Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

California Team Secures Appellate Victory on Behalf of Celebrity Comedian Kathy Griffin in Dispute with Bel Air Neighbor

August 04, 2021 — Jeffry Miller, Wendy Dowse, Dana Fox & Michael Moss - Lewis Brisbois
San Diego Appellate Partner Jeffry A. Miller, Indian Wells Appellate Partner Wendy S. Dowse, and Los Angeles Partners Dana Alden Fox and Michael Moss recently prevailed in an appeal from a judgment entered after the trial court granted Lewis Brisbois clients Kathy Griffin and Randy Bick, Jr.’s motion for summary adjudication of the plaintiffs’ causes of action for invasion of privacy and violation of California Penal Code section 632, which prohibits recording confidential communications. As reported by Law360 in an article titled "Kathy Griffin Beats Calif. Neighbors' Backyard Spying Suit," and in a Bloomberg Law article titled "Comedian Kathy Griffin Beats Neighbor’s Invasion of Privacy Suit," the plaintiffs initially filed suit against Griffin and Bick, Jr. in 2018, alleging that their home security cameras recorded “every move and every communication” in the plaintiffs’ private backyard. They argued that the defendants' use of the security system invaded their privacy and violated California law. Prior to the lawsuit, Griffin and Bick, Jr. had made noise complaints about the plaintiffs to their homeowners' association and to the Los Angeles Police Department. The plaintiffs learned of the defendants' security cameras after a profane rant directed at the defendants and related to their noise complaint was recorded and reported in the media. Reprinted courtesy of Jeffry Miller, Lewis Brisbois, Wendy Dowse, Lewis Brisbois, Dana Fox, Lewis Brisbois and Michael Moss, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Miller may be contacted at Jeff.Miller@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Dowse may be contacted at Wendy.Dowse@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Fox may be contacted at Dana.Fox@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Moss may be contacted at Michael.Moss@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Minnesota Senate Office Building Called Unconstitutional

November 06, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The state of Minnesota has plans for a $63 million Senate office building. Not so fast, says a former member of the Minnesota House. Jim Knoblach, the former representative for St. Cloud, has filed a lawsuit claiming that the appropriation for the building violated the state’s constitution. Funding for the senate office building was included in a tax bill, and Mr. Knoblach claims that violates the state’s requirement that laws have only a single subject. “It was buried deep in the tax bill and passed on the chaotic last day of session,” said Mr. Knoblach. In Minnesota, public works projects must reach 60% approval in both houses, while the tax bill only required 50% approval. State Republicans oppose the building. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Don’t Ignore a Notice of Contest of Lien

April 29, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent case, Jon M. Hall Company, LLC v. Canoe Creek Investments, LLC, 49 Fla.L.Weekly D812a (Fla. 2d DCA 2024), demonstrates four important things when it comes to liens:

An owner can shorten the time period to foreclose on the lien, whether against the real property or a lien transfer bond, to 60 days by recording a notice of contest of lien;
An owner can transfer a lien to a lien transfer bond during litigation;
An owner can record a notice of contest of lien to force the lienor to amend its lawsuit to sue the lien transfer bond surety within 60 days; and
A contractors’ failure to amend its lawsuit to sue the lien transfer bond within 60 days will extinguish its rights to pursue a claim against the lien transfer bond, and will otherwise extinguish the lien, fairly or unfairly.

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

Excessive Corrosion Cause of Ohio State Fair Ride Accident

August 10, 2017 — David Suggs – Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.
The manufacturer of the Fire Ball ride at the Ohio State Fair claims that excessive corrosion “led to the accident that killed a teenager and injured seven others…in July.” According to a statement by KMG International, reported by ABC News, “Corrosion on the interior of the support beam reduced the beam's thickness, which led to the accident at the fair.” Furthermore, “The company said it conducted an investigation into the incident, which included a visit to the scene and a review of video footage of the incident. The company also conducted a metallurgical inspection of the ride.” A U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) spokesperson said “it is aware of 22 deaths associated with amusement attractions since 2010, including Wednesday's incident, but excluding water park and work-related fatalities.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insured Fails to Provide Adequate Proof of Water Damage Through Roof

December 10, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment due on the insured's claims for water damage to a church. Unity Church of God in Christ of York v. Church Mutual Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163204 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 11, 2024). Unity Church alleged that it suffered a sudden and accidental direct physical loss to its church. Wind damage to the roof of the church allowed rainwater to leak into the sanctuary of the church. Notice was given to Church Mutual Insurance Company, but coverage was denied. Unity Church filed suit alleging breach of contract. Church Mutual answered and asserted a counterclaim for a declaratory judgment that the water damage to the church was outside the policy's coverage because the damage was caused by rain. Church Mutual filed for summary judgment. 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

Negligent Misrepresentation in Sale of Building Altered without Permits

September 30, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire has ruled in the case Wyle v. Lees. The Leeses owned a two-unit apartment building in North Conway, New Hampshire. They hired a contractor to add a third, larger apartment, including a two-car garage. The Leeses and their contractor submitted a building permit application. They were informed that site plan review was required. After receiving approval on the site plan, construction started. At no point did they obtain a building permit and the construction was never inspected. The Leeses subsequently added more space to the unit, reducing parking spaces below the minimum required. Again, they did not obtain a building permit.

In 2007, three years after all these changes were complete, the Leeses sold their building to Mr. Wyle. To the question “are you aware of any modifications or repairs made without the necessary permits?” they answered “no.” About six weeks after closing, Wyle “received a letter from the town code enforcement officer regarding the legality of the removal of a garage door from the new unit.” A subsequent inspection revealed “numerous building and life safety code violations.”

Mr. Wyle brought a claim against the Leeses for negligent misrepresentation. The defendants filed a motion “seeking to preclude economic loss damages.” At a two-day bench trial, Mr. Wyle won. The Leeses appealed.

The appeals court found that “the defendants negligently misrepresented that the premises were licensed for immediate occupancy and that the defendants had obtained all necessary permits,” and thus upheld the lower court’s finding of negligent misrepresentation. The appeals court also rejected the Leeses’ argument that damages must be apportioned on all parties, including “the plaintiff himself, the plaintiff’s building inspector, and the defendant’s contractor,” finding a lack of “adequate evidence.”

The Leeses further argued that they were unaware that modifications and repairs were accomplished without the required permits. The appeals court noted that “the trial court found that both the conditional approval and final approval for the site plan stated that a building permit and a certificate of occupancy were required prior to any use.” The court concluded that the Leeses “knew or should have known of the falsity of their representation.”

The appeals affirmed the findings of the trial court.

Read the court’s decision…

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

Poor Record Keeping = Going to the Poor House (or, why project documentation matters)

June 11, 2014 — Melissa Dewey Brumback – Construction Law in North Carolina
You are an engineer or architect. You understand the importance of thorough designs. What about thorough documentation of the daily happenings on the construction project? That is equally important. As regular readers of this blog know, I have often spoken of the importance of proper record keeping on construction projects. In fact, lack of good project records is one of the 7 mistakes in my white paper 7 Critical Mistakes that Engineers & Architects make During Project Negotiation and Execution that Sabotage their Projects & Invite Litigation. Now, a construction management expert, who, like me, sees the ugly when construction projects turn bad, has weighed in with perhaps the authoritative reasoning and rationale (pdf) for good project records. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina
Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

Illinois Law Bars Coverage for Construction Defects in Insured's Work

September 24, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Applying Illinois law, the Seventh Circuit determined there was no coverage for faulty workmanship causing property damage to the insured's project. Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Board of Directors of Regal Lofts Condominium Ass'n, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 16250 (7th Cir. Aug. 21, 2014). The developer converted a vacant building into a condominium. The construction was completed in 2000. The Condominium Board took control of the condo association on July 27, 2000. As early as May 2000, one homeowner was aware of water damage problems in the building. Other complaints surfaced. An investigation found that the exterior brick masonry walls were not fully waterproofed, which caused leaks. The investigation further showed that deteriorated conditions had likely developed over many years, even prior to the condominium conversion, but the present water penetration was caused by the inadequate restoration of the walls to a water-tight condition. The underlying action was filed against the developer for failure to properly construct the exterior walls. The developer's carrier, Nautilus, denied coverage. In an amended complaint, the Board added a count of negligence. Again, Nautilus denied coverage. The Board's second amended complaint alleged that the developer's negligence had caused damage to personal property within the building, in addition to the interior of the building and the building itself. For the third time, Nautilus denied coverage and filed for declaratory relief. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES