SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

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

---

California Supreme Court Clarifies Deadline to File Anti-SLAPP Motions in Light of Amended Pleadings

July 02, 2018 — Tony Carucci - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
California’s “anti-SLAPP” (“SLAPP” is an acronym for strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute—codified at California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 et seq.—is the primary vehicle for defending against any action involving petitioning or free speech. The statute was designed to provide an early and fast summary judgment-like procedure to allow defendants and cross-defendants to file a motion to dismiss either an entire complaint, specific causes of action, or even just portions of a cause of action, and to require the plaintiff to respond before conducting discovery. By facilitating an early challenge to a plaintiff or cross-complainant’s claims, the anti-SLAPP statute allows the responding party to avoid the costs and delay that chill the exercise of constitutionally protected rights. Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(f), an anti-SLAPP motion must be filed “within 60 days of the service of the complaint . . . .” But what if the plaintiff files an ameded complaint? In Newport Harbor Ventures, LLC v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism (2018) 4 Cal.5th 637, the California Supreme Court held that the 60-day timeline runs from the date a complaint is filed with the cause(s) of action challenged in the anti-SLAPP motion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tony Carucci, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Carucci may be contacted at acarucci@swlaw.com

---

No Coverage Where Cracks in Basement Walls Do Not Amount to Sudden Collapse

January 10, 2018 — Tred Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

In another of a series of collapse cases arising out of Connecticut, the federal district court found there was no coverage for the homeowner's cracked basement wall caused by defective concrete. Liston-Smith v. CSAA Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206211 (D. Conn. Dec. 15, 2017).

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Tred Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

6,500 Bridges in Ohio Allegedly Functionally Obsolete or Structurally Deficient

June 17, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Portsmouth Daily Times reported that U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) released a report that declared “6,500 bridges in Ohio are either functionally obsolete or structurally deficient as defined by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).” According to the Portsmouth Daily Times, the “FHWA defines Functionally Obsolete as a bridge that is no longer by design functionally adequate for its task” and “Structurally Deficient as a bridge that has one or more structural defects that require attention.” Brown’s solution to the issue is to pass a long-term transportation bill. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Property Owner Found Liable for Injuries to Worker of Unlicensed Contractor, Again

September 17, 2018 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It’s not like we didn’t warn you. In Jones v. Sorenson, Case No. C084870 (August 2, 2018), homeowner Danita Sorenson discovered to her chagrin that she had unwittingly become the employer of Mary Jones, who had been hired by Odette Miranda doing business as Designs by Leo to trim some trees, and was liable for Jones’ injuries when Jones fell off a ladder provided by Miranda. “How can this be?” you might ask. The reason, as it turns out, is simple. Miranda was required to hold a Class D-49 Tree Service Contractor’s license in order to contract with Sorenson to trim her trees, and because Miranda did not hold that license (or, for that matter, any contractor’s license), Sorenson automatically was deemed the employer of Jones under Labor Code Section 2750.5 and, therefore, liable for her injuries. 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

---

Encinitas Office Obtains Complete Defense Verdict Including Attorney Fees and Costs After Ten Day Construction Arbitration

May 23, 2022 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Partner Vik Nagpal and Associate Attorney Tim McNulty of the Encinitas office recently obtained a substantial victory on behalf of BWB&O’s client after a 10-day binding construction arbitration before a three-arbitrator panel of the American Arbitration Association. BWB&O’s client was sued by the Owner of a commercial office building related to a multimillion-dollar tenant improvement project in San Diego. The Owner asserted construction defect damages, delay damages, architectural negligence, fraudulent billing practices and consequential damages of $3.6 million dollars. BWB&O’s client claimed breach of contract damages against the owner for failure to pay invoices. The Owner who had substantial financial resources and a personal spite against the general contractor, unreasonably pursued the case with an extensive team of lawyers and experts. At an earlier full-day mediation, the owner rejected a reasonable settlement offer which included a settlement payment to the Owner and the client’s agreement to dismiss their affirmative claim for damages. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

---

Terms of Your Teaming Agreement Matter

July 30, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
These days in construction, and other pursuits, teaming agreements have become a great method for large and small contractors to work together to take advantage of various contract and job requirements from minority participation to veteran ownership. With the proliferation of these agreements, parties must be careful in how they draft the terms of these agreements. Without proper drafting, the parties risk unenforceability of the teaming agreement in the evewnt of a dispute. One potential pitfall in drafting is an “agreement to agree” or an agreement to negotiate a separate contract in the future. This type of pitfall was illustrated in the case of InDyne Inc. v. Beacon Occupational Health & Safety Services Inc. out of the Eastern District of Virginia. In this case, InDyne and Beacon entered into a teaming agreement that provided that InDyne as Prime would seek to use Beacon, the Sub, in the event that InDyne was awarded a contract using Beacon’s numbers. The teaming agreement further provided:

The agreement shall remain in effect until the first of the following shall occur: … (g) inability of the Prime and the Sub, after negotiating in good faith, to reach agreement on the terms of a subcontract offered by the Prime, in accordance with this agreement.

InDyne was subsequently awarded a contract with the Air Force and shortly thereafter sent a subcontract to Beacon and requested Beacon’s “best and final” pricing. Beacon protested by letter stating that it was only required to act consistently with its original bid pricing. Beacon then returned the subcontract with the original bid pricing and accepting all but a termination for convenience provision. Shortly thereafter, InDyne informed Beacon that InDyne had awarded the subcontract to one of Beacon’s competitors. Beacon of course sued and argued that the teaming agreement required that InDyne award the subcontract to Beacon. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Read Carefully. The Insurance Coverage You Thought You Were Getting May Not Be The Coverage You Got

November 27, 2013 — Bret Cogdill — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
A recent U.S. District Court case in Colorado highlighted the importance for an insured to read and understand the terms of its insurance policy. The case 2-BT, LLC v. Preferred Contractors Insurance Company Risk Retention Group, LLC, Civil Action No. 12CV02167PAB, was a controversy between an insured’s expectations for coverage, and the terms and exclusions of the insurance policy. 2-BT is a heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (“HVAC”) contractor, which utilizes soldering devices and heat sources among other tools for its trade. 2-BT needed liability insurance to cover its work, and found a provider, Preferred Contractors Insurance Company Risk Retention Group, LLC (“PCIC”). 2-BT read PCIC’s online materials, which stated “PCIC’s personalized underwriting process allows us to tailor coverage to properly outfit the contractor with excellent coverage and rates.” 2-BT filled out a policy application, which included a description of the type of HVAC work it performs, initialed several sections, and signed it. One of the initialed paragraphs on the application, “Policy Exclusions,” stated that damages arising from “fungi/bacteria,” “open flame,” and “use of heating devices,” was not covered. PCIC issued a policy to 2-BT, which included a section titled, “Additional Exclusions” that excluded coverage for mold and damage related to heating elements among others. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bret Cogdill
Bret Cogdill can be contacted at cogdill@hhmrlaw.com

---