Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Proposed Florida Construction Defect Act

January 09, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Michael J. Furbush and Thomas P. Wert of Roetzel & Andress discussed Florida’s House Bill 87, which proposes to “substantially overhaul Florida’s Construction Defect Act, Chapter 558, requiring property owners to provide more detailed notice of the alleged defect and imposing sanctions on property owners who make frivolous claims.” Representative Kathleen Passidomo sponsored the bill, which “requires claimants to provide additional details about the alleged defect in the notice of claim, including the specific location of each alleged defect, and the specific provisions of the building code, plans, or specifications that serve as the basis of the defect claim. The failure to include this information in the notice of claim would be considered prima facie evidence of a defective notice.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Who Says You Can’t Choose between Liquidated Damages or Actual Damages?

October 11, 2017 — Kevin Walton - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In Colorado, courts enforce liquidated damages provisions if three elements are satisfied: (1) the parties intended to liquidate damages; (2) the amount of liquidated damages was a reasonable estimate of the presumed actual damages caused by a breach; and (3) at the time of contracting, it was difficult to ascertain the amount of actual damages that would result from a breach. But what happens when a contract gives a party a right to choose between liquidated damages or actual damages? This seems troublesome because it allows a party to set the floor for their damages without limitation if actual damages exceed the contractual amount. As a matter of first impression, the Colorado Supreme Court addressed this issue in Ravenstar, LLC v. One Ski Hill Place, LLC, 401 P.3d 552 (Colo. 2017). In Ravenstar, plaintiffs contracted to buy condominiums from a developer. As part of their contracts, plaintiffs deposited earnest money and construction deposits equal to 15% of each unit’s purchase price. Plaintiffs breached their contract by failing to obtain financing and failing to close by the closing date. Each contract’s damages provision provided that if a purchaser defaulted, the developer had the option to retain all or some of the deposits as liquidated damages or, alternatively, to pursue actual damages and apply the deposits to that award. After plaintiffs defaulted, the developer chose to keep plaintiffs’ deposits as liquidated damages. Plaintiffs sued for return of their deposits. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin Walton, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Walton may be contacted at kwalton@swlaw.com

California Fire Lawyers File Suit Against PG&E on Behalf of More Than 50 Wildfire Victims

November 15, 2017 — David Suggs – Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.
Digital Journal reports that the California fire lawyers are comprised of four law firms, Baron & Budd, Singleton Law Firm, Dixon Diab & Chambers LLP, and Thornes Bartolotta McGuire. These firms filed suit against PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric Company) on October 27th alleging that the brutal wildfires that swept through Northern California started when electrical infrastructure encountered vegetation. According to Digital Journal, more than 50 plaintiffs are being represented in this case who endured damages including “wrongful death, personal injuries, damage to or destruction of property, loss of cherished possessions, medical bills, evacuation expenses and lost wages.” John Fiske, an attorney at Baron & Budd stated, “through our team’s investigation to date, we believe that PG&E may have played a role in causing these fires.” Holding PG&E accountable for the 40 people killed, 8,400 structures destroyed, and 210,000 acres burned is their goal. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

What If There Is a Design Error?

October 30, 2023 — Scott L. Baker - Los Angeles Litigation Blog
Many challenges can crop up when working on a construction project. Among these challenges, errors are the last thing that contractors or project owners want to face. Yet, they are not uncommon as you navigate the process. Design errors or mistakes are one such issue that can result in serious construction disputes and delays. It is important to determine who is liable when it comes to defects and design errors. So, who is responsible for design errors? Many might assume the architect – or the person who created the project design – is responsible for design errors. That is not necessarily true. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott L. Baker, Baker & Associates
Mr. Baker may be contacted at slb@bakerslaw.com

Predicting Our Future with Andrew Weinreich

May 03, 2017 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
In this podcast episode, my guest is Andrew Weinreich. We talk about the future of homebuilding against the backdrop of Andrew’s new podcast Predicting Our Future. Is construction ripe for disruption? Andrew believes that homebuilding is much closer to a tipping point than ever before. In this interview, he explains why. “In the United States, modular construction significantly lags behind what we see elsewhere around the world,” Andrew reminds. “When everything you can imagine today, from the paperclip to your smartphone is made in a factory, why is it that -certainly in this country- we associate homes made in factory with the lowest of low end homes.” “The first question is: why is that? And the second question is: could that change? Could we be on the precipice of looking at the next Tesla; not for car-building, but for homebuilding.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at info@aepartners.fi

Legal Battle Kicks Off to Minimize Baltimore Bridge Liabilities

May 06, 2024 — Brendan Murray - Bloomberg
The owner of the ship that destroyed Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge, causing the indefinite closure of the port a week ago, is seeking to limit its liability to about $44 million. According to reporting by my Bloomberg News colleagues citing legal experts, the company — Grace Ocean — could face hundreds of millions of dollars in damage claims. On Monday it filed a petition jointly with Synergy Marine, which was operating the Singapore-flagged container ship Dali. They claim the collapse of the bridge was “not due to any fault, neglect, or want of care” of the companies and that they shouldn’t be held liable for any loss or damage from the disaster. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brendan Murray, Bloomberg

Understanding the Details: Suing Architects and Engineers Can Get Technical

November 02, 2017 — Steven M. Cvitanovic & Stephen M. Tye - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Before suing an architect or engineer for professional negligence, a plaintiff must obtain a “certificate of merit” (“Certificate”) under Code of Civil Procedure section 411.35. Boiled down to the basics, the Certificate declares that the attorney consulted with and received an opinion from an expert that a reasonable and meritorious case exists against said design professional. The Certificate must be filed before serving the complaint on any defendant, but can be filed within 60 days under certain circumstances. This rule was recently analyzed against another long-standing rule in California, known as the “relation-back doctrine.” Under the relation-back doctrine, a court will deem a later-filed pleading, such as an amended complaint, to be deemed filed at the time of an earlier complaint. In Curtis Engineering Corp. v. Superior Court of San Diego County, No. D072046, (Cal. Ct. App. 10/23/17), the Fourth Appellate Court considered the interplay between section 411.35 and the relation-back doctrine, holding that a Certificate filed more than 60 days after filing the original pleading does not relate back to the filing of the original pleading. Reprinted courtesy of Steven Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen Tye, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Mr. Tye may be contacted at stye@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California Supreme Court Protects California Policyholders for Intentional Acts of Employees

July 02, 2018 — William S. Bennett – Saxe Doernberger & Vita P.C.
Recently, the California Supreme Court ruled that liability insurers are obligated to cover negligent supervision, hiring, and retention claims against employers resulting from the intentional acts of their employees. The case, Liberty Surplus Insurance v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction, case no. S236765 (2018), involved an insurance coverage dispute between a construction company, Ledesma & Meyer Construction (“L&M”), and its insurers, Liberty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. (“Liberty”) and Liberty Surplus Insurance Corp (“Liberty Surplus”). Liberty was L&M’s primary insurer, while Liberty Surplus had the excess policy. L&M had contracted with the San Bernardino Unified School District to renovate a school building while the school was still in session. In a separate action, another court found that an L&M employee sexually assaulted a 13-year-old student while working at the project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita P.C.
Mr. Bennett may be contacted at wsb@sdvlaw.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES