Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

New Jersey Judge Found Mortgage Lender Liable When Borrower Couldn’t Pay

August 06, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to the New Jersey Law Journal, Freedom Mortgage Corporation has to pay treble damages and legal fees after Bergen County Superior Court Judge Gerald Escala found the company “liable under New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act for providing a home refinance loan to a 70-year-old borrower it should have known would be unable to make the payments.” “Escala further ruled that Freedom Mortgage must hold off on obtaining a foreclosure judgment for a year to allow an opportunity for borrower Mamie Major to look for someone to buy the property or to obtain refinancing elsewhere,” the New Jersey Law Journal reported. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Can We Compel Insurers To Cover Construction Defect in General Liability Policies?

December 09, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Council Blog

Recently, I read an article on Engineering News-Record that outlines a remarkable movement by as many as four states, to mandate coverage of construction defects in contractor general liability insurance policies. Say what? Is this a reality? What will become of affordable insurance?

Commercial General Liability insurance, or CGL, is your basic liability insurance. Every contractor doing business in the State of Washington, and most likely those abroad, has this insurance. Contractors buy this insurance to protect them from unforeseen liabilities arising from their negligence - and right now it’s reasonably affordable.

Why is it so affordable in such a risk-heavy industry? Because CGL policies significantly limit the scope of their coverage. Coverage is generally afforded for damages resulting from negligence (The roofer put a hammer through the drywall contractor’s wall) or which resulted from your defective construction (the roof leaked and flooded the rest of the house). But, that coverage does not include replacement of your faulty construction (the contents of the home might be protected by your leaky roof - the leaky roof itself is not).

The debate over coverage typically stems from the definition of “occurrence,” a term used to describe the event from which coverage arises, “resulting loss,” a term used to describe the type of loss covered.

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

Court Slams the Privette Door on Independent Contractor’s Bodily Injury Claim

May 06, 2019 — Brett G. Moore, Michael C. Parme, Lindsey N. Ursua & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Johnson v. The Raytheon Company, Inc., Case No. B281411 (2019) WL 1090217, plaintiff Laurence Johnson (Johnson) was a maintenance engineer employed by an independent contractor that provided control room staff to defendant Raytheon Company, Inc. (“Raytheon”). Johnson was monitoring the computers in the control room when he received low water level alarms pertaining to the water cooling towers. Johnson went to the cooling tower wall in order to look over the wall and verify the water level. Johnson saw the upper half of an extension ladder leaning against the cooling tower’s wall. The ladder had a warning sign which said, “CAUTION” and “THIS LADDER SECTION IS NOT DESIGNED FOR SEPARATE USE.” Despite these warnings, Johnson used the ladder. As he was climbing the ladder it slid out causing him to fall and suffer injuries. Johnson sued Raytheon, the hirer of the independent contractor, arguing the ladder, among other things, was unsafe and lead to Johnson’s injuries. Johnson believed that Raytheon’s course of conduct of leaving a platform ladder (as opposed to the extension ladder) at the wall constituted an implied agreement to always have one present, on which the independent contractor’s employees relied. Johnson further argued that Raytheon was negligent in providing a dangerous extension ladder, as opposed to a platform ladder, at the wall on the night of the accident. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Brett G. Moore, Michael C. Parme, Lindsey N. Ursua and Lawrence S. Zucker II Mr. Moore may be contacted at bmoore@hbblaw.com Mr. Parme may be contacted at mparme@hbblaw.com Ms. Lindsey may be contacted at lursua@hbblaw.com Mr. Lawrence may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Required Contract Provisions for Construction Contracts in California

October 08, 2014 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
One question I get fairly often when drafting or reviewing construction contracts is what provisions, if any, are required in construction contracts in California. This is, of course, different than what should be included in a construction contract which is a post for another day. So, here you go: Provisions Required in All Construction Contracts There’s only one requirement applicable to all construction contracts in California. And, that is, that you must include your California contractor’s license number if you are performing or bidding on work requiring a license. California Business and Professions Code section 7030.5 requires that licensed contractors include their license number in “(a) all construction contracts; (b) subcontracts and calls for bid; and (c) all forms advertising, as prescribed by the register of contractors, used by such person.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@kmtg.com

Pinnacle Controls in Verano

February 21, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The California Court of Appeals has applied the California Supreme Court’s recent Pinnacle decision to a new case, Verano Condominium Association v. La Cima Development. As in Pinnacle, La Cima sought to compel arbitration of construction defect claims with a homeowners association. The trial court denied La Cima’s attempt to compel arbitration on the grounds that the arbitration agreement was made with the individual homeowners and not the homeowners association. Further, it was determined that the CC&Rs “were unenforceable due to unconscionability.” La Cima appealed, and the appeals court affirmed in part and reversed in part. After Pinnacle, La Cima sought a review. The Supreme Court of California directed the appeals court to vacate their earlier decision and reconsider, based on Pinnacle. The Fourth Circuit Court has concluded that this conflicted with the ruling in Pinnacle. There, as in Verano, homeowners signed agreements that disputes with the developer would be settled through binding arbitration. The appeals court had found for the community association, but on review, the California Supreme Court reversed this decision. The California Court of Appeals had two issue to consider in this review: whether the arbitration provisions applied to the homeowners association, and whether these provisions were unconscionable. The court concluded that “in light of Pinnacle it is clear the arbitration provisions set forth in the Verano CC&Rs constitute a valid agreement to arbitrate.” On the second question, the Verano CC&Rs were described by the court as “materially indistinguishable” from those in the earlier case. As the state Supreme Court found that those were not unconscionable, clearly neither were these. The case was remanded for further proceedings and La Cima is entitled to recover the costs of the appeal. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized in the 2025 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America®

September 09, 2024 — Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman is pleased to announce that five Partners have been selected by their peers for inclusion in the 2025 edition of The Best Lawyers in America®. In addition, seven attorneys have been included in the 2025 Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch list. These recognitions include attorneys from the firm’s Hawthorne, NY; Chicago, IL; Palm Beach Gardens, FL; and St. Petersburg, FL offices. 2025 Best Lawyers® Hawthorne, NY

Lisa L. Shrewsberry – Commercial Litigation

Chicago, IL

Brian C. Bassett – Insurance Law

Palm Beach Gardens, FL

Rina Clemens – Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants

St. Petersburg, FL

Lauren S. Curtis – Insurance Law
Scot E. Samis – Appellate Practice

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

Know When Your Claim “Accrues” or Risk Losing It

August 20, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I have discussed statutes of limitation on construction claims in various contexts from issues with a disconnect on state projects to questions of continuous breach here at Construction Law Musings. For those that are first time readers, the statute of limitations is the time during which a plaintiff can bring its claim, whether under the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA), for breach of contract, or for any other legal wrong that was done to him, her or it by another. The range of limitations runs the gamut of times, for instance it is 5 years for breach of a written contract and 6 months for enforcement of a mechanic’s lien. This time period is calculated from the “accrual” of the right of action. “Accrual” is, in general terms, when the plaintiff was originally harmed or should have known it was harmed (depending on the particular cause of action). A recent case out of the Circuit Court of Norfolk, Virginia examined when a cause of action for a construction related claim under the VCPA accrued and thus whether the plaintiff’s claim was timely. In Hyde Park Free Will Baptist Church v. Skye-Brynn Enterprises Inc., the Court looked at the following basic facts (pay attention to the dates): The Plaintiff, Hyde Park Baptist Church, hired the Defendant, Skye-Brynn Enterprises, Inc., to perform certain roof repairs that were “completed” in 2015. Shortly after the work was done, in 2015, the Plaintiff informed Defendant that the roof still leaked and that some leaks were worse than before. The Defendant unsuccessfully attempted repair at the time. 14 months later in 2017, the church had other contractors examine the roof and opine as to its faulty installation. Also in 2017, the church submitted roof samples to GAF, the roof membrane manufacturer and in February 2018 GAF responded stating that the leaks were not due to manufacturing defects. The church filed its complaint on October 1, 2018 breach of contract, breach of warranty of workmanship and fraud in violation of the VCPA. Defendant responded with a plea in bar, arguing that the statute of limitations barred the claim. 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

Colorado Temporarily Requires Employers to Provide Sick Leave While Awaiting COVID-19 Testing

April 06, 2020 — Shawna Ruetz - The Grindstone Lewis Brisbois Labor & Employment Blog
On March 11, 2020, the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE) issued emergency rules, referred to as Colorado Health Emergency Leave with Pay (Colorado HELP) Rules, requiring employers in certain industries to provide four days of paid sick leave to employees with flu-like symptoms while awaiting test results for COVID-19, or to anyone who is under instructions from a healthcare provider to quarantine or isolate due to a risk of having COVID-19. These rules take effect immediately for 30 days, or longer if the state of emergency declared by Colorado Governor Polis continues. Which industries are covered by the Colorado HELP Rules?

Leisure and hospitality;
Food services;
Child care;
Education (including transportation, food service, and related work at educational establishments);
Home health (if working with elderly, disabled, ill, or otherwise high-risk individuals)
Nursing homes; and
Community living facilities; and
Retail establishments that sell groceries (added March 26).

How much paid sick leave must be provided? Employers are required to provide up to four days of paid sick leave to employees with flu-like symptoms who are being tested for COVID-19. If the employee tests negative, the leave ends. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Shawna Ruetz, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Ruetz may be contacted at Shawna.Ruetz@lewisbrisbois.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES