Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

California Assembly Bill Proposes an End to Ten Year Statute of Repose

May 09, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

California Assemblyman Furutani has introduced a bill that if passed would eliminate the ten year statute of repose in certain construction defect cases. The statute of repose would not apply when “an action in tort to recover damages for damage to real or personal property, or for personal injury or wrongful death from exposure to hazardous or toxic materials, pollution, hazardous waste, or associates environmental remediation activities,” according to the latest amended version of AB 1207.

When Furutani first introduced the bill, it was aimed at small businesses only. However, the description of the bill, which read, “An act to amend Section 14010 of the Corporations Code, relating to small businesses” has been stricken from the bill, and it has been amended to read, “An act to amend Section 337.15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, relating to civil actions.”

The change in the bill’s intent has caused some outcry among attorneys in the blogosphere. For instance, Sean Sherlock of Snell & Wilmer stated that “the proposed amendment is unnecessary, and would upset nearly 50 years of deliberative legislation and judicial precedent on construction defects liability and the 10–year statute — all apparently motivated by a decision in a single, isolated Superior Court lawsuit that has not yet been reviewed by the court of appeal.” Sherlock is referring to Acosta v. Shell Oil Company, in which the Superior Court agreed to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims against the developer based in part on the ten year statute of repose. AB 1207 was amended five days after the ruling in Acosta v. Shell Oil Company.

California AB 1207 has been re-referred to the Judiciary Committee.

Read the full story…

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

KF-103 v. American Family Mutual Insurance: An Exception to the Four Corners Rule

October 29, 2014 — Zach McLeroy – Colorado Construction Litigation
In Colorado, the “complaint rule,” also known as the “four corners rule,” requires an insurer to provide a defense when an underlying complaint alleges any set of facts that may fall within an insurance policy. This can result in a situation where an insurer has a duty to defend although the underlying facts ultimately do not fall within the policy. In KF-103 v. American Family Mutual Insurance, 2014 WL 4409876, District Court Judge Richard P. Matsch recognized an exception to the complaint rule. In doing so, Judge Matsch determined that a court may look beyond the complaint to judicial orders preceding the filing of the complaint to determine whether an insurer has a duty to defend. Therefore, a party may not be able to assert unsupported facts in a complaint for the sole purpose of triggering an insurance policy. KF 103 v. American Family arose out of an underlying easement dispute. In the underlying case, KF 103-CV, LLC (“KF 103”) purchased a piece of property from the Infinity Group. As a condition of the purchase agreement, Infinity Group was required to complete improvements to boundary streets and the intersection of Ski Lane and Sorpresa Lane. Several adjoining property owners (the “neighbors”) objected to the modification of the intersection because it violated an express easement (the “easement”) that provided access to their properties. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Zach McLeroy, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLeroy may be contacted at McLeroy@hhmrlaw.com

Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (10/23/24) – Construction Backlog Rebounds, Real Estate Sustainability Grows, and Split Incentive Gap Remains Building Decarbonizing Barrier

November 18, 2024 — Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
In our latest roundup, construction output decreased, office utilization unchanged, September apartment starts fell 15% from a year ago as developers pulled permits, and more!

Developers pulled permits for a seasonally adjusted rate of 398,000 apartments in buildings with five units or more, a 17.4% YOY drop and a 10.8% decrease compared to August 2024. (Leslie Shaver, Multifamily Dive)
Construction input prices decreased 0.9% in September due to dips in two of three energy subcategories, reflecting the trend of overall material price stabilization over the past 12 months. (Sebastian Obando, Construction Dive)
Thanks in part to the Federal Reserve’s lowering of the interest rate, construction backlog rebounded in September after slumping at the end of the summer. (Joe Bousquin, Construction Dive)

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

California Supreme Court Declines to Create Exception to Privette Doctrine for “Known Hazards”

September 13, 2021 — Tracy D. Forbath - Lewis Brisbois
In Gonzalez v. Mathis (Aug. 19, 2021, S247677) __ Cal.5th___, the California Supreme Court reversed an appellate decision holding that a landowner may be liable to an independent contractor, or the contractor’s workers, for injuries resulting from “known hazards,” as running contrary to the Privette doctrine. In Gonzalez, the contractor, who specialized in washing skylights, slipped and fell while accessing the landowner’s particularly hard to reach skylight from a narrow retaining wall that was allegedly covered in loose gravel and slippery. (Slip opn., p. 3.) While the trial court initially granted the landowner summary judgment pursuant to the Privette doctrine, the appellate court reversed and held that the landowner had a responsibility to take reasonable safety precautions where there was a known safety hazard on the landowner’s premises. (Id. at p. 6.) Whether the landowner could have taken various safety precautions also raised disputed issues of material fact precluding summary judgment. (Ibid.) However, the California Supreme Court concluded that no broad, third exception to the Privette doctrine lies; “unless a landowner retains control over any part of the contractor’s work and negligently exercises that retained control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the injury [citation], it will not be liable to an independent contractor or its workers for an injury resulting from a known hazard on the premises.” (Slip opn., p. 2.) Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tracy D. Forbath, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Forbath may be contacted at Tracy.Forbath@lewisbrisbois.com

Final Thoughts on New Pay If Paid Legislation in VA

August 15, 2022 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
This past General Assembly session, and after a governor’s amendment and with the convening of a study group, a new statute banning so-called “pay-if-paid” clauses from enforcement was passed. Some of the key features of the legislation are as follows: It does not take effect until January 1, 2023, and, For those construction contracts in which there is at least one general contractor and one subcontractor:

It requires payment within 60 days of receipt of an invoice following the satisfactory performance of the work or within 7 days of receipt of payment by the Owner
It allows for retainage
It allows the higher-tier contractor to withhold money for improper performance

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

U.S. Codes for Deck Attachment

July 16, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Ted Cushman in Big Builder explained how “decks often collapse when the ledger attachment to the main house fails.” Now, codes require “positive attachment…a solid connection with closely spaced lag screws (or better yet, bolts)." Cushman demonstrated this pictorially in a detail. He also stated to make sure to fasten securely, remove siding, and install flashing. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

At $350 Million, Beverly Hillbillies Mansion Is Most Expensive in U.S.

August 10, 2017 — Matt Gross - Bloomberg
The story of Jed Clampett is, by now, a legend. A poor mountaineer, he could barely feed his family of four, but one day, while he was out hunting for food, he fired his rifle into the swamp behind his shack—and struck oil. The sale of the resource-rich land, in 1962, would eventually net him between $25 million and $100 million, and he did what anyone with sudden riches would do: He packed up his truck and moved his clan to Beverly Hills, where their adventures would be the subject of nine seasons of the Beverly Hillbillies. Now the Bel Air estate featured in the (fictional) show’s opening credits is up for sale—and as befits a wealthy, cultured oilman like Jed Clampett, it’s the most expensive listing in the country at $350 million. “Chartwell”—10.3 acres of land centering on a 25,000-square-foot mansion inspired by French Neoclassical design—went on the market this week, besting its closest competitor, a Beverly Hills spec house, by $100 million. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Matt Gross, Bloomberg

General Liability Alert: A Mixed Cause of Action with Protected and Non-Protected Activity Not Subject to Anti-SLAPP Motion

February 18, 2015 — Valerie A. Moore, Lawrence S. Zucker II and Blythe Golay – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Baral v. Schnitt (filed 2/5/2015, No. B253620), the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, held that California’s anti-SLAPP statute does not authorize the striking of allegations of protected activity in a cause of action that also contains meritorious allegations of non-protected activity not within the purview of the statute. In so holding, the court attempted to resolve, or at least add its voice to, the growing conflict among appellate districts on the issue. A SLAPP lawsuit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) seeks to chill or punish the exercise of constitutional rights to free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances. California’s Legislature enacted the anti-SLAPP statute to permit a defendant to file a special motion to strike as to any cause of action that arises out of an act in furtherance of such rights. In Baral, the plaintiff alleged that his business partner had violated fiduciary duties in usurping the plaintiff’s ownership and management interests in their jointly owned company, so that the defendant could benefit from a secret sale of the company. The complaint alleged that the defendant hired a public accounting firm and prevented the plaintiff from participating in its investigation in order to force the plaintiff's cooperation of the sale of the company. The defendant filed an anti-SLAPP motion, seeking to strike all references to the accounting firm's audit. The trial court denied the motion, on the ground that the anti-SLAPP statute applies to causes of action, not allegations. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Valerie A. Moore, Lawrence S. Zucker II and Blythe Golay Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com. Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com. Ms. Golay may be contacted at bgolay@hbblaw.com. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES