Ways of Evaluating Property Damage Claims in Various Contexts
February 18, 2020 —
Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPPotential damages in a lawsuit may come in many forms depending on the facts of the case. Common damages include medical expenses, loss of earnings, property loss, physical pain, and mental suffering. Of the many damages Plaintiffs may claim, one of the most prevalent and recognizable is property damage. This article briefly discusses these types of damages which fall under two major categories – Real Property and Personal Property.
Broadly speaking, “real property” means land, and “personal property” refers to all other objects or rights that may be owned. Ballentine’s Law Dictionary defines “real property” as: “Such things as are permanent, fixed, and immovable; lands, tenements, and hereditaments of all kinds, which are not annexed to the person or cannot be moved from the place in which they subsist. . . .” (Ballentine’s Law Dict. (3d ed. 2010).) “Personal property” is defined as: “Money, goods, and movable chattels . . . . All objects and rights which are capable of ownership
except freehold estates in land, and incorporeal hereditaments issuing thereout, or exercisable within the same.” (Id. (emphasis added).)
Real Property
Real property may be damaged or “harmed” through trespass, permanent nuisance, or other tortious conduct. The general rule is that Plaintiffs may recover the lesser of the two following losses: (1) the decrease in the real property’s fair market value; or (2) the cost to repair the damage and restore the real property to its pre-trespass condition plus the value of any lost use. (Kelly v. CB&I Constructors, Inc.) However, an exception to this general rule may be made if a Plaintiff has a personal reason to restore the real property to its former condition, sometimes called the “personal reason” exception. In such cases, a Plaintiff may recover the restoration costs even if the costs are greater than the decrease in the real property’s value, though the restoration cost must still be “reasonable” in light of the value of the real property before the injury and the actual damage sustained.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Women in Construction Aren’t Silent Anymore. They Are Using TikTok to Battle Discrimination
March 06, 2022 —
Workwear GuruHow does it feel to be a woman working in a male-dominated industry? It means an everyday fight on gender bias, discrimination, pay inequality, and a bunch of mansplaining.
Though the construction industry progressed– over
1.2 million women work in construction, up from 619,000 in 1985–women continue to be a minority. Among the women working in the industry, almost
9 out of 10 women have an office role, while only 2.5% are tradespeople. The situation looks grimmer for women in higher positions as only
16% hold executive roles, and only
2% are CEOs. The issue becomes troublesome considering that 45% of women indicated that the lack of women role models working in senior positions halted advancement in their careers.
Gender discrimination was always prevalent in the construction industry, though it shows higher in today’s statistics. In 2020,
the annual study of women in construction showed 72% of women in construction face discrimination, up from 66% in 2005. The increase doesn’t mean there is an increase in workplace discrimination; instead, it shows women are raising their voices for the issue.
Today, women are using social media to show the prejudice they confront every day, inspire each other to speak up, and showcase their competencies within the industry.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Workwear Guru
Arizona Court Determines Statute of Limitations Applicable to a Claim for Reformation of a Deed of Trust (and a Related Claim for Declaratory Judgment)
October 16, 2018 —
Kevin J. Parker - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogIn a recent Arizona Court of Appeals case, Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Pheasant Grove LLC, 798 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 15 (August 23, 2018), the Court of Appeals addressed the question of what statute of limitations was applicable to a declaratory judgment claim. In that case, a bank’s deed of trust inadvertently omitted one of the lots that was supposed to secure that bank’s loan. The deed of trust should have covered lots 8 and 9, but by its terms covered only lot 8. A different bank subsequently recorded a deed of trust that encumbered lot 9. In connection with the second bank’s foreclosure of its deed of trust, the first bank sought reformation and a declaratory judgment with regard to its deed of trust, seeking to have that deed of trust cover both lots 8 and 9, as intended. The trial court determined that the first bank’s reformation claim was filed too late, and also determined that the declaratory judgment claim was filed too late, beyond the applicable statute of limitations.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kevin J. Parker, Snell & WilmerMr. Parker may be contacted at
kparker@swlaw.com
Judgment Stemming from a Section 998 Offer Without a Written Acceptance Provision Is Void
March 22, 2021 —
Arezoo Jamshidi, Stevie B. Newton & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Mostafavi Law Group, APC v. Larry Rabineau, APC (B302344, Mar. 3, 2021), the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District (Los Angeles), addressed an issue of first impression: whether the purported acceptance of a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 (“section 998”) offer lacking an acceptance provision gives rise to a valid judgment. The appellate court held that a section 998 offer to compromise (“998 Offer”) without an acceptance provision is invalid and any judgment stemming from it is void.
In Mostafavi Law Group, plaintiffs sued defendants for defamation per se, among other claims, which was litigated at-length over several years. Defendants served plaintiffs with a written 998 Offer, offering to settle the action for the sum of $25,000.01. The 998 Offer did not specify the manner in which plaintiffs were to accept the offer.
Within the statutory time period for acceptance, plaintiffs’ counsel hand-wrote the following onto the 998 Offer: “Plaintiff Mostafavi Law Group, APC accepts the offer.” That day, plaintiffs also filed a notice of acceptance of the 998 Offer, along with proof thereof, and sent a copy to defendants. The next day, having received the notice of acceptance, defendants advised plaintiffs that they would “draft and send . . . a settlement agreement for . . . signature” before paying the settlement funds.
Reprinted courtesy of
Arezoo Jamshidi, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP,
Stevie B. Newton, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Jamshidi may be contacted at ajamshidi@hbblaw.com
Mr. Newton may be contacted at snewton@hbblaw.com
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC Recognized Among The Top 50 Construction Law Firms TM of 2024 by Construction Executive
July 15, 2024 —
Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCACS is proud to announce that it has once again been ranked among The Top 50 Construction Law Firms in the Construction Executive 2023 rankings.
Since its first publication in 2003, Construction Executive magazine has served as the leading source for news, market developments, and business issues impacting the construction industry, and its articles are designed to help owners and top managers run a more profitable and productive construction business.
Construction Executive established the rankings by asking over 600 hundred U.S. construction law firms to complete a survey. Constructive Executive’s data collection includes: 2023 revenues from the firm’s construction practice, the number of attorneys in the firm’s construction practice, percentage of the firm’s total revenues derived from its construction practice, the number of states in which the firm is licensed to practice, the year in which the construction practice was established, and the number of construction industry clients served during the fiscal year 2023.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of Owner’s Claims Based on Contractual One-Year Claims Limitations Period
October 04, 2021 —
Cassidy Ingram - Ahlers Cressman & SleightIn a recent unpublished decision – Tadych v. Noble Ridge Construction, Inc.– the Washington State Court of Appeals, Division One, held that a one-year contractual claim limitations clause was valid and enforceable. The Tadych decision is important because it reiterates the strict approach courts will take to a claim limitations clause less than the statutory six years for breach of contract claims prescribed by RCW 4.16.040(1). In other words, when the parties agree to shorten the limitations period, the agreement will be enforced barring any procedural or substantive unconscionability.
In Tadych, plaintiff owners (the Tadychs) contracted with defendant contractor (Noble Ridge Construction, Inc., or NRC) for the construction of a custom home in 2012. The contract provided a one-year claim limitations clause in which claims could be raised, and that all claims not raised in the one-year period would be waived. In December 2013, as the project neared completion, the Tadychs met with NRC to identify any outstanding project issues. The Tadychs noted several, including rainwater pools at the landing at the bottom of the stairs and several nicks and cracks on the stucco exterior walls.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Cassidy Ingram, Ahlers Cressman & SleightMs. Ingram may be contacted at
cassidy.ingram@acslawyers.com
Arizona Court of Appeals Rules Issues Were Not Covered in Construction Defect Suit
December 09, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled in the case of Peters v. Marque Homes. In this case, Walter Peters provided the land and funding for Marque Homes to build a luxury residence in Glendale, Arizona. By the terms of the “Joint Venture Agreement,” Peters provided the land and funding, while Marque would not charge Peters for overhead, profits, or supervision fees. The agreement specified that profits would be divided equally.
Two years later, Marque sued Peters claiming he had breached his obligations by refusing several offers for the home. Peters replied that Marque had “failed to complete the home so it is habitable to prospective purchasers.” Peters stated he had “retained an expert inspector who had identified numerous defects.” The court appointed a Special Commissioner to list the home for sale. Peters purchased the home with two stipulations ordered by the court. At this point, the earlier case was dismissed with prejudice.
Peters then sued Marque “asserting express and implied warranty claims arising out of alleged construction defects in the home.” Marque claimed that Peters’s claims were “precluded by the prior joint venture dispute.” The court granted Marque’s motion.
The appeals court reversed the lower court’s decision, determining that Peters’s claims were not precluded by the agreement. Although there had been a prior case between the two parties, warranty issues did not form a part of that case. “Peters never raised these allegations nor presented this evidence in support of any warranty claim.”
The court also noted that the “parties never agreed to preclude future warranty claims.” Marque and Peters “agreed in the stipulated sale order that ‘the sale of the property to a third party shall be “as is” with a 10-year structural warranty.’” The court noted that the agreement said nothing about one of the parties buying the house.
The appeals court left open a claim by Marque that there are no implied or express warranties available to Peters. They asked the Superior Court to address this.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Court of Appeals Holds That Indifference to Safety Satisfies the Standard for a Willful Violation Under WISHA
May 16, 2022 —
Cameron Sheldon - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCIn March 2022, the Washington State Court of Appeals, Division One, issued Marpac Constr., LLC v. Dep’t of Lab. & Indus., No. 82200-4-I, 2022 WL 896850, at *1 (Wash. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2022) holding Marpac Construction, LLC (“Marpac”) liable for three willful Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act of 1973 (WISHA) violations pertaining to safe crane operation near energized power lines.
Marpac was the general contractor on an apartment complex construction project in West Seattle. The worksite had high voltage power lines running throughout the site. Seattle City Light had flagged some with a 10-foot offset, but none of the other power lines were flagged. Marpac’s superintendent assumed that the lines were between 26 kilovolts (kV) and 50 kV based on their connection to the lines flagged by Seattle City Light. The superintendent never called Seattle City Light to check the voltage of the lines and the lines remained above ground.
In September 2016, a subcontractor began work on the project’s structural foundation. The subcontractor expressed concerns about working around the power lines, but Marpac promised it was working on mitigation of the power line hazard and directed the subcontractor continue working. At one point, the subcontractor’s employees had to move the crane and concrete forms away from the power lines to allow a cement truck to park in its place. The crane’s line contacted the power lines, causing serious injuries to two of the subcontractor’s employees.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Cameron Sheldon, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMs. Sheldon may be contacted at
cameron.sheldon@acslawyers.com
