Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Brad Pitt’s Foundation Sues New Orleans Architect for Construction Defects

September 25, 2018 — David Suggs – Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.
Brad Pitt’s foundation has sued its architect of New Orleans projects alleging “defective design work led to leaks and other flaws in homes built for residents of an area that was among the hardest hit by Hurricane Katrina,” reported Insurance Journal. The Make It Right Foundation claims damages of more than $15 million caused by architect John C. Williams. According to Insurance Journal, “The foundation paid Williams’ firm millions of dollars to produce architectural drawings for more than 100 homes under the program, which was supposed to provide Lower 9th Ward residents with sustainable and affordable new homes.” This lawsuit against the architect is apparently in response to a class-action lawsuit by New Orleans attorney Ron Austin against Pitt’s Make It Right Foundation. Austin’s lawsuit “accused the charity of building substandard homes that are deteriorating at a rapid pace,” Insurance Journal reported. The 39 homes involved in a previous suit regarding the manufacturer of TimberSIL are excluded from the lawsuit against Williams. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Causing Property Damage to Insured's Product Only

October 07, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Nebraska court found there was no coverage for rebar that did not meet specifications and did not cause property damage to other portions of the construction project. Drake-Williams Steel, Inc. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 2016 Neb. LEXIS 116 (Neb. Aug. 5, 2016). The general contractor was hired by the city to build an arena. Drake-Williams Steel, Inc. (DWS) was hired to supply rebar for the arena. The rebar was improperly bent when it was fabricated by DWS and did not conform to the terms of the contract. The rebar was incorporated into three components of the arena: the columns, the grade beams, and the pile caps. The pile caps were made of concrete with reinforcing rebar and were installed below ground level on top of the concrete piles that extended to the bedrock. The grade beams were also made of concrete and rebar. The beams formed an oval around the arena and connected different pile caps together and were also installed below ground level. No corrections were made to the grade beams. 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

Title II under ADA Applicable to Public Rights-of-Way, Parks and Other Recreation Areas

June 29, 2017 — Richard E. Morton - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Plaintiff Ivana Kirola, who suffers from cerebral palsy, sued the City and County of San Francisco, in a class action contending certain public areas, including rights-of-way, pools, parks and other recreation areas, did not meet the mandate of Title II of the American With Disabilities Act (Kirola v. City and County of San Francisco, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 14-17521, 2017 DJDAR 5982). Title II provides that no qualified individual with a disability “shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” Title II’s implementing regulations mandate that each facility constructed after January 26, 1992 be “readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.” And, for each facility “altered after January 26, 1992,” the altered portion must, “to the maximum extent feasible,” be likewise accessible. The Federal Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board creates nonbinding Americans With Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) to ensure compliance with Title II, and that the Department of Justice (DOJ) adopt its own binding regulations, consistent with the ADAAG standards. Here, the District Court interpreted ADAAG standards as not applying to public rights-of-way, parks, and playground facilities. The District Court concluded that none of Kirola’s experts were reliable in their interpretation of the standards and how the standards applied to the public rights-of-way, etc. Conversely, the District Court concluded that all of the city’s experts were reliable. It thus disregarded and discarded every ADAAG violation identified by Kirola’s experts, accepting only the small number of violations identified by the city’s experts. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Richard E. Morton, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Morton may be contacted at rmorton@hbblaw.com

New NEPA Rule Restores Added Infrastructure Project Scrutiny

May 10, 2022 — Pam McFarland - Engineering News-Record
The White House Council on Environmental Quality has finalized a regulation that restores basic project environmental review practices that were in place prior to changes made during the Trump administration. The rule is the first of two that will have the Biden administration’s stamp on how such reviews are done under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for major federal construction projects. Reprinted courtesy of Pam McFarland, Engineering News-Record Ms. McFarland may be contacted at mcfarlandp@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Proposed Bill Provides a New Federal Tax Credit for the Conversion of Office Buildings

September 06, 2021 — Emily K. Bias & Brittany Griffith - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
At the end of July 2021, a bill was introduced in the House and Senate, which, if enacted, would create a federal tax credit to fund the conversion of unused office buildings into residential, commercial, or mixed-use properties. The Revitalizing Downtowns Act (S. 2511), which is modeled after the federal historic rehabilitation tax credit, would provide a federal tax credit equal to 20 percent of “qualified conversion expenditures” with respect to a “qualified converted building.” A “qualified converted building” means any building that (i) was nonresidential real property for lease to office tenants, (ii) has been “substantially converted” from an office use to a residential, retail, or other commercial use, (iii) in the case of conversion to residential units, is subject to a state or local affordable housing agreement or has at least 20 percent of the units rent restricted and set aside for tenants whose income is 80 percent or less of area median gross income, (iv) was initially placed in service at least 25 years before the beginning of conversion, and (v) may be depreciated or amortized. Reprinted courtesy of Emily K. Bias, Pillsbury and Brittany Griffith, Pillsbury Ms. Bias may be contacted at emily.bias@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Griffith may be contacted at brittany.griffith@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

What If Your CCP 998 Offer is Silent on Costs?

March 18, 2019 — Tony Carucci - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In California, the “prevailing party” in litigation is generally entitled to recover its costs as a matter of law. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1032. But under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998, a party may make a so-called “offer to compromise,” which can reverse the parties’ entitlement to costs after the date of the offer, depending on the outcome of the litigation. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998. The potential payoff of a 998 offer is that “If an offer made by a defendant is not accepted and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover his or her postoffer costs and shall pay the defendant’s costs from the time of the offer.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998(c)(1) (emphasis added). But how do you determine whether a plaintiff obtained a more favorable judgment when the 998 offer is silent with respect to whether it includes costs? In Martinez v. Eatlite One, Inc. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1181, 1182–83, the defendant made a 998 offer of $12,001 that was silent regarding the treatment of attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiff did not respond to the offer, and the jury ultimately awarded plaintiff damages of $11,490. Id. In resolving the parties’ competing memoranda of costs and plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees, the trial court awarded plaintiff her costs and attorneys’ fees. Id. at 1182. The trial court reasoned that plaintiff had obtained a more favorable judgment than the 998 offer because she was entitled to pre-offer costs and attorneys’ fees under the statute, which meant plaintiff’s ultimate recovery exceeded the 998 offer when added to the judgment. Id. at 1183. In other words, the court added plaintiff’s pre-offer costs and attorneys’ fees to the $11,490 verdict for the purposes of determining whether the “judgment” was greater than the 998 offer of $12,001. Id. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tony Carucci, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Carucci may be contacted at acarucci@swlaw.com

New York Revises Retainage Requirements for Private Construction Contracts: Overview of the “5% Retainage Law”

January 22, 2024 — Levi W. Barrett, Patrick T. Murray, Skyler L. Santomartino & Mark A. Snyder - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
On November 17, 2023, the State of New York enacted the “5% Retainage Law.” This legislation effectively limits the amount of retainage that can be held from general contractors and subcontractors to no more than 5%. It applies to many but not all construction contracts. In addition, the new law revises late stage billing requirements, enabling contractors to invoice for retainage at substantial completion. Previously, the parties to a construction contract were free to negotiate any retainage amount, limited only by an unspecified “reasonable amount” that would be released as the parties contractually set forth. Summary The new law amends Sections 756-a and 756-c of the General Business Law (part of Article 35E of the GBL, known as the “Prompt Pay Act”), and applies to private construction contracts “where the aggregate cost of the construction project, including all labor, services, materials and equipment to be furnished, equals or exceeds one hundred fifty thousand dollars.” Reprinted courtesy of Levi W. Barrett, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Patrick T. Murray, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Skyler L. Santomartino, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Mark A. Snyder, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Barrett may be contacted at lbarrett@pecklaw.com Mr. Murray may be contacted at pmurray@pecklaw.com Mr. Santomartino may be contacted at ssantomartino@pecklaw.com Mr. Snyder may be contacted at msnyder@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Common Construction Contract Provisions: Indemnity Provisions

January 19, 2017 — David R. Cook Jr. - Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP Blog
Upcoming blog posts will focus on common contract provisions found in construction contracts. Such provisions are not solely limited to construction contracts and can be found in many other types of business contracts as well. This post will highlight indemnity clauses. An indemnity clause is a common contract provision used to allocate risk between parties to a contract. The clause obligates one party (the Indemnitor) to protect the other party (the Indemnitee) from certain losses, typically arising from claims of third parties. It may require the Indemnitor to reimburse the Indemnitee for losses or expenses, or satisfy judgments, or even defend the Indemnitee in a lawsuit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES