SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Supreme Court Grants Petition for Review Regarding Necessary Parties in Lien Foreclosure Actions

August 17, 2017 — Lindsay K. Taft - Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
For several years, the requirements for which parties must be named in a lien foreclosure action when a release of lien bond is in place have been cloudy. RCW 60.04 et seq., the “mechanics’ lien” or “construction lien” statute, provides protection for a party or person who provides labor, materials, or equipment to a construction project. That person or party, if not paid, can file a lien against the construction project property to secure recovery. As the lien impacts the property by “clouding title” and could potentially result in foreclosure of the property, the statute sets forth strict requirements with respect to timing, notice, and parties. For example, the lien must be recorded within 90 days of the person or party’s last day of work or materials or equipment supplied, and the lien claimant must then give a copy of the claim of lien to the owner or reputed owner within 14 days of the lien recording. RCW 60.04.081. The statute also allows a property owner or other party to “free” the property from the lien prior to the claim being resolved by issuing a release of lien bond. While the claim is still in dispute, the lien then attaches to the bond and not the property. The same rules about foreclosure, however, still apply but not without some confusion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lindsay K. Taft, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Ms. Taft may be contacted at ltaft@ac-lawyers.com

---

Construction Law Alert: A Specialty License May Not Be Required If Work Covered By Another License

March 07, 2011 — Steven M. Cvitanovic

Contractors should always be sure that they understand the licensing in any Subcontract or Prime Contract before entering into any agreement. However, on March 3, 2011, in the case of Pacific Casson & Shoring, Inc. v. Bernards Bros., Inc. 2011 Cal.App.Lexis 236, the Court of Appeal determined that if a specialty license is subsumed within another license, the specialty license may not be required.



Bernards entered into a subcontract with Pacific to excavate, backfill, grade and provide geotechnical design parameters for a hospital. The Prime Contract required the bidder to maintain a Class C-12 specialty earthwork license. However, Pacific only held a Class A general engineering license which it turns out was suspended during the performance of the work. Pacific sued Bernards for nonpayment of $544,567, but the lawsuit was dismissed because the trial court found that Pacific (1) lacked a C-12 license, and (2) Pacific’s Class A license was suspended for failure to pay an unrelated judgment. Pacific was also ordered to disgorge $206,437 in prior payments.



The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded. The Court of Appeal agreed with Pacific and held that a C-12 specialty license was not required despite the Prime Contract. The Court of Appeal found that the C-12 specialty license would have been “superfluous” since it was fully encompassed within the Class A requirements. However, the Court of Appeal also remanded the case for further



Read the full story...



Reprinted courtesy of Steve Cvitanovic of Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP.

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

---

Pine River’s Two Harbors Now Targets Non-Prime Mortgages

November 05, 2014 — Jody Shenn - Bloomberg
Count Two Harbors Investment Corp. (TWO) among investors looking for profits in riskier home loans -- and expecting a market for bonds backed by them to re-emerge even with safer issuance showing limited signs of life. The real-estate investment trust, whose 74 percent total return over the past three years is almost double that of peers, recently told the lenders that have been selling it big, high-quality mortgages that it’s now also seeking to purchase non-prime loans and those with low down payments, Chief Investment Officer Bill Roth said today during a conference call for analysts and investors. “Our expectation and certainly hope would be as this market opens up and becomes fairly meaningful that a securitization market would develop,” he said. Of course, he sees the timeline as “probably measured in years, not months.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jody Shenn, Bloomberg
Ms. Shenn may be contacted at jshenn@bloomberg.net

---

Owner’s Slander of Title Claim Against Contractor Recording Four Separate Mechanics Liens Fails Under the Anti-SLAPP Statute

February 01, 2021 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Most mechanics lien actions follow a pretty standard process:

1. A mechanics lien claimant, either a contractor subcontractor, material supplier, or laborer, performs work but is not paid;
2. Mechanics lien claimant records a mechanics lien on the property in which work was performed; and
3. Within 90 days thereafter files suit to foreclose on the mechanics lien.

Sometimes, either before or after a mechanics lien claimant files suit, the owner will record a mechanics lien release bond, in which case mechanics lien claimant files suit against the release bond. But what if a mechanics lien claimant records a mechanics lien, the owner records a mechanics lien release bond, and the mechanics lien claimant records three different but identical mechanics liens thereafter? Is this even legal? Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

D.C. Decision Finding No “Direct Physical Loss” for COVID-19 Closures Is Not Without Severe Limitations

August 24, 2020 — Michael S. Levine & Michael L. Huggins - Hunton Andrews Kurth
On August 6, 2020, in Rose’s 1 LLC, et al. v. Erie Insurance Exchange, Civ. Case No. 2020 CA 002424 B, a District of Columbia trial court found in favor of an insurer on cross motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether COVID-19 closure orders constitute a “direct physical loss” under a commercial property policy. At its core, the decision ignores key arguments raised in the summary judgment briefing and is narrowly premised on certain dictionary definitions of the terms, “direct,” “physical,” and “loss.” Relying almost entirely on those definitions – each supplied by the insureds in their opening brief – the court set the stage for its ultimate conclusion by finding “direct” to mean “without intervening persons, conditions, or agencies; immediate”; and “physical” to mean “of or pertaining to matter ….” The court then apparently accepted the policy’s circular definition of “loss” as meaning “direct and accidental loss of or damage to covered property.” Importantly, however, despite recognizing the fundamental rule of insurance policy construction that the court “must interpret the contract ‘as a whole, giving reasonable, lawful, and effective meaning to all its terms, and ascertaining the meaning in light of all the circumstances surrounding the parties at the time the contract was made,’” the court apparently ignored the insureds’ argument that the term “property damage” is specifically defined in the policy to include “loss of use” without any specific reference to physical or tangible damage. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael L. Huggins, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Huggins may be contacted at mhuggins@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Determination That Title Insurer Did Not Act in Bad Faith Vacated and Remanded

March 30, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
In an important decision regarding bad faith and the application of the work product doctrine to work performed by an insurer's in-house counsel, the Hawaii Supreme Court vacated the Intermediate Court of Appeals's upholding the trial court's award of summary judgment to a title insurer on the issue of bad faith. Anastasi v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins. Co., 2016 Haw. LEXIS 30 (Feb. 4. 2016). Llyod Anastasi loaned Alajos Nagy $2.4 million. The loan was secured by a mortgage on property. After Nagy executed the $2.4 million mortgage, a warranty deed was signed by Paul Stickney and purported to deed the property from Stickney to Nagy in exchange for $10 in consideration. Fidelity issued Anastasi a title insurance policy on the property in the amount of $2.4 million. The policy promised to provide a defense where a third party asserted a claims adverse to the interest of the insured. 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

---

2022 Construction Outlook: Continuing Growth But at Slower Pace

January 24, 2022 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
In the midst of a pandemic that has lasted far longer than I think many of us thought it would, it’s been a study in contrasts:

• There has been over 305 million COVID-19 cases and 5.5 million deaths worldwide since the start of the pandemic.
• The U.S. stock market gained a whopping 26.9% in 2021.
• The annual rate of inflation in the U.S. hit 6.8% in November 2021 the highest it has been in nearly 40 years.
• The U.S. unemployment rate stood at 4.2% at the end of 2021, down from 14.7% in April 2020, the second highest unemployment rate since the Great Depression.
• The Doomsday Clock struck 100 seconds before midnight in 2021 as scientists warn that global leaders are doing too little too late to combat climate change that has seen global temperatures rise roughly 2 degrees Fahrenheit since the pre-industrial era.
• 2021 saw the launch of the first all-civilian spaceflight by Elon Musk’s Space X which was just one of 16 private spaceflights by tech billionaires Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic and Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin.

For the construction industry, when we started out in 2021, economists were estimating that construction starts would be up just 4% in 2021 after taking a 14% free-fall in 2020. As it turned out, construction starts increased 12% in 2021. That’s why economic forecasts should be viewed less like a marksmanship competition and more like horseshoes and hand grenades. Close is about the best you can realistically hope for. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Communications between Counsel and PR Firm Hired by Counsel Held Discoverable

March 22, 2017 — Kevin R. Crisp, David W. Evans, & Sarah A. Marsey – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Counsel handling cases involving newsworthy facts and litigation often hire public relations (“PR”) consultants. In Nicholas Behunin v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 2017 DJDAR 2405 (No. B272225 March 14, 2017) the California Court of Appeal, Second District, denied a petition for writ of mandate concerning a trial court discovery order holding that communications between a plaintiff’s attorney and a public relations firm counsel hired for the purpose of creating a website for the Plaintiff were discoverable, despite claims that such communications were protected from disclosure by attorney-client privilege. Plaintiff sued Defendants -- (the) Charles Schwab and his son Michael Schwab -- over an unsuccessful real estate investment. Plaintiff’s attorneys hired a public relations consultant to create a website (www.chuck-you.com) that sought to link the Schwabs with the late Indonesian dictator Suharto’s family. The court succinctly described the web site as “a social media campaign to induce the Schwabs to settle the case.” Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Kevin R. Crisp, David W. Evans and Sarah A. Marsey Mr. Crisp may be contacted at kcrisp@hbblaw.com Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Ms. Marsey may be contacted at smarsey@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---