SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

“But it’s 2021!” Service of Motion to Vacate Via Email Found Insufficient by the Eleventh Circuit

June 21, 2021 — Justin K. Fortescue - White and Williams
While we are all getting used to the “new normal” of working remotely and relying on emails for almost all communications, a recent decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit provides arbitration practitioners with a stark reminder – the “notice” requirements of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) will be strictly enforced and providing notice of a motion to vacate via email may not qualify as proper service. In O'Neal Constructors, LLC v. DRT Am., LLC, 991 F.3d 1376 (11th Cir. 2021), O’Neal Constructors, LLC (O’Neal) and DRT America (DRT) entered into a contract containing an arbitration provision. Following a dispute, the parties went to arbitration and, on January 7, 2019, the panel issued an award requiring DRT to pay O’Neal a total of $1,415,193. The amount awarded to O’Neal consisted of two parts: $765,102 for the underlying contract dispute and $650,090 for reimbursement of O’Neal’s attorneys’ fees. While DRT paid O’Neal the first portion of the award, DRT refused to pay the portion that related to O’Neal’s attorneys’ fees. On April 4, 2019, as a result of DRT’s refusal to pay O’Neal’s attorneys’ fees, O’Neal filed a motion to confirm the award in Georgia state court (which was subsequently removed to the Northern District of Georgia). The next day, in a separate action, DRT filed a motion to vacate the attorneys’ fees portion of the award and, that same night, DRT’s counsel emailed O’Neal’s counsel a “courtesy copy” of DRT’s memorandum in support of the motion to vacate. A few weeks later, on April 30, 2019 (i.e., more than three months after the award was issued), DRT served O’Neal (via U.S. Marshall) with a copy of the motion to vacate. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Justin Fortescue, White and Williams
Mr. Fortescue may be contacted at fortescuej@whiteandwilliams.com

---

CDJ’s #3 Topic of the Year: Burch v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 223 Cal.App.4th 1411 (2014)

December 31, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In 2013, the case Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC received a great deal of attention for its possible ramifications to how California’s Right to Repair Act (also known as SB 800) could be applied. However, 2014 had its share of SB 800 policy trends, most notably caused by the ruling in Burch. In their article, “Construction Law Client Alert: California’s Right to Repair Act (SB 800) Takes Another Hit, Then Fights Back,” authors Steven M. Cvitanovic and Whitney L. Stefco, of Haight Brown & Bonesteel, analyzed Burch as well as KB Home Greater Los Angeles v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, et al., both cases that had ramifications on how California’s Right to Repair Act is applied. Read the full story... Karen L. Moore of Low, Ball & Lynch discussed the Liberty Mutual and Burch cases in her article, “California’s Right to Repair Act is Not a Homeowner’s Exclusive Remedy when Construction Defects cause Actual Property Damage.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Big Builder’s Analysis of the Top Ten Richest Counties

June 26, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Big Builder took Forbes’ 2014 top ten richest U.S. counties list (based on household median income) and researched who the top builders were in those regions, buyer requirements, among other categories. The top three richest counties according to Forbes and Big Builder are Falls Church, Virginia; Loudoun County, Virginia; and Los Alamos County, New Mexico. Information listed for each county include the median-closing price, price per square foot, living square feet, top builders, and an examination of what makes each region unique. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Just Because You Record a Mechanic’s Lien Doesn’t Mean You Get Notice of Foreclosure

September 15, 2016 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
As longtime (or new readers for that matter) know, mechanic’s liens are near and dear to my heart here at Construction Law Musings. These powerful tools to collect for your hard work on a construction project are great when prepared and recorded in the very specific fashion required by the Virginia legislature and courts. In most situations, if done properly, a mechanic’s lien gives you some security and priority for your construction claim that you would not have with a simple judgment lien. Despite the power of a properly perfected and enforced mechanic’s lien (and the fact that the end result of a full mechanic’s lien suit that remains unsettled is in fact a foreclosure), a recent case in the Eastern District of Virginia, Weinberg v. J.P. Morgan Chase, et. al., (thanks for the head’s up on this case to the folks at the Construction Payment Blog) held that under Virginia statute mechanic’s lien holders are not entitled to notice of foreclosure. In the Weinberg case, the plaintiff, a pro se lien claimant that recorded two different liens, one pre-foreclosure and one post-foreclosure, and who had not received notice of the intervening foreclosure, argued, among other things, that he should have been given notice of the foreclosure on the deed of trust on the property by J. P. Morgan Chase. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Colorado House Bill 17-1279 – A Misguided Attempt at Construction Defect Reform

March 29, 2017 — David McClain - Colorado Construction Litigation
On March 17th, House Bill 17-1279, concerning the requirement that a unit owners’ association obtain approval through a vote of unit owners before filing a construction defect action, was introduced and assigned to the House State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee. The bill is currently scheduled for its first committee hearing on March 29th, at 1:30 in the afternoon. While, on its face, this appears to be a step in the right direction towards instituting “informed consent” before an HOA can file a construction defect action, the bill actually restricts the ability of developer to include more stringent requirements in the declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions for an association, thereby lowing the threshold of “consent” required to institute an action. House Bill 17-1279 would amend C.R.S. § 38-33.3-303.5 to require an association’s executive board to mail or deliver written notice of the anticipated commencement of a construction defect action to each unit owner and to call a meeting of the unit owners to consider whether to bring such an action. Any construction professional against which a claim may attend the unit owners’ meeting and have an opportunity to address the unit owners and may include an offer to remedy any defect in accordance with C.R.S. § 13-20-803.5(3). The conclusion of the meeting would initiate a 120-day voting period, during which period the running of any applicable statutes of limitation or repose would be tolled. Pursuant to this bill, an executive board may only institute a construction defect action only if authorized by a simple majority of the unit owners, not including: 1) any unit owned by any construction professional, or affiliate of a construction professional, involved in the design, construction, or repair of any portion of the project; 2) any unit owned by a banking institution; 3) any unit owned in which no defects are alleged to exist, and/or 4) any unit owned by an individual deemed “nonresponsive.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

---

South Carolina Legislature Redefining Occurrences to Include Construction Defects in CGL Policies

April 01, 2011 — Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFF

The question of what circumstances must be in place for construction defects to be covered in a general commercial liability (CGL) policies is being raised by the courts and the legislature in South Carolina. The Insurance Journal reports that the American Insurance Association as well as the Property and Casualty Insurers Association of America are speaking out on the issue.

The problem seems to be centered on what defines an “occurrence.” CGL policies were not meant to cover faulty workmanship, according to the filing by the South Carolina Supreme Court. In January of this year, the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the ruling in Crossmann Communities v Harleysville Mutual declaring that “Respondents cannot show the damage here was the result of an occurrence. Rather, the damage was a direct result and the natural and expected consequence of faulty workmanship; faulty workmanship did not cause an occurrence resulting in damage.” They focused their attention on the word “accident,” stating that there is a fortuity element that is not diminished.



The South Carolina legislature reacted by producing a bill that would add new language directly negating the ruling by the Supreme Court. The South Carolina bill S-431 would change the definition of an occurrence in regards to construction defects as follows: “For a liability insurance policy issued to a construction professional, an ‘occurrence’ means, at a minimum: (1) an accident; or (2) continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful condition or substance. No additional requirement of a fortuitous event is needed to constitute an ‘occurrence.’”



S-431 is currently residing in the House Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.



Read the full story...

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

---

Appeals Court Rules that Vertical and Not Horizontal Exhaustion Applies to Primary and First-Layer Excess Insurance

August 31, 2020 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Santa Fe Braun v. Ins. Co. of North America (No. A151428, filed 7/13/20), a California appeals court relied on Montrose Chemical Corp. of California v. Superior Court (2020) 9 Cal.5th 215 (Montrose III), to hold that absent express policy wording to the contrary, horizontal exhaustion of all primary insurance is not required in order to trigger first-layer excess coverage. Beginning in 1992, Braun was sued for asbestos injuries from refineries it constructed and maintained. Braun had primary coverage and multiple layers of excess coverage for the relevant time period. After defending for years, the primary insurers reached a settlement under which they paid their limits into a trust which would fund the ongoing defense and settlements. Certain of the excess insurers settled and also contributed to the trust. 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

---

2021 California Construction Law Update

December 29, 2020 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
This Christmas looks to be a Blue Christmas as the nation grapples with rising infection, hospitalization and death rates due to COVID. But there’s always 2021 to look forward to, which, of course, also means new laws impacting the construction industry. Due to COVID there were two unscheduled breaks during the second half of the 2019-2020 legislative session as legislators sheltered-in-place. As a result, there were fewer bills introduced and enacted than in previous legislative session. A total of 2,223 bills were introduced in 2020 compared to 2,625 bills in 2019, of which 428 bills made it to the Governor’s desk, and 372 were signed into law. Among the bills signed into law were bills, unsurprisingly, related to COVID. In addition, the 2020 legislative session saw the passage of legislation creating a new licensing classification for residential renovation contractors, new laws expanding and clarifying when prevailing wages are required to be paid, and legislation extending the period during which seniors can cancel certain contracts. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---