Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

California Contractors: Amended Section 7141.5 Provides Important License Renewal Safety Net

July 25, 2021 — Amy L. Pierce, Mark A. Oertel, John Lubitz & Adam B. Wiens - Lewis Brisbois
Under California’s Contractors State License Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 7000 et seq., contractors’ licenses expire two years from the last day of the month in which the license was issued or two years from the date on which the renewed license last expired. The Contractors State License Board (CSLB) sends licensees a renewal application 60 to 90 days in advance of the date the license is set to expire. Even with various controls in place, mistakes happen and a renewal application filing deadline can be missed. During the August 5-6, 2019 Executive, Licensing, and Legislative Committee Meetings, the CSLB discussed proposed amendments to Section 7141.5 to reduce both the burden on it to review applications for retroactive renewal of a license that had not been timely submitted and to provide contractors with some relief from the high burden to establish “the failure to renew was due to circumstances beyond the control of the licensee.” Not long after, the CSLB’s Board of Directors gave staff approval to seek an author for the bill and, on September 29, 2020, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 1474 into law, which includes the CSLB’s proposed amendments to Section 7141.5, effective January 1, 2021. Reprinted courtesy of Amy L. Pierce, Lewis Brisbois, Mark A. Oertel, Lewis Brisbois, John Lubitz, Lewis Brisbois and Adam B. Wiens, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Pierce may be contacted at Amy.Pierce@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Oertel may be contacted at Mark.Oertel@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Lubitz may be contacted at John.Lubitz@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Wiens may be contacted at Adam.Wiens@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

War-Torn Ukraine Looks to Europe’s Green Plans for Reconstruction Ideas

July 18, 2022 — Laura Millan Lombrana - Bloomberg
Ukrainian officials and architects are already thinking about how to rebuild cities torn by the Russian invasion in a way that is also respectful to the environment and helps fight climate change. Mariupol city hall officials have started to assess the damage caused by Russian shelling as a first step to rebuild the city once the war is over, Deputy Mayor Sergei Orlov told an audience in Brussels at the New European Bauhaus festival, running through Saturday in several European cities. A coalition of Ukrainian and international experts in urban planning, heritage, energy and the circular economy are working toward the same goal. “We will reconstruct Ukraine, we have to do that and we will do that,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said at the festival. “It’s not only in our interest, it’s our moral obligation to do that — but when we are reconstructing Ukraine, let’s do it the right way, let’s do it in the spirit of the New European Bauhaus.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Laura Millan Lombrana, Bloomberg

New Jersey Appellate Decision Reminds Bid Protestors to Take Caution When Determining Where to File an Action

March 13, 2023 — Brian Glicos & Nicholas J. Zaita - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
On February 21, 2023, the New Jersey Appellate Division held that University Hospital is not a “state administrative agency” and, therefore, the Appellate Division does not have original jurisdiction to determine the merits of an action commenced by an unsuccessful bidder to challenge the award of a contract. In re Protest of Contract for Retail Pharmacy Design, Constr., Start-up & Operation, Request for Proposal No. UH-P20-006, A-1667-20, 2023 WL 2125002 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Feb. 21, 2023). Pursuant to Rule 2:2-3(a)(2) of New Jersey’s Rules of Court, final decisions or actions of any state administrative agency or officer may be appealed directly to the Appellate Division as of right. Accordingly, where an unsuccessful bidder chooses to challenge the award of a contract issued by, for example, the New Jersey Department of Transportation, the unsuccessful bidder must file its action directly with the Appellate Division. On the other hand, where an unsuccessful bidder wishes to challenge a contract award made by a local municipality (among a slew of other public entities), the Superior Court Law Division maintains original jurisdiction over the dispute. Reprinted courtesy of Brian Glicos, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Nicholas J. Zaita, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Glicos may be contacted at bglicos@pecklaw.com Mr. Zaita may be contacted at nzaita@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

City of Aspen v. Burlingame Ranch II Condominium Owners Association: Clarifying the Application of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act

June 17, 2024 — David McLain - Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
On June 17, 2024, the Colorado Supreme Court delivered a significant opinion in the case of City of Aspen v. Burlingame Ranch II Condominium Owners Association (Case No. 22SC293). This decision provides crucial guidance on the interplay between the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (“CGIA”) and the economic loss rule in the context of construction defect claims. Background of the Case The case arose from a construction defect dispute between the City of Aspen, which served as the developer and declarant for the affordable housing condominiums at issue, and the Burlingame Ranch II Condominium Owners Association, the HOA created by Aspen to manage the association after the period of declarant control. The Association alleged that Aspen breached various warranties related to the construction of affordable housing units, leading to structural deficiencies. Aspen argued that the CGIA barred these claims because they could lie in tort. The Lower Court’s Decision The district court initially agreed with Aspen, holding that the Association’s claims sounded in tort and were therefore barred by the CGIA. The court relied on the principle that governmental immunity protects public entities from liability for claims that ‘lie in tort or could lie in tort,’ as established by the CGIA. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Developer's Novel Virus-killing Air Filter Ups Standard for Indoor Air Quality

April 12, 2021 — Nadine M. Post - Engineering News-Record
Last April 13, as an ambulance sped him to the hospital, Monzer Hourani overheard the emergency medical technicians say they didn’t think he was going to make it. Immediately, the 77-year-old medical-building developer started praying: “God, give me time to finish this.” Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Part II: Key Provisions of School Facility Construction & Design Contracts

July 21, 2018 — David R. Cook - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
In Part I of this article, published in late April, we discussed the performance risk and time risk involved with construction and design contracts, and in Part II, we will cover cost risk and political risk. Cost Risk School budgets are limited for many reasons, and the construction budget is no exception. As a result, contracts should guard against unwarranted cost increases and claims. In the absence of a written change order signed by the appropriate officer, the contract should absolutely prohibit additional compensation for changes in the work. It should forbid claims for all events except those within the school authority’s sole control. Even for permitted claims, the contractor must provide written notice so that the authority might alleviate the problem and control its costs. To encourage the contractor to limit costs and claims, the contract could include a shared-savings clause, which grants an incentive payment for completion within the budget. 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

Seller Cannot Compel Arbitration for Its Role in Construction Defect Case<

March 01, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The buyer of a leaky home in Venice, California cannot be compelled to arbitration with the seller in a construction defect lawsuit, according to a decision in Lindemann v. Hume, which was heard in the California Court of Appeals. Lindemann was the trustee of the Schlei Trust which bought the home and then sued the seller and the builder for construction defects.

The initial owner was the Hancock Park Trust, a real estate trust for Nicholas Cage. Richard Hume was the trustee. In 2002, Cage agreed to buy the home which was being built by the Lee Group. Cage transferred the agreement to the Hancock Park Trust. Hancock had Richard Nazarin, a general contractor, conduct a pre-closing walk through. They also engaged an inspector. Before escrow closed, the Lee Group agreed to provide a ten-year warranty “to remedy and repair any and all damage resulting from water infiltration, intrusion, or flooding due to the fact that the door on the second and third floors of the residence at the Property were not originally installed at least one-half inch (1/2”) to one inch (1”) above the adjacent outside patio tile/floor on each of the second and third floors.”

Cage moved in and experienced water intrusion and flooding. The Lee Group was unable to fix the problems. Hume listed the home for sale. The Kamienowiczs went as far as escrow before backing out of the purchase over concerns about water, after the seller’s agent disclosed “a problem with the drainage system that is currently being addressed by the Lee Group.”

The house was subsequently bought by the Schlei Trust. The purchase agreement included an arbitration clause which included an agreement that “any dispute or claim in Law or equity arising between them out of this Agreement or any resulting transaction, which is not settled through mediation, shall be decided by neutral, binding arbitration.” The warranty the Lee Group had given to Hancock was transferred to the Schlei trust and Mr. Schlei moved into the home in May 2003.

Lindemann enquired as to whether the work done would prevent future flooding. Nazarin sent Schlei a letter that said that measures had been taken “to prevent that situation from recurring.” In February, 2004, there was flooding and water intrusion. Lindemann filed a lawsuit against the Lee Group and then added the Hancock Park defendants.

The Hancock Park defendants invoked the arbitration clause, arguing that Lindemann’s claims “were only tangentially related to her construction defect causes of action against the Lee Group.” On June 9, 2010, the trial court rejected this claim, ruling that there was a possibility of conflicting rulings on common issues of law. “With respect to both the developer defendants and the seller defendants, the threshold issue is whether there was a problem with the construction of the property in the first instance. If there was no problem with the construction of the property, then there was nothing to fail to disclose.” Later in the ruling, the trial court noted that “the jury could find there was no construction defect on the property, while the arbitration finds there was a construction defect, the sellers knew about it, and the sellers failed to disclose it.” The appeals court noted that while Hancock Park had disclosed the drainage problems to the Kamienowiczs, no such disclosure was made to Sclei.

The appeals court described Hancock Park’s argument that there is no risk of inconsistent rulings as “without merit.” The appeals court said that the issue “is not whether inconsistent rulings are inevitable but whether they are possible if arbitration is ordered.” Further, the court noted that “the Hancock Park defendants and the Lee Group have filed cross-complaints for indemnification against each other, further increasing the risk of inconsistent rulings.”

The court found for Lindemann, awarding her costs.

Read the court’s decision…

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

Personal Injury Claims – The Basics

February 11, 2019 — Jessica L. Mulvaney - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Personal injury claims can manifest in multiple ways, and while procedurally many may be similar, no two cases are ever exactly alike. The basis of all personal injury claims is a person suffering some injury or harm. The laws related to personal injury claims are in place to allow for the party at fault to be held responsible, and the injured party to seek a remedy and be “made whole” after suffering injury. Typical causes of action for personal injury claims can include intentional actions (torts) against an individual, negligence, or strict liability. At the heart of all injury claims are the issues of liability and damages. Liability is the determination of whether the defendant being accused of the harm is responsible, i.e. caused the injury and resulting harm. Damages is a concept that encompasses the harm a person suffered as a result of the injury. For personal injury, typical damages can include medical bills, loss of earnings, future medical care, and pain and suffering. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jessica L. Mulvaney, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES