Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Lennar Profit Tops Estimates as Home Prices Increase

March 26, 2014 — John Gittelsohn – Bloomberg
Lennar Corp. (LEN), the biggest U.S. homebuilder by market value, reported a fiscal first-quarter profit that beat analysts’ estimates as the company sold more homes at increased prices. Net income climbed to $78.1 million, or 35 cents a share, in the three months through February, from $57.5 million, or 26 cents, a year earlier, the Miami-based company said in a statement today. Analysts expected earnings of 28 cents a share, the average of 17 estimates compiled by Bloomberg. Publicly traded builders have been increasing prices to take advantage of a tight supply of new and existing homes while using their economies of scale to reduce costs and widen profit margins. Lennar’s profit, deliveries and orders grew even as inclement weather threatened home sales in much of the U.S. during the quarter, according to Drew Reading, a Bloomberg Industries analyst. “Lennar followed KB Home (KBH) in reporting order trends indicating a strong start to the spring selling season,” Reading said in a note after the earnings were released. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John Gittelsohn, Bloomberg
Mr. Gittelson may be contacted at johngitt@bloomberg.net

Boys (and Girls) of Summer: New Residential Solar Energy System Disclosures Take Effect January 1, 2019

October 02, 2018 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
As we come to the end of Summer, the California Contractors State License Board advises licensees that it has finalized its Solar Energy System Disclosure Document. The Solar Energy System Disclosure Document, required under Business and Professions Code Section 7169 as amended by Assembly Bill 1070 in 2017, requires that the disclosure language of the document be:

Included in all contracts providing for the installation of a “solar energy system” on a residential building;
Included on the front page or cover page of the contract;

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

A New Hope - You Now May Have Coverage for Punitive Damages in Connecticut

February 15, 2018 — Stella Szantova Giordano – SDV Blog

On December 19, 2017, the Connecticut Supreme Court released its decision in Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Pasiak. The decision is significant for two reasons: 1) it clarifies the amount of proof an insurer needs to determine whether an exclusion to coverage applies; and 2) it found that where an insurance policy expressly provides coverage for an intentional act such as false imprisonment, common-law punitive damages are also covered.

Underlying action

The underlying action proves that real life is often stranger than fiction. Ms. S worked as an office help for a construction company owned by Mr. P, which operated out of his home. Ms. S was working alone in the home office, when an armed, masked intruder entered the office, tied her hands, gagged and blindfolded her and, pointing a gun to her head, threatened to kill her family if she did not give him the combination to a safe in the home. As this was happening, Mr. P entered the office, unmasked the intruder, and discovered it was his lifelong friend. After Ms. S was untied, she asked to leave, but Mr. P told her to stay. She was not allowed to leave for several hours as Mr. P made her accompany him to an errand. Ms. S sued Mr. P for false imprisonment, among other things. The trial court awarded her compensatory and punitive damages. Insurance coverage for the underlying judgment is at the heart of the Pasiak case.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stella Szantova Giordano, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Szantova Giordano may be contacted at ssg@sdvlaw.com

Avoiding Lender Liability for Credit-Related Actions in California

October 27, 2016 — Anthony J. Carucci – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Aside from general statutory prohibitions on lender discrimination, there are certain circumstances under California law in which lenders may be held liable for credit-related actions, such as negotiating or denying credit. See generally 11 Cal. Real Est. § 35:3 (explaining that the business of lending money is subject to the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51 et seq., the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov. Code § 12900 et seq., the Federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691, et seq.). Specifically, lenders have been held liable for credit-related actions where, among other things, the lender (1) breached a loan commitment; (2) committed fraud; or (3) breached a fiduciary duty owed to the borrower. The Lender-Borrower Relationship As a general rule, a lender does not owe a duty of care to a borrower when the lender’s involvement in a transaction does not exceed the scope of its conventional role as a lender of money. Oaks Management Corp. v. Superior Court (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 453, 466 (“[I]t is established that absent special circumstances . . . a loan transaction is at arms-length and there is no fiduciary relationship between the borrower and lender.”); Nymark v. Heart Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1089, 1096 (holding lender owed no duty of care to a borrower in preparing an appraisal of the real property that was security for the loan when the purpose of the appraisal is to protect the lender by satisfying it that the collateral provided adequate security for the loan, and noting that “as a general rule, a financial institution owes no duty of care to a borrower when the institution’s involvement in the loan transaction does not exceed the scope of its conventional role as a mere lender of money”). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony J. Carucci, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Carucci may be contacted at acarucci@swlaw.com

The G2G Year in Review: 2021

January 24, 2022 — Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
With 2021 now behind us, we wanted to share our top five most-read articles of 2021 from Gravel2Gavel. The most-read blog posts covered real estate and construction industry trends ranging from Proptech, smart construction, COVID-eviction moratoriums, and blockchain tokenization. Throughout the year, G2G posts provided deep industry insight and summarized hot topics addressing the legal implications and disruptions that affected the market, and we will continue to expand on these insights in 2022. Our 2021 roundup:

Blockchain Innovations and Real Estate: NFTs, DeFis and dApps by Craig A. de Ridder

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

When Does a Claim Against an Insurance Carrier for Failing to Defend Accrue?

November 07, 2012 — David McLain, Colorado Construction Litigation
The following is an update on our December 20, 2010 article regarding United States Fire Insurance Company v. Pinkard Construction Company, Civil Action No. 09-CV-01854-MSK-MJW, and its underlying dispute, Legacy Apartments v. Pinkard Construction Company, Case No. 2003 CV 703, Boulder County Dist. Ct. That article can be found here. The present action, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., et al. v. The North River Insurance Co., et al., Civil Action No. 10-CV-02936-MSK-CBS, encompasses the coverage battle that ensued between Pinkard’s insurers, Travelers Indemnity Company of America (“Travelers”) and United States Fire Insurance Company (“USFI”), following the settlement of Legacy’s construction defect claims against Pinkard. A short history of the underlying facts is as follows: In 1995, Pinkard constructed the Legacy Apartments housing complex in Longmont, Colorado. Following construction, Legacy notified Pinkard of water leaks associated with various elements of construction. Legacy ultimately filed suit against Pinkard in 2003, and would go on to clarify and amend its defect claims in 2004, 2006, and again in 2008. Following Pinkard’s notification of Legacy’s claims, USFI provided a defense to Pinkard, but Travelers refused to do so, on the purported basis that Legacy’s allegations did not implicate property damage under the terms of Travelers’ policy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain can be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

The American Rescue Plan Act: What Restaurants Need to Act on NOW

March 22, 2021 — Michael Krueger - Newmeyer Dillion
The American Rescue Plan Act (“Act”) was passed by the Senate over the weekend and passed by the House today. President Biden is set to sign the Act into law on Friday, March 12th. The Act has $1.9 Trillion in relief funds with $28.6 Billion set aside for the restaurant industry in the Restaurant Revitalization Fund (“Fund”). The Fund has apportioned funds into two funding groups; $5 Billion for restaurants with annual gross revenue under $500,000 and $23.6 Billion for restaurants over $500,000 in annual gross revenue. Differences from the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) This is a grant program with no loan documents or forgiveness applications. Instead, each restaurant entity can apply for and receive up to $10M in grant funds through the Act. The amount a restaurant receives is based on the sum of the restaurant’s gross revenue in 2019 minus the gross revenue in 2020 minus PPP and EIDL money received. For example, Restaurant A made $7M gross revenue in 2019, made $3M gross revenue in 2020 and received $1M in PPP and EIDL combined. ($7M - $3M -$1M =$3M) The restaurant will receive $3M in grant funds directly from the SBA (as long as funds are available). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael Krueger, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Krueger may be contacted at michael.krueger@ndlf.com

No Coverage for Building's First Collapse, But Disputed Facts on Second Collapse

January 10, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii

While building's first collapse was not covered, there were disputed facts regarding the second collapse, leading to a reversal of the order granting summary judgment to the insurer on both collapses. Intergroup Int'l Ltd. v. Cincinnati Ins. Cos, 2017 Ohio app. LEXIS 5099 (Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2017). Intergroup bought a building after it was inspected. While leaks on the roof were repaired and a roof truss that was sagging was replaced, the inspector found the roof to be in good shape.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES