Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

California Builders’ Right To Repair Is Alive

March 19, 2014 — David J. Byassee - Ulich & Terry LLP
The California Supreme Court surprised everyone on December 11, 2013 when it denied Brookfield Homes’ request for review of the ruling in the case of Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC (2014) 219 Cal.App.4th 98, which was decided by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District Division Three (Orange County). In that case the Court of Appeal held that the Right to Repair Act aka SB800 is not the exclusive remedy for a homeowner seeking damages for construction defects that have resulted in property damage. Under the ruling, homeowners may choose to sue builders under common law theories of liability such as strict liability and negligence, in addition to liability under the Act. This ruling made homeowners' compliance with the prelitigation requirements of the Act optional and thereby put builders' “right to repair” in jeopardy. The ruling undermined the expectations of California's homebuilders who, for the past decade, understood that their liability is limited by the Act and that they have a right to repair. Since the Liberty Mutual case was handed down, the topic has become a hotbed item with several divisions of the Court of Appeal. On February 19, 2014, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District Division Three (Los Angeles County) issued a ruling against Premier Homes in the case of Burch v. Superior Court 2014 Cal.App.LEXIS 159 that, without independent analysis, simply adopted the holding in the Liberty Mutual case. But on February 21, 2014, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District Division Four (Los Angeles County) ruled in the case of KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc. v.Superior Court 2014 Cal.App.LEXIS 167 that a homeowner's failure to give the builder an opportunity to inspect and repair a construction defect excused the builder's liability under the Act. Additionally, the Court of Appeal went out of its way to state it had ruled earlier in that case that the Act is the exclusive remedy. The various rulings lay a foundation for ultimate intervention by the California Supreme Court. In the meantime, these opposing cases will be cited by counsel for homeowners and builders alike for opposing positions as they continue to navigate construction defect disputes. Mr. Byassee is a strategic litigator specializing in representation of builders and developers. For more information regarding dispute resolution procedures under SB800, Mr. Byassee may be contacted at (949) 250-9797 or by email at dbyassee@ut-law.com. Published courtesy of David J. Byassee, Ulich & Terry LLP Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Issues to Watch Out for When Managing Remote Workers

July 13, 2020 — Melissa (Powar) Clarke - Payne & Fears
Managing remote workers comes with its share of challenges. The complexities of setting and articulating expectations in a remote work environment – and providing feedback about performance tied to those expectations - adds an additional burden to our already-crowded work lives, particularly for managers who are new to remote supervisory roles. This article highlights some key issues that arise when managing remote workers. Issue 1: Insufficient feedback Annual reviews are not enough. Data clearly reflects that employees who receive regular feedback are happier, and more productive, in their roles. Employees require a “continuous feedback loop” to grow and improve. While many companies started migrating toward continuous feedback before the pandemic, remote work further increases the need for more frequent (formal and informal) check-ins. Organizations must provide management with a toolkit for providing – and receiving – constant feedback, and this toolkit should take into account changes in work styles and modalities of communication when employees are remote. Given the ease with which we can give face-to-face feedback compared to “virtual” feedback, this toolkit becomes even more important when only some employees are remote and others have returned onsite. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa (Powar) Clarke, Payne & Fears
Ms. Clarke may be contacted at mec@paynefears.com

Payment Bond Claim Notice Requires More than Mailing

June 18, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
It’s been a while since I posted something new relating to Virginia’s “Little Miller Act” and its various notice requirements for a subcontractor to make a payment bond claim. I have posted on the basics of a Virginia payment bond claim previously here at Musings. One of these basics is the 90 day notice requirement for suppliers or second tier subcontractors with no direct contractual relationship to the general contractor. A recent case from the Norfolk, Virginia Circuit Court examined when notice is “given” under the Little Miller Act. In R T Atkinson Building Corp v Archer Western Construction, LLC the Court looked at the question of whether mailing of the notice of claim is enough to constitute notice being “given” in a manner that would satisfy the statutory requirements. In that case, the supplier mailed the notice within the 90 day window, but the defendant argued on summary judgment that it did not receive the notice until 2 days after the 90 day window had closed. In support of this contention, the defendant provided tracking information showing delivery by the USPS on the non-compliant date. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Is Privity of Contract with the Owner a Requirement of a Valid Mechanic’s Lien? Not for GC’s

January 04, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
As any reader of this construction law blog knows, mechanic’s liens make up much of the discussion here at Construction Law Musings. A recent case out of Fairfax County, Virginia examined the question of whether contractual privity between the general contractor and owner of the property at issue is necessary. As a reminder, in most situations, for a contract claim to be made, the claimant has to have a direct contract (privity) with the entity it sues. Further, for a subcontractor to have a valid mechanic’s lien it would have to have privity with the general contractor or with the Owner. The Fairfax case, The Barber of Seville, Inc. v. Bironco, Inc., examined the question of whether contractual privity is necessary between the general contractor and the Owner. In Bironco, the claimant, Bironco, performed certain improvements for a barbershop pursuant to a contract executed by the two owners of the Plaintiff. We wouldn’t have the case here at Musings if Bironco had been paid in full. Bironco then recorded a lien against the leasehold interest of The Barber of Seville, Inc., the entity holding the lease. The Plaintiff filed an action seeking to have the lien declared invalid because Brionco had privity of contract with the individuals that executed the contract, but not directly with the corporate entity. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Flood Sublimit Applies, Seawater Corrosion to Amtrak's Equipment Not Ensuing Loss

November 10, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurers were granted summary judgment on three issues regarding Amtrak's claim for damages caused by Hurricane Sandy. Amtrak v. Aspen Sec. Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16074 (2nd Cir. Aug. 31, 2016). Hurricane Sandy caused flooding which damaged two of Amtrak's tunnels under the East and Hudson Rivers. Seawater from the flooding caused extensive damage to equipment in the tunnels. The district court granted summary judgment to the insurers on the following issues: (1) the damage caused by an inundation of water in the tunnels was subject to the policies' $125 million flood sublimit; and (2) the corrosion of equipment after Amtrak pumped out the seawater was not an "ensuing loss" and therefore was also subject to the flood sublimit. 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

Not Remotely Law as Usual: Don’t Settle for Delays – Settle at Remote Mediation

May 25, 2020 — Victor J. Zarrilli, Robert G. Devine & Michael W. Horner - White and Williams LLP
The emergence and rapid spread of COVID-19 has created extraordinary circumstances that have significantly impacted how we go about living, working and interacting with one another. The practice of law is no exception. While most cases have been postponed and some extended indefinitely, the issues and disputes that first triggered the litigation remain. In fact, the burdens created by social distancing and other responses to the COVID-19 outbreak have served to only increase these disputes and create an urgent need in some for quick resolution. In our previous article, we summarized some of the best practices that should be applied when taking and defending depositions in a remote, virtual setting. That technology can also offer the same benefits for alternative dispute resolutions. If planned properly, the use of technology allows remote mediations to be conducted as seamlessly as in-person mediations and, in some circumstances, affords additional benefits that can achieve the best possible resolution for all sides. This article summarizes the opportunities technology has created by which parties can attempt to resolve their disputes through alternative dispute resolution methods, even in a time of social distancing. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Victor J. Zarrilli, Robert G. Devine and Michael W. Horner Mr. Zarrilli may be contacted at zarrilliv@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Devine may be contacted at deviner@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Horner may be contacted at hornerm@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Georgia Update: Automatic Renewals in Consumer Service Contracts

August 31, 2020 — David R. Cook - AHC Blog
Georgia HB 1039 amends O.C.G.A. § 13-12-3 to provide additional protections for consumers who enter into service contracts containing lengthy automatic renewal provisions. Pre-Existing Requirement: For service contracts with an initial term of twelve months or longer and an automatic renewal provision for more than one month, unless the consumer terminates the agreement, sellers must provide written or electronic notification of the automatic renewal provision to the consumer. The notification must be provided to the consumer between 30 and 60 days before the cancellation deadline under such renewal provision. The notice must also “clearly and conspicuously” disclose that unless the consumer cancels, the agreement will automatically renew and disclose how the consumer may obtain details about the automatic renewal provision and cancellation procedure. The process by which a consumer may obtain such information must include the seller’s contact information (e.g., specific phone number or address), reference to the contract, or any other method provided. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

Cherokee Nation Wins Summary Judgment in COVID-19 Business Interruption Claim

February 01, 2021 — Sergio F. Oehninger, Geoffrey B. Fehling & Matt Revis - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In a resounding victory for policyholders, an Oklahoma state court granted partial summary judgment for the Cherokee Nation in its COVID-19 business interruption claim. The Cherokee Nation is seeking coverage for losses caused by the pandemic—specifically, the inability to use numerous tribal businesses and services for their intended purpose. Based on the “all risks” nature of the policy and the fortuitous nature of its loss, the Cherokee Nation sought a partial summary judgment ruling that the policies afford business interruption coverage for COVID-19-related losses. The policy provided coverage for “all risk of direct physical loss or damage,” which the Cherokee Nation contended was triggered when the property was “rendered unusable for its intended purpose.” In support of this view, and consistent with established insurance policy interpretation principles, such as providing meaning to every term and reading the policy as a whole, the Cherokee Nation argued that a distinction must exist between “physical loss” and “physical damage.” This distinction demands an interpretation supporting the “intended purpose” reading of the policy language. Thus, the physical presence of COVID-19 depriving the Cherokee Nation of the use of covered property for its intended purpose triggered a covered loss. Reprinted courtesy of Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Matt Revis, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES