SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Generally, What Constitutes A Trade Secret Is A Question of Fact

February 01, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In construction, contractors maintain competitiveness by compiling, combining, utilizing, or developing proprietary and unique systems. The systems can be from a cost standpoint (determining general conditions or general requirement costs and percentages including percentages for insurance) or can be with respect to certain construction assembly or delegated design components. Such proprietary and unique systems are trade secrets to the contractors and efforts are taken to identify such information as confidential when proposing on a project. Contractors would not want such systems disclosed to others because it would dilute and impact what they believe is valuable and makes them competitive in the marketplace. Florida’s Uniform Trade Secret Act (“FUTSA”) creates a statutory cause of action for the misappropriation of trade secrets. (FUTSA is set forth in Florida Statute s. 688.001 en seq.) FUTSA displaces or “preempts all claims [such as common law claims] based on misappropriation of trade secrets.” Alphamed Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Arriva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 391 F.Supp.2d 1148, 1167 (S.D.Fla. 2005). See also Fla. Stat. s. 688.008. Florida Statute s. 688.002 (found here) defines the terms “trade secret” and “misappropriation.” 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

---

Developer’s Fraudulent Statements Are His Responsibility Alone in Construction Defect Case

February 10, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The Texas Court of Appeals ruled on December 21 in the case of Helm v Kingston, a construction defect case. After purchasing what was described as “an extremely well-built” two-bedroom townhouse, Mr. Kingston made complaints of construction defects. Greenway Development did not repair the defects to Kingston’s satisfaction, and he filed notice of suit. In his suit, he claimed that GDI and its president, John Helm, had committed fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Kingston claimed that Helm “fraudulently induced Kingston to believe that the townhouse evidenced the highest quality of workmanship when in fact the quality of workmanship was atrocious.” Helms brought a counterclaim that Kingston’s suit was frivolous.



About four years after Kingston purchased the townhome, the suit proceeded to trial. The trial court determined that Helm was not “liable in his individual capacity,” but this was reversed at appeal.



A second trial was held ten years later on the question of whether Kingston’s unit was a townhome or an apartment. A jury found that Helm “engaged in a false, misleading or deceptive act or practice that Kingston relied on to his detriment.” Kingston was awarded $75,862.29 and an additional $95,000 in attorney fees by the jury. Helms made an unsuccessful appeal to the Appeals Court, after which Kingston was awarded an additional $10,000. Helms then made an unsuccessful appeal to the Texas Supreme Court, which lead to an additional $3,000 for Kingston. There was also a verdict of $48,770.09 in pre-judgment interest and “five percent post-judgment interest accruing from the date of the judgment until the time the judgment is paid. Helm appealed.



In his appeal, Helm raised seven issues, which the court reorganized into five Kingston raised one issue on cross-appeal.



Helms’ first claim was that Kingston “failed to satisfy the requirement of” Texas’s Residential Construction Liability Act and that by not filing under the RCLA, Kingston’s fraud and misrepresentation claims were preempted. Further Helms claimed that the RCLA limited Kingston’s damages. The court rejected this, as the RCLA deals with complaints made to a contractor and not only did Helm fail to “conclusively establish” his “status as a ‘contractor’ under the statutory definition,” Helm testified that he was “not a contactor” at the pre-trial hearing.



Helms’s second claim was that Kingston’s later claim of a misconstructed firewall should be barred, claiming that Kingston “‘had knowledge of a defect in the firewall’ as early as 1997 but did not assert them until 2007.” The court rejected this because Kingston’s claim was that “Helm ‘fraudulently induced Kingston to believe that the townhouse evidenced the highest quality of workmanship when in fact the quality of the workmanship was atrocious.’”



Helms also challenged whether his statements that the residence was of “good quality” constituted fraud and misrepresentation under Texas’s Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. The court concluded that Helm was in a position to make knowledgeable statements and further that “residential housing units are not artistic works for which quality is inherently a matter of subjective judgment.” Helm also claimed that Kingston could have avoided certain repair expenses through the “exercise of reasonable care.” Helms argued that the repairs could have been made for $6,400. The court disagreed, as these claims were cited only to invoke the DTPA, and that later petitions established additional defects.



Helms’s next claim was that he was not allowed to designate responsible third parties. The court rejected this because there GDI represented matters concerning the residence only through Helm’s statements. The court noted that “Helm is correct that?third parties may be liable for fraud if they ‘participated in the fraudulent transactions and reaped the benefits,’” but they note that “Helm never specifically alleged that GDI or CREIC participated in Helm’s alleged fraudulent transactions.



The final issue in the decision was about court costs, and here the court denied claims on both sides. Helm argued that the award of legal fees were excessive, as they exceeded the actual damages. The court noted that they “may not substitute our judgment for that of the jury,” and also that “the ratio between the actual damages awarded and the attorney’s fees is not a factor that determines the reasonableness of the fees.” But the court also rejected Kingston’s claim for post-judgment interest on $10,312.30 that Helm had deposited in the trial court’s registry. The court noted that the monies were to be paid out upon final judgment, but the mandate did not include any reference to interest.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Legislative Changes that Impact Construction 2017

May 10, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Well, the Virginia General Assembly has finished its yearly run through the legislative process and this year there are a few highlights for those of us in the construction industry. It is always interesting to see what issues are the big ones that get a lot of attention. This year the changes impacted public procurement, VOSH fines, and employment of unlicensed individuals on a job site. These changes to the various statutes that impact the day to day operation of the construction industry in Virginia will go into effect on July 1, 2017. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

D&O Insurer Must Cover Mortgage Broker’s $15 Million Settlement of Alleged False Claims Act Violations

November 15, 2022 — Michael S. Levine, Geoffrey B. Fehling & Matthew J. Revis - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
A Delaware court recently granted summary judgment to a mortgage broker targeted in a federal government investigation for alleged False Claims Act violations, holding that the company’s directors and officers liability (“D&O”) insurer was required to indemnify more than $15 million in settlement costs with the U.S. Department of Justice. Guaranteed Rate, Inc. v. ACE American Insurance Company, No. N20C-04-268 MMJ CCLD (Del. Super. Ct. Sept. 6, 2022). We previously reported on the policyholder’s earlier victory in this case, in which the court held that a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from federal authorities triggered the insurer’s obligation to pay defense costs under the D&O policy. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Matthew J. Revis, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Mr. Revis may be contacted at mrevis@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

The Prompt Payment Act Obligation is Not Triggered When the Owner Holds Less Retention from the General Contractor

October 27, 2016 — John P. Ahlers – Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Most states have laws known as “prompt payment” statutes which govern the timing of payments on public works projects[i] from project owners to general contractors, and from general contractors to subcontractors.[ii] The purpose of these statutes is to ensure that contractors and subcontractors who may have less leverage than the project owners and prime contractors, respectively, are paid for their work on a timely basis. Prompt Payment Act cases are rare, and, since many of the prompt payment statutes are founded on the same principles, when we come across a Prompt Payment Act case, it is “blog worthy.” This dispute arose from the construction of the Exposition Light Rail Line Project connecting downtown Los Angeles with Culver City on which FCI/Fluor/Parsons (“FFP”) was the prime contractor, and Bloise Construction, Inc. (“Bloise”) was the excavation subcontractor to FFP. Under the prime contract, Expo,[iii] the owner, was permitted to withhold ten percent of the payments owed to FFP, and FFP, pursuant to its subcontract with Bloise, was entitled to also withhold ten percent of the payments to Bloise as retention. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers & Cressman, PLLC
Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at jahlers@ac-lawyers.com

---

Delay In Noticing Insurer of Loss is Not Prejudicial

April 28, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Tenth Circuit reversed a district court's determination that untimely notice of the loss was prejudicial, eliminating the insurer's coverage obligations. B.S.C. Holding, Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4492 (10th Cir. March 11, 2014). In January 2008, the insured's employees detected an inflow of water in a salt mine and feared dissolution of the salt or structural problems. The insured tried to devise a solution. Two and a half million dollars were spent to find the cause of the water inflow and to identify a solution. In April 2010, the insured determined the inflow was caused by an improperly sealed oil well. In July 2010, the insured notified Lexington of the water inflow. The ultimate proof of loss was for $7.5 million, which included remediation measures that the insured had performed before notifying Lexington. Lexington's all-risk policy required the insured to notify the company in writing as soon as practicable. 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

---

Congratulations 2019 DE, NJ and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

May 26, 2019 — White and Williams LLP

Fifteen White and Williams lawyers have been named by Super Lawyers as a Delaware, New Jersey or Pennsylvania "Super Lawyer" while eight received "Rising Star" designations. Each lawyer who received the distinction competed in a rigorous selection process which took into consideration peer recognition and professional achievement. The lawyers named to this year's Super Lawyer list represent a multitude of practices throughout the firm.

Super Lawyers 2019
Attorney	Practice Area
John Balaguer	PI Defense: Med Mal
Kevin Cottone	PI Defense: Med Mal
Thomas Goutman	Class Action
David Haase	Business Litigation
Christopher Leise	Civil Litigation: Defense
Randy Maniloff	Insurance Coverage
David Marion	Business Litigation
Peter Mooney	Business Litigation
Michael Olsan	Insurance Coverage
John Orlando	General Litigation
Wesley Payne	Insurance Coverage
Daryn Rush	Insurance Coverage
Anthony Salvino	Workers’ Comp
Patricia Santelle	Insurance Coverage
Andrew Susko	Civil Litigation: Defense

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

---

‘The Ground Just Gave Out’: How a Storm’s Fury Ravaged Asheville

October 07, 2024 — Michael Smith, Devon Pendleton, Claire Ballentine & Michael Sasso - Bloomberg
Eric Becker was at his vacation home in western North Carolina, in a community bordering the Pisgah National Forest and Blue Ridge Parkway, when the rain began to pour. Becker, co-founder of the private wealth management firm Cresset, lives in Florida for most of the year. He had lived through a hurricane — but nothing like what he saw during Helene. “Mud was liquefying around tree bases. You could see the root systems,” said Becker, who first began visiting the Asheville area 20 years ago and was smitten by its natural scenery, excellent food and lively arts and music scene. “The ground just gave out.” Becker is part of a wave of affluent homebuyers who have flocked to the southern Appalachian region. Transplants from wealth managers and retirees to artists and young outdoors enthusiasts have helped create a real estate goldrush in cities including Asheville, where home prices have climbed 69% in the past five years. Reprinted courtesy of Michael Smith, Bloomberg, Devon Pendleton, Bloomberg, Claire Ballentine, Bloomberg and Michael Sasso, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---