Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

California Supreme Court Hands Victory to Private Property Owners Over Public Use

June 21, 2017 — Sean M. Sherlock - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In 1970 the California Supreme Court held that, under certain circumstances, private property owners impliedly dedicate their property to the public if they permit the public to use it. Gion v. City of Santa Cruz (1970) 2 Cal.3d 29. This holding was controversial, and the next year the California Legislature enacted Civil Code section 1009 limiting the public’s ability to permanently use private property through an implied dedication. In the 40-plus years since then, the lower courts have wrestled with the issue of whether the statute limiting implied dedication applies only to recreational uses by the public, or also to nonrecreational uses. On June 15, 2017, the California Supreme Court issued its unanimous opinion in Scher v. Burke (June 15, 2017, S230104) ___ Cal.4th ___, holding that the limitations on implied dedication apply to nonrecreational as well as recreational uses. The case is significant because it demonstrates that the Supreme Court will apply the plain language of the state’s statutes to uphold private property rights. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sean M. Sherlock, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Sherlock may be contacted at ssherlock@swlaw.com

Good Signs for Housing Market in 2013

December 20, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
Dan Green, a loan officer at Waterstone Mortgage, is optimistic about the construction market in 2013. He notes that the rise in building permit, housing starts, and housing completions are all good signs. Mortgage rates are still low, making these new homes attractive to buyers. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Real Case, Real Lessons: Understanding Builders’ Risk Insurance Limits

August 12, 2024 — David McLain - Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
In the recent case of 5333 Mattress King LLC v. Hanover Insurance Company, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado provided significant insights into the limits of builders’ risk insurance policies. Mattress King LLC, a warehouse owner, faced a substantial loss when a subcontractor drove a crane over and damaged the warehouse’s concrete floor slab during construction. Despite having a builders’ risk insurance policy with Hanover Insurance Company, coverage was denied, leading to litigation. Applicable Policy Provisions The policy in question was a Commercial Marine/Commercial Lines Builders’ Risk insurance policy. Builders’ risk insurance is designed to cover direct physical loss to covered property during construction unless the loss is excluded or limited by the policy. Key exclusions of the policy at issue included losses caused by faulty, inadequate, or defective:

Planning, zoning, surveying, or development
Design, specifications, workmanship, repair, construction, renovation, remodeling, grading, or compaction
Materials used in construction or renovation
Maintenance of the covered property

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Undocumented Debris at Mississippi Port Sparks Legal Battle

July 26, 2017 — Jim Parsons - Engineering News-Record
Undocumented underground debris fields at a Gulf of Mexico port project are at the heart of a contractor’s nearly $50-million federal lawsuit against the Mississippi Development Authority and eight engineering and construction consultants. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

Prevailing Parties Entitled to Contractual Attorneys’ Fees Under California CCP §1717 Notwithstanding Declaration That Contract is Void Under California Government Code §1090

December 20, 2017 — Zachary Price & Lawrence Zucker
In California-American Water Co. v. Marina Coast Water District (Nos. A146166, 146405, filed 12/15/17), the First District Court of Appeal held that a prevailing party was entitled to an award of contractual attorneys’ fees under Code of Civil Procedure §1717 even though the underlying contracts were declared void under Government Code §1090. Appellant Marina Coast Water District (“Marina”) and Respondent Monterey County Water Resources Agency (“Monterey”), both public water agencies, and Respondent California-American Water Company (“California-American”), a water utility, entered into several contracts to collaborate on a water desalination project. The parties agreed that the prevailing party of any action in any way arising from their agreements would be entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees. Reprinted courtesy of Zachary Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence Zucker, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Price may be contacted at zprice@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Owners and Contractors are Liable for Injuries Caused by their Independent Contractors under the “Peculiar Risk Doctrine”

October 15, 2024 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
Many contractors and owners believe that if they hire an independent contractor to perform work and that independent contractor causes injury to others during the performance of that work, then it is the independent contractor alone who will be liable for those injuries. In most circumstances, this is correct. The owner or the contractor will not be held liable for injuries caused by his or her independent contractor. However, this is not always the case. Under the “Peculiar Risk Doctrine” and California cases interpreting the doctrine, a contractor or owner who hires an independent contractor to do work which is considered to be “inherently dangerous work” can be still be held directly liable for damages when that independent contractor causes injury to others by negligently performing the work. Such liability can generally be imposed on the one hiring the independent contractor under either of two branches of the peculiar risk doctrine. First, where a person hires an independent contractor to do inherently dangerous work, but fails to provide in the contract or in some other manner that special precautions must be taken to avert the peculiar risk of injury related to that work, then the one hiring the independent contractor can be held liable for injuries to others caused by the independent contractor’s negligence. (Restatement Second of Torts Section 413). For example, in Mackey v. Campbell Construction Co. 101 Cal. App. 3d 774, 162 Cal. Rptr. 64 (1980), Western Electric Company, the owner of the project, was found liable for the personal injuries of a subcontractor’s employee because Western’s representatives were on the job at all times, had doubts about the safety of scaffolding being used on the project, yet failed to require use of precautions that could have been taken to avoid injury. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

Suit Limitation Provisions in New York

January 28, 2025 — Bill Wilson - Construction Law Zone
New York law generally enforces a contractual suit limitation that specifies a “reasonable” period of time (usually shorter than the applicable statute of limitations) within which an action must be commenced. The contractual suit limitation needs to be fair and reasonable, given the circumstances of each particular case. The New York Court of Appeals recently examined this precedent in the context of an insurance policy enforcing an insurance contract’s two-year suit limitation period in Farage v. Associated Insurance Management Corp., 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 05875 (Nov. 26, 2024). In Farage, a Staten Island multi-unit apartment building was damaged in a fire. The plaintiff owner filed its full repair claim for damages with its insurer six years after the fire and four years after the expiration of the contractual limitation period. The insurer denied the claim. The plaintiff filed suit for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith fair dealing. The insurer moved to dismiss the action based on the two-year limitation provision in the insurance contract. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLP
Mr. Wilson may be contacted at wwilson@rc.com

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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES