SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Does Stricter Decertification Mean More “Leedigation?”

August 04, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
Recently, my friend and fellow construction attorney/consultant, Chris Cheatham (@chrischeatham) posted the news that USGBC will be more stringent on the de-certification front. This statement relates to the continued energy performance of LEED certified buildings and increases the likelihood that energy performance (as opposed to mere reporting) could lead to de-certification. I have discussed on several occasions the potential legal risks relating to green building. One of the big potential sources for such litigation (or “leedigation” as coined by Mr. Cheatham) is the possible de-certification of a previously certified building. With this latest statement by USGBC the specter of such de-certification seems even stronger. Couple this potential with the fact that anyone can challenge the certification of a building at any time and contractors, subcontractors and other construction professionals face potential liability for the performance of a building in ways well beyond their control. 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

---

Chinese Billionaire Sues Local Governments Over Project Payment

January 28, 2015 — Bloomberg News
The billionaire founder of closely held China Pacific Construction Group sued six local governments in a bid to force payment of 900 million yuan ($144 million) his company is owed for infrastructure projects. Yan Jiehe said today he was trying to prove a point and winning the lawsuits wasn’t his main goal. Courts in Hebei, Yunnan, Guizhou, Hunan and Shandong provinces accepted the cases, he said in an interview. “We cannot let the governments work without any supervision anymore,” Yan said. “The results of the lawsuits are not that important to me and I care more about rule of law.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg News

---

Insurer Able to Refuse Coverage for Failed Retaining Wall

October 28, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Eleventh District of the US Court of Appeals has ruled in the case of Nix v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company. In this case, the Nixes filed a claim after a portion of the retaining wall in their home collapsed and their basement flooded. State Farm denied the claim “on the ground that the policy excluded coverage for collapses caused by defects in construction and for damage caused by groundwater.”

The court reviewed the Nixes’ policy and found that State Farm’s statement did specifically exclude both of these items. In reviewing the lower court’s ruling, the appeals court noted that State Farm’s expert witness, Mark Voll, determined that the retaining wall “lacked reinforcing steel, as required by a local building code, and could not withstand the pressure created by groundwater that had accumulated during a heavy rainfall.” Additionally, a french drain had been covered with clay soil and so had failed to disperse the groundwater.

The Nixes argued that the flooding was due to a main line water pipe, but their opinions were those of Terry Nix and the contractor who made temporary repairs to the wall. “Those opinions were not admissible as lay testimony. Neither Nix nor the contractor witnessed the wall collapse or had personal knowledge about the construction of the Nixes’ home.”

The lower court granted a summary judgment to State Farm which has been upheld by the appeals court.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Short-Term Rental Legislation & Litigation On the Way!

November 18, 2019 — Patrick J. Paul - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
The advent of the shared economy in the real estate context has provided homeowners and investors alike with expanded opportunities to generate revenue from the use of their real estate. Airbnb and VRBO are two of the most popular companies facilitating short-term rental availability. The rapid growth in this shared real estate economy has served as a disruptor of sorts to the traditional hotel and hospitality industry, causing that industry to revisit its own models in order to better compete. The popularity of short-term rental use, however, has created a whole new set of problems about which property owners, state and local governments, renters, and those impacted by the explosion of short-term rentals should be aware. Among other things, without more, most traditional homeowners’ policies will not cover the insured property’s use for commercial purposes – a problem similar to the early rideshare providers. Full and part-time resident owners who previously enjoyed a greater certainty with respect to their neighbors are today frustrated by the revolving door of vacationers, revelers, wedding attendees and similar nontraditional uses of neighborhood residential property. 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

---

40 Year Anniversary – Congratulations Ed Doernberger

November 23, 2016 — Tracy Alan Saxe - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Forty years ago, on the Big Island of Hawaii, Edwin L. Doernberger was sworn in as an attorney. Fifteen years ago, Ed rejoined two former partners to help build an exciting new boutique insurance policyholder practice. Today, Saxe Doernberger & Vita is pleased to celebrate the 40th anniversary of its most distinguished partner. “Ed’s energy and enthusiasm are undiminished,” said co-founder and Managing Partner, Tracy Alan Saxe. “He’s still one of the firm’s most active litigators.” Ed has extensive appellate experience, having argued before the Connecticut and Hawaii Supreme and Appellate Courts, New York Appellate Courts, and the Second and Ninth Circuits. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tracy Alan Saxe, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Saxe may be contacted at tas@sdvlaw.com

---

Arizona Court of Appeals Decision in $8.475 Million Construction Defect Class Action Suit

May 09, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

In the case of Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011), which involved an $8.475 million settlement in a construction defect class action suit, the question put forth to the Appeals court was “whether an insured and an insurer can join in a Morris agreement that avoids the primary insurer’s obligation to pay policy limits and passes liability in excess of those limits on to other insurers.” The Appeals court provided several reasons for their decision to affirm the validity of the settlement agreement as to the Non-Participatory Insurers (NPIs) and to vacate and remand the attorney fee awards.



First, the Appeals court stated, “The settlement agreement is not a compliant Morris agreement and provides no basis for claims against the NPIs.” They conclude, “Appellants attempt to avoid the doctrinal underpinnings of Morris by arguing that ‘the cooperation clause did not prohibit Hancock from assigning its rights to anyone, including Appellants.’ This narrow reading of the cooperation clause ignores the fact that Hancock did not merely assign its rights — it assigned its rights after stipulating to an $8.475 million judgment that neither it nor its Direct Insurers could ever be liable to pay. Neither Morris nor any other case defines such conduct as actual ‘cooperation’—rather, Morris simply defines limited circumstances in which an insured is relieved of its duty to cooperate. Because Morris agreements are fraught with risk of abuse, a settlement that mimics Morris in form but does not find support in the legal and economic realities that gave rise to that decision is both unenforceable and offensive to the policy’s cooperation clause.”



The Appeals court further concluded that “even if the agreement had qualified under Morris, plaintiffs did not provide the required notice to the NPIs.” The court continued, “Because an insurer who defends under a reservation of rights is always aware of the possibility of a Morris agreement, the mere threat of Morris in the course of settlement negotiations does not constitute sufficient notice. Instead, the insurer must be made aware that it may waive its reservation of rights and provide an unqualified defense, or defend solely on coverage and reasonableness grounds against the judgment resulting from the Morris agreement. The NPIs were not given the protections of this choice before the agreement was entered, and therefore can face no liability for the resulting stipulated judgment.”



Next, the Appeals court declared that “the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees under A.R.S § 12-341.” The Appeals court reasoned, “In this case, the NPIs prevailed in their attack on the settlement. But the litigation did not test the merits of their coverage defenses or the reasonableness of the settlement amount. And Plaintiffs never sued the NPIs, either in their own right or as the assignees of Hancock. Rather, the NPIs intervened to test the conceptual validity of the settlement agreement (to which they were not parties) before such an action could commence. In these circumstances, though it might be appropriate to offset a fee award against some future recovery by the Plaintiff Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011) class, the purposes of A.R.S. § 12-341.01 would not be served by an award of fees against them jointly and severally. We therefore conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding fees against Plaintiffs ‘jointly and severally.’”



The Appeals court made the following conclusion: “we affirm the judgment of the trial court concerning the validity of the settlement agreement as to the NPIs. We vacate and remand the award of attorney’s fees. In our discretion, we decline to award the NPIs the attorney’s fees they have requested on appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A).”



Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Does a Broker Forfeit His or Her Commission for Technical Non-Compliance with Department of Real Estate Statutory Requirements?

September 14, 2020 — Kevin J. Parker - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In a recent Arizona Court of Appeals case, CK Revocable Trust v. My Home Group Real Estate LLC, 2020 WL 4306183 (7/28/2020), the Court of Appeals addressed the distinction between “substantive” and “technical” statutory requirements for real estate broker commission agreements. The Court explained that failure to comply with a substantive requirement would preclude the broker from recovering a commission, but failure to comply with a technical requirement would not. As examples of such substantive requirements, the Court identified the statutory requirement that the broker be licensed at the time the claim for commission arose, and the statutory requirement that the listing agreement be signed by both the broker and the client. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. Parker, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Parker may be contacted at kparker@swlaw.com

---

Waive It Goodbye: Despite Evidence to the Contrary, Delaware Upholds an AIA Waiver of Subrogation Clause

April 19, 2022 — Lian Skaf - The Subrogation Strategist
Subrogation professionals have always been looking for ways to defeat onerous waiver of subrogation provisions in contracts signed by insureds. However, even when contracts are unsigned, if there is intent when the contract is made – usually long before a loss occurs – a waiver of subrogation can doom what otherwise may have been a strong case. The Superior Court of Delaware considered such a scenario to determine whether a waiver of subrogation provision applied to a multimillion-dollar subrogation case. In State of Delaware Insurance Coverage Office and Factory Mutual Insurance Co., both as subrogee of the University of Delaware v. DiSabatino Construction Co., Schlosser & Associates Mechanical Contractors, Inc. and V.E. Guerrazzi, Inc., C.A. No. N19C-08-080, 2022 Del. Super. LEXIS 108 (March 17, 2022), the court granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, holding that the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by a waiver of subrogation provision in the underlying contract. Thus, the court held that the plaintiffs could not pursue the defendants in their suit to recover damages as a result of a fire. The court specifically denied the plaintiffs’ argument that since the contract was not signed and another “short form” version was later used the waiver of subrogation provision should not apply. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

---