Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Idaho Federal Court Rules Against Sacketts After SCOTUS Decided Judicial Review of an EPA Compliance Order was Permissible

May 13, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
In a decision released on March 31, in Sackett v. EPA, the U.S. District Court for Idaho held, without benefit of oral argument, that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) motion for summary judgment should be granted, and accordingly, the Sacketts had violated the Clean Water Act (CWA) by making improvements to 0.63 acres of land they owned without a required CWA permit when the land qualified as a “wetlands.” The EPA had determined the Sacketts’ “property is subject to the CWA because it contains wetlands adjacent to Priest Lake, a traditionally ‘navigable water,’ and, additionally, their property is wetland adjacent to a tributary and similarly situated to other wetlands and has a significant nexus to Priest Lake.” The District Court rejected the Sacketts’ arguments that their property was not a “wetlands” subject to the CWA. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

Montrose III: Appeals Court Rejects “Elective Vertical Stacking,” but Declines to Find “Universal Horizontal Exhaustion” Absent Proof of Policy Wordings

September 14, 2017 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court (No. B272387; filed 8/31/17) (Montrose III), a California appeals court found that excess insurance is not triggered for continuous and progressive losses until there has been horizontal exhaustion of underlying insurance, but there is no “universal horizontal exhaustion” because the order or sequence in which excess policies may be accessed depends on the specific policy wording at issue. The coverage lawsuit was initiated by Montrose in 1990, when it was named in environmental actions for continuous and progressive property damage emanating from its Torrance chemical plant since the 1960s. Montrose had varying levels of insurance coverage throughout, but the total limits and attachment points of differing levels of excess coverage in any given year had changed from year-to-year. The coverage action was stayed in 2006 due to concern of prejudice to the underlying defense, but the stay was lifted in 2014 with Montrose entering a consent decree in the CERCLA action. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

BOOK CLUB SERIES: Everything You Want to Know About Construction Arbitration But Were Afraid to Ask

October 30, 2023 — Marissa L. Downs - The Dispute Resolver
I recently had the pleasure of speaking with construction law notables John Foust and Andy Ness to discuss the release of their new book—Construction Arbitration: The Advocate’s Practical Guide. The goal of their book: to teach attorneys what they need to know to maximize their effectiveness in the arbitration context. To that end, the book covers every aspect of the arbitration process including motion practice, conduct as an advocate, presentation of the case, and post-hearing submissions. Read on for Andy and John’s candid, behind-the-scenes take on how this book came to be and why you should get your copy now, while supplies last! Q: Who is the target audience for this book? Andy: In the editing process (and in writing my own chapter on Navigating an International Construction Arbitration) I pretended that I was speaking with a construction lawyer who was a few years out of law school, with some litigation experience, who was getting ready to take on a significant and complex construction arbitration for the first time. The book presupposes knowledge of the basics and tries to anticipate the questions that would be asked when you are trying to think through the whole arbitration process from start to finish. What should my pleadings look like? How much discovery am I likely to be able to obtain? How should my demeanor be different from what I would do in a courtroom? How much should I object during the hearing? In a nutshell, it’s “What do I need to know to maximize my chances of success in the arbitration setting?” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Marissa L. Downs, Laurie & Brennan, LLP
Ms. Downs may be contacted at mdowns@lauriebrennan.com

Recent Third Circuit OSHA Decision Sounds Alarm for Employers and Their Officers

October 14, 2019 — John Baker - White and Williams LLP
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion that should serve as a warning not only to employers, but to their corporate officers. The case against Altor, Inc., a New Jersey-based construction company, began in 2012 when the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) directed Altor and its sole director and officer to pay a $412,000 penalty (Payment Order) to OSHA for several violations, including the failure to comply with fall protection standards. The company refused to pay, arguing that it did not possess sufficient assets. The Secretary of Labor filed a Petition for Civil Contempt against Altor and its President, Vasilios Saites. The court acknowledged that the company and Mr. Saites could defend against a contempt finding by showing that he and the company were unable to comply with the Payment Order. Beyond merely stating that they could not pay, the court required that they must show that they made good faith efforts to comply with the Order. After considering all of the evidence, the court ultimately relied on Altor’s bank records, which reflected that the company ended each month during a two-year period after the violations with a positive bank balance. Thus, the court determined that Altor could have made “at least relatively modest” payments and emphasized that the company never attempted to negotiate a reduced sum or a payment plan. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John Baker, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Baker may be contacted at bakerj@whiteandwilliams.com

Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage for Injury To Subcontractor's Employee

April 28, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Third Circuit reversed the district court and held that the additional insured was covered for injury to the subcontractor's employee despite an employee's exclusion in the policy. ArcelorMittal Plate, LLC v. Joule Technical Serv, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2905 (3d Cir. Feb. 18, 2014). ArcelorMittal Plate, LLC (AMP) owned a steel production facility. AMP contracted with Joule, an industrial staffing and engineering firm, for regular performance of maintenance and repair work at its plant. Joule was obligated to provide a CGL policy adding AMP as an additional insured "for all claims including, but not limited to, claims by Joule's employees." Joule added AMP as an additional insured to its policy with Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. The policy had an "employee exclusion" which stated, “This insurance does not apply to bodily injury to (1) an employee of the insured arising out of and in the course of (a) employment by the insured or (b) performing duties related to the conduct of the insured's business.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Patrick Haggerty Promoted to Counsel

May 24, 2021 — Patrick Haggerty - White and Williams LLP
White and Williams is pleased to announce the promotion of Patrick Haggerty to the position of Counsel. Pat is a member of the Real Estate and Finance groups and practices in the Philadelphia office. Pat focuses his practice on a wide range of commercial real estate transactions and financings. He represents real estate developers, owners, and investors, international and domestic banks, private equity firms, hedge funds, and insurance companies in the financing, acquisition, development, repositioning and disposition of commercial real estate assets. “Pat’s unique skillset and impressive experience enhances the services which we can provide to our real estate and finance clients. We are proud to promote such a talented lawyer,” said Tim Davis, Chair of the Business Department. “We look forward to his continued success.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Haggerty, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Haggerty may be contacted at haggertyp@whiteandwilliams.com

California Supreme Court Confirms the Right to Repair Act as the Exclusive Remedy for Seeking Relief for Defects in New Residential Construction

February 22, 2018 — Brenda Radmacher – Construction Law Blog

The California Supreme Court recently issued its decision on a critical issue in the residential construction industry – the claims for construction defects that a California homeowner can bring against a builder or seller of new residential properties in California.

Holding

In McMillin Albany v. The Superior Court of Kern County, the Court held that California’s Right to Repair Act (California Civil Code, sections 895, et seq.) (the “Act”) is the exclusive remedy for homeowners claiming defective construction of new residences in California.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brenda Radmacher, Gordon & Rees
Ms. Radmacher may be contacted at bradmacher@grsm.com

California’s Right To Repair Act Is The Sole Remedy For Damages For Construction Defects In New Residential Construction

March 14, 2018 — Mark Johnson – Real Estate Litigation Blog
The California Supreme Court ruled in McMillin Albany LLC et al. v. The Superior Court of Kern County, (1/18/2018) 4 cal. 5th 241, that California’s Right to Repair Act, California Civil Code sections 895 et seq. (“Act”) is the sole remedy for construction defect claims for economic loss and property damages regarding new residential construction. The Act establishes a pre-litigation dispute resolution process that must be followed before filing a construction defect action for new residential construction purchased after January 1, 2003. The Act provides a builder with the right to attempt to repair construction defects before litigation is filed. The McMillin ruling resolved a split among two court of appeal decisions regarding the scope of the Act: Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98 and Burch v. Superior Court [(2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1411. Those cases held that the Act is not the exclusive remedy for construction defect lawsuits that allege property damage arising from new residential construction. Therefore owners of new residential construction where construction defects had caused property damage were not required to proceed under the Act and instead could proceed with common law claims. McMillilin removes that option. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mark Johnson, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Johnson may be contacted at majohnson@swlaw.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES