Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Tariffs, Supply Snarls Spur Search for Factories Closer to U.S.

February 21, 2022 — Laura Curtis - Bloomberg
Small businesses looking for a factory that can make some stylish orthopedic shoes, chairs or construction materials may have an easier time finding a closer-to-home alternative to waiting for the supply-chain snarl in the Pacific Ocean to work itself out. Zipfox, an online platform that links businesses up with factories in Mexico, launched this week, enabling near-shoring of production and the chance to get goods into the U.S. more quickly than if businesses were sourcing from manufacturing hubs in China. “People are feeling the pain from sourcing from China right now but they aren’t really aware of the manufacturing capability and capacity that Mexico already has,” Zipfox founder Raine Mahdi said Tuesday. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Laura Curtis, Bloomberg

New Jersey Appeals Court Ruled Suits Stand Despite HOA Bypassing Bylaw

January 22, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In the case Port Liberte II Condominium Association v. New Liberty Residential Urban Renewal Company, a New Jersey appeals court ruled that a homeowners association (HOA) could bypass a bylaw that requires unit owners to approve litigation before it is filed, the New Jersey Law Journal reported. Two construction-defect suits were reinstated by the appeals court, and both had been “dismissed based on alleged violation of the bylaws.” The first suit “claimed the defendants' negligence contributed to major construction defects at the 225-unit condominium development, which was completed in 2004” while “the second suit claimed that one section of the development is sinking into the ground because of a failure to properly investigate soil conditions at the former industrial site where the buildings sit.” According to the New Jersey Law Journal, the HOA did not obtain approval from the unit owners prior to commencing litigation because “the statute of limitations was about to expire.” However, the HOA met with the residents in October of 2009 and a vote was cast “72 to 3 to pursue litigation.” In May of 2011 the second suit was dismissed because defendants stated “approval of residents was not obtained.” Another meeting of residents occurred, and another vote cast ratified “both suits by a vote of 65 to 1.” However, Judge Baber, who had previously dismissed both suits, refused to reinstate them. “The Appellate Division said in its ruling that the Condominium Act, N.J.S.A. 46:8B-1, gives the association the exclusive authority to file suit against builders and other third parties for damage to common areas in the community,” the New Jersey Law Journal reported. “Given its legal responsibility for upkeep of common areas, and its statutory authorization to sue for damages to such areas, the association had standing to file suit, the appeals court said.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Janus v. AFSCME

July 18, 2018 — Ryan Foltz – Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
On June 27, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in Janus v. AFSCME1. By a 5-4 vote, SCOTUS ruled that public employee unions cannot require non-members to pay union dues, even if those employees are benefiting from the services provided by the union. 28 states already had “right-to-work” laws on the books, meaning that unions in those states were already precluded from collecting fees from non-union members. This ruling makes that ban a national standard. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ryan Foltz, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
Mr. Foltz may be contacted at rfoltz@grsm.com

Airbnb Declares End to Party!

January 27, 2020 — Patrick J. Paul - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
As municipalities around the country evaluate changes to their respective codes in an effort to exert greater control over bad actors in the vacation rental market, Airbnb announced on November 2nd that it is banning party houses. The move comes in response to the shooting deaths of five people at a Halloween party hosted at an Airbnb rental house in Orinda, CA. CEO Brian Chesky announced on Twitter that starting November 2, Airbnb would ban “party houses” and redouble the company’s efforts to “combat unauthorized parties and get rid of abusive host and guest conduct.” twitter.com/bchesky The four-bedroom rental reportedly had been rented on Airbnb by a woman who advised the owner her family members had asthma and needed to escape smoke from a wildfire burning in Sonoma County about 60 miles north of Orinda earlier in the week. Nevertheless, the homeowner was suspicious of a one-night rental on Halloween and reminded the renter that no parties were allowed. Having received complaints from neighbors and witnessing some party activity via his camera doorbell, the homeowner called police who were en route to the home, but arrived after the shooting. The Halloween party apparently was advertised on social media as an “Airbnb Mansion Party,” with an admission fee of $10 per person. Independently owned vacation rentals are currently growing at a faster rate than hotels or motels, and in some instances are owned by out-of-state investors seeking not only a real estate return on investment, but also a return on investment associated with revenue streams generated by “pay to play” parties promoted on social media. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Patrick J. Paul, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Paul may be contacted at ppaul@swlaw.com

Where There's Smoke...California's New Emergency Wildfire Smoke Protection Regulation And What Employers Are Required To Do

August 26, 2019 — Michael Studenka – Newmeyer Dillion
California employers need to pay heed to the recently announced California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Cal/OSHA) emergency regulation related to their duty to protect employees from the potential harm caused by wildfire smoke. As of July 29, 2019, employers are required to actively monitor their local Air Quality Index (AQI) and take steps to protect their employees from the harmful particulate matter contained within wildfire smoke. Which Workplaces Are Impacted? The regulation applies to all workplaces exposed to wildfire smoke with an AQI level of 151 or greater (ranging from "unhealthy" to "hazardous"). "Exposed" workplaces are those that are not in enclosed buildings, structures, or vehicles with mechanical ventilation and the ability to close all windows and doors. Outdoor occupations including construction, agriculture, landscaping, maintenance, commercial delivery, and others that expose the worker to the outside air for more than one hour will be the most impacted by this new regulation, although firefighters engaged in fighting wildfires are expressly exempt from the statute. What If I Have A Potentially Exposed Workplace? Employers with outdoor workplaces that are exposed to wildfire smoke are required to monitor the AQI before each shift, and "periodically throughout the day," all to ensure that the Air Quality Index for PM2.5 (particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or smaller) remains below 151. This can be done by visiting certain governmental websites, including U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's AirNow website (www.airnow.gov), which allow for regular email alerts to be issued to the employer. An employer with a potentially exposed workplace must also set up a communication system capable of communicating to all affected employees (in a language readily understood) the status of wildfire smoke hazards. The communication system must also provide the employees a process to inform the employer of worsening air quality and/or any adverse symptoms that they may be experiencing (e.g., asthma or chest pain). Finally, employers are required to add to their Injury and Illness Protection Program (IIPP) the provision of effective training and instruction (i.e., approximately 15 minutes) regarding:

the health effects of wildfire smoke;
the right to obtain medical treatment without fear of reprisal;
how employees can obtain the current AQI for PM2.5;
the requirements of this regulation;
the employer's communication system regarding wildfire smoke;
the employer's methods for protecting employees from wildfire smoke;
the importance, limitations, and benefits of using a respirator when exposed to wildfire smoke; and
the proper use and maintenance of respirators.

The Required Provision of Respiratory Protective Equipment Employers with exposed workplaces are required to provide effective NIOSH-approved respirators (e.g., N95 filtering facepiece respirators) when AQI for PM2.5 levels are 151-200 (unhealthy), 201-300 (very unhealthy), or 301-500 (hazardous). The N95 respirator typically costs less than a dollar per mask and can be easily purchased online. Employers are also required to clean, store, and maintain these respirators for times of need. Employees are free to decide whether to use a respirator when the AQI for PM2.5 level is between 151-500, although employers must be prepared to offer the equipment at an AQI level of 151 or higher. Use of the respirator by an employee exposed to an AQI for PM2.5 level that exceeds 500, however, is required by law. What Should Potentially Exposed Employers Do Now? Employers should immediately begin supplementing their IIPP platforms to include this regulation's prescribed training regarding wildfire smoke. Companies should also develop an adequate monitoring and communication plan regarding wildfire smoke hazards and effectively train their supervisors on the same. Finally, acquiring an adequate supply of N95 filtering respirators now will help ensure that employers are prepared for the next wildfire. Michael Studenka is a partner in Newmeyer Dillion's Labor & Employment practice group. His practice focuses on the life cycle of Employment law. Mike advises and trains companies on proactive measures to keep them protected and in compliance, and leverages his significant trial experience when faced with litigation. You can reach out to him at michael.studenka@ndlf.com. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Pennsylvania: When Should Pennsylvania’s New Strict Products Liability Law Apply?

February 05, 2015 — Robert Caplan and Timothy Carroll – White and Williams LLP
Pennsylvania has maintained its own peculiar brand of strict products liability law ever since the Supreme Court decided Azzarello v. Black Bros. Co., Inc.[1] in 1978. Maligned by many as “absurd and unworkable,”[2] if “excessively” orientated towards plaintiffs,[3] Azzarello’s unique approach to the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (1965)[4] has recently been judicially consigned to the dustbin of history. In Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc.,[5] decided on November 19, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court expressly overruled Azzarello leaving in its place a new alternative standards approach to proving a Section 402A claim. An injured worker or subrogated insurer[6] must still prove that the seller, whether a manufacturer or a distributor, placed the product on the market in a “defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the consumer.”[7] But now, under Tincher, a plaintiff must use either a “consumer expectation test” or a “risk-utility test” to establish that criterion.[8] Reprinted courtesy of Robert Caplan, White and Williams LLP and Timothy Carroll, White and Williams LLP Mr. Caplan may be contacted at caplanr@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Where Parched California Is Finding New Water Sources

June 13, 2022 — Pam McFarland - Engineering News-Record
As drought-plagued western states watch their water sources literally dry up, California is digging deeper to tap the most basic source of all: groundwater. Reprinted courtesy of Pam McFarland, Engineering News-Record Ms. McFarland may be contacted at mcfarlandp@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Not so Fast! How Does Revoking Acceleration of a Note Impact the Statute of Limitations?

July 30, 2018 — Ben Reeves - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Introduction Lenders routinely accelerate notes after a default occurs, calling the entire loan due immediately. Less regularly, a lender may change its mind and unilaterally revoke the acceleration. Rarely, however, does a lender fail to foreclose on its real property collateral before the statute of limitations expires. In Andra R. Miller Designs, LLC v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 244 Ariz. 265, 418 P.3d 1038 (Ct. App. 2018), a unique set of facts involving these issues led the Arizona Court of Appeals to hold that proper revocation of acceleration resets the statute of limitations. The Facts In Miller, a lender made a $1,940,000 loan evidenced by a promissory note and secured by a deed of trust against a home in Paradise Valley, Arizona. The borrower defaulted in September 2008. The default prompted the lender to notice a default, accelerate the note, and initiate a trustee’s sale of the home in 2009. After the lender accelerated the note, the six year statute of limitations began to run. See A.R.S. § 12-548(A)(1) and A.R.S. § 33-816. Pretty standard facts so far, right? Don’t worry, it gets a bit more convoluted. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ben Reeves, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Reeves may be contacted at breeves@swlaw.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES