ASHBURN VIRGINIA BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Appraisal Process Analyzed

August 19, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The California Court of Appeal offered a primer in the appraisal process in reversing the trial court's confirmation of the appraisal award. Lee v. California Capital Ins. Co., 2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 530 (Cal. Ct. App. June 18, 2015). A fire damaged an apartment building owned by the insured. The fire started in unit 3 on the ground floor. The insurer argued the fire did not extend beyond unit 3. The insured claimed that the fire damaged six of the 12 apartments with fire or smoke. The insured's public adjuster submitted a claim to the insurer that exceeded $800,000. The statement of loss included costs for cleaning, asbestos abatement, reconstruction of affected apartments, and loss of rent. The public adjuster said the loss consisted of burn damage to unit 3 and some damage to the "common" walls located between the apartments on the two floors above unit 3. All of the interior rooms of five apartments other than unit 3 would need to be completely dismantled and then replaced. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Construction Defect Claim Did Not Harm Homeowner, Court Rules

September 30, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Minnesota Court of Appeals has ruled in Creswell v. Estate of Howe, a case in which a woman bought a home and then sued the seller’s estate, both sets of real estate agents, and the homeowner’s association over construction defects. A district court ruled against her, granting summary judgment to the other parties.

After buying a townhome “as is,” Catherine Creswell claims to have shared a thought with her agent that the homeowners association was, in the words of her agent, “trying to hide something.” Later, Creswell found that a few days before her closing, the board had discussed problems with “roofs, siding and soundproofing of the townhomes.” The court noted that “it was clear from the documents that appellant [Creswell] received that the association had known about various construction defects for many years, some of which affected [her] unit.”

Creswell initially sued the estate, the man who negotiated the sale for his mother’s estate, the real estate companies and the agents involved, the homeowners association, and four board members. Later she sued for punitive damages, dropped a claim for interference with contractual relations, and dismissed her claims against the individual board members. The court dismissed all of Creswell’s claims awarding costs to those she sued.

The appeals court has affirmed the decision of lower court, noting that Creswell “did not provide us with any argument why the district court erred in dismissing her unjust-enrichment, breach of contract, or rescission claims against the various respondents.” Nor did she provide evidence to support her claims of “breach of duty, fraud, and violation of consumer protection statutes.”

The court noted that Creswell could not sue the homeowners association over the construction defects because she “failed to prove that she was damaged by the association’s nondisclosure.” The court noted that “there are no damages in this case,” as Creswell “was never assessed for any repairs, she had not paid anything out-of-pocket for repairs, and she has presented no evidence that the value of her individual unit has declined because of the alleged undisclosed construction defects.”

The court granted the other parties motion to dismiss and denied Creswell’s motion to supplement the record. Costs were awarded to the respondents.

Read the court’s decision…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

The Road to Rio 2016: Zika, Super Bacteria, and Construction Delays. Sounds Like Everything is Going as Planned

July 28, 2016 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Athletes began to arrive at the Olympic Village in Rio de Janeiro on Sunday in anticipation of the 2016 Summer Olympics which begin on August 5th. Perhaps the most closely watched event, however, has already begun; and it has no medals. And that is whether Brazil can successfully pull off the Olympics at all. For a city known for its Carnival the months leading up to the Olympics have been just as crazy and chaotic as the days leading up to Mardi Gras. There’s the Zika virus, the discovery of a “super” bacteria, the impeachment of its President, and Brazil’s worst recession in 100 years. And that’s just a partial list. And then, of course, there’s the construction. Cities bidding to host the Olympics often cite revenue from tourism and long-term capital improvements which will benefit its populace long after the games have ended as economic justification for hosting the Olympics. However, the cost to host the Olympics is often underestimated and Rio is no exception, running an estimated $6 billion over budget. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---

General Liability Alert: ADA Requirements Pertaining to Wall Space Adjacent to Interior Doors Clarified

February 26, 2015 — Lawrence S. Zucker II and Kristian B. Moriarty – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Kohler v. Bed Bath & Beyond (No. 12-56727, filed February 19, 2015) the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a grant of summary judgment in favor of a department store related to the necessary moving clearance for an interior restroom door pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Plaintiff, Chris Kohler, is paraplegic and requires the use of a wheelchair to move in public. On two separate days in May 2011, Kohler used the restroom inside the Bed Bath & Beyond store in Riverside, California. Of relevance to the appeal, Kohler contends there was less than ten inches of strike-side wall space on the pull side of Bed Bath & Beyond’s restroom door which allegedly made it difficult for Mr. Kohler to pull open the restroom door by pushing off the strike-side wall with one hand while pulling the door handle with the other. He also contends there was less than three inches of strike-side wall or floor space on the push side of the door, making it difficult for Kohler to open the door from the push side. The door at issue did not have a latch which would stop the door from freely swinging on a hinge. Reprinted courtesy of Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Disjointed Proof of Loss Sufficient

June 11, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found that when considered as a whole, separately filed proofs of loss and estimates of damage were sufficient to meet the requirements of a flood policy. Young v. Imperial Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51863 (April 15, 2014). On August 29, 2012, plaintiffs' property sustained flood damage due to Hurricane Isaac. After Imperial's adjustor inspected the property, advance payments were made for $5000 under the building coverage and $5000 under the contents coverage. On October 26, 2012, the plaintiffs' adjustor submitted a proof of loss for building damages, stating the amount of loss was $175,100, which was the policy limit minus the deductible. The insured wife signed the proof of loss. The actual case value, full cost of replacement or repair, and applicable depreciation were listed "undetermined." Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Dispute between City and Construction Company Over Unsightly Arches

April 01, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The city of Swartz Creek, Michigan alleged that Slagter Construction’s work on “Texas-style arches along a new bridge” was “terrible” and doesn’t “match up to what the company promised when it took the job to build the $20,000 walkways that include the arches,” reported M Live. However, Slagter Construction “maintains its repairs were adequate and claims in a letter to the state that the issue shouldn't resolved by local officials who have ‘no formal training or education on these matters.’” According to M Live, “[t]he two sides are set to meet on May 5 with MDOT officials on May 5 in Bay City for arbitration.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Common Law Indemnity Claim Affirmed on Justifiable Beliefs

June 30, 2016 — Rick Erickson – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Yesterday, the Arizona Court of Appeals issued an interesting opinion in Hatch Development v. Solomon. Hatch illustrated two key points in real estate and construction litigation: (1) a contractor’s indemnity does not always require an expressly written obligation; and (2) when facts are undisputed that a contractor is solely at fault for a construction defect, a property owner can be indemnified after paying a neighboring property owner for damages caused by the contractor’s defective work. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Rick Erickson, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Erickson may be contacted at rerickson@swlaw.com

---

Pennsylvania: Searching Questions Ahead of Oral Argument in Domtar

October 08, 2014 — Robert Caplan – White and Williams LLP
If you have been following our coverage of Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Domtar Paper Co., you will recall that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided on May 29, 2014 to hear the subrogated insurer’s appeal,1 despite the Superior Court’s holding against the subrogated insurer—based primarily on its own defective case law2 —and its denial of reargument, presumably due to the insurer’s briefing follies.3 The parties in Domtar, as well as numerous amici curiae (friends of the court),4 have submitted their respective briefs over the last few months, and the Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument to take place on October 8, 2014 in Pittsburgh, Pa. The Court has framed the issue as: “Does Section 319 of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, 77 P.S. § 671, allow the employer/insurer to step into the shoes of the insured employee to subrogate against the tortfeasor?”5 There are three possible outcomes in Domtar. The first (and easiest) possible outcome for the Supreme Court would be to punt to the Pennsylvania General Assembly for a decision on the issue. Workers’ compensation legislation, perhaps more than any other type of legislation, “creates a highly structured balancing of competing interests.”6 It is basic civics that the legislature has a “superior ability to examine social policy issues and determine legal standards so as to balance competing concerns.”7 Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Robert Caplan, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Caplan may be contacted at caplanr@whiteandwilliams.com

---