Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Implied Warranty Claims–Not Just a Seller’s Risk: Builders Beware!

May 10, 2021 — Carin Ramirez - Colorado Construction Litigation
One of the thorns in the side of every construction defect defense litigator is the implied warranty claim. The “implied warranty” is a promise that Colorado law is “implied” into every contract for a sale of a new home that the home was built in a workmanlike manner and is suitable for habitation. Defense attorneys dislike the implied warranty claim because it is akin to a strict liability standard. All that is required to provide the claim is that an aspect of construction is found to be defective — i.e., inconsistent with the building code or manufacturer’s installation instructions — regardless of whether the work was performed to the standard of care. The implied warranty claim is therefore easier to prove than a negligence claim, where a claimant must prove that a construction professional’s work fell below a standard of reasonable care. Additionally, it is not a defense to an implied warranty claim that the homeowners or the HOA are, themselves, partially liable for the defects where damage is due in part to insufficient or deferred maintenance, as it is for negligence claims. The only redeeming aspect to the implied warranty claim was that, until recently, it was believed that it could only be asserted by a first purchaser against the seller of an improvement, because the implied warranty arises out of the sale contract. Recently, the Colorado Court of Appeals opinion in Brooktree Village Homeowners Association v. Brooktree Village, LLC, 19CA1635, decided on November 19, 2020, extended the reach of the implied warranty — though just how far remains to be seen. Specifically, a division of the Court of Appeals held that an HOA can assert implied warranty claims on behalf of its members for defects in common areas, even where there is no direct contractual relationship between the parties to base the warranty upon. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Carin Ramirez, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Ms. Ramirez may be contacted at ramirez@hhmrlaw.com

New York Court Temporarily Enjoins UCC Foreclosure Sale

September 21, 2020 — Steven E. Ostrow, Timothy E. Davis, Steven E. Coury & Kristen E. Andreoli - White and Williams
New York courts have become a battleground for challenges to foreclosure sales under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Another trial court of the New York State Supreme Court (New York County) issued a preliminary injunction in Shelbourne BRF LLC v. SR 677 Bway LLC, halting a mezzanine lender’s August 19, 2020 UCC foreclosure sale. The decision confirms that the impact of the pandemic on the value of commercial real estate, and upon traditional steps taken to conduct a foreclosure auction, are both key factors that courts will continue to consider in determining whether a UCC foreclosure sale scheduled during the pandemic can be conducted in a commercially reasonable manner as required by the UCC. THE CASE In Shelbourne, the mezzanine borrowers owned the membership or equity interests in the companies (collectively, the “Property Owner”) that held title to a 12-story office building in Albany, New York. As security for the $3.35 million mezzanine loan, the mezzanine borrowers pledged their equity interests to the mezzanine lender. In May 2020, the mezzanine lender declared a default under the mezzanine loan as a result of the Property Owner’s default under the $28.5 million senior loan secured by a mortgage against the office building. The mezzanine lender then scheduled a public UCC foreclosure sale of the equity interests in the Property Owner for August 19, 2020. If the sale had been held, the equity interests in the Property Owner (and right to control the Property Owner and office building) would have been transferred to the successful bidder, either the mezzanine lender or a third party purchaser. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams attorneys Steven E. Ostrow, Timothy E. Davis, Steven E. Coury and Kristen E. Andreoli Mr. Ostrow may be contacted at ostrows@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Davis may be contacted at davist@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Coury may be contacted at courys@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Andreoli may be contacted at andreolik@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CA Supreme Court Permits Insurers to Bring Direct Actions Seeking Reimbursement of Excessive Fees Against Cumis Counsel Under Limited Circumstances

August 19, 2015 — David W. Evans & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
The California Supreme Court held in Hartford Casualty Insurance Company v. J.R. Marketing, L.L.C. (Squire Sanders) (8/10/2015 - #S211645) that if Cumis counsel, operating under a court order which such counsel drafted and which expressly provided that the insurer would be able to recover excessive fees, sought and received fee payments from the insurer that were fraudulent or otherwise manifestly and objectively useless and wasteful when incurred, Cumis counsel have been unjustly enriched at the insurer’s expense and the insurer will be permitted under such limited circumstances to seek reimbursement directly from Cumis counsel. Certain Hartford insureds who had been issued commercial general liability policies were sued in multiple proceedings for a variety of claims, including unfair competition, defamation and intentional misrepresentation. Hartford disclaimed a duty to defend or to indemnify the defendants on the grounds that the acts complained of occurred prior to Hartford’s policy, and that some of the defendants were not Hartford insureds. A coverage action was filed by some of the insureds against Hartford; they were represented by the Squire Sanders law firm. Although Hartford subsequently agreed to defend several of the defendants subject to a reservation of rights, it declined to pay defense expenses incurred prior to the date of such agreement. Some months later, the trial court entered a summary adjudication order, finding that Hartford had a duty to have defended the liability action on the date it was originally tendered; the order required Hartford to fund the insured’s defense with independent counsel (i.e., so-called “Cumis” counsel; see San Diego Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Insurance Society, Inc. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 358). The insureds retained Squire Sanders as their Cumis counsel. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California Appeals Court Says Loss of Use Is “Property Damage” Under Liability Policy, and Damages Can be Measured by Diminished Value

December 11, 2018 — Michael S. Levine & David M. Costello - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In a win for policyholders, a California appellate court has held that the loss of use of property resulting from alleged negligence constitutes property damage under a liability insurance policy. In Thee Sombrero, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, the property owner, Thee Sombrero, operated a venue as a nightclub. After a shooting inside the nightclub caused a patron’s death, the local government revoked Sombrero’s right to use the property as a nightclub and, instead, limited permissible use of the property to a banquet hall. Sombrero sued the security company it had hired to keep guns out of the club, alleging that it was the security company’s negligence that caused the city to revoke Sombrero’s nightclub use permit and that the loss of use of the facility as a nightclub resulted in damages of almost a million dollars based on an assessment of the property’s diminished market value. The security company did not contest the claim, and Sombrero obtained a default judgment. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and David M. Costello, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Costello may be contacted at dcostello@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Florida extends the Distressed Condominium Relief Act

June 17, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Distressed Condominium Relief Act had been poised to expire on July 1st, but has now been extended by two additional years by the Florida legislature, the National Review reported. The act was Part VII of the Condominium Act in 2010, and has been previously extended twice. According to the National Review, “This Legislation attempted to allay the fears of potential investors about incurring developer liability in connection with the purchase of bulk units. The Act created a shield in favor of bulk purchasers from such potential liability, especially construction defects liability.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

VOSH Jumps Into the Employee Misclassification Pool

February 23, 2016 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
The proper classification of workers by construction companies has been on the radar of the Department of Labor for both the US and Virginia governments for quite a while. While most of the misclassification is innocent and not done to create issues, there have been enough instances of purposeful misclassification of certain workers as independent contractors (thus avoiding workers comp and other payroll expenses) that innocent contractors have born the brunt of these issues through increased payroll costs over those that misclassify (in the form of necessarily higher bids, higher overhead, etc.). As an additional deterrent to improper classification of workers, the Virginia Department of Labor and Industry has issued guidelines for what will occur in Virginia Department of Safety and Health (VOSH) cases. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Calls for CFPB Investigation into Tenant Screening Businesses

December 13, 2021 — Brian H. Montgomery - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, has written to newly confirmed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Director Rohit Chopra, asking him to review companies in the tenant screening industry for possible Fair Credit Reporting Act violations and other violations of U.S. laws. The CFPB, for its part, has already published a bulletin alerting Consumer Reporting Agencies (CRAs) and other furnishers of consumer information that, as federal, state and local pandemic-related housing protections expire, the Bureau will be giving greater enforcement focus to these businesses’ compliance with accuracy and dispute obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and Regulation V. While it is still unclear whether Director Chopra will direct the Bureau to investigate specific businesses flagged by Chairman Brown, the tenant screening industry will likely face increased scrutiny in the coming months, which may impact their service offerings and cause interruptions for landlords relying on these businesses and services. There are approximately 2,000 tenant screening companies across the United States. These companies are used by landlords to better identify and perform background checks on prospective tenants. These reports typically provide a prospective tenant’s rental and eviction histories, credit score, debt-to-income ratio, and outstanding credit obligations, among other financial metrics. The reports also usually include a criminal background check, including searches of sex offender registries and other public records searches. Many tenant screening companies then use this information to provide an estimate of the risk that each tenant presents, calculated through proprietary algorithmic formulas. These reports are usually available to landlords at a cost ranging from approximately $5 to $55 per report, usually passed through to the prospective tenant through application fees. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian H. Montgomery, Pillsbury
Mr. Montgomery may be contacted at brian.montgomery@pillsburylaw.com

Violation of Prompt Payment Statutes is Not a Breach of Contract. But That’s Not the Most Interesting Part

November 01, 2022 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
While construction projects can get messy, they don’t get much messier than the next case, which, while involving a fairly limited legal issue, has such jaw dropping facts it’s worth a read if only to make you feel a bit better about your own project. The Clark Bros. Case In Clark Bros, Inc. v. North Edwards Water District, 77 Cal.App.5th 801 (2022), general contractor Clark Bros., Inc. was awarded over $3 million in damages against a local water district on a water treatment facility project. The Project The North Edwards Water District serves approximately 220 customers in the Mojave Desert. It has one employee, Dollie Dimples Kostopoulos. Seriously, you can’t make this stuff up. The drinking water it provides to its customers contains three times the legal limit of arsenic, a carcinogen. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES