Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

CISA Guidance 3.1: Not Much Change for Construction

June 22, 2020 — Laura Bourgeois LoBue - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
This week, the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) issued Version 3.1 of its Guidance on the Essential Critical Infrastructure Workforce. For the most part, CISA’s Guidance 3.1 did not change from Version 3.0 as it relates to construction. However, CISA added a few construction-related services to “Essential Critical Infrastructure”:

“Workers who support the construction and maintenance of electric vehicle charging stations.”
“Engineers performing or supporting safety inspections.”

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Laura Bourgeois LoBue, Pillsbury
Ms. LoBue may be contacted at laura.lobue@pillsburylaw.com

French President Vows to Rebuild Fire-Collapsed Notre Dame Roof and Iconic Spire

June 03, 2019 — Scott Blair & Peter Reina - Engineering News-Record
Two British masonry experts familiar with centuries-old stone structures voiced concern that the catastrophic fire that collapsed the roof and spire of Notre Dame on April 15 could also have damaged stonework of the iconic Paris cathedral that may affect its stability. Reprinted courtesy of Scott Blair, ENR and Peter Reina, ENR Mr. Blair may be contacted at blairs@enr.com Mr. Reina may be contacted at reina@btinternet.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Developer Transition – Washington DC Condominiums

June 29, 2017 — Nicholas D. Cowie - Maryland Condo Construction Defect Law Blog
Developer transition is the process by which governance over a condominium unit owners’ association (“condominium association”) is transferred from condominium developer to unit owner control. Below is an overview of the legal requirements in the District of Columbia that govern this transition process as well as a “transition checklist” for unit owner-elected boards of directors that have recently transitioned from developer control. TRANSITION LAW OVERVIEW PERIOD OF DEVELOPER CONTROL A developer initially controls a condominium association because it owns all unsold units in the newly created condominium. As such, the condominium developer has the controlling votes associated with majority ownership and can appoint its own employees as the initial members of the board of directors and thereby control how the association conducts its affairs. This is referred to as the “period of developer control,” during which the condominium developer makes all decisions on behalf of the condominium association. The developer also creates a condominium association’s governing documents allowing it to dictate, subject to applicable law, the procedures and time periods under which control over the association’s board of directors is ultimately transferred to the unit owners. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas D. Cowie, Cowie & Mott, P.A.
Mr. Cowie may be contacted at ndc@cowiemott.com

Tax Increase Pumps $52 Billion Into California Construction

April 20, 2017 — JT Long - Engineering News-Record
The first wave of new road projects could go out at the beginning of 2018 now that the California legislature has approved $52.4 billion over 10 years from a new 12-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax. SB-1 was approved late in the evening on April 6; by April 7, the California Dept. of Transportation was already working on a list of projects that could start construction by summer of 2018. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of JT Long, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

Ninth Circuit Clears the Way for Review of Oregon District Court’s Rulings in Controversial Climate Change Case

February 27, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
On December 26, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit accepted an interlocutory appeal of the presiding District Court’s pre-trial rulings in the novel climate change case that is being tried in Oregon. The case is Juliana, et al. v. United States of America. In its ruling, the Ninth Circuit held that the District Court certification of this case for interlocutory appeal satisfied the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Ninth Circuit precedents authorize such an appeal when a District Court order “involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion”—which aptly characterizes the U.S. Supreme Court’s view of this litigation. 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

$24 Million Verdict Against Material Supplier Overturned Where Plaintiff Failed to Prove Supplier’s Negligence or Breach of Contract Caused an SB800 Violation

March 16, 2017 — Jon A. Turigliatto, Esq. & Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq. – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Bulletin
Acqua Vista Homeowners Assoc. v. MWL Inc. (2017) 2017 WL 371379 COURT OF APPEAL EXTENDS GREYSTONE HOMES, INC. v. MIDTEC, INC., HOLDING THAT CIVIL CODE §936 CREATES A NEGLIGENCE STANDARD FOR CLAIMS AGAINST MATERIAL SUPPLIERS BROUGHT UNDER SB800. The Fourth District California Court of Appeal recently published its decision Acqua Vista Homeowners Assoc. v. MWI, Inc. (2017) 2017 WL 371379, holding that claims against a material supplier under SB800 (Civil Code §895 and §936) require proof that the SB800 violation was caused by the supplier's negligence or breach of contract. Civil Code §936 states in relevant part, that it applies "to general contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, individual product manufacturers, and design professionals to the extent that the general contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, individual product manufacturers, and design professionals caused, in whole or in part, a violation of a particular standard as the result of a negligent act or omission or a breach of contract .... [T]he negligence standard in this section does not apply to any general contractor, subcontractor, material supplier, individual product manufacturer, or design professional with respect to claims for which strict liability would apply." Acqua Vista Homeowners Association (the "HOA") sued MWI, a supplier of Chinese pipe used in the construction of the Acqua Vista condominium development. The HOA's complaint asserted a single cause of action for violation of SB800 standards, and alleged that defective cast iron pipe was used throughout the building. After trial, the trial court entered a judgment against MWI in the amount of $23,955,796.28, reflecting the jury's finding that MWI was 92% responsible for the HOA's damages. MWI filed a motion for a directed verdict and motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the grounds that the HOA had failed to present any evidence that MWI had caused an SB800 violation as a result of its negligence or breach of contract, and had therefore failed to prove negligence and causation as required by SB800, citing to Greystone Homes, Inc. v. Midtec, Inc.(2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1194. The trial court denied both motions, relying on the last sentence of Civil Code §936, which states in part, "[T]he negligence standard in this section does not apply to any ... material supplier ... with respect to claims for which strict liability would apply." The Court of Appeal reversed and ordered the trial court to enter judgment in favor of MWI. The Court of Appeal relied on the legislative history of S8800 and Greystone, which held that the first sentence of Civil Code §936 contains an "explicit adoption of a negligence standard" for S8800 claims against product manufacturers. The Court of Appeal reasoned that since §936 treats product manufacturers and material suppliers identically, the holding of Greystone must equally apply to material suppliers. Because the complaint did not state a common law cause of action for strict liability, the HOA was required to prove that the damages were caused by MWI' s negligence or breach of contract. Although, the Court of Appeal found that while the HOA's evidence may have supported a finding that the manufacturer of the leaking pipes was negligent, the HOA had not provided any evidence that MWI, the supplier, had failed to supply the type of pipe ordered, acted unreasonably in failing to detect any manufacturing defects present in the pipe, or damaged it during transportation. Accordingly, the HOA could not prove that the alleged S8800 violation was caused, in whole or in part, by MWI' s negligence, omission, or breach of contract. In light of the decision, homeowner and associations that allege only violations of SB800 standards without asserting a common law cause of action for strict liability cannot prevail by simply producing evidence of a violation, and are required to prove that violation was caused by the negligent act or omission, or breach of contract, of the defendant contractor, material supplier, and/or product manufacturer. Reprinted courtesy of Jon A. Turigliatto, Esq, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq., Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Mr. Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Zombie Foreclosures Plaguing Various Cities in the U.S.

July 16, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Many homeowners are simply abandoning their homes before banks have completed the foreclosure process, according to USA Today. Banks are not always in a hurry to take ownership of property, and often will wait until they are ready to dispose of it before doing so: “There are two primary things that can factor into their decision," Eric Eckardt, vice president and general manager of Hubzu.com, told the Mail Tribune. "One, they may have a surplus of REO properties they're trying to move off the balance sheet. The second is, costs associated with foreclosure may be greater than the value. At the end of the day, it's really a case-by-case matter.” USA Today reported that “[t]he length of the entire foreclosure process is a major contributor to vacancy rates because homeowners are more likely to give up on their homes the longer they have to wait for a resolution.” These abandoned homes may have a negative impact on sales of neighboring homes, according to the Mail Tribune. Gary Poulos, a retired Harry & David systems engineer, lives next door to a ‘zombie foreclosure,’ and spent a year trying to get maintenance work completed on the neighboring property so that he could be in a position to sell his own. He created a blog about his experience (myneighborchasebank.blogspot.com). Big Builder analyzed May 2014 data from CoreLogic, and identified the five states with the highest foreclosure inventory: New Jersey, Florida, New York, Hawaii, and Maine. While the five states with the lowest foreclosure inventory were Alaska, Nebraska, North Dakota, Wyoming, and Minnesota. Read the full story, USA Today... Read the full story, Big Builder... Read the full story, Mail Tribune... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Arizona Supreme Court Confirms a Prevailing Homeowner Can Recover Fees on Implied Warranty Claims

November 21, 2017 — Rick Erickson - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Originally published by CDJ on August 30, 2017 On August 9th, in Sirrah Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Wunderlich, the Arizona Supreme Court settled the question about recovery of attorneys’ fees after prevailing on implied warranty claims against a residential contractor. The simple answer is, yes, a homeowner who prevails on the merits can recover the fees they spent to prove that shoddy construction breached the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability. Why? Because, as Justice Timmer articulated, “[t]he implied warranty is a contract term.” Although implied, the warranty is legally part of the written agreement in which “a residential builder warrants that its work is performed in a workmanlike manner and that the structure is habitable.” In other words, a claim based on the implied warranty not only arises out of the contract, the claim is actually based on a contract term. Since, in A.R.S. § 12-341.01, Arizona law provides for prevailing parties to recover their fees on claims “arising out of contract” and because the implied warranty is now viewed by the courts as a contract term, homeowners can recover their fees after successfully proving breach of the implied warranty. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Rick Erickson, Snell & Wilmer
Mr Erickson may be contacted at rerickson@swlaw.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES