Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Supreme Court Holds Arbitrator can Fully Decide Threshold Arbitrability Issue

March 18, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The United States Supreme Court recently decided parties to a contract can agree, under the Federal Arbitration Act, an arbitrator, rather than a court, can fully resolve the initial arbitrability question. Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer and White Sales, Inc., 2019 WL 122164 (2019). The arbitrability question is whether the dispute itself is subject to arbitration under an arbitration provision. Parties that do not want to arbitrate try to circumvent this process by filing a lawsuit and asking the court to determine the threshold arbitrability question. In Henry Schein, Inc., the contract at-issue provided: This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of North Carolina. Any dispute arising under or related to this Agreement (except for actions seeking injunctive relief and disputes related to trademarks, trade secrets, or other intellectual property) shall be resolved by binding arbitration in accordance with the arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association. The place of arbitration shall be in Charlotte, North Carolina. The plaintiff in this case asserted a claim for injunctive relief (among other claims) and argued that, therefore, the dispute is not subject to arbitration based on the exception in the provision. The initial, threshold issue became whether the dispute was subject to arbitration and, importantly, who decides this issue. The Court further looked at whether a trial court can resolve this issue under the “wholly groundless” exception, i.e.,the court can decide the issue if the argument for arbitration is wholly groundless. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.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

Just Because You Caused it, Doesn’t Mean You Own It: The Hooker Exception to the Privette Doctrine

March 06, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
We’ve written before about the Privette doctrine, which establishes a presumption that a hirer of an independent contractor delegates to the contractor all responsibility for workplace safety. In other words, if a general contractor hires a subcontractor, the subcontractor is solely responsible for the safety of its workers. There are two major exceptions to the Privette doctrine. The first, the Hooker exception, holds that a hirer may be liable when it retains control over any part of the independent contractor’s work and negligently exercises that retained control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the worker’s injury. The second, the Kinsman exception, holds that a hirer may be liable for injuries sustained by a worker of an independent contractor if the hirer knew, or should have known, of a concealed hazard on the property that the contractor did not know of and could not have reasonably discovered and the hirer failed to warn the contractor of the hazard. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

California Reinstates COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave

February 21, 2022 — Jessica L. Daley - Newmeyer Dillion
On February 9, 2022, Governor Newsom signed California Legislature Senate Bill 114 (SB 114), which reinstates supplemental paid sick leave for qualifying reasons relating to COVID-19. Employers may recall SB 95, which expired on September 30, 2021, and was substantially similar to SB 114. Like its predecessor, SB 114 applies to employers with 26 or more employees and provides up to 80 hours of supplemental paid sick leave to full-time employees who are unable to work (including telework) for a reason relating to COVID-19. While this legislation goes into effect on February 19, 2022, it will retroactively apply back to January 1, 2022 and remain in effect until September 30, 2022. REASONS FOR LEAVE – TWO PERIODS Unlike SB 95, SB 114 breaks the total possible 80 hours of COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave (CSPL) for full-time employees into two 40-hour periods. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jessica L. Daley, Newmeyer Dillion
Ms. Daley may be contacted at jessica.daley@ndlf.com

Employees in Construction Industry Entitled to Compensation for Time Spent Complying with Employer-Mandated Security Protocols

August 19, 2024 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Wage and hour laws dictating how employers must compensate their employees for time worked can, given the innumerable ways that employees perform their jobs, raise a number of questions. The next case, Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors, 15 Cal.5th 908 (2024) – which I won’t spend a lot of time discussing since I think it applies in somewhat limited situations – addresses whether employees are entitled to be paid while waiting to enter and exit worksites and for meal periods when they are not allowed to exit a worksite. The Huerta Case The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals requested that the California Supreme Court address three questions related to whether employees should be compensated under California wage and hour laws for time spent waiting to enter and exit worksites and for meal periods when they are not allowed to exit a worksite:

Whether employees should be paid for time spent waiting in a personal vehicle to be scanned in and out of a worksite;
Whether employees should be paid for time spent traveling in a personal vehicle from a security gate to employee parking lots; and
Whether employees should be paid during meal periods if they are not permitted to leave a worksite.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Who Says You Can’t Choose between Liquidated Damages or Actual Damages?

October 11, 2017 — Kevin Walton - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In Colorado, courts enforce liquidated damages provisions if three elements are satisfied: (1) the parties intended to liquidate damages; (2) the amount of liquidated damages was a reasonable estimate of the presumed actual damages caused by a breach; and (3) at the time of contracting, it was difficult to ascertain the amount of actual damages that would result from a breach. But what happens when a contract gives a party a right to choose between liquidated damages or actual damages? This seems troublesome because it allows a party to set the floor for their damages without limitation if actual damages exceed the contractual amount. As a matter of first impression, the Colorado Supreme Court addressed this issue in Ravenstar, LLC v. One Ski Hill Place, LLC, 401 P.3d 552 (Colo. 2017). In Ravenstar, plaintiffs contracted to buy condominiums from a developer. As part of their contracts, plaintiffs deposited earnest money and construction deposits equal to 15% of each unit’s purchase price. Plaintiffs breached their contract by failing to obtain financing and failing to close by the closing date. Each contract’s damages provision provided that if a purchaser defaulted, the developer had the option to retain all or some of the deposits as liquidated damages or, alternatively, to pursue actual damages and apply the deposits to that award. After plaintiffs defaulted, the developer chose to keep plaintiffs’ deposits as liquidated damages. Plaintiffs sued for return of their deposits. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin Walton, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Walton may be contacted at kwalton@swlaw.com

68 Lewis Brisbois Attorneys Recognized in 5th Edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America

September 23, 2024 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
(August 15, 2024) – 68 Lewis Brisbois attorneys across 26 offices have been named to the 5th edition of “Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America.” Congratulations to the following attorneys on this recognition! You can see the list of Lewis Brisbois attorneys named to Best Lawyers' 30th edition of The Best Lawyers in America here. Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Collapse Coverage Fails

March 22, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly.- Insurance Law Hawaii

The insurer's motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the insured's claim for collapse coverage was rejected by the Supreme Court of New York. Parauda v. Encompass Ins. Co. of Am., 2018 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 269 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan. 25, 2018).

The insureds submitted a claim to Encompass for damage to the brick siding, or façade, of their home, which was bulging near the front door. Encompass hired H2M Architects and Engineers to inspect the home and issue a report. H2M determined that the brick façade near the front door was separated from the house. Photos showed that the bricks had separated, the mortar joints were cracked, and there were cracks and deterioration in the mortar. H2M concluded that the brick façade was in poor condition and need repairs and/or replacement. H2M concluded that the separation of the brick façade was caused by water infiltration behind the wood trim and brick façade, occurring over a several year period. Encompass denied the claim based upon exclusions for "freezing, thawing," "wear and tear," and "inadequate maintenance."

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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES