Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

The Hidden Price of Outdated Damage Prevention Laws: Part I

November 21, 2018 — Brigham A. McCown - Construction Executive
Excavators know that dialing 811 triggers a process that requires all utilities operating in the service area to find and mark the location of their underground facilities so that they are not damaged during the excavation process. In addition, marking the location of the utilities is intended to keep the public safe, for instance by preventing an excavator from striking a gas line. But excavators also know that in most states, the laws and regulations that govern these procedures are weak and that enforcement is even weaker. It’s an unfortunate fact that excavators and the public – typically the least culpable parties – suffer the consequences of weak damage prevention laws and lack of strong enforcement regimes. Reprinted courtesy of Brigham A. McCown, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Court Upholds Plan to Eliminate Vehicles from Balboa Park Complex

June 10, 2015 — Kristen Lee Price and Lawrence S. Zucker II – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Save Our Heritage Organisation v. City of San Diego, et al. (No. D063992, filed 5/28/15), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District upheld a controversial plan to eliminate vehicles from various plazas in historic Balboa Park. In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal considered a question of first impression involving the interpretation of San Diego Municipal Code section 126.0504. Balboa Park, designated a National Historic Landmark in 1940, is a large urban park in the center of San Diego. The City of San Diego (“City”) recently approved a proposed plan (“Project”) to eliminate vehicles from the plazas within the Balboa Park complex and to return the plazas to purely pedestrian zones. Subsequently, a community group named Save Our Heritage Organisation (“SOHO”) filed a petition for a writ of mandate alleging, among other things, the City erroneously approved the Project. SOHO contended Municipal Code section 126.0504 mandated two key findings be made before the Project could be approved: (1) that the intended purpose of the property would not be adversely affected; and (2) without the proposed project, the property would not be put to a “reasonable beneficial use.” SOHO argued that although the City made the requisite findings, those findings lacked substantial evidentiary support. The trial court agreed with SOHO and directed the City to rescind the site development permit. The City argued on appeal that Municipal Code section 126.0504 vested it with “discretion to make a qualitative determination of whether an existing use of the property, even if deemed beneficial, is also a reasonable use of that property under all of the facts and circumstances applicable to the particular property in question.” The Court of Appeal agreed and reversed. Reprinted courtesy of Kristen Lee Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Price may be contacted at kprice@hbblaw.com; Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Capitol View-Corridor Restrictions Affect Massing of Austin’s Tallest Tower

October 17, 2023 — David M. Brown - Engineering News-Record
The stepped-back profile of a 66-story skyscraper in Austin, which will be the state capital’s tallest building when completed this fall, is a consequence of the city's height and massing limits to keep the view corridor to the capitol's dome unblocked. Reprinted courtesy of David M. Brown, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Land Planners Not Held to Professional Standard of Care

October 10, 2013 — Heather Anderson — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC.
Recently, the Colorado Court of Appeals indicated that there is no professional duty of care applicable to land planners. See Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. v. Coleman Brothers Constr., LLC, 297 P.3d 1042 (Colo. App. 2013). Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. (“SCA”) agreed to provide land planning services to Coleman Brothers Construction, LLC (“Coleman”) for property referred to as Crown Mountain in a letter and then verbally agreed to provide a development analysis for another property, located on Emma Road in Basalt, Colorado. Thereafter, SCA sent letters to the defendant concerning the possible subdivision and development of the Emma Road property. Approximately two years later, SCA sued Coleman for breach of the verbal agreement concerning the Emma Road property. Coleman then asserted counterclaims against SCA for negligently providing inaccurate advice about whether the Emma Road property could be subdivided and developed, and that the county had denied the planned unit development sketch plan SCA prepared and submitted on behalf of Coleman. The district court granted SCA’s motion for summary judgment thereby concluding that the economic loss rule barred Coleman’s negligence counterclaims. The Court of Appeals agreed. In its opinion, the Court of Appeals reiterated the economic loss rule espoused in the Colorado Supreme Court in the Town of Alma v. AZCO Constr., Inc., 10 P.3d 1256, 1264 (Colo. 2000) case. “Under the economic loss rule, ‘a party suffering only economic loss from the breach of an express or implied contractual duty may not assert a tort claim for such a breach absent an independent duty of care under tort law.’” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Heather Anderson
Heather Anderson can be contacted at anderson@hhmrlaw.com

Just Because You Allege There Was an Oral Contract Doesn’t Mean You’re Off the Hook for Attorneys’ Fees if you Lose

March 28, 2022 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
There’s certain things in life you shouldn’t mix. Like drinking and driving. Bleach and ammonia. Triple dog dares and frozen poles. And angry lawyers and litigation. In Spahn v. Richards, Case No. A159495 (November 30, 2021), angry lawyer Jeffrey Spahn sued general contractor Dan Richards claiming that Richards orally agreed to build Spahn’s million dollar plus house for $515,000. Not only did Spahn not recover anything from Richards, he ended up owing Richards $239,171 in attorney’s fees and costs, after he denied a request for admission asking that he admit that there was no oral contract. The Spahn Case In 2017, Spahn filed suit against Richards for breach of oral contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and promissory estoppel. According to Spahn, he met Richards in June 2015 and the two reached an agreement whereby Richards agreed to demolish Spahn’s house for $12,500 and build a new one for $515,000. Further according to Spahn, Richards agreed to this “fixed price” “oral contract” in June 2015, and then, on July 1, 2015, Richards “confirmed and agreed that he would perform the construction project” for $515,000 and would complete construction by May 2016. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Concurrent Causation Doctrine Applies Where Natural and Man-made Perils Combine to Create Loss

January 19, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict between the District Courts in applying the Concurrent Causation Doctrine where there were multiple causes creating the loss. Sebo v. Am. Home Assur. Co., 2016 Fla. LEXIS 2596 (Fla. Dec. 1, 2016). After purchasing his home, John Sebo procured an "all risks" homeowners policy provided by American Home Assurance Company (AHAC). Shortly after Sebo purchased the property, water began to intrude the home during rainstorms. Major water leaks occurred. It became clear that the home suffered from major design and construction defects. In October 2005, Hurricane Wilma further damaged the home. AHAC denied coverage for most of the claimed losses. It provided $50,000 for mold. The residence could not be repaired and was eventually demolished. 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

Personal Guarantor Cannot Escape a Personal Guarantee By…

June 02, 2016 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
In a prior article, I discussed the point that a personal guarantor cannot escape a contractual requirement of a personal guarantee merely by executing the guarantee as a corporate officer. The recent decision Frieri v. Capital Investment Services, Inc., 41 Fla. L. Weekly D1189a (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) illustrates this point. In this case, a company hired an individual to help grow that company’s business. The contract required the individual to invest $6 Million into a trust in consideration of the company’s president transferring substantial shares of the company into the trust. The objective was that the trust would own the controlling shares of the company. The money was transferred. However, the shares were never placed in the trust and the trust never received controlling interest in the company. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Determining Duty to Defend in Wisconsin Does Not Include Extrinsic Evidence

September 22, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The policyholder's attempt to extend the duty to defend analysis beyond the complaint's allegations and the four-corners of the policy failed before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Water Well Solutions Service Group Inc. v. Consolidated Ins. Co., 2016 Wisc. LEXIS 163 (Wis. Sup. Ct. June 30, 2016). 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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES