SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

A Contractual Liability Exclusion Doesn't Preclude Insurer's Duty to Indemnify

November 05, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP's blog, "[I]n Crownover v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20737 (5th Cir. October 29, 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit withdrew its prior ruling and held that the contractual liability exclusion did not preclude an insurer’s duty to indemnify its insured for an award resulting from the insured’s defective construction." The case involved the Crownovers who were awarded damages for "Arrow's breach of paragraph 23.1 of the construction contract." However, Arrow then filed for bankruptcy. Mid-Continent, Arrow's insurer, denied Crownovers' demand for recovery, stating that "the contractual liability exclusion applied because the arbitrator’s award to the Crownovers was based only on Arrow’s breach of paragraph 23.1 of the construction agreement." The court agreed with Mid-Continent. Subsequently, the fifth court of appeals "reversed the district court’s ruling and awarded summary judgment in favor of the Crownovers." Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

$1.9 Trillion Stimulus: Five Things Employers Need to Know

March 15, 2021 — Matthew C. Lewis & Rana Ayazi - Payne & Fears
On March 11, 2021, President Biden signed H.R.1319 - American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (“Rescue Plan”) into law—a $1.9 trillion stimulus bill. Here are five things every employer should know about the bill. 1. FFCRA Tax Credits Have Been Extended The Rescue Plan extends the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) tax credit provisions—again—through September 30, 2021. (The ability to recoup the cost of FFCRA leave was previously extended in December 2020 through March 31, 2021: See related article here. Employers that opt to voluntarily provide FFCRA leave will be credited 100 percent for all qualifying wages paid under the FFCRA. Any employer already providing FFCRA-like leave to employees under state, county, and/or local paid sick leave ordinances, especially if their business is located in California (e.g., Cal/OSHA’s COVID-19 Prevention Emergency Temporary Standards) should consider opting to voluntarily provide FFCRA-compliant leave, as by doing so they may be able at least partially to recoup the cost of leave they are otherwise already required to provide. Reprinted courtesy of Matthew C. Lewis, Payne & Fears and Rana Ayazi, Payne & Fears Mr. Lewis may be contacted at mcl@paynefears.com Ms. Ayazi may be contacted at ra@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

WARN Act Exceptions in Response to COVID-19

April 13, 2020 — Yvette Davis & Kyle R. DiNicola - Haight Brown & Bonesteel
California’s WARN Act requires employers of certain covered establishments to provide 60 days written notice of any mass layoff, relocation, or termination. This notice is required to be given to employees and the Employment Development Department. An employer’s failure to comply with this requirement can result in being held liable for back-pay and value of the cost of any benefits to which the affected employee(s) may have been entitled for up to a maximum of 60 days. Due to the COVID-19 crisis and emergency circumstances in which many employers now find themselves, the Governor of California has issued Executive Order N-31-20, which temporarily suspends the 60-days advance notice requirement and the provisions that impose liability and penalties on an employer for the duration of the COVID-19 emergency. Reprinted courtesy of Yvette Davis, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and Kyle R. DiNicola, Haight Brown & Bonesteel Ms. Davis may be contacted at ydavis@hbblaw.com Mr. DiNicola may be contacted at kdinicola@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Traub Lieberman Partner Michael K. Kiernan and Associate Brandon Christian Obtain Dismissal with Prejudice in Favor of Defendant

November 27, 2023 — Michael K. Kiernan & Brandon Christian - Traub Lieberman
In a 14-count breach of contract action brought in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida, Partner Michael K. Kiernan and Associate Brandon Christian obtained dismissal with prejudice in favor of Defendant St. Joseph’s Episcopal Church of Boynton Beach, Florida (“Church”). Plaintiffs, St. Joseph’s Episcopal School (“School”) and its benefactor, William Swaney, filed suit to enforce an alleged 99-year oral lease agreement which Swaney asserted had been made to him by a prior rector of the Church in exchange for his contributions to the School. Plaintiffs also sought emergency injunctive relief to allow the School to continue to operate on Church property. The Church maintained in part that the only lease in effect was a written lease, approved by the Church Vestry and the Diocese of Southeast Florida, and which the Church Vestry unanimously voted not to renew in 2022. Reprinted courtesy of Michael K. Kiernan, Traub Lieberman and Brandon Christian, Traub Lieberman Mr. Kiernan may be contacted at mkiernan@tlsslaw.com Mr. Christian may be contacted at bchristian@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Effective October 1, 2019, Florida General Contractors Have a Statutory Right to Recovery of Attorney Fees Against a Defaulted Subcontractor’s Surety

July 01, 2019 — Warren E. Friedman - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Florida contractors will soon have a level playing field, at least related to the right to recovery of attorney fees in certain circumstances. Effective October 1, 2019, the Florida statute by which legal fees may be recovered from insurers and sureties was amended to expressly afford that right to contractors. Florida’s Insurance statute, Chapter 627, affords a right to recovery of attorney fees when a judgment is obtained against an insurer and in favor of any insured pursuant to a policy or contract executed by the insurer. See Fla. Stat. § 627.428. In the construction context, the Florida Legislature has also applied this right to the recovery of attorney fees from sureties, for example in circumstances where suit is brought against a surety under a payment or performance bond. See Fla. Stat. § 627.756. But there was an oddity to this statute – it specifically provided this right for “owners” and “subcontractors”, but “contractors” were skipped over. For as long as Section 627.756, Florida Statutes has been on the books, the right to recovery of attorney fees against a surety under a payment or performance bond was only afforded to owners, subcontractors, laborers, and materialmen. Specifically, since at least 1977, Section 627.756, Florida Statutes substantially provided as follows (emphasis added): Section 627.428 applies to suits brought by owners, subcontractors, laborers, and materialmen against a surety insurer under payment or performance bonds written by the insurer under the laws of this state to indemnify against pecuniary loss by breach of a building or construction contract. Owners, subcontractors, laborers, and materialmen shall be deemed to be insureds or beneficiaries for the purposes of this section. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Warren E. Friedman - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Friedman may be contacted at wfriedman@pecklaw.com

---

Commonwealth Court Strikes Blow to Philly Window and Door Ordinance

January 05, 2017 — Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions
On December 22, 2016, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court issued an important opinion that has flown under the radar somewhat. The case Rufo v. Board of Licenses and Inspection Review, invalidates a major portion of Philadelphia’s so called windows and doors ordinance, which requires owners of vacant properties to install glass windows and doors with frames on vacant properties. A copy of the opinion can be found here. (I only learned about the case because of a tweet by a litigator with the pro-freedom group the Institute for Justice.) The Windows and Doors Ordinance The case concerns Section 306.2 of the Property Maintenance Code which requires “the owner of a vacant building that is a blighting influence, as defined in this subcode, [to] secure all spaces designed as windows with windows that have frames and glazing and all entryways with doors.” Property owners found in violation of the ordinance can face stiff fines. Property owners are subject to a daily fine for each door and window in violation of the Ordinance. The fine is $300 per window or door. However, because most vacant properties have multiple windows and doors the fines can add up exponentially. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

---

New Zealand Using Plywood Banned Elsewhere

October 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Copper chromium arsenate helps protect wood against insect damage and fungal growth. Unfortunately, its use leads to arsenic exposure. The safety concerns over CCA for both construction workers and the people who later use the buildings have led to the CCA-treated plywood being banned or restricted in most countries, including the United States, Canada, France, the United Kingdom, and Germany. New Zealand is not on the list of countries restricting or banning CCA-treated wood. Dr. Merial Watts, a science coordinator for Pesticide Action Network NZ described the product as an “unacceptable public health risk,” and said that “wrapping homes in CCA-treated plywood is a very bad idea.” One construction official, speaking anonymously, noted that “workers have to handle it with gloves and full body suits,” but those guidelines may not be followed. A foreman on a building site said “I know about the treatment but I don’t take many precautions.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

DC Circuit Rejects Challenge to EPA’s CERCLA Decision Regarding Hardrock Mining Industry

September 23, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
In a decision that will likely be welcomed by the electrical power, chemical manufacturing, and petroleum and coal products manufacturing industries, on July 19, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held in the case of Idaho Conservation League et al., v. Wheeler, that EPA acted reasonably in deciding not to issue CERCLA financial responsibility regulations for the hardrock mining industry. CERCLA (a.k.a., Superfund) was enacted in 1980 and amended in 1986, and Section 108(b) of CERCLA provides that EPA shall promulgate requirements that classes of facilities establish and maintain evidence of financial responsibility “consistent with the degree and duration of risk” associated with the production, transportation, treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous substances. However, no action was taken to implement Section 108(b) until 2009, and then only as the result of litigation challenging EPA’s failure to act. EPA and the petitioners agreed to a schedule by which the agency would propose financial responsibility rules for the hardrock mining industry—which was the initial class of industry facilities selected for the possible application of these rules—and the DC Circuit approved this schedule in 2016, which contained the court’s caveat that EPA retained the discretion not to issue any rule at the conclusion of the rulemaking. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

---