Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Wall Street Is Buying Starter Homes to Quietly Become America’s Landlord

February 27, 2023 — Patrick Clark - Bloomberg
Javier Vidana started out as a real estate agent in 2013, when Arizona’s Salt River Valley seemed wide open. It was the aftermath of a housing market crash that had seen the typical home value in the Phoenix metro area fall more than 50%, and a single parent with good credit could tap loan programs geared toward first-time homeowners and find a pretty decent place to live. For Vidana, the challenge was convincing potential clients that a house was something they wanted to own. “We were on the phone begging people to buy,” he says. “There was no buyer confidence whatsoever.” The economy crawled forward, and the housing market with it. Vidana made a specialty of tutoring young buyers on real estate basics. Soon he was supplementing his commission income by selling how-to PDFs on his website and collecting ad revenue on his YouTube channel. Then the pandemic sparked a boom that gave him something new to explain. Americans responded to the work-from-home era by house shopping, and no big city was hotter than Phoenix. The median home was worth about $285,000 at the beginning of the pandemic; it was valued at $435,000 two years later. It wasn’t unheard of for a seller to receive 50 offers or more, or for a prospective buyer to make offers on a dozen different homes before finally closing a deal. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Clark, Bloomberg

Cal/OSHA ETS: Newest Version Effective Today

January 17, 2022 — Amy R. Patton, Matthew C. Lewis & Rana Ayazi - Payne & Fears
The newest version of the Cal/OSHA ETS goes into effect today, Jan. 14, 2022, and will expire on April 15, 2022. A redline of the recently expired Cal/OSHA ETS and the newest Cal/OSHA ETS is available HERE. The newest Cal/OSHA ETS, which was drafted prior to Dec. 16, 2021, is already partially out-of-date based on the California Department of Public Heath’s Guidance For the Use of Masks (released Jan. 5, 2022) and the CDPH’s Guidance for Local Health Jurisdictions on Isolation and Quarantine of the General Public (released Jan. 8, 2022); these changes have been addressed in the Cal/OSHA ETS FAQs. With all of these changes occurring (not to mention all of the litigation surrounding the now-stayed federal OSHA ETS), California employers are asking: How do I comply with the current Cal/OSHA ETS and the updated CDPH Guidance? Here are the key points to ensure you are in compliance:

New Shorter Isolation and Quarantine Periods

Day 0: First day of symptoms or the day a positive test specimen was collected. Begin isolation.
Day 1: First full day after symptoms developed or positive test specimen was collected.
Day 5: Recommended day to take COVID-19 test.

Reprinted courtesy of Amy R. Patton, Payne & Fears, Matthew C. Lewis, Payne & Fears and Rana Ayazi, Payne & Fears Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com Mr. Lewis may be contacted at mcl@paynefears.com Ms. Ayazi may be contacted at ra@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Athens, Ohio, Sues to Recover Nearly $722,000 After Cyber Attack

January 21, 2025 — Jeff Yoders - Engineering News-Record
In November, Athens, Ohio, officials sent nearly $722,000 to a bank account they believed was set up by its contractor, Pepper Construction, to receive payment for its work on a fire station headquarters. The request was actually a sophisticated cyber attack that took advantage of a construction payment system that often does not allow clients processing invoices to directly know those behind the email addresses making the requests. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Yoders, ENR
Mr. Yoders may be contacted at yodersj@enr.com

Construction Venture Sues LAX for Nonpayment

February 05, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Construction joint venture Walsh/Austin filed suit against the Los Angeles International Airport, claiming that “the airport failed to properly pay more than $2.4 million to an electrical subcontractor,” according to The Daily Breeze. Furthermore, SASCO, the electrical firm, alleged that they were “given inaccurate design documents that made it impossible for the company to carry out the work at the agreed-upon rate.” The complaint, as reported by The Daily Breeze, cited “other lawsuits brought by an Orange County plastering firm and a Buena Park door company” and suggested that “eventually, all the litigation tied to nonpayment at LAX will end up in the same courtroom.” Nancy Castles, a spokeswoman for Los Angeles World Airports, told The Daily Breeze that “the agency does not comment on pending litigation.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

NY State Appellate Court Holds That Pollution Exclusions Bar Duty to Defend Under Liability Policies for Claims Alleging Exposure to PFAS

February 01, 2022 — Robert F. Walsh & Paul A. Briganti - White and Williams LLP
On January 6, 2022, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, held that the “sudden and accidental” pollution exclusion (SAPE) and “absolute” pollution exclusion (APE) in liability policies relieved two insurers of a duty to defend the insured-manufacturer in connection with claims alleging damages as a result of exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), which are man-made chemicals within the group of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). See Tonoga, Incorporated v. New Hampshire Insurance Company, No. 532546, 2022 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 105 (App. Div. 3rd Dep’t Jan. 6, 2022). In Tonoga, starting in 1961, the insured and its predecessors owned and operated a manufacturing facility in Petersburg, New York that produced materials coated with polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). Until 2013, the manufacturing process involved the use of PFOA and/or PFOS. In early 2016, excessive PFOA and/or PFOS concentrations were detected in Petersburg’s municipal water supply. Later that year, the New York Department of Environmental Conversation designated the insured’s facility a Superfund site, and the insured entered into a consent agreement that required it to assist in remedial measures. 2022 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 105, at *1-2. Reprinted courtesy of Robert F. Walsh, White and Williams LLP and Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLP Mr. Walsh may be contacted at walshr@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Oregon Condo Owners Make Construction Defect Claim

January 13, 2014 — CDJ STAFF
Residents of two condominiums in Florence, Oregon have filed suits alleging that construction defects have led to water intrusion and damage. The two condominium projects were built by separate developers. Each association has brought its own lawsuit, according to an article in the Register-Guard. The Bridgeport Landing condominium owners have sued CJ Cable LLC for $2.5 million. Cindy Cable said of lawsuit, “I’ve done everything I could do to get this resolved, and I still get sued.” She said that “the only way to get it corrected is with a lawsuit.” Meanwhile, residents of the Stillwater Condominiums have sued Thomas Hornback Construction for $2.1 million. Hornback is reported to have denied the allegations made by the Stillwater owners, but says that any problems would be due to subcontractors or failure of the owners to maintain the buildings. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Specific Source of Water Not Relevant in Construction Defect Claim

June 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Nebraska Court of Appeals has concluded that a lower court came to the correct conclusion in a construction defect case involving water intrusion. The Hiatts built a home in North Platte, Nebraska, in in 2004 which they sold to the Oettingers in May, 2006. Shortly thereafter, the Oettingers started experiencing problems with water intrusion and contacted the Hiatts. The Hiatts responded by replacing the septic lift. Subsequently, the Oettingers landscaped their yard, which they allege was done with the assistance of the Hiatts. The water problems continued and “the parties took substantial remedial measures, including excavating the sidewalk and inspecting the downspouts.” The water problems continued, getting worse and requiring increasingly aggressive responses. The Oettingers then had a series of inspections, and they hired the last of these inspectors to actually fix the water intrusion problem. At that point, they filed a lawsuit against the Hiatts alleging that the Hiatts “breached their contact by constructing and selling a home that was not built according to reasonable construction standards,” and that they “were negligent in the repair of the home in 2009.” During the trial, Irving Hiatt testified that they “tarred the outside of the basement and put plastic into the tar and another layer of plastic over the top of that.” He claimed that the problem was with the Oettingers’ landscaping. This was further claimed in testimony of his son, Vernon Hiatt, who said the landscaping lacked drainage. The Oettingers had three experts testify, all of whom noted that the landscaping could not have been the problem. All three experts testified as to problems with the Hiatts’ construction. The court concluded that the Hiatts had breached an implied warranty, rejecting the claim that the water intrusion was due to the landscaping. The Hiatts appealed the decision of the county court to the district court. Here, the judgment of the lowest court was confirmed, with the district court again finding a breach of the implied warranty of workmanlike performance. The Hiatts appealed again. They alleged that the district court should not have held a breach of implied warranty existed without proving the source of the water intrusion, and that damages should have been apportioned based on the degree to which the Oettingers’ landscaping and basement alterations were responsible. The appeals court dispensed with the second claim first, noting that “they do not argue this error in their brief nor do they explain how or why the trial court should have apportioned damages.” The court also noted that although the Oettingers made a negligence claim in their suit, the case had been decided on the basis of a breach of implied warranty. The appeals court upheld the Oettingers’ claim of a breach of implied warranty. In order to do this, the court noted that the Oettingers had to show that an implied warranty existed, that the Haitts breached that warranty, damage was suffered as a result, and that no express warranty limited the implied warranty. That court noted that “the record is sufficient to prove that the Hiatts breached the implied warranty in the method in which they constructed the basement” and that “this breach was the cause of the Oettingers’ damages.” The court concluded that the Oettingers “provided sufficient evidence that the Hiatts’ faulty construction allowed water, whatever its source, to infiltrate the basement.” The court rejected the Hiatts’ claim that the Oettingers’ repairs voided the warranty, as it was clear that the Hiatts were involved in carrying out these repairs. The court’s final conclusion was that “the evidence in the record supports the trial court’s factual finding that the Hiatts’ flawed construction caused water damage to the Oettingers’ basement.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Architects Should Not Make Initial Decisions on Construction Disputes

July 05, 2023 — Bill Wilson - Construction Law Zone
A common provision often deleted from the standard form AIA documents is the provision in the AIA A201 General Conditions requiring an Initial Decision Maker (IDM) for claims between the contractor and owner. In the A201, the contracting parties have the option of naming their own IDM for the project. If an IDM is not selected (which is typically the case) the architect serves this role by default. While it is in all parties’ best interests to resolve disputes quickly and efficiently, using the architect as the IDM is not the best way to achieve such a resolution. Several reasons work against using the architect as the IDM. Contractors typically don’t trust architects to be impartial in resolving disputes because the architect is paid by the owner. Most architects don’t have the temperament or any training to facilitate dispute resolution. An architect’s “initial decision” could even drive the parties further apart and lead to further issues later in the project. The architect may also be perceived to be part of the problem that led to the dispute in the first place. Also, many architects simply prefer to avoid serving the thankless role of an IDM altogether. Lastly, inserting the architect into the dispute resolution process as a required IDM adds an additional unnecessary step to dispute resolution, which can delay the overall procedure. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLP
Mr. Wilson may be contacted at wwilson@rc.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES