SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Private Mediations Do Not Toll The Five-Year Prosecution Statute

April 28, 2016 — Zachary P. Marks – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger In Focus
If you thought private mediation could toll the five-year period for case prosecution – think again. In a recent decision handed down by the Second District Court of Appeal, the court unequivocally held that voluntary, private mediations do not toll the five-year period before dismissal for failure to bring an action to trial. California Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310 sets forth the applicable rule: “[a]n action shall be brought to trial within five years after the action is commenced against the defendant.” Section 1775.7(b) clarifies this rule, stating that the five-year period can be tolled if it is “submitted to mediation” within the final six months of the five-year period. However, the Code is silent with respect to the effect of tolling on public versus private mediations. The Court of Appeal addressed this issue in its recent decision entitled Castillo v. DHL Express (USA) (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 1186. Castillo was an employment class action brought by truck drivers against their employers. Plaintiffs argued that the case was “submitted to mediation” within the meaning of Section 1775.7(b) because the court’s Case Management Order reflected the fact that the parties agreed to pursue mediation. Conversely, defendants argued that the Case Management Statement clearly stated that the parties voluntarily agreed to a private mediation, not a court-ordered mediation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Zachary P. Marks, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger In Focus
Mr. Marks may be contacted at zmarks@cgdrblaw.com

---

Consider the Risks Associated with an Exculpatory Clause

November 24, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
An exculpatory clause in a contract is a clause aimed at relieving another party from certain liability. A disclaimer and insulation from liability. Obviously, if you are the party relieving the other party from liability, you want to consider this risk including the potential enforceability of this risk if something goes wrong. If you are the party asking for the insulation from liability, you do not want to create an exculpatory provision that disclaims and insulates you of all liability arising from the contract as it may create an illusory effect – that the agreement is nothing but a naked promise on your end because your promise is fully disclaimed and you are insulated from liability if you break your promise. This could result in an unenforceable contract. The validity of such an exculpatory clause was at-issue in Pier 1 Cruise Experts v. Revelex Corp., 2019 WL 3024618 (11thCir. 2019). Although not a construction dispute, the exculpatory clause in this case was with two fairly sophisticated parties and expressly insulated one of the contracting parties from “any…damages regardless of kind or type…whether in contract, tort (including negligence), or otherwise.” Pier 1 Cruise Experts, 2019 WL at *7. This is a powerful exculpatory clause because it could be broadly construed to insulate that party from its own breaches of the contract. In Florida:

[A]n exculpatory clause is enforceable so long as (1) the contracting parties have equal bargaining power and (2) the clause’s provisions are clear and unambiguous. With respect to the latter requirement, ‘the intention to be relieved from liability [must be] made clear and unequivocal and the wording must be so clear and understandable that an ordinary and knowledgeable person will know what he is contracting away.” In the same vein, exculpatory clauses are ‘strictly construed against the party seeking to be relieved of liability.’ Pier 1 Cruise Experts, 2019 WL at *7 (internal citations omitted).

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Policy Lanuage Expressly Prohibits Replacement of Undamaged Material to Match Damaged Material

March 09, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Construing an all-risk Businessowners Policy, the court found that the policy language did not required replacement of undamaged material match materials that were damaged. Pleasure Creek Townhomes Homeowners' Ass'n v. Am. Family Ins. Co., 2019 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1095 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2019). The policy covered the Association's 14 townhome buildings. In June 2017, a hail storm damaged siding on all 14 buildings. An appraisal panel included the cost to replace the undamaged, faded siding in its appraisal award so that it would match the new siding. American Family refused to pay this component - which was appraised at about $211,382 - of the award. An exclusion in the policy provided,

We will not pay to repair or replace undamaged material due to mismatch between undamaged material and new material used to repair or replace damaged material.

We do not cover the loss in value to an property due to mismatch between undamaged material and new material used to repair or replace damaged material.

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

---

Colorado homebuilders target low-income buyers with bogus "affordable housing" bill

March 05, 2015 — Jesse Howard Witt – Acerbic Witt
“Affordable housing” is the latest catchphrase for Colorado homebuilders seeking immunity from warranty claims and repair requests. In 2013, the homebuilders’ lobby said it was about public transportation. In 2014 they said it was about community building. Now it’s 2015, and the lobbyists are claiming that a lack of affordable housing is the reason why politicians should eliminate consumer protections for homebuyers. The Colorado Senate recently announced the introduction of SB 15-177. If passed, the bill will make it illegal for homeowner associations to hire construction experts or lawyers unless they can first satisfy a complicated disclosure and voting process. Although sponsors portray the bill as an innocuous measure that merely requires more community involvement, its provisions have actually been tailored to take advantage of recent court decisions that make it difficult for homeowner associations to vote on measures outside of a meeting or act quickly to resolve construction defect disputes. The intent is to make it nearly impossible for homeowners to retain construction experts or legal representation before the statute of limitations period expires, thereby making homebuilders immune from any potential claims. The bill will also eliminate the right to a jury trial in many cases, forcing any disputes that overcome the procedural hurdles into costly, private arbitration proceedings. The sponsors argue that these measures are necessary to encourage builders to erect more cheap condominiums. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, The Witt Law Firm
Mr. Witt welcomes comments at www.acerbicwitt.com

---

Modular Homes Test Energy Efficiency Standards

August 06, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Systems Building Research Alliance (SBRA) will be putting three different energy standards to the test, according to Big Builder. Clayton Homes has been selected to build three modular homes, which will be used in a 15-month energy performance test conducted by Southern Energy Homes (SEHomes). Each home will comply with a different standard: “one complies with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) thermal standards, one is an Energy Star-qualified home and one meets the DOE requirements for the Challenge Home Program, also known as a DOE Zero Energy Ready Home.” Testing is expected to be completed July 2015. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Why Construction Law- An Update

May 07, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
Back in 2009, only a year or so after my first post here at Musings, I posted on why I’m in the field of construction law. Well, a lot has happened in the over 5 years since then, not the least of which is my move to solo practice in July of 2010 and the later certification as a mediator. As I sit here, I look back at the passage of time and the events between my last thoughts on this subject and now and wonder if my thoughts have changed? Frankly, not much has changed as far as my attitude toward the practice of construction law. Despite my kids occasionally rolling their eyes when I talk about a case of interest to me and their sometimes moniker for me as a “dirt lawyer,” I continue to find the representation of the construction professionals that I call clients and friends to be fulfilling and worthwhile. Even in the face of criticisms that we lawyers cause more problems that we solve, I firmly believe that I and other good construction lawyers can and do help avoid and anticipate more problems than I cause. As one of the few solo construction attorneys here in the Richmond area, if anything, I am more involved in the construction community. Between my continued and even increased involvement with the AGC of Virginia and my more recent appointment to the board of the Virginia State Bar‘s Construction Law and Public Contracts Section, I have gained even more insight into the workings of the legal and business landscapes of construction. With each new piece of information gained by such involvement, I see another side to the business of construction that I may not have thought of. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Construction Law Musings
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Advice to Georgia Homeowners with Construction Defects

October 02, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
NOLO Press has some advice for Georgia homeowners who have found construction defects. Their first advice is to make certain matters don’t get any worse. They note that the “the builder is not responsible for any damage that occurs to the home after you’ve discovered the problem.” You should keep records of those repairs, since you can’t get reimbursed unless you can prove what you spent. Some problems are covered under builder warranties, but usually only in the first year. But if it’s not covered, or the warranty has expired, NOLO notes that “you might not be out of luck.” The three options under Georgia law are to claim breach of contract, negligent construction, or fraud. NOLO gives the example that if the house was not built according to the plans, the builder might be found guilty of breach of contract. If the builder worked in “a shoddy manner that no other builder would use,” then it might be negligent construction. “If the builder outright lied about the quality or type of materials used,” you might have a claim for fraud. However, NOLO notes that first you must notify the builder. Under Georgia law, you have to inform the builder of the problems 90 days before you can file a lawsuit, and the builder has 30 days in which to respond to your claims. The hope of Georgia’s Right to Repair Act is to avoid a lawsuit and get the house fixed. And that’s always the best result. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

New York Court of Appeals Finds a Proximate Cause Standard in Additional Insured Endorsements

June 15, 2017 — Geoffrey Miller - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In The Burlington Insurance Company v. NYC Transit Authority, et al., No. 2016-00096, the New York Court of Appeals issued a landmark decision with regard to the meaning of “caused, in whole or in part, by” in the additional insured context. In a split decision, the court rejected Burlington Insurance Company’s argument that the language implied a “negligence” standard, but held that coverage was provided to the additional insured only where the named insured’s acts or omissions were the proximate cause of the injury:

While we [the majority] agree with the dissent that interpreting the phrases differently does not compel the conclusion that the endorsement incorporates a negligence requirement, it does compel us to interpret ‘caused, in whole or in part’ to mean more than ‘but for’ causation. That interpretation, coupled with the endorsement’s application to acts or omissions that result in liability, supports our conclusion that proximate cause is required here.[1]

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Geoffrey Miller, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Miller may be contacted at gjm@sdvlaw.com

---