Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Facing Manslaughter Charges In Worker's 2021 Trench Collapse Death, Colorado Contractor Who Willfully Ignored Federal Law Surrenders To Police

February 06, 2023 — U.S. Department of Labor
BRECKENRIDGE, CO – The owner of a Vail construction company facing felony manslaughter charges has surrendered to local law enforcement after the Summit County Sheriff's Office in Breckenridge, Colorado, issued an arrest warrant on Jan. 24, 2023, related to the findings of a federal safety investigation into a deadly trench collapse in November 2021. In May 2022, the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration cited Peter Dillon, owner of the now-defunct A4S LLC, after a worker installing residential sewer pipes suffered fatal injuries when the trench around him caved in. The collapse resulted from deteriorating conditions at the project, which A4S LLC could have prevented by using legally required trench protection systems. OSHA issued three willful citations to A4S LLC for not ensuring the excavation was inspected by a competent person, failing to instruct employees on the recognition and avoidance of unsafe conditions and not having a trench protective system in place. Investigators also issued an additional serious citation for not having a safe means of egress within 25 lateral feet of employees working in a trench. The agency proposed penalties of $449,583 and placed the company in OSHA's Severe Violator Enforcement Program. The department referred the case to the 5th Judicial District Attorney's office recommending criminal charges for A4S LLC's refusal to require safety protection, despite worsening trench conditions that included at least one trench collapse. A4S LLC has since shuttered and Dillon agreed to forfeit any future ownership, leadership or management position that involves trenching or excavation, or the oversight of workplace safety and health. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

If You Don’t Like the PPP Now, Wait a Few Minutes…Major Changes to PPP Loan Program as Congress Passes Payroll Protection Program Flexibility Act

July 27, 2020 — Ryan J. Udell & Adam J. Chelminiak - White and Williams LLP
On June 5, 2020, President Trump signed into law the Payroll Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020 (the Flexibility Act). The Flexibility Act provides much-needed flexibility for the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and its millions of business participants. The PPP offers loans to small businesses that have been adversely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and the measures taken by various governmental authorities to stem the spread of the virus so that they could keep their employees on the payroll during an eight-week period after receiving the funds. The PPP was particularly alluring to borrowers because the loans could be forgiven. But as the duration of lockdown orders and the accompanying economic aftershocks have extended longer than initially anticipated, particularly in those sectors that depend on in-person business such as restaurants, hospitality and other “main street” retail establishments, many recipients of PPP loans have found it challenging to use the PPP funds for payroll and other authorized purposes within the eight-week period after they had received the PPP funds, as is necessary to preserve eligibility for forgiveness. The Flexibility Act makes several key changes to the PPP program in order to allow borrowers who need a longer re-opening runway to do so without jeopardizing their ability to qualify for loan forgiveness. This alert outlines the key changes to the PPP made by the Flexibility Act. Reprinted courtesy of Ryan J. Udell, White and Williams LLP and Adam J. Chelminiak, White and Williams LLP Mr. Udell may be contacted at udellr@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Chelminiak may be contacted at chelminiaka@whiteandwilliams.com; Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Developer Pre-Conditions in CC&Rs Limiting Ability of HOA to Make Construction Defect Claims, Found Unenforceable

August 16, 2021 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
The Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (Civ. Code §4000, et seq.), also known simply as “Davis-Stirling,” is a statute that applies to condominium, cooperative and planned unit development communities in California. The statute, which governs the formation and management of homeowners associations or HOAs, also governs lawsuits filed by HOAs for construction defects. In the next case, Smart Corners Owner Association v. CJUF Smart Corner LLC, Case No. D076775 (May 20, 2021), the 4th District Court of Appeal addressed the pre-litigation voting requirements of Davis-Stirling and the impact of recent amendments to the Act. The Smart Corners Case In 2004, CJUF Smart Corner LLC contracted with Hensel Phelps Construction Company for the construction of the Smart Corner condominium project, a 19-story mixed-use development with 301 residential units and common areas, in San Diego, California. As part of the development an HOA was formed, the Smart Corner Owner Association. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

White and Williams Announces Lawyer Promotions

January 15, 2019 — White and Williams LLP
White and Williams is pleased to announce the election of Siobhan Cole, Matthew Ferrie, Joshua Galante, Rochelle Gumapac, Geoffrey Sasso and Benjamin Staherski to the partnership. The firm has also promoted Brandon Arber, Adam Berardi, Kevin Koscil and Greg Steinberg from associate to counsel. The newly elected partners and promoted counsel represent the wide array of practices that White and Williams offers its clients, including commercial and general litigation, corporate and securities, insurance coverage, product liability, subrogation and tax. These accomplished lawyers have earned this advancement based on their contributions to the firm and their practices. “We are delighted to elect these six lawyers to the partnership and promote four exceptional associates to counsel. The group demonstrates the breadth of services and the deep bench that we offer to our clients at White and Williams," said Patti Santelle, Managing Partner of the firm. “The contributions of this talented group have enhanced the growth and reputation of our firm and reflect our deep commitment to our clients. We look forward to their continued success.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

What If Your CCP 998 Offer is Silent on Costs?

March 18, 2019 — Tony Carucci - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In California, the “prevailing party” in litigation is generally entitled to recover its costs as a matter of law. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1032. But under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998, a party may make a so-called “offer to compromise,” which can reverse the parties’ entitlement to costs after the date of the offer, depending on the outcome of the litigation. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998. The potential payoff of a 998 offer is that “If an offer made by a defendant is not accepted and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover his or her postoffer costs and shall pay the defendant’s costs from the time of the offer.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998(c)(1) (emphasis added). But how do you determine whether a plaintiff obtained a more favorable judgment when the 998 offer is silent with respect to whether it includes costs? In Martinez v. Eatlite One, Inc. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1181, 1182–83, the defendant made a 998 offer of $12,001 that was silent regarding the treatment of attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiff did not respond to the offer, and the jury ultimately awarded plaintiff damages of $11,490. Id. In resolving the parties’ competing memoranda of costs and plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees, the trial court awarded plaintiff her costs and attorneys’ fees. Id. at 1182. The trial court reasoned that plaintiff had obtained a more favorable judgment than the 998 offer because she was entitled to pre-offer costs and attorneys’ fees under the statute, which meant plaintiff’s ultimate recovery exceeded the 998 offer when added to the judgment. Id. at 1183. In other words, the court added plaintiff’s pre-offer costs and attorneys’ fees to the $11,490 verdict for the purposes of determining whether the “judgment” was greater than the 998 offer of $12,001. Id. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tony Carucci, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Carucci may be contacted at acarucci@swlaw.com

Coronavirus and Contract Obligations

March 30, 2020 — David R. Cook - AHC Construction and Procurement Blog
The Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has caused a global disruption to businesses, causing many to temporarily close and lay off employees. As businesses assess the short– and long–term economic impact of COVID-19, they should also evaluate what contractual obligations and remedies are available under various agreements (e.g., leases, vendor agreements, and supply agreements). When performance may be delayed or may not occur altogether, businesses should consider their force majeure clauses, if any, and the doctrines of impossibility, impracticability, and frustration of purpose. Force Majeure Generally, unless a contract provides that performance will be suspended or relieved when certain events occur (e.g., “acts of God,” government regulation, acts of war or terror, strikes), each party is obligated to perform. However, when there is an express force majeure provision, certain events or acts may excuse non-performance or delayed performance. But depending on the jurisdiction, courts may construe force majeure provisions narrowly and excuse performance only for those events expressly listed in the clause. Nonetheless, if the force majeure provision includes pandemic, epidemic, quarantine, government act, disease, or similar terms, then the COVID-19 pandemic may excuse performance or allow delayed performance. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

Naples, Florida, Is Getting So Expensive That City Workers Can’t Afford It

April 10, 2023 — Amanda Albright - Bloomberg
The city of Naples on Florida’s Gulf Coast is paradise on Earth, if you believe those slick websites that rank the best US cities to live in or retire in. But if you talk with the people who work in its hospitals, restaurants and city government, you’ll get another story. They’d like to live in Naples, too, but most of them can’t afford to. The city of 19,000 is home to the second-richest ZIP code in the US, after Miami Beach. Median household income stood at about $125,000 in 2021, compared with about $62,000 in Florida overall, according to the Census Bureau. Naples landed on a 2022 list of least affordable places for renters compiled by the National Apartment Association. Amid a dearth of reasonably priced housing, at least 90% of city employees live outside Naples. Job vacancies are going unfilled, leading to chronic staffing shortages. The shortfall among firefighters, police officers and other essential workers in Collier County, which includes Naples, verges on unsafe, according to one local advocate. Private-sector employers have converted a hotel into apartments for workers as a temporary fix. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Amanda Albright, Bloomberg

Hawaii Court Finds No Bad Faith, But Negligent Misrepresentation Claim Survives Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Action

November 06, 2013 — Tred Eyerly — Insurance Law Hawaii
Judge Mollway, U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Hawaii, found the insurer was not in bad faith for allegedly leading its insured to believe that construction defects would be covered under the policy. The court, however, allowed the insured's negligent misrepresentation claim to survive summary judgment. Ill Nat'l Ins. Co v. Nordic PCL Constr., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151748 (D. Haw. Oct. 22, 2013). The insurer denied coverage when Nordic was sued for construction defects related to its construction of two Safeway stores in Honolulu. Prior to the issuance of the policies the Ninth Circuit had issued its opinion in Burlington Ins. Co. v .Oceanic Design & Constr., Inc., 398 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2004), which predicted that Hawaii appellate courts would rule that construction defects were not "occurrences." Nevertheless, Nordic's witnesses contended when the policies were purchased, they believed construction defects were covered. Specifically, Nordic thought the policies provided completed operations coverage for property damage arising out of Nordic's subcontractors' work. Nordic further contended that only after the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals decided in Group Builders, Inc. v. Admiral Ins .Co., 123 Haw. 142 (Haw. Ct. App. 2010) that construction defect claims did not constitute an "occurrence" did the insurer change its position and decide the policies did not cover construction defects. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES