SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

This New Indicator Shows There's No Bubble Forming in U.S. Housing

April 01, 2015 — Michelle Jamrisko and Nina Glinski – Bloomberg
When a parking space in Manhattan costs $136,000 and only 15 percent of San Francisco's homes are affordable for the middle class, it's easy to worry that another housing bubble is around the corner. The vast majority of American homeowners have little to fear: A new gauge from Nationwide Insurance in Columbus, Ohio, suggests the national market is in its best shape since 2001 and there's no reason to fear a national downturn, no less a bursting bubble. In its first data release, the national Leading Index of Healthy Housing Markets rose to 109.8 in the fourth quarter. Values greater than 100 indicate a robust industry. The index uses local data in 373 metropolitan statistical areas that are underlying drivers of the housing market, including measures on employment changes, demographics and the mortgage market. Reprinted courtesy of Michelle Jamrisko, Bloomberg and Nina Glinski, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Federal Contractors – Double Check the Terms of Your Contract Before Performing Ordered Changes

July 08, 2019 — Jonathan Schirmer - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
As federal contractors may be aware, the general rule when performing a contract for the federal government is that only the contracting officer (“CO”) can bind the government. Often, the CO delegates responsibility to a contracting officer’s representative (“COR”). While in some cases a COR may be able to bind the federal government, the contract may limit that ability exclusively to the CO. Important for our clients, it is the responsibility of the contractor to determine whether the COR can legally bind the federal government when ordering changes to the scope of work. [1] This is true even when a COR possesses apparent authority to order changes to the work, and when the project is almost exclusively overseen by COR’s. [2] A recent case highlights the dangers of a contractor relying on the orders of a COR when performing work outside the scope of a contract. In Baistar Mechanical Inc., a contractor was awarded a maintenance and snow removal contract with the federal government. The contract expressly stated that only the CO had contracting authority regarding additional or changed work. [3] However, Baistar, the contractor, argued it was directed by the contracting officer’s representatives to perform work outside of the contract. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan Schirmer, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Schirmer may be contacted at jonathan.schirmer@acslawyers.com

---

Federal Court Ruling Bolsters the “Your Work” Exclusion in Standard CGL Policies

October 27, 2016 — Daniel E. Levin – Florida Construction Law News
In Evanston Insurance Company v. Dimucci Development Corportion of Ponce Inlet, Inc., the United states District Court for the Middle District of Florida further clarified the standard CGL policy exclusion (L) – the “Your Work” exclusion, one of the several business risk exclusions in a standard CGL policy which insurers and insureds are most likely to encounter in a typical construction defect claim. No. 6:15-cv-486-Orl-37DAB, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123678, at *26 (M.D. Fla. Sep. 13, 2016). The lawsuit between Evanston Insurance Company and DiMucci Development Corp. of Ponce Inlet Inc. (“DiMucci”) arose out of initial claims by the homeowners’ association at the Towers Grande high rise in Daytona Beach Shores, Florida, against DiMucci for various construction defect related issues. The lawsuit alleged that DiMucci’s work was defective on a portion of the high rise condominium project, which caused property damage to other elements of the building that DiMucci was also responsible for constructing. Specifically, pertinent here, the Association alleged water damage as a result of DiMucci’s improper waterproofing of the building. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel E. Levin, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
Mr. Levin may be contacted at daniel.levin@csklegal.com

---

Policy Reformed to Add New Building Owner as Additional Insured

July 10, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The lower court correctly reformed the policy to replace the prior owner with the new owner as an additional insured under the policy. Wesco Ins. Co. v. Fulmont Mut. Ins. Co., 2023 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2650 (N. Y. App. Div. May 11, 2023). Beyond was sued as owner of the building in a personal injury lawsuit. The former owners leased the building to the tenant who included the then-owners as additional insureds under the tenant's policy. When the deed to the building was transferred to Beyond, the additional insured endorsement in the tenant's policy was not updated to reflect the change in ownership. Beyond's insurer, Wesco, tendered the lawsuit to the tenant's insurer, Fulmont. Coverage was denied because Beyond was not an additional insured under the tenant's policy. 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

---

Not in My Kitchen – California Supreme Court Decertifies Golden State Boring Case

November 26, 2014 — Roger Hughes – California Construction Law Blog
On November 11, 2014, the California Supreme Court rejected the recent California Court of Appeals decision Golden State Boring & Pipe Jacking, Inc. v Eastern Municipal Water District, 228 Cal.App.4th 273 (2014) which we wrote about earlier by “decertifying” it (meaning that lawyers cannot cite to the case as legal precedent) The decertification removed a decision that added substantially to the confusion as to when an action on a payment bond is timely filed. Even though the decision was determined in accordance with pre-2014 statutes, the case was relevant precedent for construction attorneys when determining time deadlines for filing a claim on a bond. Background In July of this year, the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth Appellate District upheld a trial court’s granting of summary judgment against a project subcontractor Golden State Boring & Pipe Jacking, Inc. (GSB) who sued Safeco Insurance Company (Safeco) for unpaid contract amounts on a project payment bond issued by Safeco. Both at the trial level and on appeal Safeco successfully argued that GSB’s action on its payment bond claim was time barred by former California Civil Code Sections 3249 (now Section 9558), because it was filed more than six month after the period in which stop notices may be filed as provided by California’s Civil Code Section 3184 (now Section 9558). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Roger Hughes, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Hughes may be contacted at rhughes@wendel.com

---

Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle Wins Summary Judgment in Favor of Third-Party Defendant

May 06, 2024 — Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle won summary judgment in favor of Third-Party Defendant, a general contracting company (the “Contracting Company”), in a personal injury action brought in Suffolk County. In the underlying matter, the Plaintiff—an employee of the Contracting Company—alleged that they sustained injuries from an incident which occurred when they were struck by a skid-steer loader owned by the Co-Defendant masonry company (the “Masonry Company”) and operated by the president and owner of the Co-Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff construction company (the “Construction Company”). The Plaintiff brought claims against the Defendant companies for common law negligence and violations of Labor Law § § 200, 240, and 241, as well as Industrial code (12 NYCRR) subpart 23-2. Reprinted courtesy of Lisa Rolle, Traub Lieberman Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Federal Judge Strikes Down CDC’s COVID-19 Eviction Moratorium

March 29, 2021 — Zachary Kessler, Amanda G. Halter & Adam Weaver - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
A federal judge in Texas has declared the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) eviction moratorium unconstitutional, holding that Article I’s power to regulate interstate commerce and enact laws necessary and proper for such regulation does not include the power to suspend residential evictions on a nationwide basis. While the court stopped short of issuing immediate injunctive relief, instead relying on the CDC to “respect the declaratory judgment” and withdraw the Order, the court stated that such relief would be available if the government does not comply with the decision. With this ruling, the most significant prohibition on residential evictions for nonpayment of rent is likely to be lifted, and many residential evictions halted or delayed under the Order may begin in earnest. While additional tenant protections remain in certain locales, this federal ruling increases the likely rate and pace of residential eviction activity across the country. The CDC Eviction Moratorium was a nationwide order enacted under the Trump Administration in an effort to reduce the adverse economic impacts of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic on residential tenants, and as a public health measure to prevent displacement of individuals into living situations conducive to the spread of the COVID-19. The Order allowed tenants facing eviction due to financial strains caused by the pandemic to certify in writing to their landlord that they are unable to pay full rent and that eviction would likely lead to homelessness or force the individual into unsafe congregate or shared living quarters. The CDC issued the order under its emergency pandemic powers under the Public Health Service Act. Initially in effect through December 31, 2020, the Order was subsequently extended through March 31, 2021. Reprinted courtesy of Zachary Kessler, Pillsbury, Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury and Adam Weaver, Pillsbury Mr. Kessler may be contacted at zachary.kessler@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Weaver may be contacted at adam.weaver@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

CAUTION: Terms of CCP Section 998 Offers to Compromise Must Be Fully Contained in the Offer Itself

May 12, 2016 — Jesse M. Sullivan & R. Bryan Martin – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Sanford v. Rasnick, (Ct. of Appeal, 1st App. Dist., No. A145704) the First Appellate District addressed whether a CCP § 998 Offer to Compromise requiring plaintiff to execute a release and enter into a separate settlement agreement was valid. Because the settlement agreement could potentially contain additional terms not stated in the CCP 998 Offer, the Court of Appeal held that it was not. Plaintiff alleged he was injured when the 17-year-old Defendant ran a stop sign and struck his motorcycle. Plaintiff sued the 17-year-old and his father (the owner of the vehicle) for vehicular negligence and general negligence. Just after discovery closed, defendants jointly served a CCP § 998 Offer to Compromise to plaintiff in the amount of $130,000. The offer contained a condition requiring that in order to accept, plaintiff must provide a “notarized execution and transmittal of a written settlement agreement and general release. Each party will bear its own fees, costs and expenses.” Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at jsullivan@hbblaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Reprinted courtesy of Jesse M. Sullivan, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---