SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Under Privette Doctrine, A Landowner Delegates All Responsibility For Workplace Safety to its Independent Contractor, and therefore Owes No Duty to Remedy or Adopt Measures to Protect Against Known Hazards

September 29, 2021 — Krsto Mijanovic, Jeffrey C. Schmid & John M. Wilkerson - Haight Brown & Bonesteel
In Gonzalez v. Mathis (2021 WL 3671594) (“Gonzalez”), the Supreme Court of California held that a landowner generally owes no duty to an independent contractor or its workers to remedy or adopt other measures to protect them against known hazards on the premises. The Court applied the Privette doctrine which establishes a presumption that a landowner generally delegates all responsibility for workplace safety to its independent contractor. (See generally Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689; SeaBright Ins. Co. v. US Airways, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 590.) As such, the independent contractor is responsible for ensuring that the work can be performed safely despite a known hazard on the worksite, even where the contractor and its workers are unable to take any reasonable safety precautions to avoid or protect themselves from the known hazard. In Gonzalez, the landowner, Mathis, had hired an independent contractor, Gonzalez, to clean a skylight on his roof. To access the skylight, Gonzalez needed to utilize a narrow path between the edge of the roof and a parapet wall. While walking along this path, Gonzalez slipped and fell to the ground, sustaining serious injuries. Gonzalez alleged this accident was caused by several dangerous conditions on the roof, including a slippery surface, a lack of tie-off points to attach a safety harness, and a lack of a guardrail. Gonzalez was aware of all of these hazards prior to the accident. Reprinted courtesy of Krsto Mijanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, Jeffrey C. Schmid, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and John M. Wilkerson, Haight Brown & Bonesteel Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com Mr. Schmid may be contacted at jschmid@hbblaw.com Mr. Wilkerson may be contacted at jwilkerson@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Steps to Defending against Construction Defect Lawsuits

July 21, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

Writing in Claims Journal, Bryan Rendzio notes that the decline in construction has not been matched by a decline in construction defect lawsuits over condominiums. He reviews the ways in which lawyers representing developers can help protect their clients. He identifies four important considerations in defending developers from claims of construction defects.



He advocates a careful review of the contract. “Under a breach of contract claim, the insured’s duties to the party who brought the claim against the insured flow from the contract. Commonly, construction contracts limit the scope of recoverable damages, such as by waiving consequential damages.’



The next step, according to Rendzio is to check of a settlement agreement is already in place, noting that these are “a familiar occurrence in the construction industry, regardless of any lawsuits having been filed.”



He considers the statute of repose “the single-most decisive weapon an insured possesses in its arsenal during a condo defect lawsuit.” He notes that no lawsuits can be brought for construction defects after the end specified by the statute of repose, and if a lawsuit is brought beforehand, no additional parties can be named once the statute has taken effect.



Finally, he warns adjusters to be suspicious when a condo association requests contractual indemnification. He notes that the pitfall in this is that developers and the subsequent condominium association often have similar names, given the theoretical example of a condo project built by “Fake Lakes LLC” and later run by the “Fake Lakes Condominium Association.” Writing in regards to Florida law, he notes that condominium associations do not have successor interest in contracts developers made with contractors.

Read the full story…

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

---

Dust Infiltration Due to Construction Defect Excluded from Policy

September 09, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

A summary judgment was affirmed in the case of Brown v. Farmers Group, by the California Court of Appeals. The Browns bought a new home in Oakley, California. At the time, they signed disclosure statement “acknowledging that the area around their home experienced gusty winds and would be in development for years to come, which might result in dust and airborne mold.”

The Browns found an unusual amount of dust in their home, which became worse when they ran their heating and air conditioning system. Shelia Brown was later diagnosed with chronic valley fever, which was attributed to airborne mold. The Browns contacted Farmers which investigated the house. Although the adjustor from Farmers said the Browns would be covered, Farmers denied the claim.

After the Browns moved out of the house, an inspector found that the HVAC line in the attic was disconnected, sending dust into the home. The Browns brought action against Mid-Century Insurance, which managed the policy, and Farmers. The identified the HVAC defect, window problems, and valley fever as causes, suing for breach of contact, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The court rejected all these claims. The policy with Farmers excluded losses due to defective construction. This ruled out the faulty HVAC system and any problems there might have been from the windows. The policy also specifically excluded losses from contamination, fungi, pathogens, and noxious substances. The court further found that the adjustor’s opinion was irrelevant to the question of what the policy actually covered. Finally, the court found no evidence of intentional infliction of emotional stress.

On review, the appeals court upheld the trial court’s conclusions and affirmed the summary judgment.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Single-Family Home Gain Brightens U.S. Housing Outlook: Economy

January 21, 2015 — Shobhana Chandra – Bloomberg
Builders broke ground in December on the most single-family homes in almost seven years, propelling an unexpectedly large gain in U.S. housing starts that signals construction will contribute more to economic growth in 2015. Work began on 728,000 houses at an annual rate, a 7.2 percent increase from November and the most since March 2008, a Commerce Department report showed Wednesday in Washington. Total housing starts, which include apartments, climbed 4.4 percent to a 1.09 million pace. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Shobhana Chandra, Bloomberg
Ms. Chandra may be contacted at schandra1@bloomberg.net

---

California’s Right to Repair Act not an Exclusive Remedy

August 20, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Karen L. Moore of Low, Ball & Lynch in JD Supra Business Advisor analyzed “two decisions holding that California’s Right to Repair Act ('SB 800') is not the exclusive remedy for a homeowner seeking damages for construction defects that have also resulted in property damage.” If property damage occurs due to construction defects, a homeowner “may also pursue common law tort causes of action.” After providing a brief background of California’s SB 800 and Aas v. Superior Court (which precluded the Right to Repair Act), Moore discussed the results of Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Broofield Crystal Cove, LLC, followed by a review of Burch v. Superior Court. Moore commented that “[t]hese two cases will likely be used by homeowners to avoid application of the Right to Repair Act’s pre-litigation procedures.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Background Owner of Property Cannot Be Compelled to Arbitrate Construction Defects

November 07, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
In Truppi v. Pasco Engineering, John Quattro sued Property Management Contractors, Inc. over construction defects in William Truppi’s home. All parties are named in the suit. The California Court of Appeals ruled that Property Management Contractors, Inc. (PMCI) could not compel Mr. Quattro to arbitration. The background of the case involves two houses built in Encinitas, California by PCMI: one for Mr. Truppi at 560 Neptune, and one for Mr. Quattro at 566 Neptune. Both contracts contained an arbitration provision. Mr. Quattro signed the contract for his residence and Mr. Truppi signed the other. Mr. Quattro then sued PCMI and its principal, William Gregory. Mr. Quattro claimed to be the true contracting party for the 560 Neptune residence and a third party beneficiary of the contract Mr. Truppi signed, and stated that PCMI was aware of this. PCMI in a demurrer stated that Quattro “had only a ‘prospective beneficial interest in the property upon its eventual sale or lease.’” Mr. Quattro amended his complaint to account for the issues raised by PCMI. The court rejected PCMI’s demurrer to the amended complaint. Finally, PCMI and Gregory asserted that Quattro was “not the real party in interest” and could not sue. PCMI continues to assert that Quattro lacks standing, but their attorney sent Quattro an e-mail stating, “While my client disputes that you are a party, and that you lack standing to assert the claim, to the extent you do so I believe you are obligated to proceed by way of arbitration.” The court did not cover the issue of Quattro’s standing in the case, only if he could be compelled to arbitration. The court affirmed the lower court’s finding that Quattro could not be compelled to arbitrate the construction defect claim as neither he nor Gregory signed the contract in an individual capacity. Further, the court noted that PCMI and Gregory “denied the existence of an agreement between themselves and Quattro on the 560 contract,” and cannot compel arbitration on a non-existent agreement. And while non-signatories can, in some situations be compelled to arbitrate, the court found that “these cases are inapplicable because here they seek to have the alleged third party beneficiary (Quattro) compelled by a nonsignatory (Gregory).” The arbitration clause in question “expressly limited its application to persons or entities that signed the 560 contract.” As Mr. Quattro was not a signatory to that agreement, the court found that he could not be held to its arbitration provision. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

City in Ohio Sues Over Alleged Roof Defects

October 29, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The city of Worthington “is suing the architect and general contractor responsible for constructing the addition to the Worthington Community Center in 2002,” according to ThisWeek Community News. The city is demanding $1.3 million “to replace the roof on the fitness center and pool addition, which is 12 years old.” Moody-Nolan, the architect, and Apex/M&P, the general contractor, have been named as defendants in the case. According to the complaint (as reported by ThisWeek), “experts retained by the city found that the roof has failed ‘due to unknown latent design defects and construction defects that have resulted in property damage.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Toll Brothers Report End of Year Results

December 11, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The largest luxury home builder in the U.S. saw some significant gains in their final quarter for 2013. Their pre-tax income for the year was $150.2 million, up from last year’s $60.7 million, more than doubling. The firm’s revenues went up 65% to $1.04 billion, and the average price of homes was up as well. Toll Brothers is currently selling homes in 232 communities, also increasing over 2012. Due to the upcoming acquisition of Shapell, Toll Brothers projects that at the end of 2014 they will be selling in 250 to 290 communities. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---