SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Appellate Division Confirms Summary Judgment in Favor of Property Owners in Action Alleging Labor Law Violations

June 19, 2023 — Lisa M. Rolle - Traub Lieberman
In this action brought before the State of New York, Appellate Division, Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa Rolle represented Defendant Property Owners in an appeal asserting Labor Law violations. In the underlying case, Plaintiff allegedly was injured while working on a construction project at a property owned by the Defendants, alleging violations of Labor Law §§240(1) and 241(6). The Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6), arguing that they could not be held liable for such violations due to the exemption set forth in those statutes for owners of one- and two-family dwellings. The Supreme Court of the State of New York granted the motion for summary judgment, and the Plaintiffs appealed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman
Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com

---

Can I Be Required to Mediate, Arbitrate or Litigate a California Construction Dispute in Some Other State?

September 19, 2022 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
It is not uncommon in the construction industry for an out-of-state general contractor to include a provision in a subcontract requiring a California subcontractor to resolve disputes outside the state of California, even though the work is to be performed within California. Fortunately, most California subcontractors are immune from this tactic. California law generally prohibits clauses requiring subcontractors to travel outside California to resolve construction disputes. California Code of Civil Procedure Section 410.42, [CCP 410.42 Link] renders “void and unenforceable,” any provision in a contract that “purports to require any dispute to be litigated, arbitrated, or otherwise determined outside this state,” so long as the contract is “between the contractor and a subcontractor with principal offices in the state, for the construction of a public or private work of improvement in this state.” Similarly, this law voids any similar contractual term that might prevent the California subcontractor from commencing an action, obtaining a judgment, or resolving its dispute in the courts of California. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

---

Receiving a $0 Verdict and Still Being Deemed the Prevailing Party for Purposes of Attorney’s Fees

May 24, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Low and behold, a party can be the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees even if that party is awarded $0. That’s right, even if the party is awarded a big fat zero, they can still be the prevailing party for purposes of being entitled to attorney’s fees. This is because a party is the prevailing party if they prevail on the significant issues in the case. A party can prevail on the significant issues even if that party is awarded $0. Whoa! For example, in Coconut Key Homeowner’s Association, Inc. v. Gonzalez, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D1045a (Fla. 4th DCA 2018), a homeowner sued her homeowner’s association claiming the association breached its governing documents. There was a basis for fees under Florida’s homeowner’s association law (and there likely was a basis under the governing documents). At trial, the jury held that the association breached its governing documents, but awarded the homeowner nothing ($0). The trial court also issued injunctive relief in favor of the homeowner. The homeowner claimed she should be deemed the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees; however, this was denied by the trial court based on the $0 verdict and no fees were awarded to the homeowner. 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

---

Court Rules on a Long List of Motions in Illinois National Insurance Co v Nordic PCL

May 10, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The case Illinois National Insurance Co. v Nordic PCL, et al. “involves a dispute about whether insurance benefits are available to a general contractor who built structures that allegedly have construction defects. Plaintiffs Illinois National Insurance Company (‘Illinois National’) and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (‘National Union’) (collectively, the ‘Insurers’), commenced this action for declaratory relief against Defendant Nordic PCL Construction, Inc., f/k/a Nordic Construction, Ltd. ("Nordic"), on August 23, 2011.”



The court was asked to rule on a long list of motions: “Counterclaim Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Their (1) Motion to Dismiss the Counterclaim and (2) Motion to Strike Portions of the Counterclaim, ECF No. 16 (‘Request for Judicial Notice’); Counterclaim Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim Filed October 24, 2011, ECF No. 14 (‘Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim’); Counterclaim Defendants’ Motion to Strike Portions of the Counterclaim Filed October 24, 2011, ECF No. 15 (‘Motion to Strike’); Third-Party Defendant Marsh USA, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Stay Proceedings in Favor of Pending State Action, ECF No. 33 (‘Marsh’s Motion To Dismiss Or Stay’); Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Nordic PCL Construction, Inc., f/k/a Nordic Construction Ltd.’s Substantive Joinder to Third-Party Defendant Marsh USA Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Stay Proceedings in Favor of Pending State Action, ECF No. 36 (‘Nordic’s Joinder’); and Third-Party Defendant Marsh USA, Inc.’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Counts V and VI of Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Nordic PCL Construction, Inc.’s Third-Party Complaint, ECF No. 29 (‘Marsh’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings’).”



In result, the court reached the following decisions: “The court GRANTS IN RELEVANT PART the Insurers’ Request for Judicial Notice to the extent it covers matters relevant to these motions; GRANTS IN PART the Insurers’ Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim, but gives Nordic leave to amend the Counterclaim in certain respects; DENIES the Insurers’ Motion to Strike; DENIES Marsh’s Motion To Dismiss Or Stay and Nordic’s Joinder; and GRANTS Marsh’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.”



The court provides a bit of background on the case: “This action arises out of alleged construction defects involving two projects on which Nordic acted as the general contractor. Nordic is a defendant in a pending state court action with respect to one of the projects and says it spent more than $400,000 on repairs with respect to the other project. Nordic tendered the defense of the pending state court action to the Insurers and sought reimbursement of the cost of repairs already performed. The Insurers responded by filing this action to determine their rights under the insurance policies issued to Nordic.”



Furthermore, the court presented a brief procedural history: “The Insurers commenced this declaratory action in this court on August 23, 2011. The Complaint asserts two claims, one seeking a declaration that the Insurers have no duty to provide a defense or indemnification regarding the Safeway Action, the other seeking such a declaration regarding the Moanalua Claims. Along with its Answer, Nordic filed a Counterclaim against the Insurers. The Counterclaim asserts breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, misrepresentations and omissions of material fact, and bad faith, and seeks declaratory relief against the Insurers.”



The procedural history continues: “Nordic also filed a Third-Party Complaint against Marsh, the broker that had procured the Policies from the Insurers for Nordic. Nordic alleges that it reasonably believed that the Policies would provide completed operations insurance coverage for the types of construction defects alleged in the Safeway Action and Moanalua Claims. The Third-Party Complaint asserts breach of contract, negligence, promissory estoppel, breach of fiduciary duties, implied indemnity, and contribution and equitable subrogation.”



In conclusion, “The court GRANTS IN RELEVANT PART the Insurers’ Request for Judicial Notice. With regard to the Insurers’ Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim, the court GRANTS the motion as to Count I (breach of contract), Count II (duty of good faith and fair dealing), Count III (fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation), the portion of Count IV (bad faith) premised on fraud, and Count IV (declaratory relief). The court DENIES the motion as to Count IV (bad faith) that is not premised on fraud. Except with respect to the "occurrence" issue, which the court disposes of here on the merits, and Count V, which concerns only a form of relief, Nordic is given leave to amend its Counterclaim within three weeks of the date of this order. The court DENIES the Insurers’ Motion to Strike, DENIES Marsh’s Motion to Dismiss or Stay and Nordic’s Joinder, and GRANTS Marsh’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings with respect to Counts V and VI of the Third-Party Complaint.”



Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Haight’s John Arbucci and Kristian Moriarty Selected for Super Lawyers’ 2020 Southern California Rising Stars

July 20, 2020 — T. Giovanni “John” Arbucci & Kristian B. Moriarty - Haight Brown & Bonesteel
Congratulations to attorneys T. Giovanni “John” Arbucci and Kristian Moriarty who were selected to the Super Lawyers 2020 Southern California Rising Stars list. Each year, no more than 2.5% of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor. Reprinted courtesy of T. Giovanni “John” Arbucci, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel Mr. Arbucci may be contacted at jarbucci@hbblaw.com Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

West Virginia Couple Claim Defects in Manufactured Home

November 20, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Douglas and Brenda Hess bought a manufactured home from Freedom Homes. Freedom Homes also hired workers to construct the basement and foundation, as well as install the home. Now the Hesses are claiming that the due to the installers, their home was damaged and that they cannot use it. They claim that the defendants refuse to repair the damage, and also claim a variety of things including negligence, frustration of purpose, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Traub Lieberman Senior Trial Counsel Timothy McNamara Wins Affirmation of Summary Judgment Denial

August 28, 2023 — Timothy G. McNamara - Traub Lieberman
In this appeal brought before the State of New York Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, the court ruled in favor of Traub Lieberman’s client, a housing complex owner, affirming the denial of co-defendant landscaping company’s summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of the cross-claims asserted by the complex owner against the co-defendant. In the underlying case, the plaintiff was allegedly injured when she slipped and fell on ice on the exterior stairs of the housing complex where she lived. The complex owner had contracted with the co-defendant to provide snow removal services for the complex. The plaintiff commenced action against both the complex owner and the landscaping company to recover damages for personal injuries. The complex owner asserted cross-claims against the landscaping company for contribution, common-law indemnification, and contractual indemnification. The landscaping company sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims asserted against it, but the branch of the motion seeking dismissal of the cross-claims was denied. In the appeal brought before the Appellate Division, the court ruled in favor of Traub Lieberman’s client, the complex owner, affirming the denial of summary judgment for the cross-claims. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Timothy G. McNamara, Traub Lieberman
Mr. McNamara may be contacted at tmcnamara@tlsslaw.com

---

Claims for Breach of Express Indemnity Clauses Subject to 10-Year Statute of Limitations

October 08, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Thomas G. Cronin of Gordon & Rees LLP (published in Association of Corporate Counsel), “[i]n 15th Place Condominium Association v. South Campus Development Team LLC, the Appellate Court for the First District of Illinois held that a claim for breach of an express indemnity clause within a construction agreement was subject to the 10-year statute of limitations for written contracts instead of the four-year statute of limitations for construction claims.” In 2008, the condo association sued the developer alleging “it had discovered latent design and construction defects in the condominium towers. In 2011, the developer filed a third-party complaint against the general contractor alleging breach of express indemnity.” While the general contractor prevailed in the first trial, the appellate court reversed the decision, “concluding that the nature of the developer’s express indemnity claim against the general contractor related to the failure to indemnify rather than to a construction-related activity.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---