SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Traub Lieberman Attorneys Lisa Rolle and Christopher Acosta Win Summary Judgment in Favor of Property Owner

February 20, 2023 — Lisa M. Rolle & Christopher D. Acosta - Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Attorneys Lisa Rolle and Christopher Acosta obtained summary judgment in favor of Defendant, the owner of a premises located in Bronx, New York, in a personal injury case brought before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County. The Plaintiff alleged that while leaving the Defendant’s premises, she unexpectedly fell. It is undisputed that the Plaintiff does not know why she fell or identify any defect that may have caused her fall. The Defendant’s witness testified that the route taken by the Plaintiff was free of any defect prior to and on the date of the incident. The witness further testified that the site was also subject to routine inspection leading up to the incident, in which no tripping hazards were observed. Reprinted courtesy of Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman and Christopher D. Acosta, Traub Lieberman Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com Mr. Acosta may be contacted at cacosta@tlsslaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

CDJ’s Year-End Review: The Top 10 CD Topics of 2014

December 31, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Construction Defect Journal’s year-end review presents the top ten most popular topics featured in the journal in 2014. Some of the topics involved analysis of important construction defect cases, while others covered current events such as proposed state legislation. Most issues were heavily discussed on CDJ as well as in board rooms and during teleconferences. We hope you enjoy the look-back at 2014 interspersed throughout the issue, and we wish you and yours a prosperous 2015! CDJ’s #1 Topic of the Year: Indalex Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 2013 Pa. Super 311 (Dec. 3, 2013) According to Darrin J. McMullen of Anderson Kill, “[t]he Indalex decision reverses a nearly decade-long trend of Pennsylvania decisions narrowing the scope of insurance coverage for construction and defect-related claims under commercial general liability insurance policies. Equally important, the Indalex ruling dealt a blow to the insurance industry’s continual efforts to win overbroad expansion of the rulings in Kvaerner Metals Div. of Kvaerner U.S., Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., Millers Capital Ins. Co. v. Gambone Bros. Dev. Co., and Erie Ins. Exchange v. Abbott Furnace Co., which found that claims of faulty workmanship in some circumstances may not constitute coverage-triggering ‘occurrences.’” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Additional Elements a Plaintiff Must Plead and Prove to Enforce Restrictive Covenant

April 19, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Florida Statute s. 542.335 is a statute that deals with restrictive covenants in contracts that impose a restraint on trade. It is an important statute to determine invalid restraints on trade that unreasonably or unfairly prevent competition. Any invalid restraint on trade is unenforceable. Restrictive covenants–or covenants in agreements that restrict you or prevent you from doing something–may unsuspectingly be included in contracts or the impact of the restrictive covenant may not be appreciated at the onset. A party seeking to enforce a restrictive covenant in a contract has the additional burden of PROVING the validity and reasonableness of the restrictive covenant:

Under section 542.335, three requirements must be satisfied for a restrictive covenant to be enforceable: (1) the restrictive covenant must be “set forth in a writing signed by the person against whom enforcement is sought”; (2) the party seeking to enforce the restrictive covenant “shall plead and prove the existence of one or more legitimate business interests justifying the restrictive covenant”; and (3) the party seeking to enforce the restrictive covenant “shall plead and prove that the contractually specified restraint is reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate business interest or interests justifying the restriction.”

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

---

Court of Appeal Opens Pandora’s Box on Definition of “Contractor” for Forum Selection Clauses

October 02, 2015 — David A. Harris & Abigail E. Lighthart – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Vita Planning and Landscape Architecture, Inc. v. HKS Architects, Inc. (“Vita Planning”), the First Appellate District held California’s Code of Civil Procedure section 410.42 (“Section 410.42”) which prohibits an out-of-state contractor from requiring a California subcontractor to litigate disputes in a state other than California, applies not only to traditional “contractors” and “subcontractors” but also to design professionals and architects. In Vita Planning, a dispute arose when HKS, a Texas based architectural firm, refused to pay Vita Planning and Architecture (“Vita”), a landscape design firm, for work on a luxury hotel in Mammoth Lakes, California (“Project”). HKS contended it was not required to pay Vita until it was paid by the owner of the Project, and any claims regarding the work needed to be filed in Texas pursuant to a forum selection clause contained in a Prime Contract between HKS and the Owner. The forum clause was “incorporated by reference” into an unsigned “standard form” agreement between HKS and Vita. Despite the forum clause, Vita filed a Complaint against HKS in Marin County Superior Court. Reprinted courtesy of Abigail E. Lighthart, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and David A. Harris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com Ms. Lighthart may be contacted at alighthart@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

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

---

GRSM Multi-Office Team Secures Dismissal of Claims for Global Paint and Coatings Manufacturer Under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act

February 03, 2025 — Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
Philadelphia Partners Ty Havey and Cathy Slavin, Sacramento Senior Counsel Jennifer Paez, and Associate Erica Briggs successfully defended a leading global manufacturer of premium paint and coating products in a high-stakes case brought under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA), 15 U.S.C. § 1261 et seq. On November 4, 2024, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment and dismissed all claims against the firm’s client. The case, brought by a subrogating insurance carrier and its policyholders—a vineyard and winery—arose from a total loss structure fire in Sonoma County. The plaintiffs alleged that discarded rags soaked with the client’s wood stain product spontaneously combusted due to inadequate labeling. The GRSM team denied the spontaneous combustion claim and argued that the FHSA, which governs product labeling for hazardous substances, preempted plaintiffs’ claims for additional warnings about spontaneous combustion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP

---

Zinc in London Climbs for Second Day Before U.S. Housing Data

January 21, 2015 — Alex Davis – Bloomberg
Zinc rose for a second day and copper held gains before data showing increased housing construction in the U.S. and a stimulus decision by the European Central Bank. Zinc advanced as much as 0.8 percent. Housing starts in the U.S., the second-largest metals consumer, climbed 1.2 percent in December from the previous month, according to a Bloomberg survey, after falling 1.6 percent in November. The ECB will announce a 550 billion-euro ($636 billion) government-bond purchase program this week, according to 93 percent of respondents in a separate survey. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Alex Davis, Bloomberg
Mr. Davis may be contacted at adavis150@bloomberg.net

---

Do Not Pass Go! Duty to Defend in a Professional Services Agreement (law note)

April 03, 2019 — Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North Carolina
Recently a client asked me to review a contract for his Firm. The Owner, who had prepared the draft, had inserted a rather stringent “duty to defend” clause. As I told my client, a duty to defend clause is not a good idea for a couple of reasons. First, if you agree to provide a defense, what that means is that you are footing the bill for the Owner if the Owner is sued by another party. Think about that for a minute. You are paying legal fees for someone else’s legal defense. You may or may not be able to direct the litigation or have a say in who is hired. Can you say open check book? Secondly, and more importantly, the duty to defend is almost never insurable. What that means is that your professional liability carrier will not be footing the bill—your Firm will be doing it. This is not a case of adding the Owner as an additional insured, so do not confuse the two. Agreeing to a duty to defend is an extremely burdensome, and potentially costly, mistake. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLC
Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

---