Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Trial Victory in San Mateo County!

February 24, 2020 — Wilke Fleury
Wilke Fleury attorneys Adriana Cervantes and Matt Powell recently prevailed at trial in a case involving a real property dispute in San Mateo County. Wilke Fleury represented the owner of an apartment building in an action against an individual who recently acquired the duplex on the adjoining property. As set forth in the pleadings, the Apartment’s owner, tenants, and invitees, used the property in many ways including access, parking, and recreational purposes for over five years, and the new owner had actual notice of that use before the purchase. Nonetheless, the new owner insisted the Apartment had no right to use the property, and filed an action to quiet title. Wilke Fleury filed a cross-complaint on behalf of the Apartment alleging that it had a prescriptive easement over the property. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wilke Fleury

California Appellate Court Rules That Mistakenly Grading the Wrong Land Is Not an Accident

June 27, 2022 — Jared De Jong & Scott S. Thomas - Payne & Fears
In a decision that further muddies the already murky waters of “occurrence” jurisprudence, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that a general liability policy does not cover a homeowner who mistakenly grades the wrong piece of land because the act of grading land is not “accidental.” In Ghukasian v. Aegis Security Insurance Company, ___ Cal. App. 5th ___, 2022 WL 1421511 (2022), a homeowner instructed her contractor to clear and level a piece of land that the homeowner believed was part of her property. Unfortunately, the land was owned by a neighbor, who sued the homeowner and the contractor for trespass and negligence. The homeowner tendered to her insurer, Aegis. The homeowner’s policy contained a standard insuring agreement creating coverage for property damage caused by an “occurrence,” defined by the policy as an “accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.” The insurer denied coverage, arguing that intentionally grading land is not an accident. Coverage litigation ensued. Reprinted courtesy of Jared De Jong, Payne & Fears and Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears Mr. De Jong may be contacted at jdj@paynefears.com Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Federal Court Dismisses Coverage Action in Favor of Pending State Proceeding

October 12, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the coverage action that was parallel to a case pending in state court involving the same parties and same issues pending. Navigators Ins, Co. v. Chriso's Tree Trimming, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129711 (E.D. Calif. July 22, 2020). Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) entered into a tree, brush and wood removal contract with Mount F Enterprises, Inc. Mountain F subsequently entered into a subcontractor agreement with Chriso Tree Trimming, Inc. for work to be performed for PG&E. In August 2017, Chriso attempted to remove a tree, but the tree accidentally fell in the wrong direction and knocked down nearby powerlines. The powerlines came into contact with surrounding brush and started the "Railroad Fire." The fire was eventually contained on September 15, 2017, after 12, 407 acres were burned and 7 structures and 7 homes were destroyed. Five subrogation lawsuits were filed in state court against Chriso and Mountain F by various insurance companies that paid for the damage caused by the Railroad Fire. A policy limits demand to settle all claims against Chriso and Mountain F was made. Navigators insured Chriso for $9 million through a Commercial Excess Liability Policy, payable once all other insurance was exhausted. The policy included a "Professional Services Endorsement" (PSE Exclusion) that excluded coverage of "professional services." "Professional services" was defined through a list of 12 non-exclusive professions and services that generally referred to activities involving specialized knowledge or skill that was predominantly mental or intellectual in nature rather than physical or manual. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

University of Tennessee Commits to $1.9B Capital Plan

August 07, 2023 — Stephanie Loder - Engineering News-Record
A nearly $2-billion funding plan approved by University of Tennessee trustees signals the go-ahead for 15 new capital projects at five locations including research, science and housing facilities along with a planned entertainment district for Neyland Stadium, home of the university's football team. Reprinted courtesy of Stephanie Loder, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Breach of an Oral Contract and Unjust Enrichment and Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

December 23, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In an ideal world, parties would have written contracts. In reality, parties should endeavor to ensure every transaction they enter into is memorialized in a written contract. This should not be disputed. Of course, written contracts are not always the case. Parties enter transactions too often whereby the transaction is not memorialized in a clean written agreement. Rather, it is piecemealing invoices, or texts, or discussions, or proposals and the course of business. A contract can still exist in this context but it is likely an oral contract. Keep in mind if there is a dispute, what you think the oral contract says will invariably be different than what the other party believes the oral contract says. This “he said she said” scenario gets removed, for the most part, with a written contract that memorializes the written terms, conditions, and scope. A recent federal district court opinion dealt with the alleged breach of an oral contract. In Movie Prop Rentals LLC vs. The Kingdom of God Global Church, 2023 WL 8275922 (S.D.Fla. 2023), a dispute concerned the fabrication and installation of a complex, modular stage prop to be used for an event. But here lies the problem. The dispute was based on an oral contract and invoices. The plaintiff, the party that was fabricating the modular stage prop, sued the defendant, the party that ordered the stage prop for the event, for non-payment under various claims. The defendant countersued under various claims. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Washington State Enacts Law Restricting Non-Compete Agreements

September 23, 2019 — Ellie Perka - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Washington State has enacted a new law that means big changes for employers. The new law, in effect on January 1, 2020, will dramatically limit the enforcement of non-compete agreements in our state and imposes tough penalties on employers found to be in violation. While the new law does not take effect for many months, businesses should nonetheless act quickly and before year’s end to evaluate practices and, if necessary, revise existing and future non-compete agreements to ensure compliance. Under the new law, if an employee successfully proves a company’s non-compete agreement is unenforceable, then the employer will be required to pay the greater of $5,000 or an employee’s actual damages, plus the employee’s attorneys’ fees (and its own, in defending the non-compete), expenses and costs incurred in challenging the agreement. Brief Summary of Changes Washington Courts have typically disfavored restrictive covenants but usually enforced a non-competition agreement that protected an employer’s legitimate business interests and was reasonable in scope, geographic reach, and duration. The Legislature halted this trend through passage of Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1450. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ellie Perka, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ms. Perka may be contacted at ellie.perka@acslawyers.com

New York Court Narrowly Interprets “Expected or Intended Injury” Exclusion in Win for Policyholder

May 16, 2022 — Michael S. Levine, Kevin V. Small & Joseph T. Niczky - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
NL Industries recently prevailed against its commercial general liability insurers in the New York Appellate Division in a noteworthy case regarding the meaning of “expected or intended” injury and the meaning of “damages” in a liability insurance policy. In Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. NL Industries, Inc., No. 2021-00241, 2022 WL 867910 (N.Y. App. Div. Mar. 24, 2022) (“NL Indus. II”), the Appellate Division held that exclusions for expected or intended injury required a finding that NL actually expected or intended the resulting harm; not merely have knowledge of an increased risk of harm. In addition, the court held that the funding of an abatement fund designed to prevent future harm amounted to “damages” in the context of a liability policy because the fund has a compensatory effect. NL Industries II is a reminder to insurers and policyholders alike that coverage is construed liberally and exclusions are construed narrowly towards maximizing coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Kevin V. Small, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Joseph T. Niczky, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Small may be contacted at ksmall@HuntonAK.com Mr. Niczky may be contacted at jniczky@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

A Community Constantly on the Brink of Disaster

February 06, 2023 — Jason Daniel Feld - Kahana Feld
In the beautiful coastline region along the famous Pacific Coast Highway between Ventura and Santa Barbara rests the small cottage town of La Conchita. With unobstructed ocean views, this community is only 820 feet wide on a narrow strip of land abutting a 590 feet high cliffside bluff. The bluff has a slope of approximately 35 degrees and consists of poorly cemented marine sediments. This is the perfect recipe for constant disaster from a geological perspective and the site of several major landslides that have devastated this community. Geologic evidence indicates that landslides, which are part of the larger Rincon Mountain slides, have been occurring at and near La Conchita for many thousands of years up to the present with reported landslides beginning as early as 1865. In both 1889 and 1909, the Southern Pacific Rail Line running along the coast was inundated. In the 1909 slide, a train was buried. Since that time, other slides have occurred, covering at times cultivated land, roadways, and the community itself. The two most devastating landslides occurred in 1995 and 2005. 1995 Landslide From October 1994-March 1995, there was double the amount of seasonal rainfall for the area – in excess of 30 inches. The slide occurred on March 3, 1995, when surface cracks in the upper part of the slope opened on the hillside, and surface runoff was infiltrating into the subsurface. The heavy rains essentially saturated the slope causing a massive slide. On March 4, 1995, the hill behind La Conchita failed, moving tens of meters in minutes, and buried nine homes with no loss of life. The County of Ventura immediately declared the whole community a Geological Hazard Area, imposing building restrictions on the community to restrict new construction. On March 10, 1995, a subsequent debris flow from a canyon to the northwest damaged five additional houses in the northwestern part of La Conchita. In total, the slide measured approximately 390 feet wide, 1080 feet long and 98 feet deep. The deposit covered approximately 9.9 acres, and the volume was estimated to be approximately 1.7 million cubic yards of sediment. The devastation was immeasurable and the damage to homes, property and infrastructure was in the millions of dollars to repair. Litigation quickly arose following the 1995 slide with seventy-one homeowners suing the La Conchita Ranch Co. in Bateman v. La Conchita Ranch Co. The judge ruled that irrigation was not the major cause of the slide and that the ranch owners were not responsible. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jason Daniel Feld, Kahana Feld
Mr. Feld may be contacted at jfeld@kahanafeld.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES