SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

DA’s Office Checking Workers Comp Compliance

February 10, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The San Bernardino office of the California District Attorney is partnering with the California Contractor’s State License Board to check if subcontractors are holding the required workers compensation insurance. The High Desert Daily Press reports that the process of checking at sites has been going on for several months.



Investigators visit sites and ask supervisors to provide a list of subcontractors which the state then checks for compliance. One worker was quoted that insurance inspections were so rare that he had never seen one before, despite 20 years in construction.



On one day, investigators in two teams visited fourteen construction sites and reviewed the insurance status of twenty-two firms. Three were found out of compliance and stop work orders were issued.

Read the full story…

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

---

Court Makes an Unsettling Inference to Find that the Statute of Limitations Bars Claims Arising from a 1997 Northridge Earthquake Settlement

April 15, 2015 — David W. Evans and Stephen J. Squillario – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Britton v. Girardi (No. B249232 – Filed 4/1/2015), the Second Appellate District upheld the trial court’s dismissal due to the statute of limitations based on an inference it drew from a letter attached to the complaint, while reaffirming its prior application of the limitations period in Probate Code section 16460 for fraud claims in the related case of Prakashpalan v. Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack (2/27/2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1105. In Britton, just as in Prakashpalan, the plaintiffs sued the attorneys who had represented them in connection with claims against their insurer arising out of the Northridge earthquake. In 1997, the attorneys had settled that litigation for more than $100 million. The plaintiffs allege that the attorneys breached their fiduciary duty by (1) failing to provide an accounting for the settlement, (2) failing to obtain their informed consent to the settlement, and (3) concealing their misappropriation of the settlement funds. They claim that they did not discover this wrongdoing until nearly fifteen years later, in 2012, when the Prakashpalans contacted them about their settlement. Significantly, the plaintiffs attached as an exhibit to the complaint a page of the November 3, 1997 letter to the Prakashpalans (rather than the plaintiffs), which stated that a retired judge who presided over the settlement had determined the allocations and the attorneys could not distribute the proceeds until the plaintiffs signed the “Master Settlement Agreement” by which the plaintiffs agreed to its terms and to give up all claims against the insurer. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Citigroup Reaches $1.13 Billion Pact Over Mortgage Bonds

April 09, 2014 — Dakin Campbell – Bloomberg
Citigroup Inc. (C) agreed to pay $1.13 billion to settle claims from mortgage-bond investors as it seeks to curb liabilities tied to the financial crisis. It took a $100 million first-quarter charge. The 68 securitization trusts covered by the settlement issued a combined $59.4 billion in mortgage-backed securities from 2005 to 2008, the New York-based bank said yesterday in a statement. The agreement covers 18 investors represented by Gibbs & Bruns LLP and trustees have until June 30 to accept the deal, the law firm said in a separate statement. The accord must be approved by the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Citigroup, the third-biggest U.S. bank, is resolving a portion of liabilities tied to mortgages it packaged and sold to investors in the run-up to the 2008 crisis. JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) and Bank of America Corp. (BAC), the two largest U.S. lenders, previously agreed to multibillion-dollar settlements with Gibbs & Bruns clients. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dakin Campbell, Bloomberg
Mr. Campbell may be contacted at dcampbell27@bloomberg.net

---

No Coverage for Building's First Collapse, But Disputed Facts on Second Collapse

January 10, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii

While building's first collapse was not covered, there were disputed facts regarding the second collapse, leading to a reversal of the order granting summary judgment to the insurer on both collapses. Intergroup Int'l Ltd. v. Cincinnati Ins. Cos, 2017 Ohio app. LEXIS 5099 (Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2017). Intergroup bought a building after it was inspected. While leaks on the roof were repaired and a roof truss that was sagging was replaced, the inspector found the roof to be in good shape.

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

---

Court Affirms Summary Adjudication of Bad Faith Claim Where Expert Opinions Raised a Genuine Dispute

July 06, 2020 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In 501 East 51st Street etc. v. Kookmin Best Ins. Co., Ltd. (No. B293605, filed 4/2/20, ordered pub. 4/16/20), a California appeals court affirmed summary adjudication and dismissal of a bad faith claim based on the genuine dispute doctrine. 501 East 51st Street Long-Beach-10, LLC (501) was the owner of a 10-unit apartment complex, insured by Kookmin Best. In 2017, an underground water main alongside the building burst which, according to 501, caused the building to move and crack. 501 made a claim and supplied a geotechnical report finding cracks in the foundation walls, cracks in the stucco and significant floor deformation and tilting near the water leak. The engineer’s opinion concluded that that “existing building distress was substantially contributed to by the water main break. The water introduced to the soil medium appears to have triggered differential foundation movement causing the stress features to develop.” Kookmin retained its own engineers to investigate, who returned an opinion that the leak had exacerbated long-term pre-existing settlement which would continue. Under the policy, damage to the building caused by earth movement and settlement were excluded, but water damage resulting from an “accidental discharge” of water was covered. Kookmin then obtained an opinion from coverage counsel, who opined that only damage allocable to the water leak would be covered. 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

---

Appeal of an Attorney Disqualification Order Results in Partial Automatic Stay of Trial Court Proceedings

October 11, 2017 — Howard M. Garfield & Renata L. Hoddinott - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In URS Corporation v. Atkinson/Walsh Joint Venture (No. G055271 filed September 26, 2017), Division Three of the Fourth Appellate District dealt with, for the first time, the question of whether an appeal of an attorney disqualification order results in an automatic stay of the trial proceedings and, if so, how far the automatic stay extends. The underlying action involved a construction dispute between a contractor and subcontractor. During the pendency of that action, one party’s counsel filed a motion to disqualify another party’s counsel based on an alleged misuse of mediation-privilege protected documents. The trial court granted the disqualification motion and the disqualified counsel promptly filed a notice of appeal. The trial court then denied an application to stay proceedings pending the appeal, rejecting the assertion that the appeal automatically stayed the underlying proceedings. Reprinted courtesy of Howard M. Garfield, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Renata L. Hoddinott, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Garfield may be contacted at hgarfield@hbblaw.com Ms. Hoddinott may be contacted at rhoddinott@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Don’t Kick the Claim Until the End of the Project: Timely Give Notice and Preserve Your Claims on Construction Projects

December 10, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
For this week’s Guest Post Friday, we welcome Tara L. Chadbourn. Tara is an attorney with ReavesColey PLLC in Chesapeake, VA, where she concentrates her practice on construction law, litigation and commercial litigation. Tara counsels owners, contractors, subcontractors and materials suppliers in various government and commercial construction matters. Tara can be reached at tara.chadbourn@reavescoley.com. You may have experienced and have certainly heard of the scenario in which a contractor waits to address a claim as part of project closeout, only to realize the applicable deadline has already passed. While there may have been discussions about claims during the course of the project, contractors cannot rely upon oral conversations about outstanding claims. Instead, contractors must be vigilant in satisfying notice requirements and preserving claims. While entitlement must still be proven, a contractor’s chances of recovery increase greatly if the contractor abides by notice requirements and consciously preserves claims in the following ways. Contractors Must Acquaint Themselves with Contractual Notice Provisions: Many prime and subcontract agreements contain stringent notice provisions that require the contractor to give notice within a certain time period or else the claim is expressly waived. The deadline for notice is often only a few days after the occurrence giving rise to the claim or the contractor becoming aware of the claim. To avoid waiver, contractors must carefully review their contracts for provisions requiring notice of a claims for adjustment for a variety of situations to include unforeseen site conditions, trade sequencing changes, project delay or scope of work changes. 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

---

Reminder: The Devil is in the Mechanic’s Lien Details

February 16, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
As readers of Construction Law Musings are well aware, mechanic’s liens and their picky and at times overly form oriented nature are near and dear to my heart as a construction attorney here in Virginia. I recently had the opportunity to meet this head on in Hanover County, Virginia Circuit Court. I was defending a suit to enforce a mechanic’s lien in the context of a lien that had been released pursuant to a bond deposited with the court under Va. Code 43-71 on behalf of my client, the defendant in that suit. The case, G.H. Watts Construction, Inc. v. Cornerstone Builders, LLC, involved a memorandum of lien recorded by G. H. Watts without the assistance of an attorney in which the claimant was identified as “G. H. Watts Construction, Inc.” while the signatory on the memorandum of lien and the claimant identified in the notary block were identified as “Gary H. Watts” and “Gary Watts” respectively. Nowhere on the memorandum was Gary Watts’ capacity as it related to the company, nor did it state that Gary Watts was an agent for claimant. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---