language of the contract, the Court found that Weather Shield
had a contractual obligation to defend claims alleging damage or
loss arising from Weather Shield's negligent role in the
residential project.
Two years later, the California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate
District, applied the Crawford holding in UDC-Universal
Development, L.P. v. CH2M Hill (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 10. The
court held that, pursuant to the specific terms of the contract
at issue, a design professional had a duty to defend a developer
of a condominium project independent from the duty to indemnify,
even though a jury ultimately found that the design professional
had not been negligent. The court further held that the duty to
defend arose when the homeowners association alleged harm
resulting from deficient work that was within the scope of the
services for which the developer had retained the consultant.
The court found that the clause under scrutiny was comparable to
the one in Crawford in that it was broadly worded to apply to
claims connected in any way to any negligent act or omission by
the design professional. (Id. at 21.) The court thus rejected
the design professional's assertion that the underlying
plaintiff must have alleged negligence by the design
professional in order for the defense obligation. The court
noted that such a requirement would contravene Civil Code
Section 2778 and the Supreme Court's admonition that a duty to
SB 885 (Wolk)
Page 8 of ?
defend arises out of an indemnity obligation as soon as
litigation commences and regardless of whether the indemnitor is
ultimately found negligent. (Id. at 21-22.)
2.Response to Crawford and subsequent decisions
The Legislature enacted SB 972 (Wolk, Ch. 510, Stats. 2010)
largely in response to the Crawford ruling that a duty to defend
is a separate obligation that arises out of an indemnity
agreement which commences at the outset of litigation,
irrespective of whether the indemnitor is found negligent. SB
972 provided, with respect to contracts and solicitation
documents between design professionals and public agencies, that
all provisions which purport to require the design professional
to defend the public agency under an indemnity agreement,
including the duty and the cost to defend, are unenforceable,
except for claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to
the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the
design professional.
Despite the enactment of SB 972, a broad range of stakeholders
have represented that contracts entered into with design
professionals continue to include terms that would trigger an
immediate duty to defend claims against other parties,
particularly in complex, multi-party actions. According to the
sponsor, American Council of Engineering Companies, California
(ACEC):
[These obligations] are particularly risky to the public and
onerous because design professionals are distinguishable from
contractors in two ways:
No Insurance: The insurance products that (1) provide
coverage to a contractor who contractually agrees to defend
its client and (2) allows a contractor to name its client
as an additional insured do not exist for design
professionals. A designer's professional liability policy
does not cover an agreement to defend a third party and
does not afford additional insured status to a design
professional's client.
Personal liability: Licensed design professionals are
required to seal construction drawings by stamping them,
which creates personal liability for the design
professional, regardless of the corporate or business
entity formation of the firm.
SB 885 (Wolk)
Page 9 of ?
ACEC asserts that "[r]equiring a design professional to provide
an immediate defense to a third party creates an uninsured
exposure that places the public at risk, [the] individual's
personal assets at risk, [and] sets a false expectation for a
public agency or private developer that it will be defended in a
lawsuit."
This bill responds to those concerns by explicitly stating that
a design professional shall have no duty to defend claims and
lawsuits against other persons or entities, and that a design
professional shall only be obligated to reimburse reasonable
defense costs incurred by other persons or entities, limited to
the design professional's degree of fault, as determined by a
court, arbitration, or negotiated settlement. The bill would
continue to require a design professional to defend himself or
herself from claims and lawsuits that arise out of, pertain to,
or relate to, the negligence, recklessness, or willful
misconduct of the design professional.
1.Shifting defense cost burdens
This bill would potentially allow design professionals to avoid
defense costs in certain types of lawsuits involving mixed
claims against multiple parties. By its terms, the bill would
likely exclude design professionals from participating in the
defense of lawsuits against "other persons or entities," even if
such a suit involved claims relating to the design
professional's work or conduct. For such claims, the bill would
instead require a design professional to reimburse reasonable
defense costs incurred by those other persons or entities,
"limited to the design professional's degree of fault, as
determined by a court, arbitration, or negotiated settlement."
Design professionals, unlike other litigants, would apparently
have no duty to contribute toward defense costs while such a
suit is pending, and no duty to reimburse would apparently
attach if the conclusion of the suit resulted in a defense
verdict.
Generally, in the United States, the "American rule" is that
parties are to bear their own costs in civil litigation.
Indemnity agreements entered into by parties, such as those
affected by this bill, shift the responsibility of a party to
bear their litigation costs in some fashion. As discussed above
in the Background, the Legislature has considered several bills
in the last few years addressing various abuses that parties in
SB 885 (Wolk)
Page 10 of ?
the construction industry have engaged in with regard to
indemnity agreements. According to the California Special
Districts Association (CSDA), whose views are representative of
a large segment of opposition stakeholders, this bill would
unfairly shift the costs of defending lawsuits involving design
professionals to public sector agencies. CSDA writes:
SB 885 forces taxpayers and ratepayers to front the legal
costs for the private sector, even for claims where the design
professional is ultimately deemed to be 100 percent at fault.
Requiring the public agency to defend the actions of the
design professional creates a "reimbursement only" process
that results in the public agency defending the actions of the
design professional and shouldering upfront all of the
associated costs. The public agency would then have to seek
reimbursement from the design professional, to the extent the
design professional is found negligent, once a settlement is
reached or the claim is fully litigated and a court or
arbitrator renders a final decision. This process not only
requires a public entity to front the costs for a private
entity, it also creates conflict within the public-private
partnership, effectually eliminating the incentive to work
together towards a swift settlement.
SB 885 stipulates a "one-size fits all" solution to
contractual negotiations by establishing a reimbursement-only
system, with public entities paying defense costs until a
final determination of degree of fault is determined by a
court, arbitration or settlement. The bill specifies that
these provisions may not be waived or modified by contract.
This precludes public entities and their design professional
partners from negotiating other contractual arrangements that
may better suit the particulars of a project.
CSDA also states that "defense costs are not necessarily
reflective of an entity's finally determined liability." It is
not unusual for a party to successfully defend against a
lawsuit, yet bear responsibility for paying the costs of its
defense. CSDA states that "[a]s such, it does not make sense to
limit the design professional's defense obligation strictly to
the percentage of determined liability in a judicial system
without that direct correlation."
To more fairly apportion defense costs among design
professionals and other parties in complex, multi-party
SB 885 (Wolk)
Page 11 of ?
litigation, while simultaneously ensuring that design
professionals are not held financially responsible for the full
cost of defending such suits, the Committee may wish to consider
the following set of amendments. These amendments would nullify
clauses in indemnity agreements that require design
professionals to defend claims against other parties, but would
still allow other parties to bring design professionals into
lawsuits involving claims related to their performance through a
cross-complaint or other procedural mechanism to expand the
scope of a suit. By eliminating these clauses in indemnity
agreements, the amendments would also require parties to bear
their own costs in litigation in-line with the "American rule."
Suggested Amendments :
On page 6, strike lines 31 through 40, on page 7, strike lines
1 through 2, and insert:
(j) (1) Commencing with contracts entered into on or after
January 1, 2017, a design professional, as defined in
paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 2782.8, shall only
have the duty to defend himself or herself from claims that
arise out of, pertain to, or relate to, the negligence,
recklessness, or willful misconduct of the design
professional. All provisions, clauses, covenants, and
agreements contained in, collateral to, or affecting any such
contract that purport to require a design professional to
defend claims against another party shall be unenforceable.
(2) Paragraph (1) does not prohibit a design professional from
mutually agreeing with another party to the timing or
immediacy of a defense and provisions for reimbursement of
defense fees and costs, so long as that agreement does not
waive or modify the provisions of paragraph (1).
(3) Paragraph (1) shall not be construed to affect any duty of
a design professional to pay a reasonable allocated share of
the defense fees and costs with respect to claims and lawsuits
alleging negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of
the design professional on an ongoing basis during their
pendency, including any amounts reallocated upon final
resolution of a claim or lawsuit, either by settlement or
judgment.
Support : Adobe Associates, Inc.; AECOM; Alan Burr, Murphy Burr
Curry Inc.; Alex Kiam, National Engineering & Consulting, Inc.;
Allied Geotechnical Engineers, Inc.; AllWest Environmental,
SB 885 (Wolk)
Page 12 of ?
Inc.; Alta Vista; AMA Inc.; American Institute of Architects,
California Council; American Society of Landscape Architects;
American Society of Landscape Architects, San Diego Chapter;
Anderson Penna; Ashley & Vance Engineering, Inc.; Associated
Transportation Engineers; Atkins North America, Inc.; ATM
Engineering; Avila and Associates; Axiom Engineers;
Baker-Williams Engineering Group; Bedrock Engineering; Benner
and Caprenter, Inc.; BergerABAM; Bhatia Associates, Inc.; Biggs
Cardosa Associates, Inc.; Blackburn Consulting; Blair, Church, &
Flynn Consulting Engineers; BKF Engineers; Brian Foust
Architecture; Buehler & Buehler Structural Engineers, Inc.;
Burns McDonnell; Calhoun + Associates, Inc.; Bryant Surveys,
Inc.; California Department of Insurance; California Land
Surveyors Association; California Professional Association of
Specialty Contractors; California Society of Professional
Engineers; Callas Architects; CALTROP; CASC Engineering &
Consulting; CBC Geospatial Consulting, Inc.; CDM Smith, Inc.;
CEI Engineering Associates, Inc.; Cesar A. Sifuentes, P.E.; CHJ
Consultants; CH2MHILL; Charles M Salter & Associates; Chaudhary
& Associates, Inc.; Christensen Engineering & Surveying;
Christian Wheeler Engineering; Civil Design Consultants, Inc.;
Clark & Green Associates; Clark, Richardson and Biskup
Consulting Engineers, Inc.; Cleary Consultants, Inc.; CNC
Engineering; Coast Surveying, Inc.; Coleman Engineering;
Converse Consultants; Cornerstone Earth Group; Cornerstone
Structural Engineering Group, Inc.; Covello Group; CPC
Architects; Craig Hiett, Advanced Structural Design, Inc.;
Creegan & D'Angelo Engineers; CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering
Group, Inc.; CTS Inc.; Cullen-Sherry & Associates, Inc.; CYS
Structural Engineers; Dahlin Group; Dale Hendsbee, Mesiti-Miller
Engineering Inc.; Dane Hansen, BWE Structural Engineering; David
Cocke, Structural Focus; David H. Lee & Associates, Inc.; Dealy,
Renton & Associates; Degenkolb Engineers; DES Architects +
Engineers, Inc.; Design Group; DGA Planning Architecture
Interiors; Diaz, Yourman & Associates; DMHA Architecture &
Interior Design; Drake Haglan and Associates; D. Wooley &
Associates; Earth Systems, Inc.; EFS Engineering, Inc.; EHDD;
ENGEO Incorporated; ESA Associates; Evergreen Landscape
Architects, Inc.; FOG Studios; Fougeron Architecture; Francis
Lo, Miyamoto International; FTF Engineering, Inc.; Gast
Architects; GEI Consultants; Gekko Engineering, Inc.; GEOCON
Incorporated; Geoprofessional Business Association; Geotechnical
Professionals, Inc.; Gerard M. Nieblas, S.E.; Ghirardelli
Associates; Gouveia Engineering, Inc.; Gregory P. Luth &
Associates; Group Delta Consultants, Inc.; Guida Surveying,
SB 885 (Wolk)
Page 13 of ?
Inc.; Haney Station, Inc.; Harris & Associates; Harris & Sloan
Consulting Engineers, Inc.; Harris Design; Hatch Mott MacDonald;
HDR; Henry Liang-AECOM; Hermann Design Group; Heston Chau
Architect; HMH Engineers; HNTB; Hogan Land Services;
Hope-Amundson Structural Engineers; Huitt-Zollars; Huntsman
Architectural Group; Infrastructure Engineering Corporation;
Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc.; Insight Structural
Engineers; Insurance Office of America; Island Architects; Jack
Brewer, Advanced Structural Design, Inc.; James A. Adams, S.E.;
James Hill Architect; Jason Horwedel; Jeff Sultan, P.E.; John
Corless, Nichols Melburg & Rossetto; Joseph P. Paoluccio; Joseph
C. Truxaw & Associates, Inc.; Josephson Werdowatz & Associates;
Kennedy and Associates; Kennedy/Jenks Consults; Kenneth
Luttrell, CYS Structural Engineers Inc.; Kier & Wright, Civil
Engineers & Surveyors, Inc.; Kimley Horn; Kister, Savio & Rei,
Inc.; Kjeldsen, Sinnock & Neudeck, Inc.; KKCS World, Inc.;
Kleinfelder; KMA Architecture; KNA Consulting Engineers, Inc.;
KOA Corporation; Konet Architecture; KPFF Consulting Engineers,
Inc.; KSA Design Studio; L & L Bridges; L.A. Paul & Associates;
Land Concern; Lane Engineers, Inc.; Laugenour and Meikle; LCC
Engineering & Survey, Inc.; Lee Engelmeier, Smith Structural
Group, LLP; Lee & Pierce, Inc.; Leighton Consulting, Inc.;
Leppert Engineering Corporation; Lescure Engineers, Inc.;
Lexington Insurance Company; Liftech Consultants, Inc.; Lopez
Engineering, Inc.; Lynn Capouya, Inc.; Marguerite Bello, S.E.;
Mark Bozzo, Advanced Structural Design, Inc.; Mark Davis Design;
Mark English Architects; Martin & Libby Structural Engineers;
Matthew Knusten, Peoples Associates Structural Engineers;
Madrone Engineering; Max Moheb, S.E.; Melineh Zamorrodian,
Structural Focus; Melissa Sanchez, Structural Focus;
Mesiti-Miller Engineering, Inc.; Michael Baker International;
Michael Parolini, Smith Structural Group, LLP; Michael Smith,
Smith Structural Group, LLP; Michael Woods, P.E.; Mike
Kaszpurenko, S.E.; MK Engineering Group, Inc.; MKN & Associates;
MNS Engineers, Inc.; Moffat & Nichol; Monterey Bay Engineers,
Inc.; Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce; Morton & Pitalo,
Inc.; Murtaugh, Meyer, Nelson & Treglia, LLP; Nasland
Engineering; Neri Landscape Architecture; Ninyo & Moore;
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc.; NV5; O'Day Consultants,
Inc.; OLMM Consulting Engineers; Option One Consulting
Engineers; Parikh; Patel Burica & Associates Inc.; Peter
Carlson, Miyamoto International; Philip Overbaugh, Architect;
Praxis Consolidated International, Inc.; Precision Civil
Engineering, Inc.; Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group; Psomas;
PZSE, Inc.; Quad Knopf, Inc.; Quattrocchi Kwak Architects;
SB 885 (Wolk)
Page 14 of ?
Quincy Engineering; R2H Engineering, Inc.; Ralph Stone and
Company, Inc.; Randall Lamb; Ratcliff; Raymond Fox & Associates;
RED Architectural Group; RFD; Rick Engineering Company; Riggs
Architecture; RJM Design Group; RMW Architecture & Interiors;
Robert Dack, Advanced Structural Design, Inc.; Robert Gravano,
Advanced Structural Design, Inc.; Ross Yamamoto, P.E.;
Rossington Architecture; RRM Design Group; RSA Consulting Civil
Engineers and Surveyors; RT Engineering & Associates, Inc.;
Rutherford + Chekene; SA Associates; Sage Engineers; Salinas
Valley Chamber of Commerce; Sandis; Schaaf & Wheeler; Scott
Wallace Structural Engineers; SESOL, Inc.; Shannon & Wilson,
Inc.; Snipes-Dye Associates; Sprotte Watson Architecture +
Planning; Standard; Stephen Gonsalves, Nichols Melburg &
Rossetto; Steve H. Nakashima Consulting Civil Engineer; Stevens
Cresto Engineering, Inc.; Stover Engineering; Structural
Engineers Association of California; Stuart Engineering; Studio
Robbins Cortina; Sukow Engineering; Sven Lavine Architecture; SW
Structural, Inc.; Syska Hennessy; T.Y. Lin International; Taylor
Design; TerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc.; Terra Insurance
Company; The Holt Group, Inc.; Tipping Structural Engineers;
Towill, Inc.; Transpedia Consulting Engineers; TranSystems;
Travelers; TSAC Engineering; Tuan and Robinson Structural
Engineers, Inc.; Turpin & Rattan Engineering, Inc.; Twining;
Utility Specialists; Vali Cooper & Associates, Inc.; Vasilis
Papadatos, AIA; VER Consultants; Verdon Architects; Victor D.
Schinnerer & Company, Inc.; Victor Garcia-Delgado; Victor O.
Schinnerer & Company; Viriditas Design; Wagner Engineering &
Survey, Inc.; Wallace Group; Walter P Moore;
Weatherby-Reynolds-Fritson Engineering and Design; Weil & Drage;
West Consultants, Inc.; Whitson Engineers; Wood Rodgers; XL
Catlin; Yagade Consulting, Inc.; Yeh and Associates, Inc.; YEI
Engineers, Inc.; Zurich
Opposition : Alpine Village-Sequoia Crest Community Services
District; Ambrose Recreation and Park District; American Canyon
Fire Protection District; Apple Valley Fire Protection District;
Association of California Healthcare Districts; Association of
California School Administrators; Auburn Area Recreation and
Park District; Barstow Heights Community Services District;
Board of Harbor Commissioners, Moss Landing Harbor District;
Buckingham Park Water District; CAL SMACNA; California
Association of Joint Powers Authorities; California Association
of School Business Officials; California Building Industry
Association; California Legislative Conference of the Plumbing,
Heating and Piping Industry; California-Nevada Conference of
SB 885 (Wolk)
Page 15 of ?
Operating Engineers; California School Boards Association;
California Special Districts Association; California State
Association of Counties; California State Council of Laborers;
The California State University; Calleguas Municipal Water
District; Carpinteria Sanitary District; Chino Valley Fire
District; City of American Canyon; City of Burbank - Office of
the Mayor; City of Morgan Hill; City of Tulelake; Coachella
Valley Water District; Coalition for Adequate School Housing;
Community College Facility Coalition; Construction Employers'
Association; Consumnes Community Services District; County
School Facilities Consortium; Cucumonga Valley Water District;
Dublin San Ramon Services District; Eastern Municipal Water
District; Eastside Rural County Fire Protection District; El
Dorado Irrigation District; Elk Grove Water District; Fresno
Metropolitan Flood Control District; Fulton-El Camino Recreation
& Park District; Garberville Sanitary District; Goleta Sanitary
District; Goleta West Sanitary District; Granada Community
Services District; Greater Vallejo Recreation District; Grizzly
Flats Community Services District; Hayward Area Recreation and
Parks District; Hesperia Recreation and Park District; Hilmar
County Water District; Independent Special Districts of Orange
County; Indian Wells Valley Water District; Inland Empire
Utilities Agency; Irvine Ranch Water District; Kern County
Cemetery District No. 1; Lake Arrowhead Community Services
District; Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District; League of
California Cities; Livermore-Amador Valley Zone 7 Water Agency;
Los Alamos Community Services District; Los Angeles Unified
School District; Los Rios Community College District; Lower Lake
County Waterworks District No. 1; Malaga County Water District;
McCloud Community Services District; McKinleyville Community
Services District; Menlo Park Fire Protection District;
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District; Midway City Sanitary
District; Modesto Irrigation District; Monte Vista Water
District; Monterey County Regional Fire District; Mountain House
Community Services District; Mt. View Sanitary District;
Municipal Water District of Orange County; Murphys Sanitary
District; National Electrical Contractors Association; North
County Fire Protection District; North of the River Recreation &
Park District; Northern California Allied Trades; Novato
Sanitary District; Oakdale Irrigation District; Oceano Community
Services District; Olivenhain Municipal Water District; Orange
County Cemetery District; Otay Water District; Palos Verdes
Library District; Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board; Phelan
Piņon Hills Community Services District; Placer County Water
Agency; Pleasant Hill Recreation & Park District; Rincon del
SB 885 (Wolk)
Page 16 of ?
Diablo Municipal Water District; Riverside County Superintendent
of Schools; Rosamond Community Services District; Rossmoor
Community Services District; Rowland Water District; Rural
County Representatives of California; Sacramento Municipal
Utility District; Salinas Valley Chamber of Commerce; Sanitary
District No. 5 of Marin County; San Juan Water District; San
Lorenzo Valley Water District; San Mateo County Transportation
Authority; San Mateo County Transit District; San Ramon Valley
Fire Protection District; Santa Clara Valley Water District;
Sausalito-Marin City Sanitary District; Self-Help Counties
Coalition; Silver Creek Valley Country Club, Geologic Hazard
Abatement District; Silverado-Modjeska Recreation and Park
District; Spalding Community Services District; South Orange
County Wastewater Authority; South San Joaquin Irrigation
District; South Tahoe Public Utilities District; Southern
California Contractors Association; State Building and
Construction Trades Council; Stege Sanitary District; Stockton
East Water District; Squaw Valley Public Service District;
Summerland Sanitary District; Three Valleys Municipal Water
District; Town of Discovery Bay; Tuolumne Utilities District;
United Contractors; Union Sanitary District; Urban Counties of
California; Vallecitos Water District; Visalia Public Cemetery
District; Vista Irrigation District; Wall and Ceiling Alliance;
West County Wastewater District; West Valley Sanitation District
HISTORY
Source : American Council of Engineering Companies of California
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation : See Background
**************