Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

A Court-Side Seat: Recent Legal Developments at Supreme and Federal Appeals Courts

December 18, 2022 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
This is a review of initial Supreme Court and Federal Appeals Courts oral arguments and other matters in October 2022. Oral Arguments at the Supreme Court Michael Sackett, et ux., v. Environmental Protection Agency The Supreme Court’s 2022 term began on October 3, 2022, with this important oral argument. For many years, the petitioner has encountered EPA opposition to the construction of a home on his property located near a lake in Idaho. The agency insists that the land is subject to federal regulatory jurisdiction, in that a Clean Water Act permit will be needed before work can proceed. Several courts have already weighed in on this issue; whether the land in question is considered a regulated “wetlands” pursuant to the “significant nexus” test developed by the Court in the Rapanos case decided in 2006. The oral argument was fairly long and spirited. The justices appear to believe that the “significant nexus” is unworkable because in many instances it provides little or no guidance to landowners as to whether their property may be subject to federal jurisdiction, and thus subject to civil and even criminal penalties. Justice Kavanaugh remarked that “this case is going to be important for wetlands throughout the country and we have to get it right.” Later, Justice Gorsuch lamented the fact that implementing a test for federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act test is so difficult to apply: “If the federal government doesn’t know [if a property is adjacent to navigable water and is regulated,] “does a reasonable landowner have any idea.” The issue is very difficult to resolve, and the Congress has indicated that is has no interest in entering this regulatory thicket. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

Taylor Morrison v. Terracon and the Homeowner Protection Act of 2007

June 11, 2014 — Buck Mann – Colorado Construction Litigation
On January 30, 2014, the Colorado Court of Appeals decided the case of Taylor Morrison of Colorado, Inc. v. Bemas Construction, Inc. and Terracon Consultants, Inc. 2014WL323490. The case addressed a substantial issue of Colorado constitutional law, as well as a variety of procedural issues of potential importance to construction litigation attorneys. Of particular interest is the question of whether the provisions of the 2007 Homeowner Protection Act (“HPA”) are limited in application to contracts between residential homeowners and construction professionals, or whether they have broader application between commercial construction professional parties as well. As discussed below, the Court of Appeals stated that it would not answer the question, and then, separately, implied that the statute might only apply to homeowner transactions – with the resulting exclusion of commercial transactions. However, after its analysis, it left the actual decision of that issue to a future court in a later case. The factual background for the case involved claims of breach of a contract for soils engineering by Terracon Consultants, Inc. (“Terracon”) and negligent excavation work by Bemas Construction, Inc. (“Bemas”). Plaintiff was Taylor Morrison of Colorado (“Taylor Morrison”), the developer and general contractor for a residential subdivision called Homestead Hills. After it constructed many homes, Taylor Morrison began to receive complaints of cracking drywall resulting from foundation movement and it made repairs at significant expense. Taylor Morrison then filed suit against Terracon and Bemas in connection with their respective roles in the original construction. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Buck Mann, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. Mann may be contacted at mann@hhmrlaw.com

Reasonable Expectations – Pennsylvania’s Case by Case Approach to the Sutton Rule

February 12, 2024 — Melissa Kenney - The Subrogation Strategist
In Mutual Benefit Ins. Co. a/s/o Michael Sacks v. Koser, No. 1340 MDA 2023, 2023 Pa. Super. LEXIS 574, 2023 PA Super 252 (Mutual Benefit), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania discussed whether a landlord’s property insurer could file a subrogation action against tenants that had negligently damaged the landlord’s property. Despite there being more than one clause in the lease holding the tenants liable for the damages, the court held that because there was a provision requiring the landlord, not the tenants, to insure the leased building, the insurer could not subrogate against the tenants. In Pennsylvania, a tenant’s liability for damage to a leased premises in a subrogation action brought by a landlord’s insurer is determined by the reasonable expectation of the parties to the lease agreement. Under this approach, to determine if subrogation is permitted, the court considers the circumstances of the case and examines the terms of the lease agreement. In Mutual Benefit, the tenants leased and resided in a residential home pursuant to a lease agreement. The lease specifically addressed insurance, stating that landlord was responsible for obtaining insurance on the dwelling and the landlord’s personal property, and tenants were encouraged to procure separate insurance for their personal property. The lease also addressed liability for damage to the leased property, stating generally that the tenants were responsible for damage caused by the tenants’ negligence. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Kenney, White and Williams
Ms. Kenney may be contacted at kenneyme@whiteandwilliams.com

Senate Overwhelmingly Passes Water Infrastructure Bill

November 06, 2018 — Tom Ichniowski – Engineering News-Record
Congress has approved major water infrastructure legislation that authorizes $3.7 billion for new Army Corps of Engineers civil-works projects and $4.4 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency drinking-water program. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, ENR
Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com

Emerging World Needs $1.5 Trillion for Green Buildings, IFC Says

December 11, 2023 — Natasha White - Bloomberg
The International Finance Corporation is looking to develop a guarantee facility for private investors to boost finance for greener construction in emerging markets, as growing populations, urbanization and industrialization are set to spur pollution far beyond safe limits. IFC, the world’s largest global development institution focused on the private sector in low-income countries, is working with its counterparts in the World Bank Group to “create a one-stop shop for guarantees offered to private investors,” Susan Lund, vice president for economics and private sector development, told Bloomberg in an interview. We have “really high aspirations to scale that up dramatically for climate finance and in particular for green buildings and decarbonizing the construction sector,” she said. Lund’s comments follow a recent speech given by World Bank President Ajay Banga who said the bank is working to better unify guarantee insurance across the institutions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Natasha White, Bloomberg

Design Immunity of Public Entities: Sometimes Designs, Like Recipes, are Best Left Alone

October 21, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
April 23, 1985 will live in infamy. The Coca Cola Company, responding to diminishing sales as its “sweeter” rival Pepsi-Cola gained market share, announced that it was changing its “secret” recipe and introducing a new kind of Coke, referred to by the public simply as, “new Coke.” The reaction was unexpected. People around the world began hoarding “old Coke.” Protest groups, such as the Society for the Preservation of the Real Thing and Old Cola Drinkers of America, sprang up around the county. Angry letters addressed to “Chief Dodo” were sent to Coca-Cola’s chief executive officer. And even Fidel Castro, a longtime Coca-Cola drinker, joined the backlash calling “new Coke” a “sign of American capital decadence.” By July it was over. Coca-Cola announced that it would once again produce “old Coke,” and in a sign (I’m sure Fidel Castro would say) of American arrogance, announced that “old Coke” would be produced under the name “Coca-Cola Classic” alongside “new Coke” which would continue to be called “Coca-Cola” suggesting that “new Coke” would be the Coke of today as well as the future. By 1992, however, “new Coke” whose sales dwindled to 3% of market share was demoted to “Coke II” and by 2002 was discontinued entirely. The moral of the story: Change the recipe at your own risk. Castro v. City of Thousand Oaks In the next case, Castro v. City of Thousand Oaks, Case No. B258649, California Court of Appeals for the Second District (August 31, 2015), the corollary might well be change the recipe design at your own risk. 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

Useful Life: A Valuable Theory for Reducing Damages

March 29, 2017 — Brooke E. Beebe, Esq. - Florida Construction Law News
The situation is one all too familiar to construction defect litigants. A homeowner contracts with a roofing contractor to install a new roof with a life expectancy of ten years.[1] After only five years, the homeowner brings a claim for construction defects in the roof alleging that the roof requires complete replacement due to water intrusion. The homeowner seeks damages for the full replacement cost of the roof. However, under a “useful life” theory, the homeowner would not be entitled to damages for the full amount of the replacement cost. Instead, the homeowner would be entitled to one-half of the cost of the replacement roof, taking into account the fact that he or she had been deprived of only five, rather than ten, years of use. “Useful life” is best understood as the expected length of time that a newly built construction element can be reasonably anticipated to last, subject to routine maintenance and ordinary wear and tear. The “useful life” theory holds that granting the homeowner damages for the full replacement cost of the roof would result in unjust enrichment to the homeowner, who had contracted for a roof with a ten-year, rather than a fifteen-year, useful life. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brooke E. Beebe, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
Ms. Beebe may be contacted at brooke.beebe@csklegal.com

California Supreme Court Hands Victory to Private Property Owners Over Public Use

June 21, 2017 — Sean M. Sherlock - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In 1970 the California Supreme Court held that, under certain circumstances, private property owners impliedly dedicate their property to the public if they permit the public to use it. Gion v. City of Santa Cruz (1970) 2 Cal.3d 29. This holding was controversial, and the next year the California Legislature enacted Civil Code section 1009 limiting the public’s ability to permanently use private property through an implied dedication. In the 40-plus years since then, the lower courts have wrestled with the issue of whether the statute limiting implied dedication applies only to recreational uses by the public, or also to nonrecreational uses. On June 15, 2017, the California Supreme Court issued its unanimous opinion in Scher v. Burke (June 15, 2017, S230104) ___ Cal.4th ___, holding that the limitations on implied dedication apply to nonrecreational as well as recreational uses. The case is significant because it demonstrates that the Supreme Court will apply the plain language of the state’s statutes to uphold private property rights. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sean M. Sherlock, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Sherlock may be contacted at ssherlock@swlaw.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES