Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Australian Developer Denies Building Problems Due to Construction Defects

June 15, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Sunland Group, the developer, is objecting to claims that it is responsible for corrosion damage in a residential building in Gold Coast, Australia, as reported in the Courier & Mail. Residents of Q1, the world’s tallest residential tower, are suing the developer, claiming that defects and corrosion “compromise the long-term durability and appearance of” the six-year-old building.

The developer has not only denied that there are defects in the building, but has also stated that the construction contract “did not warrant that the construction would be defects-free.” Sunland claimed that corrosion was due to the homeowners association having “failed to carry out the maintenance requirements.”

Repair of the building is expected to cost millions of dollars. Sunland denies that it should pay any of that.

Read the full story…

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

A Relatively Small Exception to Fraud and Contract Don’t Mix

April 01, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
Remember all of my posts about how fraud and contract claims don’t usually play well in litigation? Well, as always with the law, there are exceptions. For instance, a well plead Virginia Consumer Protection Act claim will survive a dismissal challenge. A recent opinion out of the Alexandria division of the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia sets out another exception, namely so called fraudulent inducement. In XL Specialty Ins. Co. v. Truland et al, the Court considered the question of whether both a tort and contract claim can coexist in the same lawsuit when the tort claim is based upon the information provided to the plaintiff when that information proves false. As the courts of Virginia have held for years, only certain information and statements made pre-contract can be the basis for a fraud claim in the face of a contractual duty to perform. One type of statement that is not properly the subject of a fraud in the inducement type claim is sales talk or opinion. Such sales talk (for example claiming that your company is the best for the job) is not the subject of a fraud claim because it is not meant to be relied upon and that such talk is an opinion about future performance, not a false statement of present fact or intent. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

A UK Bridge That Is a Lesson on How to Build Infrastructure

November 15, 2017 — Cameron J. Bell - Engineering News-Record
This country’s infrastructure—bridges, airports, dams and levees—needs wide-scale repair and renewal. The United Kingdom’s new Queensferry Crossing bridge, connecting Edinburgh to Fife in Scotland, sets a new standard for how to do it. The result speaks for itself: The Queensferry Crossing, a three-tower, 1.7-mile-long cable-stayed bridge, debuted in early September well within budget and a manageable eight-month time delay—a rare occurrence among bridges. According to research at the University of Oxford’s Saïd Business School, nine out of 10 fixed links (bridges and tunnels) suffer an average cost overrun of 34% and a time delay of roughly two years. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Cameron J. Bell, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

Los Angeles Team Secures Summary Judgment for Hotel Owner & Manager in Tenant’s Lawsuit

July 08, 2024 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
Los Angeles, Calif. (June 11, 2024) - Los Angeles Partners David Samuels and Meegan Moloney recently obtained summary judgment for the owner and manager of a Southern California hotel in a lawsuit brought by a tenant who alleged that she suffered injuries due to the presence of mold in her leased space. The plaintiff had entered into a commercial lease for space within the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Redondo Beach, California, for use for her spa and massage business. The lease contained "exculpatory provisions" absolving Lewis Brisbois' clients "from any and all liability and responsibility for any loss, injury or damage incurred or claimed by reason of damage to property located on the leased premises." Shortly after taking possession of the space in September 2019, the plaintiff claimed she became ill and subsequently discovered the presence of mold in the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning ducts. In October 2022, she sued the hotel's owner and manager, asserting a host of claims including negligence, fraud - negligent and intentional misrepresentation, negligent infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment, private nuisance, and unfair business practices. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

The A, B and C’s of Contracting and Self-Performing Work Under California’s Contractor’s License Law

July 19, 2017 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog

Class A – General Engineering Contractors;
Class B – General Building Contractors; and
Class C – Specialty Contractors of which there are currently 42 different Class C specialty contractors license types.

Each of these license classifications has separate contracting rules, and rules regarding when work can be self-performed, which for many can be confusing. Minor Work Exception One important (albeit “minor”) exception is that no contractor’s license is required no matter what type of work is being performed if the project has a value of less than $500. Known as the “minor work exception,” the exception is a project-based, not work-based, exception. Thus, for example, if a project owner is remodeling their kitchen at a cost of $6,000 and the cost of doing the flooring is only $300, the person doing the flooring would need to have a contractor’s license in the appropriate classification since the aggregate cost of the work is $500 or more. 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

Additional Insured is Loss Payee after Hurricane Damage

October 01, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Construing the policy language, the federal district court found that the policy's additional insured was the loss payee for damage caused by Hurricanes Laura and Delta. TCP Ryan St. LLC v. Weschester Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125529 (W.D. La. July 16, 2024). Hurricanes Laura and Delta caused damage to TCP Ryan Street, LLC's (TCP) property. Westchester had issued a policy to MRI Heritage Brand, Inc. (MRI). MRI, as lessee, was obligated pursuant to the lease terms to "purchase and maintain . . . a policy of fire, extended coverage, vandalism and malicious mischief (or 'all risk') insurance coverage on all real property situated at the Lease Premises." The lease also required MRI to obtain coverage under a policy naming only the landlord as the sole insured and provided that the proceeds would be payable to the landlord. The policy provided that no entity was covered unless Westchester had received identifying information for the entity during the application process or the entity was added by endorsement. 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

Despite Misapplying California Law, Federal Court Acknowledges Virus May Cause Physical Alteration to Property

October 26, 2020 — Scott P. DeVries, Michael S. Levine & Michael L. Huggins - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
On August 28, Judge Stephen V. Wilson of the Central District of California, entered the latest ruling in the ongoing saga of the COVID-19 business interruption coverage dispute between celebrity plaintiff’s attorney Mark Geragos and Insurer Travelers. The case, 10E, LLC v. The Travelers Indemnity Co. of Connecticut, was filed in state court. Travelers removed to federal court, where Geragos sought remand and Travelers moved to dismiss. Judge Wilson denied remand and granted the Motion to Dismiss, finding plaintiff did not satisfactorily allege the actual presence of COVID-19 on insured property or physical damage to its property. This holding is inconsistent with long standing principles of California insurance law and appears to improperly enhance the minimal pleading threshold under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint need only allege a claim “that is plausible on its face.”). After rejecting Geragos’ attempt to have the case remanded based on a finding that Geragos had fraudulently joined a defendant to avoid removal, the Judge proceeded to the Motion to Dismiss which raised three issues: (1) the effect of the Virus Exclusion in the Travelers’ Policy, (2) whether plaintiff failed to allege that the governmental orders prohibited access to its property, and (3) whether plaintiff could “‘plausibly allege that it suffered ‘direct physical loss or damage to property’ as required for civil authority coverage.’” Rather than address the effect of the exclusion, which would be the narrowest issue (this exclusion is not present in all policies), the Court proceeded directly to the third issue, which has the broadest potential application. Reprinted courtesy of Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael L. Huggins, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com 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

Insurer’s “Failure to Cooperate” Defense

November 14, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The “failure to cooperate” defense is a defense an insurer may raise when its insured fails to cooperate with it in the defense of the claim against the insured. If an insurer takes this position, it will typically be denying both defense and indemnification obligations, meaning the insured could be forfeiting coverage that otherwise exists through his/her/its failure to cooperate with the insurer. This defense by the insurer is not absolute as recently explained by the Fourth District in Barthelemy v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D2379a (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) discussing the elements of this failure to cooperate defense. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES