Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Utah Digs Deep and Finds “Design Defect” Includes Pre-Construction Geotechnical Reports

November 19, 2021 — Kyle Rice - The Subrogation Specialist
The Supreme Court of Utah recently found that an incorrect pre-construction geotechnical engineering report is a “defective design.” Thus, actions arising from an incorrect geotechnical report are appropriately governed by Utah’s Economic Loss Statute (Statute), Utah Code Ann. § 78B-4-513(1). Hayes v. Intermountain GeoEnvironmental Servs. No. 20190764, 2021 UT 62, 2021 Utah Lexis 144, arose out of a suit filed by homeowners Kim and Nancy Hayes (the Hayeses). The Hayeses’ home was part of the Quail Hollow subdivision in Layton, Utah, which was developed by K.C. Halls Construction, Inc. (K.C. Halls). Prior to construction, K.C. Halls contracted with Intermountain GeoEnvironmental Services, Inc. (IGES) for a geotechnical report of the planned development to comply with the requirements of Layton City. The report found that “the subject site is suitable for the proposed construction” and made recommendations to ensure foundational integrity for future construction. The Hayeses ultimately purchased a lot from an agent for K.C. Halls and hired Bob Stevenson (Stevenson) to construct the home. About 14 months after the completion of construction, the Hayeses noticed cracking in their foundation walls. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kyle Rice, White and Williams
Mr. Rice may be contacted at ricek@whiteandwilliams.com

Julie Firestone & Francois Ecclesiaste Recognized as 2023 MSBA North Star Lawyers

July 15, 2024 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
Minneapolis, Minn. (June 11, 2024) - Minneapolis Partners Julie Firestone and Francois Ecclesiaste were recently named to the Minnesota State Bar Association (MSBA) 2023 North Star Lawyers list, which recognizes attorneys who provide pro bono service to people of low income at no fee. All attorneys who were recognized by MSBA provided 50 hours or more of pro bono service to low-income Minnesotans last year. MSBA has a long-standing dedication to advancing the Bars’ pro bono efforts through training, recruiting, and sharing pro bono stories in the community. “Lewis Brisbois has a long-standing commitment to serving our local communities, including through our pro bono practice, and we are proud of our partners who exemplify this core value of our Firm,” expressed Michelle Gilboe, Managing Partner of the Minneapolis office. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

TLSS Partner Burks Smith and Associate Katie Keller Win Summary Judgment on Late Reported Water Seepage Case in South Florida

November 18, 2019 — Burks A. Smith, III & Kathryn Keller - Traub Lieberman
On July 9, 2019, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP Partner, Burks A. Smith, III and Associate, Kathryn A. Keller, secured Summary Judgment on behalf of a major homeowners’ insurer in a breach of contract action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. See Lehrfield v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 2019 WL2994270 (S.D. Fla. 2019). The underlying claim involved a water loss at the Plaintiffs’ residence allegedly resulting in $91,147.32 worth of damage to their home. The claim was reported eight (8) months after the alleged date of loss, and during the inspection, the adjuster observed rot, decay, mold, and warping wood, prompting the carrier to deny the claim based on the Seepage Endorsement. The Plaintiffs filed a breach of contract action alleging that the insurer breached the Policy by denying the claim. Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller argued that Plaintiffs’ Policy with the insurer imposes a duty on the Plaintiffs to comply with the Duties After Loss conditions of the Policy, including the requirement to provide prompt notice of the loss and show the damaged property. As mentioned above, the Plaintiffs provided notice of the claim eight (8) months late, and performed various repairs prior to notifying the insurer of the claim. After the close of discovery, Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of the insurer based on the late reporting, and further argued that the Plaintiffs had the burden of proving direct physical loss to property within the first 13 days of the loss, given the recent decision of Hicks v. American Integrity Insurance Company of Florida, 241 So.3d 925 (Fla. 3d DCA 1018). In Florida, when an insured fails to comply with their Duties After Loss, a presumption of prejudice to the insurer arises. Bankers Ins. Co. v. Macias, 475 So. 2d 1216, 1218 (Fla. 1985)). In order to recover, the Plaintiffs bear the burden of overcoming the presumption, and must prove that no prejudice existed. Id. Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller’s comprehensive arguments successfully proved to the Court that the Plaintiffs’ failure to timely report the claim prejudiced the insurer by prohibiting the insurer from being able to independently validate the loss, or distinguish between multiple causes of loss. Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller further argued that Plaintiffs did not meet their burden to prove that the insurer was not prejudiced by the Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the Duties After Loss provision of the Policy. The Motion cited numerous cases and extensive analysis supporting the insurer’s position. Reprinted courtesy of Burks A. Smith, III, Traub Lieberman and Kathryn Keller, Traub Lieberman Mr. Smith, may be contacted at bsmith@tlsslaw.com Ms. Keller may be contacted at kkeller@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

1st District Joins 2nd District Court of Appeals and Holds that One-Year SOL Applies to Disgorgement Claims

June 14, 2021 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
We’re beginning to see a trend. This past year, the 2nd District Court of Appeals, in Eisenberg Village of the Los Angeles Jewish Home for the Aging v. Suffolk Construction Company, 53 Cal.App.5th 1201 (2020), held for the first time that a one (1) year statute of limitations period beginning upon substantial completion of a project applies to disgorgement claims under Business and Professions Code section 7031. In San Francisco CDC LLC v. Webcor Construction L.P., the 1st District Court of Appeals became the second Court of Appeals in the state to hold that a one (1) year statute of limitations beginning upon completion or cessation of work on a project applies to disgorgement claims under Business and Professions Code section 7031. The San Francisco CDC LLC Case The Defect Action In September 2005, San Francisco CDC LLC entered into a $144 million construction contract with Webcor Construction, Inc. doing business as Webcor Builders to build the InterContinental Hotel in San Francisco, California. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Oregon Supreme Court Confirms Broad Duty to Defend

January 13, 2017 — Theresa A. Guertin - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Blog
The Supreme Court of Oregon issued a decision at the end of last year which perfectly illustrates the lengths to which a court may go to grant a contractor’s claim for defense from its insurer in a construction defect suit. In West Hills Development Co. v. Chartis Claims, Inc.,1 the Court held that a subcontractor’s insurer had a duty to defend a general contractor as an additional insured because the allegations of a homeowner’s association’s complaint could be interpreted to fall within the ambit of coverage provided under the policy—despite the fact that the policy only provided ongoing operations coverage, and despite the fact that the subcontractor was never mentioned in the complaint. The decision is favorable to policyholders but also provides an important lesson: that contractors may avoid additional insured disputes if those contractors have solid contractual insurance requirements for both ongoing and completed operations risks. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Guertin may be contacted at tag@sdvlaw.com

2019 Promotions - New Partners at Haight

January 15, 2019 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Haight proudly announces the promotion of Renata Hoddinott, Sarah Marsey and Annette Mijianovic to Partner in January 2019. Renata and Sarah joined Haight’s San Francisco office in 2016. Renata relocated from a litigation firm in the Los Angeles area. She focuses her practice on professional liability, general liability, risk management & insurance law and transportation law. Before coming to Haight, Sarah was with a respected trial firm in Anchorage, Alaska. She handles a variety of complex matters in appellate law, food safety, construction law and general liability. Annette has been with Haight’s Los Angeles office for almost 12 years. Annette joined the firm as a summer clerk in 2007 and has continued to build her practice handling cases related to commercial litigation, products liability and transportation law. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Renata L. Hoddinott, Sarah A. Marsey and Annette F. Mijanovic Ms. Hoddinott may be contacted at rhoddinott@hbblaw.com Ms. Marsey may be contacted at smarsey@hbblaw.com Ms. Mijanovic may be contacted at amijanovic@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Does the Implied Warranty of Habitability Extend to Subsequent Purchasers? Depends on the State

October 08, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Attorneys for Traub Liberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP (in JD Supra Business Advisor), discussed how state courts have come to different conclusions as to “whether a subsequent purchaser of a previously inhabited residence can recover contract damages from a builder or general contractor for breach of the implied warranty of habitability.” Recently, a Pennsylvania “sided with the builder, holding that the implied warranty of habitability was grounded in contract law. Thus, the Court reasoned that an action for breach of the implied warranty of habitability required a showing of contractual privity between the parties. Because there was no contractual privity between the Conways and the builder, the Conways could not pursue an action against the builder based on a breach of the implied warranty of habitability.” However, other state courts have made other conclusions. “Iowa permits an action for breach of the implied warranty of workmanlike construction by subsequent purchasers and does not require a showing of contractual privity. Rhode Island also does not require contractual privity, but limits liability to latent defects discovered within 10 years of construction.” Vermont and Connecticut, however, require contract privity. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Endorsement Excludes Replacement of Undamaged Property with Matching Materials

August 20, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court approved the insurer's endorsement which stated the insured would not pay for undamaged property in order to match damaged property. Noonan v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 15545 (May 24, 2019). After hail and wind damaged part of the roof in the insureds' home, American Family inspected the roof and determined that it had suffered $12,000 in damage. The insureds disputed this amount and demanded an appraisal to provide a binding estimate of the amount of loss. American Family asked the appraisers to divide their estimate into two categories - one for replacing damaged shingles and another for replacing undamaged shingles that would not match those needed to replace the damaged ones. The appraisers did not do so. They instead found that replacing the entire roof would cost $141,000 and noted there was a matching issue because alternative products did not match the current shingles on the roof. Of the $141,000 needed to replace the entire roof, American Family estimated that $87,232.98 was due to the costs of matching. The insureds sued. The district court remanded the case to the appraisers to clarify the award by differentiating the costs attributable to the actual roof damage from those attributable to shingle matching. The appraisers clarified the award and reported that actual damages were $66,619, meaning that $74,381 was attributable to matching. American Family then paid the actual damages, less the deductible, but refused to pay the rest. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES