Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Keeping Detailed Records: The Best Defense to Constructive Eviction

October 24, 2023 — Ben T. Welch & Ken Brown - Snell & Wilmer
Inevitably, commercial property owners and managers will be faced with a claim by a tenant of constructive eviction. This article is intended to describe what constructive eviction is and to suggest what owners and managers can do to prepare for, and ward off, such claims. Constructive eviction occurs where a tenant’s “right of possession and enjoyment” of the leasehold is disrupted by the landlord in a manner that renders the premises “unsuitable for the purposes intended.”i Put another way, it is interference that is so “substantial nature and so injurious as to deprive the tenant of the beneficial enjoyment of a part or the whole of the demised premises.”ii Although easy to describe in theory, constructive eviction can be devilishly difficult to determine in the real world. In litigation, determining when interference crosses over the line to constructive eviction is intensely fact-sensitive and resists sweeping generalizations.iii For instance, Utah courts have held that tenants have been constructively evicted when they have been subjected to continual harassment or insults by the landlord or the landlord’s agent,iv prevented or impaired in their access to the leased premises during operating hours,v or when a landlord fails to provide an operable elevator (or other essential commercial amenities) necessary for a tenant’s business operations.vi By contrast, claims of “discomfort” or “inconvenience” have been rejected as a basis for constructive eviction.vii The same goes for claims that a landlord wrongfully served a three-day notice to pay or quit.viii Generally, constructive eviction is an affirmative defense made in response to a landlord’s lawsuit for nonpayment of rent.ix It is not, as is commonly supposed, a basis for a tenant’s premature abandonment of the premises. In other words, the defense is raised after the tenant has vacated as a result of being effectively “evicted.”x Further, the defense requires the tenant to actually abandon the premises and do so within a “reasonable time” after the alleged interference.xi A tenant cannot stay in possession and simply refuse to pay rent on the basis of constructive eviction.xii The key consideration in preparing for, and responding to, a claim of constructive eviction is keeping good records. A tenant claiming constructive evicting likely must prove that the issue was raised in a timely manner and, despite multiple entreaties, was never resolved.xiii As such, it is critical that landlords acknowledge tenant complaints as well as document in writing their efforts to ameliorate those complaints. While a landlord does not carry the burden of proof for constructive eviction, detailed documentation can thwart a tenant’s claim that a landlord has been inattentive or unwilling to address the tenant’s concerns. Detailed records are also useful in disputes where a tenant claims substantial interference. “The whole point of constructive eviction is that the landlord basically drove the tenant out through the landlord’s action or inaction.”xiv As such, a landlord that is unable to document the steps taken in response to complaints will be grossly disadvantaged whereas the tenant, which had control and knowledge of the premises, will have a much easier time describing how the alleged interference deprived them of enjoying the premises. Even with meticulous records, however, owners and managers may still face claims of construction eviction. In such instances, counsel should be retained to properly advise on compiling, preserving, and employing the evidence necessary to refute the tenant’s claims. i Gray v. Oxford Worldwide Grp., Inc., 139 P.3d 267, 269 (Utah Ct. App. 2006). ii Gray, 139 P.3d at 270 (citing Neslen, 254 P.2d at 850) (internal formatting omitted). iii See Gray, 139 P.3d at 269–70 (citing Thirteenth & Washington Sts. Corp. v. Neslen, 254 P.2d 847, 850 (Utah 1953)); Brugger v. Fonoti, 645 P.2d 647, 648 (Utah 1982). iv See Gray, 139 P.3d at 270–71. v Thirteenth & Washington Sts. Corp. v. Neslen, 254 P.2d 847 (Utah 1953). vi See Richard Barton Enterprises, Inc. v. Tsern, 928 P.2d 368, 375, 378 (Utah 1996) (citing Union City Union Suit Co. v. Miller, 162 A.D.2d 101, 556 N.Y.S.2d 864 (1990)). vii See Myrah v. Campbell, 163 P.3d 679, 682–84 (Utah Ct. App. 2007). viii Barton v. MTB Enterprises, 889 P.2d 476, 477 (Utah Ct. App. 1995); see also Brugger, 645 P.2d at 648 (stating that the tenant’s complaints revolved around standard problems commonly associated with building maintenance and did not rise to the level of substantial interference); viv Reid v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 776 P.2d 896, 898–900 (Utah 1989) (upholding trial court’s findings of fact concerning insufficiency of disruption so as to justify claim for constructive eviction). ix See Kenyon v. Regan, 826 P.2d 140, 142 (Utah Ct. App. 1992). x See Kenyon, 826 P.2d at 142. xi See Kenyon, 826 P.2d at 142; see also Barton v. MTB Enterprises, Inc., 889 P.2d 476, 477 (Utah Ct. App. 1995); Brugger, 645 P.2d at 648. xii See Kenyon, 826 P.2d at 142 (citing Fernandez v. Purdue, 518 P.2d 684, 686 (Utah 1974)). xiii See Brugger, 645 P.2d at 648 (noting that while the tenant had raised legitimate issues concerning state of the premises, the landorld had taken steps to remedy the problems within a reasonable time) (citing 49 Am.Jur.2d, Landlord and Tenant, § 617). xiv Barton, 889 P.2d at 477. Reprinted courtesy of Ben T. Welch, Snell & Wilmer and Ken Brown, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Welch may be contacted at bwelch@swlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Strikes a Deathblow to Substantial Factor Causation in Most Cases; Is Asbestos Litigation Next?

March 22, 2021 — Christian J. Singewald, Rochelle Gumapac & Timothy J. Keough - White and Williams LLP
In Doull v. Foster, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) addressed the proper causation standard in a medical malpractice case. In reaching this issue, the SJC reached far beyond the medical malpractice case before it. The SJC concluded that the substantial factor test for causation, which had been regularly employed in the Commonwealth for decades, was “unnecessarily confusing.” In doing so, the SJC effectively ended the use of the substantial factor test in all negligence cases going forward, except in toxic tort litigation. However, the SJC openly questioned its usefulness in toxic tort litigation and all but welcomed a direct challenge to its use there. Reprinted courtesy of Christian J. Singewald, White and Williams LLP, Rochelle Gumapac, White and Williams LLP and Timothy J. Keough, White and Williams LLP Mr. Singewald may be contacted at singewaldc@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Gumapac may be contacted at gumapacr@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Keough may be contacted at keought@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

U.K. Construction Unexpectedly Strengthens for a Second Month

March 05, 2015 — Bloomberg News
(Bloomberg) -- U.K. construction growth unexpectedly accelerated for a second month in February, led by a strengthening in homebuilding. Markit Economics said its Purchasing Managers’ Index rose to 60.1, the highest in four months, from 59.1 in January. It fell to a 17-month low of 57.6 in December. Economists forecast the gauge would slip to 59 in February, according to the median estimate in a Bloomberg News survey. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg News
Scott Hamilton may be contacted at shamilton8@bloomberg.net

Mendocino Hospital Nearing Completion

December 04, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Frank R. Howard Memorial Hospital is well underway on its plans to move to a larger facility. The new building in Willits, California, will be more than twice the size of the old building at 74,000 square feet. Construction has reached the halfway point after just over three months of construction. Despite that, plans are to put the facility into use in January 2015. The general contractor for the project is HBE Corporation. Rick Bockmann, HBE’s chief executive officer, said that the hospital was “on schedule and on budget.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Killer Subcontract Provisions

January 20, 2020 — Patrick McNamara - Porter Law Group
We are frequently requested by subcontractor clients to review the subcontract that has been prepared by the prime contractor, before our client signs it. While no two agreements are identical, there are a number of problematic contract provisions that appear in many agreements. Here is a list of ten such provisions (and their variations) that are potential “deal breakers”:

PAY IF/WHEN PAID (e.g. “Contractor shall have the right to exhaust all legal remedies, including appeals, prior to having an obligation to pay Subcontractor.”) “Pay-if-paid” provisions (“Receipt of payment from Owner shall be a condition precedent to Contractor’s duty to pay Subcontractor”) are illegal in California. However, the only legal limit on “Pay-When-Paid” provisions is that payment must be made “within a reasonable time.” The example above, as written, essentially affords the prime contractor a period of several years following completion of the project before that contractor has an independent duty to pay its subcontractors – not a “reasonable” amount of time, to those waiting to be paid. A compromise is to provide a time limit, such as 6 months or one year following substantial completion of the project.
CROSS-PROJECT SET-OFF (e.g. “In the event of disputes or default by Subcontractor, Contractor shall have the right to withhold sums due Subcontractor on this Project and on any other project on which Subcontractor is performing work for Contractor.”) Such provisions are problematic and likely unenforceable, as they potentially bar subcontractors’ lien rights. Such provisions should be deleted.
CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY FOR DESIGN QUALITY (e.g. “Subcontractor warrants that the Work shall comply with all applicable laws, codes, statutes, standards, and ordinances.”) Unless a subcontractor’s scope of work expressly includes design work, this provision should either be deleted or modified, with the addition of the following phrase: “Subcontractor shall not be responsible for conformance of the design of its work to applicable laws, codes, statutes, standards, and ordinances.”

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Patrick McNamara, Porter Law Group
Mr. McNamara may be contacted at pmcnamara@porterlaw.com

California Supreme Court Finds that When it Comes to Intentional Interference Claims, Public Works Projects are Just Different, Special Even

April 20, 2017 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Earlier, we reported on a California Court of Appeals decision – Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. v. American Asphalt South, Inc. – which held for the first time that a second-place bidder on a public works contract could sue a winning bidder who failed to pay its workers prevailing wages, under the business tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. Fast forward nearly two years, several amicus briefs, and “one doghouse”* later and the California Supreme Court has . . . reversed. The Roy Allan Slurry Seal Case To catch you up, or rather, refresh your recollection . . . Between 2009 and 2012, American Asphalt South, Inc. was awarded 23 public works contracts totaling more than $14.6 million throughout Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and San Diego counties. Two of the losing bidders on those projects – Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. and Doug Martin Contracting, Inc. – sued American in each of these counties for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage as well as under the Unfair Practices Act (“UPA”) (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17000 et seq.) and the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) (Bus. & Prof. Code §17200). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

The Contingency Fee Multiplier (For Insurance Coverage Disputes)

September 10, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The contingency fee multiplier: a potential incentive for taking a case on contingency, such as an insurance coverage dispute, where the insured sues his/her/its insurer on a contingency fee basis. In a recent property insurance coverage dispute, Citizens Property Ins. Corp. v. Agosta, 43 Fla.L.Weekly, D1934b (Fla. 3d DCA 2018), the trial court awarded the insured’s counsel a contingency fee multiplier of two times the amount of reasonable attorney’s fees. The insurer appealed. The Third District affirmed the contingency fee multiplier. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Denver Parking Garage Roof Collapses Crushing Vehicles

February 12, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
On Monday night, a parking garage ceiling collapsed at the Park Mayfair Condos in Denver, Colorado, according to KKTV News. Residents claim that “between five and ten vehicles were completely destroyed after the ceiling of the underground garage caved in.” No one was injured from the incident. Structural engineers have not commented “yet on how the collapse occurred, but residents told sister station KCNC that the ceiling fell after a cement beam holding up one side of the roof collapsed.” According to KWGN News, FOX31 interviewed a “passerby” who alleged that he lived in the condominium five years ago, but moved out “because inspectors repeatedly sent notices to fix problems with the garage, but, to his knowledge, no action was taken by the condo complex.” Read the full story at KKTV News... Read the full story at KWGN News... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES