Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Philadelphia Enacts Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) Program

October 21, 2019 — Timothy Davis & Willliam Johnston - White and Williams LLP
On August 14, 2019, Mayor Jim Kenney signed a bill authorizing, through C-PACE loans, the financing of clean energy, alternative energy and water conservation projects for eligible commercial properties in Philadelphia. Philadelphia City Council unanimously voted to approve the C-PACE program on June 20, 2019. The program will be administered by the Philadelphia Energy Authority. Third-party capital providers (not the Philadelphia Energy Authority) will originate C-PACE financings for qualified projects. C-PACE “assessments” will encumber the applicable property in a first lien position akin to a real estate tax. Documentation among the property owner, the City of Philadelphia, and the third party capital provider (identified in the ordinance as the “financial institution”) will provide, among other things, that the assessments will be payable and fully amortize over the term of the financing (i.e., 30 years) and will not be accelerated during its term. Importantly, before a C-PACE financing can be originated and the underlying property assessed, notice of the property owner’s desire to secure C-PACE financing under the program must be provided to the holder of a mortgage on the subject property and the holder of the mortgage must provide the property owner and the City of Philadelphia with its written consent. Without the mortgage lender’s consent, the C-PACE financing cannot be consummated. Reprinted courtesy of Timothy Davis, White and Williams LLP and William Johnston, White and Williams LLP Mr. Davis may be contacted at davist@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Johnston may be contacted at johnstonw@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

That Boilerplate Language May Just Land You in Hot Water

December 17, 2015 — Kevin Brodehl – California Construction Law Blog
The following post originally appeared in my partnerKevin Brodehl‘s informative blog, Money and Dirt. If you’re involved in real estate investment, development and/or secured lending in California, it’s a must read. While Kevin’s post below discusses a case involving a real estate purchase agreement, it applies equally to construction contracts, perhaps even more so, since I can’t think of any other type of contract in which indemnity and integration clauses are as common, or as integral. Almost all real estate purchase and sale agreements contain provisions relating to integration and indemnity. In the “boilerplate” worldview, these provisions are standard, generic, and basically all the same — integration clauses prohibit extrinsic evidence that would contradict the terms of the agreement, and indemnity clauses force the seller to protect the buyer from third party claims arising after closing. But a recently published opinion by the California Court of Appeal (Fourth District, Division Three in Santa Ana) — Hot Rods, LLC v. Northrop Grunman Systems Corp. — clarifies that integration and indemnity clauses can have vastly different effects depending on how they are drafted. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin Brodehl, California Construction Law Blog
Mr. Brodehl may be contacted at kbrodehl@wendel.com

Celebrities Lose Case in Construction Defect Arbitration

May 26, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

An arbitration panel has ruled that problems with the Idaho home of actors Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson were not due to construction defects but rather to “poor design and bad architectural advice.” The couple had settled with the architectural firm, Lake Flato of San Antonio, Texas for $900,000 and was subsequently seeking $3 million from Storey Construction of Ketchum, Idaho.

Problems with the couple’s home “included leaking roofs, inadequate drainage, fireplaces that did not vent properly and an inadequate air-conditioning system. In 2003, sliding snow from the roof damaged kitchen windows and roof components.”

The arbitration panel, according to the report in the Idaho Mountain Express and Guide, noted that “Hanks and Wilson were responsible for the full $167,623 cost of arbitration, but further denied a Storey Construction counterclaim that alleged Hanks and Wilson filed their claim out of malice.”

Read the full story…

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

Defining Catastrophic Injury Claims

December 16, 2019 — Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
How do we define circumstances and injuries that go beyond a typical claim and severely impact a person’s life? How do we characterize the types of claims where an individual’s enjoyment of life is affected in an extraordinary manner? Typically, attorneys refer to these types of cases as “catastrophic injury” claims. These are the type of personal injury claims where the health of an individual has been so seriously impacted that their life has been irreparably altered. Defining these claims legally is somewhat murky and case law has done little to provide attorneys with a specific definition of the term. However, a recent Workers Compensation Appeals Board ruling attempted to list factors in order to establish a catastrophic injury claim. These include:

An intensity and seriousness of treatment received for an injury;
The ultimate outcome when a person’s physical injury is permanent and stationary;
Whether the severity of the physical injury impacts the person’s ability to perform daily activities;
Whether the physical injury is closely analogous to one of the injuries specified in various statutes, including loss of a limb, paralysis, severe burns, or a severe head injury; and
If the physical injury is incurable or progressive. Wilson v. State of California CAL Fire (5/10/19) 2019 Cal.Wrk.Comp. LEXIS 29.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

New Survey Reveals Present-Day Risks of Asbestos Exposure in America - 38% in High-Risk Jobs, 47% Vulnerable through Second-Hand Exposure

April 08, 2024 — The Law Offices of Justinian C. Lane, Esq. - PLLC
AUSTIN, April 04, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- A recent nationwide survey conducted on the risks of asbestos in America revealed that 38% of respondents have worked in high-risk industries where asbestos was present, while 47% have experienced indirect exposure through family members employed in these high-risk environments. The survey results reflect the fact that, despite the EPA's recent ban on ongoing uses of chrysotile asbestos, the threat of exposure still looms large in the US, underscoring the urgent need for continued vigilance and action to safeguard public health. Compounding the concern is the revelation that only 8% of Americans undergo regular testing. These findings, released today, underscore the urgent necessity for Asbestos Cancer Risk Awareness and routine testing. They emphasize the crucial importance of proactive measures to mitigate the pervasive risks associated with asbestos exposure in the United States. The study was conducted by Researchscape on behalf of The Law Offices of Justinian C. Lane, Esq. - PLLC, a leading firm advocating for testing and compensation for individuals exposed to asbestos on the job and their families who are at risk due to second-hand exposure. According to the survey, 86% of respondents have never undergone any testing for asbestos exposure, while a mere 8% are tested regularly. The lack of testing is particularly concerning among the Gen X demographic who could be at risk due to secondhand exposure from a family member who worked with asbestos when it was still prevalent, with 92% reporting no testing, highlighting the potential risks associated with secondhand exposure. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

How Many New Home Starts are from Teardowns?

April 15, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In a NAHB/Wells Fargo Housing Market Index survey, builders were asked “Of the homes you started in 2014, approximately what share were on a site where a previous structure, or evidence of a previous structure, was present before you started?” According to the NAHB, the surveyors reported that “[o]n average, weighted by starts, […] just under five percent of their starts were teardowns according to the survey’s criterion.” When compared to census data, it equates to 31,800 single-family teardown starts in 2014. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Independent Contractor v. Employee. The “ABC Test” Does Not Include a Threshold Hiring Entity Test

October 03, 2022 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
In 2018, in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.5th 903 (2018), the California Supreme Court overturned nearly thirty years of jurisprudence governing the manner in which workers are classified as employees or independent contractors. The Dynamex decision replaced the “Borello test,” derived from a case of the same name, S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal.3d 341 (1989), in which the California Supreme Court at the time set forth a variety of factors to be considered when determining whether a worker was an employee or independent contractor. The Dynamex decision replaced with the “Borello test” with the “ABC test.” Under the ABC test, a worker can be deemed an independent contractor if three conditions are met:

The worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact;
The worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and
The worker is customarily engaged in an independent established trade, occupation, or business

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Design Professionals Owe a Duty of Care to Homeowners

July 09, 2014 — Stephen A. Sunseri - Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP
Today, the California Supreme Court, in Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP (Jul. 3, 2014, S208173) __Cal.4th__ [2014 WL 2988058], held that architects owe a duty of care to future homeowners of residential buildings, particularly if they act as principal architects on a project, and are not subordinate to any other design professional. Until now, design professionals were rarely held liable, if at all, for third-party claims for design deficiencies. In Beacon, architectural and engineering firms provided sole design services for The Beacon residential condominium project, a 595 unit project located in San Francisco. The condominiums were initially leased after construction, but were eventually sold to individual owners. The design firms claimed their role was limited to only providing design recommendations to the project's owner, who ultimately controlled and directed which design elements to construct. Not long after completion of the project, the homeowners' association sued the design firms (among others) for construction defects and damages related to alleged water infiltration, inadequate fire separations, structural cracks, and other purported safety hazards. The claims included allegations under SB 800 (the "Right to Repair Act," Civil Code §895, et seq.) and common law negligence theories. The design firms demurred to the complaint, which the trial court sustained. On appeal, however, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's ruling, concluding that the design firms owed a duty of care to third parties. The Supreme Court affirmed. Historically, liability for deficient goods and services hinged on whether there is a contractual relationship between a buyer and seller. However, the Supreme Court recognized that in certain circumstances a contractual relationship is not required. In its ruling, the Supreme Court relied on fifty year old precedent, Biankanja v. Irving (1958) 49 Cal.2d 647. In Biankanja, the California Supreme Court outlined several factors to determine whether a duty of care is owed to non-contracting third parties. Although Biankanja analyzes many factors, emphasis was placed placed on whether a purported harm was foreseeable by a defendant's conduct and how close of a connection there is between that conduct and an injury. Here, the Court recognized that even though the design firms did not actually build the project, they did conduct weekly inspections, monitored contractor compliance, altered design elements when issues arose, and advised the owners of any nonconforming work. In applying the Biankanja factors to these circumstances, the Supreme Court determined the homeowners were intended beneficiaries of the design work and the design firms' primary role in the project bore a close connection to the alleged injuries. As a result, the Supreme Court held that the allegations in the complaint were sufficient and, if proven, establishes the defendants owed a duty of care to the homeowners' association. Interestingly, the Supreme Court sidestepped the issue of whether SB 800 was intended to exclusively capture design defects in its scope, even though the Court indicated it may. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court's ruling is significant. The case will affect how design professionals allocate risk on future residential projects, perhaps by raising design prices or insuring around the liability exposure. The likely outcome, however, is that design professionals are now targets in construction defect lawsuits. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stephen A. Sunseri, Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP
Mr. Sunseri may be contacted at ssunseri@gdandb.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES