SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Musk Says ‘Chicago Express’ Tunnel Project Could Start Work in Months

August 14, 2018 — Jeff Yoders – Engineering News-Record
Technology guru Elon Musk beat three other construction proposals on June 14 to win the exclusive right to negotiate a design-build-operate-maintain contract with the City of Chicago to provide a high-speed underground passenger transport system between the downtown Loop area and O’Hare Airport. He proposes a one-way trip of about 12 minutes at 150 mph compared with the current 40-minute average by rail or car. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Yoders, ENR
Mr. Yoders may be contacted at yodersj@enr.com

---

Developer Pre-Conditions in CC&Rs Limiting Ability of HOA to Make Construction Defect Claims, Found Unenforceable

August 16, 2021 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
The Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (Civ. Code §4000, et seq.), also known simply as “Davis-Stirling,” is a statute that applies to condominium, cooperative and planned unit development communities in California. The statute, which governs the formation and management of homeowners associations or HOAs, also governs lawsuits filed by HOAs for construction defects. In the next case, Smart Corners Owner Association v. CJUF Smart Corner LLC, Case No. D076775 (May 20, 2021), the 4th District Court of Appeal addressed the pre-litigation voting requirements of Davis-Stirling and the impact of recent amendments to the Act. The Smart Corners Case In 2004, CJUF Smart Corner LLC contracted with Hensel Phelps Construction Company for the construction of the Smart Corner condominium project, a 19-story mixed-use development with 301 residential units and common areas, in San Diego, California. As part of the development an HOA was formed, the Smart Corner Owner Association. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Eastern District of Pennsylvania Denies Bad Faith Claim in HO Policy Dispute

September 24, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Patrick Nugent of Saul Ewing LLP’s article in JD Supra Business Advisor, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania entered a summary judgment for the insurer on a statutory bad faith claim in a coverage dispute under a homeowner’s policy. The coverage dispute was over “the collapse of a wall in the plaintiffs’ home.” The Plaintiffs alleged that “the collapse resulted from excessive rainfall during a storm in March 2011.” However, Metropolitan Direct Property and Casualty Insurance Company’s engineer concluded that the collapse “resulted from long-term and on-going water infiltration attributable to poor maintenance.” Water damage had occurred a year prior to the collapse, but had not been repaired. In response, “Plaintiffs filed a complaint in Pennsylvania state court alleging breach of contract and statutory bad faith.” The court “determined that Metropolitan’s denial of benefits ‘was not only reasonable, but correct under the Policy language,’” and “ruled that the plaintiffs could not demonstrate that Metropolitan lacked a reasonable basis for denying their claim and entered summary judgment for Metropolitan on the plaintiffs’ bad faith claim.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Construction Contractor “Mean Tweets” Edition

June 04, 2024 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Back in the day, if someone had a problem with you the rules of school yard jungle dictated that they had better tell it to your face or you had the right to call them out on it. That, of course, was back then. These days, with social media seemingly everywhere (e.g., Yelp, Twitter, Facebook, etc.), if someone has a problem with you they tell you . . . as well as the rest of the world . . . to your digital face. Jimmy Kimmel has even made it a “thing” with his celebrity “Mean Tweets” segments. In Paglia & Associates Construction, Inc. v. Hamilton, 98 Cal.App.5th 318 (2023), homeowner Vanessa Hamilton was sued by her contractor Paglia & Associates Construction, Inc. doing business as Protech Construction after she posted critical comments to her blog and on Yelp about work performed by Paglia at her home. The Paglia Case In or about 2016, after a tree fell on her house, Hamilton’s insurer, Safeco, recommended Paglia to perform the repairs. Paglia and Hamilton entered into a repair contract in 2016 but Paglia did not finish the work until sometime in 2017 claiming that the repair was extensive because Hamilton’s circa 1923 home was in poor condition and current building codes required extensive reconstruction. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Retaining Wall Contractor Not Responsible for Building Damage

July 20, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Court of Appeals of Indiana ruled on July 8 in the case of Rollander Enterprises, Inc. v. H.C. Nutting Co. Judge Baily wrote the opinion affirming the decision of the trial court.



The case involved an unfinished condominium complex, the Slopes of Greendale, in Greendale, Indiana. Rollander is a real estate development company incorporated in Ohio. One of the issues in the case was whether the case should be settled in the Indiana courts or be tried in Ohio. The project was owned by a special purpose entity limited liability corporation incorporated in Indiana.



Rollander hired Nutting to determine the geological composition of the site. Nutting’s report described the site as “a medium plastic clay containing pieces of shale and limestone.” The court summarized this as corresponding with “slope instability and landslides.” Rollander then hired Nutting to design the retaining walls, which were constructed by Scherziner Drilling.



After cracking was discovered on State Route 1, the walls were discovered to be inadequate. More dirt was brought in and a system of tie-backs was designed to anchor the walls. Not only were the tie-backs unsightly, local officials would not approve the complex for occupancy. Further, the failure of the wall below one building lead to damage of that building.



The court concluded that since almost all events occurred in Indiana, they rejected Rollander’s contention that the case should be tried in Ohio. Further, the court notes “the last event making Nutting potentially liable on both claims was an injury that occurred in Indiana and consequently, under the lex loci delicti analysis, Indiana law applies.”



Nor did the court find that Nutting was responsible for the damage to the rest of the project, citing an Indiana Supreme Court ruling, that “there is no liability in tort to the owner of a major construction project for pure economic loss caused unintentionally by contractors, subcontractors, engineers, design professionals, or others engaged in the project with whom the project owner, whether or not technically in privity of contract, is connected through a network or chain of contracts.”



The court concluded:



Because Rollander was in contractual privity with Nutting, and Indy was connected to Nutting through a chain of contracts and no exception applies, the economic loss rule precludes their recovery in tort. Damage to Building B was not damage to "other property," and the negligent misrepresentation exception to the economic loss rule is inapplicable on these facts. The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion by entering judgment on the evidence in favor of Nutting on the Appellants' negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims.



Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Haight Welcomes Robert S. Rucci

August 26, 2015 — Robert S. Rucci – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP welcomes new partner Robert S. Rucci. Mr. Rucci joins Haight’s San Diego office in the Construction Law, General Liability and Risk Management & Insurance Law Practice Groups. For 25 years, Mr. Rucci has specialized in defending design professionals, businesses and their employees in addition to representing clients against declaratory relief, breach of contract and bad faith litigation. During his career, he has tried 60 cases to defense verdict and successfully resolved countless matters via mediation, arbitration and settlement conference. His extensive litigation experience is invaluable to our clients. Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP 402 West Broadway Suite 1850 San Diego, CA 92101 www.hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Robert S. Rucci, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Rucci may be contacted at rrucci@hbblaw.com

---

Joint Venture Dispute Over Profits

January 28, 2019 — David R. Cook, Jr. - Autry, Hall, & Cook, LLP
A recent Georgia Court of Appeals case demonstrates the risk of joint ventures failing to carefully define accounting rules in their joint venture agreement. Two trade contractors teamed up to accomplish certain tasks on a job at a wastewater lift station at Fort Gordon. A joint venture agreement provided for an equal split of the profits and losses. Unfortunately, the parties did not define “profit,” and particularly did not define what cost would be deducted in calculating profit. They disputed in particular whether certain large payments to individuals and 15% overhead charges should be deducted in calculating profits. One party presented the expert testimony of an accountant while the other did not. The party presenting expert testimony asked the court to dismiss the other party’s claim because it was not supported by expert testimony of an accountant. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the claim. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Jr., Autry, Hall, & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

---

No Duty to Defend Suit That Is Threatened Under Strict Liability Statute

July 09, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Washington Court of Appeals found there was no duty to defend the insured under a strict liability statute for alleged contamination when no action was threatened by the agency. Gull Indus., Inc. v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 1338 (Wa. Ct. App. June 2, 2014). Gull leased a gas station to the Johnsons from 1972 to 1980. In 2005, Gull notified the Department of Ecology (DOE) that there had be a release of petroleum product at the station. DOE sent a letter acknowledging Gull's notice of suspected contamination. In 2009, Gull tendered its defense to its insurer, Transamerica Insurance Group. Gull also tendered its claims as an additional insured to the Johnson's insurer, State Farm. Neither insurer accepted the tenders. Gull then sued the insurers, arguing they had a duty to defend. Gull contended that because the state statute imposed strict liability, the duty to defend arose whether or not an agency had sent any communications about the statute or cleanup obligations. The insurers moved for partial summary judgment. The trial court ruled in favor of the insurers. 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

---