Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

A Riveting (or at Least Insightful) Explanation of the Privette Doctrine

May 02, 2022 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
“The wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine” – Plutarch And grind they do . . . slowly. For long time readers of the California Construction Law Blog you may recall a case we reported on over three years ago in 2018 – Sandoval v. Qualcomm Incorporated – a rather sad case about a severely injured employee of an electrical subcontractor with an even more surprisingly ending. In Sandoval, the 4th District Court of Appeals affirmed a $7 million judgment against project owner Qualcomm Incorporated in which a jury found that Qualcomm was liable under the Privette doctrine for injuries sustained by the employee who was severely burned over one third of his body by an “arc flash” from a live circuit breaker. The Court of Appeals, in a surprising decision, upheld the verdict holding that Qualcomm was liable even through: (1) Qualcomm had informed the electrical subcontractor that certain live circuit breakers were energized; (2) Qualcomm had not authorized the lower-tiered contractor to remove a panel that resulted in the arc flash; and (3) employees of Qualcomm were not in the room when the accident happened. Fast forward three years to September 2021. Qualcomm attorneys petition the California Supreme Court for review of the Court of Appeal’s decision. And the Supreme Court granted review. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Traub Lieberman Partner Michael K. Kiernan and Associate Brandon Christian Obtain Dismissal with Prejudice in Favor of Defendant

November 27, 2023 — Michael K. Kiernan & Brandon Christian - Traub Lieberman
In a 14-count breach of contract action brought in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida, Partner Michael K. Kiernan and Associate Brandon Christian obtained dismissal with prejudice in favor of Defendant St. Joseph’s Episcopal Church of Boynton Beach, Florida (“Church”). Plaintiffs, St. Joseph’s Episcopal School (“School”) and its benefactor, William Swaney, filed suit to enforce an alleged 99-year oral lease agreement which Swaney asserted had been made to him by a prior rector of the Church in exchange for his contributions to the School. Plaintiffs also sought emergency injunctive relief to allow the School to continue to operate on Church property. The Church maintained in part that the only lease in effect was a written lease, approved by the Church Vestry and the Diocese of Southeast Florida, and which the Church Vestry unanimously voted not to renew in 2022. Reprinted courtesy of Michael K. Kiernan, Traub Lieberman and Brandon Christian, Traub Lieberman Mr. Kiernan may be contacted at mkiernan@tlsslaw.com Mr. Christian may be contacted at bchristian@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Developer Sues TVA After It Halts Nuke Site Sale

December 19, 2018 — Mary B. Powers - Engineering News-Record
The multibillion-dollar completion of a nuclear unit at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s unfinished 1,260-MW Bellefonte plant in Alabama is in limbo after the federal power producer refused to complete its sale to Nuclear Development LLC, which has since filed a breach of contract complaint in federal district court. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

Commencing of the Statute of Repose for Construction Defects

November 08, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Florida has a ten-year statute of repose which applies predominantly to construction defect claims. This can be found in Florida Statute s. 95.11(3)(c). After ten years, any rights relative to a construction defect claim are time-barred. However, the statute of repose date has been watered down and can be made to be more of a factual question due to the lack of objectivity as to the date that starts the ten-year repose clock. The watering down of the statute of repose date benefits parties asserting construction defect claims provided they strategically appreciate the question of fact that can be created when up against the statute of repose. Stated differently, when up against the clock to assert a construction defect claim, strategically develop those facts, evidence, and arguments to maximize creating a question of fact as to when the statute of repose clock commenced. Conversely, as a defendant sued for construction defects, you want to maximize the facts, evidence, and arguments to fully establish the date the statute of repose clock had to commence for purposes of a statute of repose defense. The recent opinion in Spring Isle Community Association, Inc. v. Herme Enterprises, Inc., 46 Fla. L. Weekly D2306b (Fla. 5th DCA 2021) demonstrates the factual question associated with the clock that starts the statute of repose date. This factual question is created by Florida Statute s. 95.11(3)(c) that provides:

[T]he action [founded on the design, planning, or construction of an improvement to real property] must be commenced within 10 years after the date of actual possession by the owner, the date of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the date of abandonment of construction if not completed, or the date of completion or termination of the contract between the professional engineer, registered architect, or licensed contractor and his or her employer, whichever date is latest.

Spring Isle Community Association, supra. (Note, see also current s. 95.11(3)(c) version in effect per hyperlink above.)

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Power of Workers Compensation Immunity on Construction Project

November 30, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
On construction projects, workers compensation immunity is real and it is powerful. (See also this article.) Workers compensation immunity is why all general contractors should have workers compensation insurance and they should ensure the subcontractors they hire have workers compensation insurance. Workers compensation insurance becomes the exclusive form of liability for an injured worker thereby immunizing an employer (absent an intentional tort, which is very hard to prove as a means to circumvent workers compensation immunity). If a general contractor, with workers compensation insurance, hires a subcontractor without workers compensation insurance, the general contractor’s workers compensation insurance will be responsible in the event an injury occurs to a subcontractor’s employee. The general contractor becomes the statutory employer. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

Heat Stress Deaths Show Europe Isn’t Ready for Climate Change

August 07, 2023 — Olivia Rudgard - Bloomberg
More than 60,000 people died as a result of record-breaking temperatures in Europe last summer, a study has found, raising concerns about multiple countries’ lack of preparation for extreme heat fueled by climate change. Between May 30 and Sept. 4 of last year, there were 61,672 deaths caused by hot weather across 35 European countries, according to the study by researchers at the Barcelona Institute for Global Health and the French National Institute of Health, published in the journal Nature Medicine. Last year’s was the warmest summer ever recorded on the continent, breaking a record set just one year earlier. Temperatures were more than 2C above the recent average for countries that included France, Switzerland and Spain. Last year’s extreme-heat casualties echo an earlier hot summer in 2003, when 70,000 excess deaths were recorded across Europe. The loss of life led several countries to introduce early-warning systems for heat waves, as well as more planning around health care services. But the large number of deaths in 2022 shows the limitations of these measures, the study’s authors noted. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Olivia Rudgard, Bloomberg

Contractor Sues License Board

June 30, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

Judge Kendall J. Newman of the US District Court handed down a decision on June 24 on the case of Kent v California Department of Consumer Affairs. Mr. Kent, appearing as his own counsel, had brought the suit against the California Department of Consumer Affairs and the Contractors State Licensing Board after he was arrested in a sting operation and, as the plaintiff put it, “was absurdly arrested and uncooperatively detained for a time longer than necessary or allowed by law under the false pretense of contracting with out a license.” Mr. Kent’s alleged that Rick Lopez, one of the defendants, formed him to read allow from the California Business and Professions Code. He said he was later handcuffed and placed in an uncomfortable chair, “enduring physical pain and emotional agony.”

Although Kent was given a Notice to Appear, he alleged that a further defendant, Stuart Rind, “closed the plaintiff’s case marked citation A7773 without giving written notice to anyone.” As a result, the Placer County District Attorney’s Office had no record of his Notice to Appear.

Kent alleged that subsequently his firm was essentially shut down for two years and that he was prevented from “legally contracting or selling services for any other contractor or qualifying for any other licensed capacity governed by the CSLB.” After this, the CSLB suspended the license for his firm, DSI Construction. He was assessed a $1,500 fine, after which he claims he sent a letter to the CSLB demanding money damages. The judge noted that the letter was not included in the plaintiff’s Ninth Amended Complaint.

Judge Kendall recommended that the plaintiff’s Complaints be dismissed, although he did allow that sixth, and perhaps the eighth and ninth, could be amended with a tenth amended complaint.

Read the court’s decision…

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

The Year 2010 In Review: Design And Construction Defects Litigation

February 25, 2011 — Candace Matson, Harold Hamersmith, and Helen Lauderdale

This article is the first in a series summarizing construction law developments for 2010

1. Centex Homes v. Financial Pacific Life Insurance Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1995 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

After settling numerous homeowners’ construction defect claims — and more than ten years after the homes were substantially completed — a home developer brought suit against one of the concrete fabrication subcontractors for the development seeking indemnity for amounts paid to the homeowners, as well as for damages for breach of the subcontractor’s duties to procure specific insurance and to defend the developer against the homeowners’ claims. The subcontractor brought a motion for summary adjudication on the ground the developer’s claims were barred by the ten year statute of repose contained in Code of Civil Procedure Section 337.15.

The District Court agreed the developer’s claim for indemnity was barred by Section 337.15. And it held that because the damages recoverable for breach of the subcontractor’s duty to purchase insurance are identical to the damages recoverable through the developer’s indemnity claim, the breach of duty to procure insurance claim also was time-barred. The District Court, however, allowed the claim for breach of the duty to defend to proceed. The categories of losses associated with such a claim (attorneys’ fees and other defense costs) are distinct from the damages recoverable through claims governed by Section 337.15 (latent deficiency in the design and construction of the homes and injury to property arising out of the latent deficiencies).

2. UDC — Universal Development v. CH2M Hill, 181 Cal. App. 4th 10 (6th Dist. Jan. 2010)

Indemnification clauses in construction agreements often state that one party to the agreement — the “indemnitor” — will defend and indemnify the other party from particular types of claims. Of course, having a contract right to a defense is not the same as actually receiving a defense. Any indemnitor attempting to avoid paying for defense costs can simply deny the tender of defense with the hope that when the underlying claim is resolved the defense obligations will be forgotten. In the past, when parties entitled to a defense — the “indemnitees” — had long memories and pressed to recover defense costs, indemnitors attempted to justify denying the tender by claiming their defense obligations coincided with their indemnity obligations and neither arose until a final determination was made that the underlying claim was one for which indemnity was owed.

Read the full story...

Reprinted courtesy of Candace Matson, Harold Hamersmith, and Helen Lauderdale, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP. Ms. Matson can be contacted at cmatson@sheppardmullin.com, Mr. Hamersmith can be contacted at hhamersmith@sheppardmullin.com, and Ms. Lauderdale can be contacted at hlauderdale@sheppardmullin.com.