Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Update to Washington State Covid-19 Guidance

November 23, 2020 — Brett M. Hill - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Yesterday, November 15, 2020, Governor Inslee announced modifications to the current COVID-19 restrictions in response to the current rise in cases across Washington State. There are no additional restrictions on construction at this time. However, during the Governor’s press conference yesterday, he did indicate that positive cases were increasing on construction sites, and that they would be tracking the statistics over the next 2 – 3 weeks – to see if additional restrictions would be necessary for construction sites in the future. Additionally, the construction industry group is meeting with the Governor’s office today, November 16, 2020, and we will keep you informed of any changes as a result of that meeting. Unless otherwise specifically noted, the modifications take effect at 12:01 a.m., Tuesday, November 17, 2020. All modifications to existing prohibitions set forth herein shall expire at 11:59 p.m., Monday, December 14, 2020, unless otherwise extended. If an activity is not listed below, currently existing guidance shall continue to apply. If current guidance is more restrictive than the below listed restrictions, the most restrictive guidance shall apply. These below modifications do not apply to education (including but not limited to K-12, higher education, trade and vocational schools), childcare, health care, and courts and judicial branch-related proceedings, all of which are exempt from the modifications and shall continue to follow current guidance. Terms used in this proclamation have the same definitions used in the Safe Start Washington Phased Reopening County-by-County Plan. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brett M. Hill, Ahlers Cressman Sleight PLLC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at brett.hill@acslawyers.com

HOA Has No Claim to Extend Statute of Limitations in Construction Defect Case

October 28, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The California Court of Appeals ruled on September 20, 2011 in the case of Arundel Homeowners Association v. Arundel Green Partners, a construction defect case involving a condominium conversion in San Francisco. Eight years after the Notice of Completion was filed, the homeowners association filed a lawsuit alleging a number of construction defects, including “defective cabinets, waterproofing membranes, wall-cladding, plumbing, electrical wiring, roofing (including slope, drainage and flashings), fire-rated ceilings, and chimney flues.” Three years of settlement negotiations followed.

Negotiations ended in the eleventh year with the homeowners association filing a lawsuit. Arundel Green argued that the suit should be thrown out as California’s ten-year statute of limitations had passed. The court granted judgment to Arundel Green.

The homeowners then filed for a new trial and to amend its complaint, arguing that the statute of limitations should not apply due to the doctrine of equitable estoppel as Arundel Green’s actions had lead them to believe the issues could be solved without a lawsuit. “The HOA claimed that it was not until after the statute of limitations ran that the HOA realized Arundel Green would not keep its promises; and after this realization, the HOA promptly brought its lawsuit.” The trial court denied the homeowners association’s motions, which the homeowners association appealed.

In reviewing the case, the Appeals Court compared Arundel to an earlier California Supreme Court case, Lantzy. (The homeowners also cited Lantzy as the basis of their appeal.) In Lantzy, the California Supreme Court set up a four-part test as to whether estoppel could be applied. The court applied these tests and found, as was the case in Lantzy, that there were no grounds for estoppel.

In Arundel, the court noted that “there are simply no allegations that Arundel Green made any affirmative statement or promise that would lull the HOA into a reasonable belief that its claims would be resolved without filing a lawsuit.” The court also cited Lesko v. Superior Court which included a recommendation that the plaintiffs “send a stipulation?Ã„Â¶extending time.” This did not happen and the court upheld the dismissal.

Read the court’s decision…

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

New Mexico Adopts Right to Repair Act

April 25, 2023 — William L. Doerler - The Subrogation Strategist
On April 7, 2023, New Mexico’s governor, Michelle Lujan Grisham, signed into law New Mexico’s Right to Repair Act (Act), 2023 N.M. SB 50. The Act’s effective date is July 1, 2023. The Act applies to construction defects in dwellings, i.e., newly constructed single family housing units designed for residential use. The Act applies to not only newly constructed housing units but also to systems and other components and improvements that are part of the housing unit at the time of construction. Pursuant to the Act, except for construction defect claims that involve an immediate threat to the life or safety of persons occupying the dwelling, that render the dwelling uninhabitable or in which the seller, after notice, refused to make a repair pursuant to any applicable express warranty, a purchaser must comply with the provisions of the Act before filing a complaint or pursing an alternative dispute mechanism related to a construction defect in the dwelling. A seller who receives a notice complying with the provisions of the Act must give notice to all construction professionals who may be responsible for the defect. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules that Insurance Salesman had No Fiduciary Duty to Policyholders

July 19, 2017 — Austin D. Moody - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
On June 20, 2017, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a life insurance salesman had no fiduciary duty to his customers where the customers retained decision-making authority regarding which policies to purchase. In Yenchi v. Ameriprise Fin., Inc., the Court returned a 4-2 verdict, overturning the lower court’s finding that it was possible that a fiduciary relationship existed between the parties. The suit arose from a series of transactions between Eugene and Ruth Yenchi and Bryan Holland, a financial advisor for IDS Life Insurance Corporation. The relationship began when Holland cold-called the Yenchis and asked to meet with them regarding their “financial stuff.” For a fee of $350, Holland met with the Yenchis on several occasions and counseled them regarding their insurance needs. On Holland’s advice, the Yenchis cashed out several existing polices and purchased a whole-life policy for Mr. Yenchi and a deferred variable annuity in Mrs. Yenchi’s name. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Austin D. Moody, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Moody may be contacted at adm@sdvlaw.com

Crossrail Audit Blames Busted Budget and Schedule on Mismanagement

August 13, 2019 — Peter Reina - Engineering News-Record
In a new report on London’s Crossrail, the U.K. National Audit Office says the beleaguered transportation project is around two years late and nearly 20% over budget because of poor management. The NAO, charged by Parliament with monitoring public spending, pointed to ill-conceived “aspirational” plans that proved to be unfit for the technologically challenging and vast program when things went wrong. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Peter Reina, ENR

Pennsylvania Federal Court Finds No Coverage For Hacking Claim Under E&O Policy

July 25, 2022 — Celestine Montague & Paul A. Briganti - White and Williams LLP
On June 9, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held, on summary judgment, that an insured was not entitled to coverage under a Professional Errors and Omissions (E&O) policy for loss allegedly resulting from a hacking incident. See Construction Fin. Admin. Servs., Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co., No. 19-0020, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103042 (E.D. Pa. June 9, 2022). Applying North Carolina and Pennsylvania law, the court reasoned that: (1) coverage was barred by the policy’s unauthorized computer access, or “breach,” exclusions; and (2) the insured violated a condition in the policy that required the insurer’s consent to settlements and the violation prejudiced the insurer. The insured, Construction Financial Administration Services, Inc. (CFAS), was a third-party fund administrator for construction contractors. In April 2018, the CFAS received email requests from what it believed to be one of its clients, SWF Constructors (SWF), to disburse $1.3 million from an SWF account to a foreign company. CFAS authorized the payments, despite not having received a copy of any executed agreement between SWF and the foreign company. After the funds were disbursed, SWF advised that it had not authorized or requested the payments to the foreign company. In response, CFAS placed approximately $1.2 million of recovered and borrowed funds into the SWF disbursement account. SWF then sent a letter advising CFAS that the requests from the foreign company did not include documentation required under the contract between SWF and CFAS. It was later determined that the emails had been initiated by a fraudster who had gained unauthorized access to the sender’s email account. Reprinted courtesy of Celestine Montague, White and Williams LLP and Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLP Ms. Montague may be contacted at montaguec@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Don’t Assume Your Insurance Covers A Newly Acquired Company

February 19, 2019 — Patrick M. McDermott & Michael S. Levine - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
The Supreme Court of Virginia’s decision yesterday finding no coverage for fire damage to a building is a cautionary tale for companies acquiring other companies. Erie Ins. Exch. v. EPC MD 15, LLC, 2019 WL 238168 (Va. Jan. 17, 2019). In that case, Erie Insurance issued a property insurance policy to EPC. The policy covered EPC only and did not cover any subsidiaries of EPC. EPC then acquired the sole member interest in Cyrus Square, LLC. Following the acquisition, fire damaged a building that Cyrus Square owned. EPC sought coverage under its property insurance policy. Because the policy did not cover Cyrus Square, EPC argued that a provision extending coverage to “newly acquired buildings” applied, contending that EPC had newly acquired Cyrus Square’s building by virtue of becoming the sole member interest in the LLC. Based on the law relative to LLCs and its interpretation of the policy, the Supreme Court of Virginia ruled against EPC. It found that although EPC had acquired Cyrus Square, it had not “newly acquired” the building and so the “newly acquired buildings” coverage extension did not apply. Reprinted courtesy of Patrick M. McDermott, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. McDermott may be contacted at pmcdermott@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurer Has Duty to Defend Faulty Workmanship Claim

January 22, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The magistrate judge recommended a determination that the insurer owed a defense to the subcontractor sued for faulty workmanship. Hanover Lloyds Ins Co. v. Donegal Mut. Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180877 (W.D. Texas Oct. 5, 2023). Poe Investments, Ltd. entered into an agreement with Jordan Foster Construction, LLC for construction of an auto sales and service facility ("Facility"). Jordan hired multiple subcontractors, including Texas Electrical Contractors, LLC ("TEC"). Subsequently, Poe sold the Facility to 6330 Montana, LLC ("Montana"). Montana filed suit against Jordan for breach of express warranties, breach of contract, and negligence. Jordon filed a third-party complaint against its subcontractors, including TEC. Jordan alleged that TEC provided "defective and negligent construction work" while carrying out the provision and installation of electrical and fire alarm systems at the Facility. 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