SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

California Supreme Court Hands Victory to Private Property Owners Over Public Use

June 21, 2017 — Sean M. Sherlock - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In 1970 the California Supreme Court held that, under certain circumstances, private property owners impliedly dedicate their property to the public if they permit the public to use it. Gion v. City of Santa Cruz (1970) 2 Cal.3d 29. This holding was controversial, and the next year the California Legislature enacted Civil Code section 1009 limiting the public’s ability to permanently use private property through an implied dedication. In the 40-plus years since then, the lower courts have wrestled with the issue of whether the statute limiting implied dedication applies only to recreational uses by the public, or also to nonrecreational uses. On June 15, 2017, the California Supreme Court issued its unanimous opinion in Scher v. Burke (June 15, 2017, S230104) ___ Cal.4th ___, holding that the limitations on implied dedication apply to nonrecreational as well as recreational uses. The case is significant because it demonstrates that the Supreme Court will apply the plain language of the state’s statutes to uphold private property rights. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sean M. Sherlock, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Sherlock may be contacted at ssherlock@swlaw.com

---

California Expands on Scope of Coverage for Soft Cost Claims

February 14, 2023 — Caitlin N. Rabiyan - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The California federal district court case of KB Home v. Illinois Union Insurance Co., No. 8:20-cv-00278-JLS-JDE, (C.D. Cal. August 23, 2022), provides much needed guidance for cases involving builder's risk insurance claims for soft cost coverage. The case stems from damage to several of KB Home’s residential building sites caused by a severe rainstorm in January 2017. Each home site was a smaller part of a large housing development project. The damage caused significant delay in the completion of some individual home sites, although there was limited evidence of delay to the overall housing development project. As a result, KB Home sought coverage under a builder’s risk policy purchased from Illinois Union for both hard costs and soft costs. “Hard costs” are the costs directly associated with repairing property damage to the sites. Conversely, “soft costs” are indirect expenses associated with project delays caused by such property damage and repair efforts. For example, hard costs would include labor and materials, whereas the soft costs claimed by KB Home included additional real estate taxes, construction loan interest, and advertising and promotional expenses incurred because of the delays. Illinois Union paid the claim for the hard costs, but denied the soft costs claim. KB Home filed suit and Illinois Union eventually filed a motion for summary judgment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Caitlin N. Rabiyan, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Rabiyan may be contacted at CRabiyan@sdvlaw.com

---

Arizona Supreme Court Leaves Limits on Construction Defects Unclear

August 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Arizona Supreme Court has determined that “non-contracting parties may bring negligence claims for construction defects because such claims are not barred by the economic loss doctrine,” as Richard Erikson writes in a Snell & Wilmer Legal Alert. In the case of Sullivan v. Pulte Home, Pulte had built the home in 2000. The original buyer sold it to the Sullivans in 2003. The Sullivans discovered construction defects in a retaining wall in 2009. The lost their original lawsuit, but the appeals court found that if the Sullivans filed within two years of finding the damage, they could sue. The case then progressed to the Arizona Supreme Court. Erikson points out that in an amicus brief, a number of parties in the Arizona homebuilding industry argued that “the appellate court’s ruling was commercially irreconcilable with expectations of builders, homeowners, homebuyers, engineers and architects in the construction industry.” Nevertheless, the Sullivans prevailed at court. Erikson asks what the actual limit on construction defects must be, given that the court found for plaintiffs who discovered construction defects nine years after the home was built. “How many years after the builder finishes a home does it have to plan on defending defect claims—10, 20, 30 years?” He proposes that the Arizona legislature needs to clarify the specific limits. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

A Performance-Based Energy Code in Seattle: Will It Save Existing Buildings?

August 11, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Council Blog

The City of Seattle has one of the most stringent energy codes in the nation. Based upon the Washington State Energy Code (which has been embroiled in litigation over its high standards), the code demands a lot from commercial developers. But, does it prevent developers from saving Seattle?s classic and old buildings? Perhaps.



The general compliance procedure requires buildings to be examined during the permitting process. This means that buildings are examined before they begin operating. The procedure is not malleable and is applicable to all buildings, old and new, big and small.



The downside of this procedure is that it eliminates awarding compliance to those buildings exhibiting a number of passive features, such as siting, thermal mass, and renewable energy production. This problem has prevented a number of interesting and architecturally pleasing existing building retrofits from getting off the ground. The cost of complying with the current system can be 20% more, and it might prevent builders from preserving a building?s historical integrity.

Read the full story…



Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

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

---

Amazon Can be Held Strictly Liable as a Product Seller in New Jersey

August 07, 2022 — Michael L. DeBona - The Subrogation Strategist
On June 29, 2022, in N.J. Mfrs. Ins. Grp. a/s/o Angela Sigismondi v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115826 (Sigismondi), the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey held that Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon) is a “seller” under New Jersey’s product liability statute and can thus face strict liability for damages caused by products sold on its platform. Although the analysis is state-specific, Sigismondi may serve as an important decision for allowing product defect claims to proceed against Amazon when so often the third-party vendor that lists the product is unlocatable, insolvent, or not subject to the jurisdiction of United States courts. In recent years, Amazon has been fighting product liability claims across the country. Amazon argues it is not a “seller” under states’ product liability laws but is merely an online marketplace that facilitates the sale of products by third-party vendors. What constitutes a “seller” in a particular state must be evaluated state-by-state, but various courts have accepted Amazon’s argument that it is not a “seller.” These decisions are based on Amazon’s level of control in the product sale and often focus on a finding that Amazon did not convey possession of the product or transfer its title. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael L. DeBona, White and Williams
Mr. DeBona may be contacted at debonam@whiteandwilliams.com

---

White House Proposal Returns to 1978 NEPA Review Procedures

November 15, 2021 — Karen C. Bennett - Lewis Brisbois
Washington, D.C. (October 15, 2021) - The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has requested comments, by November 22, 2021, on proposed revisions to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations. The proposal is Phase I in a two-phased approach that will eventually undo a final rule, effective September 2020, that updated NEPA regulations to reflect decades of agency experience and caselaw interpreting the 1969 Act. Phase I proposes to reinstitute 1978 definitions for key terms used to determine the scope of review and the range of alternatives required when undertaking any major federal action. Phase II is expected to be an extensive rewrite of the 2020 regulations to incorporate climate change and environmental justice objectives. Businesses with projects, now or in the future, that require federal authorizations will need to pay close attention to these regulatory revisions. The 2020 update rule intended to scale back the time and cost of producing NEPA analyses by focusing agency resources on evaluating effects that are within the agency’s ability to control and studying only those alternatives that would meet the project purpose. CEQ’s proposal eliminates these efficiencies. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Karen Bennett, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com

---

Architect Not Responsible for Injuries to Guests

September 01, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Texas Court of Appeals has ruled, with one dissent, that the architectural firm that designed a home was not responsible to the injuries caused to guests when a balcony collapsed. Judge David Puryear wrote the majority opinion in Black + Vernooy Architects v. Smith.

Black + Vernooy designed a vacation home for Robert and Kathy Maxfield in 2000. The Maxfields hired a general contractor to build the home. The general contractor hired a subcontractor to build a balcony; however, the subcontractor did not follow the architect’s design in building the balcony.

A year after the house was completed; the Maxfields were visited by Lou Ann Smith and Karen Gravely. The balcony collapsed under the two women. Ms. Gravely suffered a broken finger, a crushed toe, and bruises. Ms. Smith was rendered a paraplegic as a result of the fall. They sued the Maxfields, the general contractor, and the architects for negligence. The Maxfields and the general contractor settled. A jury found that the architects held 10% of the responsibility. The architects appealed the judgment of the district court.

The Appeals Court reversed this judgment, noting that “there has been no allegation that the Architects negligently designed the balcony or that the Architects actually created the defects at issue.” Further, “the Smiths allege that the defect was caused by the construction practices of the contractor and subcontractor when the balcony was not built in accordance with the design plans of the Architects.”

The court found that even though the architects had a duty “to endeavor to guard against defects and deficiencies in the construction of the home and to generally ascertain whether the home was being built in compliance with the construction plans,” this duty did not extend to third parties.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Gillotti v. Stewart (2017) 2017 WL 1488711 Rejects Liberty Mutual, Holding Once Again that the Right to Repair Act is the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims

November 21, 2017 — Richard H. Glucksman, Esq. & Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq. - Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Bulletin
Originally published by CDJ on June 5, 2017 Background In Gillotti v. Stewart (April 26, 2017) 2017 WL 1488711, which was ordered to be published on May 18, 2017, the defendant grading subcontractor added soil over tree roots to level the driveway on the plaintiff homeowner’s sloped lot. The homeowner sued the grading subcontractor under the California Right to Repair Act (Civil Code §§ 895, et seq.) claiming that the subcontractor’s work damaged the trees. After the jury found the subcontractor was not negligent, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the subcontractor. The homeowner appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly construed the Right to Repair Act as barring a common law negligence theory against the subcontractor and erred in failing to follow Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98. The Third District Court of Appeal disagreed and affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the subcontractor. Impact This is the second time the Third District Court of Appeal has held that Liberty Mutual (discussed below) was wrongly decided and held that the Right to Repair Act is the exclusive remedy for construction defect claims. The decision follows its holding in Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court (Hicks) (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 333, in which the Court of Appeal held that the Right to Repair Act’s pre-litigation procedures apply when homeowners plead construction defect claims based on common law causes of action, as opposed to violations of the building standards set forth in the Right to Repair Act. Elliott is currently on hold at the California Supreme Court, pending the decision in McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132, wherein Liberty Mutual was rejected for the first time by the Fifth District. CGDRB continues to follow developments regarding the much anticipated McMillin decision closely, as well as all related matters. Reprinted courtesy of Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and Chelsea L. Zwart, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---