SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Not so Fast! How Does Revoking Acceleration of a Note Impact the Statute of Limitations?

July 30, 2018 — Ben Reeves - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Introduction Lenders routinely accelerate notes after a default occurs, calling the entire loan due immediately. Less regularly, a lender may change its mind and unilaterally revoke the acceleration. Rarely, however, does a lender fail to foreclose on its real property collateral before the statute of limitations expires. In Andra R. Miller Designs, LLC v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 244 Ariz. 265, 418 P.3d 1038 (Ct. App. 2018), a unique set of facts involving these issues led the Arizona Court of Appeals to hold that proper revocation of acceleration resets the statute of limitations. The Facts In Miller, a lender made a $1,940,000 loan evidenced by a promissory note and secured by a deed of trust against a home in Paradise Valley, Arizona. The borrower defaulted in September 2008. The default prompted the lender to notice a default, accelerate the note, and initiate a trustee’s sale of the home in 2009. After the lender accelerated the note, the six year statute of limitations began to run. See A.R.S. § 12-548(A)(1) and A.R.S. § 33-816. Pretty standard facts so far, right? Don’t worry, it gets a bit more convoluted. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ben Reeves, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Reeves may be contacted at breeves@swlaw.com

---

Client Alert: Michigan Insurance Company Not Subject to Personal Jurisdiction in California for Losses Suffered in Arkansas

February 05, 2015 — R. Bryan Martin, Lawrence S. Zucker II, and Kristian B. Moriarty – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Greenwell v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. (No. C074546, Filed 1/27/2015) (“Greenwell”), the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, held a California resident could not establish specific personal jurisdiction over an insurance company, located in Michigan, which issued a policy of insurance to the California resident where the claimed loss occurred in Arkansas. Plaintiff purchased a policy of insurance from defendant, Auto-Owners Ins. Co. (“Auto”), a Michigan corporation. The policy provided commercial property coverage for an apartment building owned by Plaintiff, located in Arkansas. The policy also provided commercial general liability coverage for plaintiff’s property ownership business, which plaintiff operated from California. Both coverage provisions insured certain risks, losses, or damages that could have arisen in California. The dispute which arose between Plaintiff and Defendant, however, involved two fires that damaged the apartment building in Arkansas. As a result of coverage decisions that Auto made in the handling of the claim, plaintiff filed suit for breach of contract and bad faith. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys R. Bryan Martin, Lawrence S. Zucker II and Kristian B. Moriarty Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com; and Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Tokyo Building Flaws May Open Pandora's Box for Asahi Kasei

October 28, 2015 — Kathleen Chu, Joji Mochida & Katsuyo Kuwako – Bloomberg
Japanese real estate investment trusts are joining apartment owners and regulators in pushing Asahi Kasei Corp. for answers on an apartment building sagging sideways on the outskirts of Tokyo, as concerns are mounting that it may not be an isolated case. REITs including Advance Residence Investment, Nippon Accommodation Fund Inc., Daiwa House Residential Investment Corp. and Japan Rental Housing Investment Inc. have all asked Asahi Kasei for details on what other buildings might be flawed, according to the trusts. Asahi Kasei disclosed on Thursday the names of prefectures where the company has undertaken work in the past 10 years on more than 3,000 buildings, after the land ministry requested the data. The sites include 342 schools, 257 medical and health-care facilities, 696 housing complexes and 217 office buildings, the firm said. Asahi Kasei, the subcontractor of the project, said a unit didn’t properly install foundation piles at an apartment building in Yokohama, and the division falsified data on the work. The scandal has sent Asahi Kasei’s shares down more than 21 percent since Oct. 13, when news of the flawed building first emerged. Shares of Sumitomo Mitsui Construction Co., the contractor, plunged 25 percent and those of Mitsui Fudosan Co., which sold units at the Yokohama project in 2006, have tumbled 5 percent since then. All three companies said that the impact of the incident on their earnings is not yet clear. Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg reporters Kathleen Chu, Joji Mochida and Katsuyo Kuwako Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Drought Dogs Developers in California's Soaring Housing Market

September 17, 2015 — John Gittelsohn – Bloomberg
California’s already tight housing market is facing another long-term complication: drought. The state’s dry spell is creating challenges for developers at a time when home prices are soaring because of limited inventory. The metropolitan areas of San Jose, San Francisco and San Diego had the nation’s biggest gap between the number of new jobs and residential building permits from 2012 to 2014, according to a report Wednesday by the National Association of Realtors. Now the drought, into its fourth year, stands to curb affordability further. “It’s contributing to price appreciation by restricting supply,” said Mark Boud, founder of Real Estate Economics, a housing-consulting firm based in Irvine, California. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John Gittelsohn, Bloomberg

---

Excessive Corrosion Cause of Ohio State Fair Ride Accident

August 10, 2017 — David Suggs – Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.
The manufacturer of the Fire Ball ride at the Ohio State Fair claims that excessive corrosion “led to the accident that killed a teenager and injured seven others…in July.” According to a statement by KMG International, reported by ABC News, “Corrosion on the interior of the support beam reduced the beam's thickness, which led to the accident at the fair.” Furthermore, “The company said it conducted an investigation into the incident, which included a visit to the scene and a review of video footage of the incident. The company also conducted a metallurgical inspection of the ride.” A U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) spokesperson said “it is aware of 22 deaths associated with amusement attractions since 2010, including Wednesday's incident, but excluding water park and work-related fatalities.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Blindly Relying on Public Adjuster or Loss Consultant’s False Estimate Can Play Out Badly

May 03, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Insurance policies, particularly property insurance policies, have a concealment or fraud provision that, in essence, gives the insurer an out if the insured submits a fraudulent claim, a false claim, or conceals material facts. Unlike a traditional fraud claim where a party needs to prove intent, the provision is broad enough that it does not require any intent behind making a false statement. See Mezadieu v. Safepoint Ins. Co., 46 Fla.L.Weekly D691c (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). For this reason, and as exemplified below, do NOT blindly rely on a public adjuster or loss consultant’s estimate that contains false statements because those false statements, particularly if you know they are false, can play out badly for you! Review the estimate and ask questions about it to make sure you understand what is being included in the loss or damages estimate. In Mezadieu, a homeowner submitted a claim to her property insurance carrier due to a second-floor water leak emanating from her bathroom. She submitted an estimate from her public adjuster that included damages for her kitchen cabinets directly below the second-floor bathroom, as well as other items on her first-floor. Her carrier denied coverage based on the exclusion that the policy excludes damage caused by “[c]onstant or repeated seepage of water or steam…which occurs over a period of time.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Florida Property Bill Passes Economic Affairs Committee with Amendments

April 14, 2011 — Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFF

The Florida Property Bill (HBB 803) was passed by the Economic Affairs Committee by a vote of 11-7, according to Property Casualty 360, after adopting nine new amendments. The additions to the bill included limiting notice of claims to a set number of years, extending the statute of limitation on property claims from five years to six years, among others.



HB 803 and SB 408, the Senate companion bill, focus primarily on residential property insurance. They make changes to the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund, while also promoting increased notification of policy changes to policyholders. Sections of the bills provide minor fixes such as renaming Citizens Property Insurance Corporation to Taxpayer-Funded Property Insurance Corporation. However, other sections of the bills contain more significant policy changes such as sinkhole coverage and hurricane claims.



The bills’ intent, according to the SunSentinel.com, is to reduce fraudulent claims and to bring new insurers into the insurance market. However, SunSentinel.com also reports that the bills may drastically increase property insurance premiums.



Read the full Property Casualty 360 article...



Read the full Sun Sentinel article...

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

---

The EPA and the Corps of Engineers Propose Another Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States”

February 14, 2022 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
On December 7, 2021, the most recent proposed revision to the Clean Water Act’s term, “Waters of the United States” was published in the Federal Register. (See 86 FR 69372.) Comments on this proposal must be submitted by February 7, 2022. This term controls the scope of federal regulatory powers in such programs as the development of water quality standards, impaired waters, total maximum daily loads, oil spill prevention, preparedness and response plans, state and tribal water quality certification programs, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, and the Corps of Engineers’ dredge and fill program. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Corps of Engineers have jointly drafted this comprehensive proposed rule, which also responds to President Biden’s Executive Order 13990, issued in January 2021. Background The agencies noted that they have repeatedly defined and re-defined “Waters of the United States” since the Clean Water Act was enacted in 1972. This level of sustained commitment is unique to this program, perhaps reflecting the importance of the programs that are implemented through the Clean Water Act. The most recent rulemaking efforts took place in 2015, 2017, 2020 and now 2022, and the Supreme Court has issued several landmark rulings in response to these efforts. See City of Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451 US 304 (1981), United States v. Riverside Bayview, 474 US 121 (1985), SWANCC v. United States, 531 US 159 (2001), Rapanos v. United States, 547 US 715 (2006), National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, 138 S Ct 617 (2018), and County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, 140 S, Ct 1462 (2020). The rules promulgated in 2015 and entitled, “Clean Water Act: Definition of Waters of the United States” expanded the scope of federal regulatory jurisdiction, but the 2020 rule, entitled the “Navigable Waters Protection Rule,” contracted that scope. Now, the agencies have proposed the “Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States,’” which will rescind the 2020 rule and inevitably restore something of the scope of the 2015 rule by returning to the familiar “1986 rules” that were issued by the Corps of Engineers in 1986 and EPA in 1988, as modified by the recent Supreme Court decisions mentioned above. Both the 2015 and 2020 rules were mired in litigation and the Corps and EPA view the resort to the 1986 rules as a fresh start for the Clean Water Act. In short, the topsy-turvy history of regulation under the Clean Water Act continues. 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

---