Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Home Builders and Developers Beware: SC Supreme Court Beats Up Hybrid Arbitration Clauses Mercilessly

November 15, 2022 — Matthew Devries - Best Practices Construction Law
Today’s guest post is by one of my favorite construction lawyers and friends, Burr partner Ned Nicholson in our Columbia, SC office. Ned regularly represents clients in construction defect and compensation claims, manufacturer/dealer disputes, and insurance coverage lawsuits. He is also a South Carolina certified mediator. Ned can be reached at nnicholson@burr.com or (803) 799-9800. If you are a homebuilder, residential housing developer, construction industry insurer, or any one of the many participants in the industry providing affordable and decent housing for the citizens of South Carolina, you are already aware that South Carolina courts have for decades prioritized the promotion of consumer (i.e., home buyer) rights, usually at the expense of the providers of housing. There is nothing inherently wrong with that; the goal is laudable. But as in so many things, the implementation has been extremely costly for the residential construction industry as a savvy plaintiff’s bar has taken advantage of grey areas that are inevitably created in our judicial system. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Matthew Devries, Burr & Forman LLP
Mr. Devries may be contacted at mdevries@burr.com

New Recommendations for Healthy and Safe Housing Conditions

May 19, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The National Center for Healthy Housing (NCHH) and the American Public Health Association (APHA) jointly “released the National Healthy Housing Standard, which provides recommendations for the maintenance and condition of occupied dwellings,” reported Big Builder. According to Big Builder, “The standard's provisions aim to fill gaps where there are no property maintenance policies and to complement the International Property Maintenance Code and other federal, state, and local policies in place regarding the upkeep of existing homes.” Some of the recommendations included room access to daylight, no or low-VOC building materials, and water management. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Illinois Appellate Court Affirms Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case

August 04, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the insurer had a duty to defend a construction defect case. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v. Pulte Home Corp., 2015 Ill App. Unpub. LEXIS 1039 (Ill. Ct. App. May 15, 2015). Pulte Home Corporation was a developer who developed and constructed a residential condominium development known as The Reserve of Elgin (The Reserve). G.H. Siding was subcontracted by Pulte to work on the development, including the installation of exterior siding. The Reserve Homeowners Association (HOA) filed suit against Pulte and James Hardie Building Products Inc., the company that manufactured the exterior siding. The complaint alleged that Pulte developed, designed, constructed and sold the units and common areas. Pulte installed siding manufactured by Hardie on the exterior of the units. The siding was allegedly defective. The HOA alleged breach of implied warranty of habitability and breach of contract by Pulte. Hardie was sued for breach of express warranty and breach of implied warrant of habitability. 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

Environmental and Regulatory Law Update: New Federal and State Rulings

April 19, 2022 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
The first quarter of 2022 has yielded a number of decisions, reversals and agency adjustments worth note. FEDERAL CIRCUIT U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit – Food & Water Watch v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission On March 11, 2022, the court decided the FERC case. On December 19, 2019, the Commission issued a Certificate to Tennessee Gas Pipeline and determined that a “modest expansion” and upgrade of the existing 11,000-mile natural gas pipeline would have no significant environmental impact. However, one of the Commissioners filed a partial dissent, arguing that the Commission’s treatment of the climate change impacts was inadequate. A petition for review was filed, and now the court has decided that the Commission erred in not accounting for the indirect effects of the expansion, namely the downstream emissions of greenhouse gas generated by the pipeline’s delivery of the gas to its customers. Consequently, NEPA’s requirement that a rigorous environmental assessment be made before the authorization was granted was violated. However, the court decided against vacating the Commission’s orders, which would have had a “disruptive effect” on the project which is, or soon will be, operational. 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

Montana Supreme Court: Insurer Not Bound by Insured's Settlement

December 02, 2019 — K. Alexandra Byrd - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In Draggin’ Y Cattle Co., Inc. v. Junkermier, et al.1 the Montana Supreme Court held that where an insurer defends its insured and the insured subsequently settles the claims without an insurer’s participation, a court may approve the settlement as between the underlying plaintiff and underlying defendant, but the settlement will not be presumed reasonable as to the insurer. Therefore, an insurer who defends its insured cannot be bound by a stipulated settlement that the insurer did not expressly consent to. The case involved Draggin’ Y Cattle Company (the “Cattle Company”), a ranching and cattle business that utilized the services of an accounting firm, Junkermier, Clark, Campanella, Stevens, P.C. (“Junkermier”), to structure the sale of real property to take advantage of favorable tax treatment. It was discovered that Junkermier’s employee misinformed the Cattle Company’s owners of the tax consequences of the sale. The Cattle Company’s owners subsequently filed suit against Junkermier and its employee and alleged nearly $12,000,000 in damages due to the error. Junkermier’s insurer, New York Marine, provided a defense for Junkermier and its employee. The Cattle Company’s owners offered to settle the claims against Junkermier and its employee for $2,000,000, the policy limit of the New York Marine policy. New York Marine refused to give its consent or tender the policy’s limit. Subsequently, Junkermier, its employee, and the Cattle Company entered into their own settlement agreement for $10,000,000. The settlement was contingent upon a reasonableness hearing to approve the stipulated agreement. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of K. Alexandra Byrd, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Byrd may be contacted by kab@sdvlaw.com

Texas EIFS Case May Have Future Implications for Construction Defects

October 02, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Lennar Homes addressed a problem with EIFS in homes built in Texas in the 1990s by replacing every roof they had built. Some of those homes had problems with leaks, rotting, or termites, but other roofs hadn’t suffered any problems. Lennar’s insurers initially refused coverage. Lennar managed to settle with all but one, Markel American Insurance. Their dispute formed the case Lennar Corp. v. Markel American Insurance Co. This was first tried before a jury and eventually appealed to the Texas Supreme Court. Brian S. Martin of Thompson Coe Cousins & Irons LLP discusses this case at Insurance Journal. Markel’s claim was that under the policy language, Lennar could not make voluntary payments without getting Markel’s consent, which they did not. But the Texas Supreme Court disagreed, determining that Lennar took, as Mr. Martin notes, “a reasonable approach to a serious problem.” Markel also made the claim that the whole amount of the damages was not covered by the policy, as they did not view the policy as covering the cost of determining the extent of the damage. The Court disagreed, noting that “under no reasonable construction of the phrase can the cost of finding EIFS property damage in order to repair it not to be considered ‘because of the damage.’” Mr. Martin concludes by calling the Texas Supreme Court decision “a frontal assault on several critical provisions of liability policies that will assuredly lead to further litigation.” He also notes that the decision “may indicate a shift in the Court’s approach in insurance cases to a more result-oriented jurisprudence.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Court Addresses HOA Attempt to Restrict Short Term Rentals

December 11, 2018 — Kevin J. Parker - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In a recent case, the Texas Supreme Court addressed an attempt by a homeowners’ association (“HOA”) to restrict short-term rentals based upon recorded Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (“CC&Rs”) applicable to a residential subdivision. The property was a single-family home. The homeowner rented the home through websites such as VRBO. The HOA issued notices of violation; the homeowner kept renting; the HOA assessed fines against the property. The property owner then sought a declaration from the court that the CC&Rs did not impose a minimum duration on occupancy or leasing. The trial court agreed with the HOA. The Texas Court of Appeals also agreed with the HOA. The Texas Supreme Court reversed, holding that the CC&Rs, as properly interpreted, did not prohibit short-term rentals. In arriving at its holding, the Texas Supreme Court analyzed the CC&Rs in detail and came to an interpretation different than the trial court and the Court of Appeals. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. Parker, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Parker may be contacted at kparker@swlaw.com

Not so Fast – Florida’s Legislature Overrules Gindel’s Pre-Suit Notice/Tolling Decision Related to the Construction Defect Statute of Repose

May 11, 2020 — Rahul Gogineni - The Subrogation Strategist
As discussed in a prior blog post, in Gindel v. Centex Homes, 2018 Fla.App. LEXIS 13019, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal held that when the plaintiffs provided a pre-suit notice in compliance with §558.004 of Florida’s construction defect Right-to-Cure statute, Fla. Stat. §§ 558.001 to 558.005, et. seq., they commenced a “civil action or proceeding,” i.e. an “action,” within the meaning of Florida’s construction defect Statute of Repose, Florida Statue § 95.11(3)(c). Thus, the court held that the plaintiffs commenced their action prior to the time Florida’s 10-year statute of repose period ended. In overturning the lower court’s dismissal of the action, the court found that because the Right-to-Cure statute, §558 of the Florida Statutes, sets out a series of mandatory steps that must be taken prior to bringing a judicial action, filing pre-suit notice of claim sufficiently constituted an “action” for purposes of Florida’s Statute of Repose. For various reasons, the parties appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Florida. In July of 2019, before the Florida Supreme Court could decide whether to hear the case, the Florida legislature passed legislation that effectively overruled the decision. To overrule the decision, the Florida Legislature modified § 558.004 of Florida’s Right-to-Cure statute to expressly state that a notice of claim served pursuant to the Right-to-Cure statute does not toll the 10-year statute of repose period for construction claims. See Fla. Stat. § 558.004(d). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Rahul Gogineni, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Gogineni may be contacted at goginenir@whiteandwilliams.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES