Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Evacuations in Santa Barbara County as more Mudslides are Predicted

March 14, 2018 — Dave Suggs – CDJ Staff
Alene Tchekmedyian’s LA times article “Storm triggers evacuations in Santa Barbara County: 'Don't be fooled into thinking that this can’t happen again',” warns of the deadly potential of mudslides following the devastation that occurred in January that caused 21 fatalities and damaged homes in Montecito. Debris flow could be triggered by rainfall rates predicted to exceed half and inch per hour. In some areas as much as seven-tenths of an inch of rain per hour are possible because of a chance of thunderstorms. Mandatory evacuations began Monday to protect residents from the fast-moving storm that is predicted to be worse than January’s. Santa Barbara county officials asked that people help spread the word of the evacuation to everyone in their community. They also created an interactive map to help residents determine their risk level. Matilija Canyon and North Fork in Ventura County are under voluntary evacuation orders. Areas at the highest risk include Thomas, Sherpa, and Whittier burn areas. Residents can find shelter at the Goleta Valley Community Center at 5679 Hollister Avenue. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New York Construction Practice Team Obtains Summary Judgment, Dismissal of Labor Law §240(1) Claim Against Municipal Entities

August 19, 2024 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
New York, N.Y. (August 8, 2024) – In Josan v. City of New York, et al., New York Associate Jonathan A. Bartlett, a member of New York Partner Meghan A. Cavalieri’s Construction Practice Team, recently obtained summary judgment and dismissal of the plaintiffs’ Labor Law §240(1) claim against the City of New York, the New York City School Construction Authority, and the New York City Department of Education. The plaintiff alleged to have sustained injuries as the result of a construction site accident occurring on January 9, 2020, while in the scope of his employment as a forklift operator in connection with the construction/renovation of a school building in Brooklyn, New York. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that he was injured when a forklift he was operating in order to lift scaffold frame materials tipped over, causing him disabling injuries. The plaintiffs’ counsel articulated an eight-figure initial settlement demand. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

Implied Warranties for Infrastructure in Florida Construction Defect Claims

December 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The homeowners in the Lakeview development built by Maronda Homes in Orange County, Florida started having water and drainage problems shortly after the homeowners association took control of the community. They fought their case all the way to the Florida Supreme Court, where the question was whether implied warranties of fitness covered the community’s infrastructure. William Martin III, writing on the DestinLog, notes that previous Florida Supreme Court decisions went the other way. In a case involving a seawall, the court held that “unless the seawall was part of or in connection with the construction of a home or in support of a residence.” In the Lakeview case, they determined that the community’s infrastructure was just that: “essential to the habitability of the residence.” The court specifically included roads for ingress and egress, drainage systems to divert flooding, retention ponds to correct water flow damage, and underground pipes which are necessary for living accommodations.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Congratulations to Partner Madeline Arcellana on Her Selection as a Top Rank Attorney in Nevada!

July 02, 2024 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is proud to announce that Las Vegas Partner Madeline Arcellana was once again selected by Nevada Business Magazine as a Top Rank Attorney in Nevada for her work in Civil Litigation, General Liability, and Personal Injury! Nevada Business Magazine‘s Top Rank Attorneys list is comprised of attorneys in both private and public practice who are voted for by nearly 3,000 Nevada-licensed attorneys. The attorneys on this list are at the top of their field and each nomination is put through an extensive verification process. To view Nevada’s 2024 Top Rank Attorneys, please click here. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

North Carolina Federal Court Holds “Hazardous Materials” Exclusion Does Not Bar Duty to Defend Under CGL Policy for Bodily Injury Claims Arising Out of Direct Exposure to PFAs

December 07, 2020 — Paul A. Briganti - White and Williams LLP
On October 19, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina held that a “hazardous materials” exclusion contained in a CGL policy did not preclude a duty to defend the insured against claims alleging bodily injury resulting from direct exposure to perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), which are man-made chemicals within the group of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAs).[1] In Colony Insurance Company v. Buckeye Fire Equipment Company, the insured was named a defendant in hundreds of underlying suits relating to its manufacture of fire equipment containing aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), a fire suppressant.[2] The underlying plaintiffs alleged that: (a) the AFFF contained PFOS and PFOA; (b) PFOA and PFOS are highly carcinogenic; and (c) exposure to AFFF contained in the defendants’ products caused bodily injury or property damage. Around a third of the underlying complaints alleged harm from both direct exposure to the foam and exposure through the environment. Representative language from those complaints was: “[d]uring [underlying plaintiff’s] employment as a firefighter and firefighter instructor, he was significantly exposed to elevated levels of PFOS and PFOA in their concentrated form as a result of regular contact with [d]efendant’s AFFF products and through PFOS and PFOA having contaminated the FireCollege well system.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com

Courthouse Reporter Series: The Bizarre Case That Required a 117-Year-Old Expert

December 04, 2023 — Todd Heffner & Di'Vennci Lucas - The Dispute Resolver
A recent decision by the Georgia Court of Appeals, Munro v. Georgia Department of Transportation, highlights how overly specific and inflexible rules of evidence can create peculiar results. Munro involved a dispute over the design of a Georgia intersection. No. A23A0404, 2023 WL 4194716 (Ga. Ct. App. June 27, 2023). The plaintiff alleged that the defendant improperly designed the intersection, never corrected that improper design, and failed to properly maintain the intersection. These claims were dismissed for a very odd reason: the plaintiff’s expert witness wasn’t old enough. The case arose from a car accident. A vehicle in which the plaintiff Munro was a passenger collided with a tractor trailer crossing an intersection. Munro sued the Georgia Department of Transportation (DOT) for negligently designing, maintaining, and inspecting the intersection. The DOT filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground of sovereign immunity and a motion to exclude the testimony of the Munros’ expert witness, among other motions. The trial court dismissed the case in full on the sovereign immunity ground and denied the other motions as moot. The Munros appealed. Reprinted courtesy of Todd Heffner, Troutman Pepper and Di'Vennci Lucas, Troutman Pepper Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Heffner may be contacted at todd.heffner@troutman.com

Florida Supreme Court Adopts Federal Summary Judgment Standard, Substantially Conforming Florida’s Rule 1.510 to Federal Rule 56

June 07, 2021 — Lewis Brisbois
Effective May 1, 2021, the Florida courts will transition to a new summary judgment standard meant to “align Florida’s summary judgment standard with that of the federal courts and of the supermajority of states that have already adopted the federal summary judgment standard.” In re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Pro. 1.510, 309 So. 3d 192, 192 (Fla. 2020). Consistent with this amendment, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 has been amended to adopt the federal summary judgment rule, with exceptions for timing-related issues. The Florida Supreme Court’s most recent opinion on rule 1.510 and the text of new rule 1.510 can be found here. As background, on December 31, 2020, the Florida Supreme Court adopted the federal summary judgment standard by amending Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(c) to include the following sentence: “The summary judgment standard provided for in this rule shall be construed and applied in accordance with the federal summary judgment standard articulated in Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1976); and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) [(the ‘Celotex trilogy’)].” In re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Pro. 1.510, 309 So. 3d at 196. The court’s amendment was slated to take effect on May 1, 2021, subject to a public comment period. The court also sought guidance from the Florida Bar’s Civil Procedure Rules Committee. After careful consideration of numerous responses, the court ultimately chose to adopt the substance of the text from federal rule 56. Along with its amendments, the court provides substantial guidance as to how the Florida courts and practitioners should interpret the new rule. A summary of the court’s thorough discussion follows. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

Congratulations to BWB&O’s Newport Beach Team for Prevailing on a Highly Contested Motion to Quash!

January 08, 2024 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Congratulations to Newport Partners Tyler Offenhauser and Jonathan Cothran, and Associate Anisha Kohli, who recently prevailed on behalf of BWB&O’s client before the Orange County Superior Court on a highly contested Motion to Quash Service based on Plaintiff’s failure to timely file and serve a DOE Amendment, naming our client. BWB&O’s client was the owner of a building where Plaintiff, a licensed electrician, was electrocuted while performing an upgrade to the building’s electrical infrastructure. Plaintiff’s original lawsuit named only the building’s tenant, who was also represented by BWB&O. BWB&O was successful earlier this year on a Motion for Summary Judgment under the Privette Doctrine and won judgment on behalf of the client/tenant. While that MSJ was pending, Plaintiff surreptitiously added the building’s owner to the suit with a DOE Amendment, after several months earlier learning the owner and then tenant were entities operated by the same individual. However, Plaintiff never informed counsel or any other party of the filing. Moreover, after the MSJ was granted, Plaintiff then waited several more months to serve the building’s owner. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES