Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

2018 California Construction Law Update

January 10, 2018 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
The California State Legislature introduced 2,495 bills during the first year of the 2017-2018 Legislative Session. Of these, 859 were signed into law. While much political attention was focused on several California laws that could be viewed as California’s rebuke of Washington, including California’s legalization of marijuana, enactment of “sanctuary state” legislation, and bills focused on climate change, 2017 also saw the enactment of a package of bills intended to address the state’s housing affordability crises (for a great summary of these bills see Wendel Rosen’s Landuse Group’s recent article Slate of New Housing Bills Takes Effect January 1, 2018 ), as well as a range of other bills of interest to the construction industry including bills related construction financing, alternative project delivery methods, and solar construction. Each of the bills discussed below took effect on January 1, 2018, except as otherwise stated. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black, Dean, LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Homeowner Protection Act of 2007 Not Just for Individual Homeowners Anymore?

March 22, 2017 — Maggie Stewart - Colorado Construction Litigation
On March 9, 2017, the Colorado Court of Appeals announced its decision in Broomfield Senior Living Owner, LLC v. R.G. Brinkmann Company, No. 16CA0101, 2017 COA 31 (Colo. App. Mar. 9, 2017). As a matter of first impression, the Court evaluated whether a senior living facility constitutes “residential property” protected by the Homeowner Protection Act of 2007 ("HPA") provision of the Construction Defect Reform Act (CDARA). In 2007, Plaintiff Broomfield entered into a contract with Defendant Brinkmann for construction of a senior assisted and independent living facility. The contract contained warranty provisions related to the quality of construction and cautioned that Plaintiff’s failure to provide Defendant with prompt notice of any defects would result in waiver of any claim for breach. The contract also limited Defendant Brinkmann’s liability by identifying three separate accrual provisions that would determine the time period in which Plaintiff could bring a claim. The project was completed in 2009. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Maggie Stewart, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Ms. Stewart may be contacted at stewart@hhmrlaw.com

DOI Aims to Modernize its “Inefficient and Inflexible” Type A Natural Resource Damages Assessment Regulations

March 25, 2024 — Amanda G. Halter, Jillian Marullo & Ashleigh Myers - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) published a proposed rule aimed at modernizing and streamlining the “Type A” Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) regulations under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA). (The comment deadline was later extended.) The revisions, first previewed in a January 2023 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), are intended to fulfill “the original statutory purpose of providing a streamlined and simplified assessment process” with the overarching goal of facilitating settlements and expediting restoration efforts following injury resulting from pollution in a broader range of cases. The NRDA regulations provide two paths to assessing natural resource damages (NRD): (1) the more complex, site-specific Type B procedures for detailed NRDAs and (2) what is intended to be the standard, simplified Type A assessment procedures requiring minimal field observation. Particularly, the Type A process is reserved for two specific aquatic environments (coastal and marine areas or Great Lakes environments) when a relatively minor release of a single hazardous substance occurs, resulting in a smaller scale and scope of natural resource injury, and the rebuttal presumption for the Type A procedure is limited to damages of $100,000 or less under the current version of the rule. Reprinted courtesy of Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury, Jillian Marullo, Pillsbury and Ashleigh Myers, Pillsbury Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Marullo may be contacted at jillian.marullo@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Contractual Impartiality Requires an Appraiser to be Unbiased, Disinterested, and Unswayed by Personal Interest

June 01, 2020 — Frank Ingham - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
On June 24, 2019, the Colorado Supreme Court held that when a contract or insurance policy requires an “impartial” appraisal, the appraiser for a party cannot be an advocate for that party.[1] In this situation, the appraiser must be unbiased, disinterested, without prejudice, and unswayed by personal interest. Id. Owners Insurance Company (“Owners”) issued a policy to the Dakota Station II Condominium Association, Inc. (“Association”) that represents a 49-building multifamily residential property in Jefferson County, Colorado. Concerning loss conditions, the policy includes an appraisal provision requiring that, in the event of property appraisal, “each party will select a competent and impartial appraiser.” The parties would then select an umpire or have one appointed by the court. Any agreement as to the values reached by two of the three would bind them all. On May 24, 2012, the Association made a storm-damage roofing claim to Owners for $1.33 million. The parties could not agree on the amount of the loss and the Association invoked the policy’s appraisal process. The Association retained Scott Benglen as its contingent-fee cap appraiser. Mr. Benglen retained Laura Haber as a policy and damage expert, who appraised the roof loss at $2.55 million and the total replacement at $4.3 million.[2] Owners’ appraiser, Mark Burns, submitted the loss at $1.86 million with the replacement cost award of $2.3 million. The umpire, Honorable James Miller, adopted Owners’ estimates in four of the six categories, awarding just over $3 million to the Association. Id. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Frank Ingham, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. Ingham may be contacted at ingham@hhmrlaw.com

Court Strikes Expert Opinion That Surety Acted as a “De Facto Contractor”

November 27, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Designating and admitting experts is a vital component of any construction dispute. Many construction disputes require experts. Many construction disputes can only be won with the role of an expert. Thus, experts and construction disputes go hand-in-hand. No doubt about it! Time needs to be spent on developing the right expert opinions to support your burden of proof. This means you want to designate the right expert that can credibly and reliably render an expert opinion. It is common for one party to move to strike the testimony and expert opinions of another party. This is referred to as a Daubert motion. Sometimes the motion is about gamesmanship. Sometimes it is to see how the judge rules on the issue. Sometimes there is a legitimate reason associated with the expert opinion. And, sometimes, it is a combination of the above. Regardless of the reason, parties know the weight expert opinions can have and, therefore, treat the opinions seriously prompting the Daubert motion. 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

Haight Welcomes Elizabeth Lawley

September 03, 2015 — Elizabeth W. Lawley – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP welcomes partner Elizabeth W. Lawley. Elizabeth joins Haight’s new Sacramento office in the Construction Law and General Liability Practice Groups. She has extensive experience representing construction companies, contractors, subcontractors, real estate developers and insurers. Among her clients are prestigious national home builders, window manufacturers, roofers, HVAC, tile and masonry contractors. Elizabeth provides exceptional legal services while navigating complex litigation handling and resolution and she adds another layer of top-tier skills to Haight’s existing practice. Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP 2485 Natomas Park Drive Suite 450 Sacramento, CA 95833 www.hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Elizabeth W. Lawley, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Lawley may be contacted at elawley@hbblaw.com

Care, Custody or Control Exclusion Requires Complete and Exclusive Control by Insured Claiming Coverage

July 30, 2019 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In McMillin Homes Construction v. Natl. Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (No. D074219, filed 6/5/19) a California appeals court held that a “care, custody or control” exclusion did not bar coverage for defense of a general contractor as an additional insured under a subcontractor’s policy, because the exclusion requires exclusive control, but the facts and allegations posed a possibility of shared control with the subcontractor. McMillin was the general contractor on a housing project and was added as an additional insured to the roofing subcontractor’s policy pursuant to the construction subcontract. The homeowners sued, including allegations of water intrusion from roof defects. McMillin tendered to the roofing subcontractor’s insurer, which denied a defense based on the CGL exclusion for damage to property within McMillin’s care, custody or control. In the ensuing bad faith lawsuit, McMillin argued that the exclusion required complete or exclusive care, custody or control by the insured claiming coverage, which was not the case for McMillin. The insurer argued that the exclusion said nothing about complete or exclusive care, custody or control. Further, the intent to exclude coverage for damage to any and all property in McMillin’s care, custody or control, to whatever degree, was demonstrated by the fact that the additional insured endorsement in question was not an ISO CG2010 form, but a CG2009 form, which expressly adds a care, custody or control exclusion to the additional insured coverage not found in the CG2010 form. The argument was that the CG2009 form evidences an intent to conclusively eliminate coverage for property in the additional insured’s care, custody or control. In addition, the insurer argued that this result was also reinforced by its inclusion of an ISO CG2139 endorsement in the roofer’s policy, which eliminated that part of the “insured contract” language of the CGL form, defining an “insured contract” as “[t]hat part of any other contract or agreement pertaining to your business . . . under which you assume the tort liability of another party to pay for ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ to a third person or organization.” The insurer’s argument was that by having eliminated coverage for contractual indemnity or hold harmless agreements, it had “closed the loop” of eliminating additional insured coverage for construction defect claims. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The American Rescue Plan Act: What Restaurants Need to Act on NOW

March 22, 2021 — Michael Krueger - Newmeyer Dillion
The American Rescue Plan Act (“Act”) was passed by the Senate over the weekend and passed by the House today. President Biden is set to sign the Act into law on Friday, March 12th. The Act has $1.9 Trillion in relief funds with $28.6 Billion set aside for the restaurant industry in the Restaurant Revitalization Fund (“Fund”). The Fund has apportioned funds into two funding groups; $5 Billion for restaurants with annual gross revenue under $500,000 and $23.6 Billion for restaurants over $500,000 in annual gross revenue. Differences from the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) This is a grant program with no loan documents or forgiveness applications. Instead, each restaurant entity can apply for and receive up to $10M in grant funds through the Act. The amount a restaurant receives is based on the sum of the restaurant’s gross revenue in 2019 minus the gross revenue in 2020 minus PPP and EIDL money received. For example, Restaurant A made $7M gross revenue in 2019, made $3M gross revenue in 2020 and received $1M in PPP and EIDL combined. ($7M - $3M -$1M =$3M) The restaurant will receive $3M in grant funds directly from the SBA (as long as funds are available). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael Krueger, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Krueger may be contacted at michael.krueger@ndlf.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES