Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Court of Appeal Shines Light on Collusive Settlement Agreements

October 21, 2015 — Kristian B. Moriarty & R. Bryan Martin – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Diamond v. Reshko, (filed 8/20/2015, No. A139251) the California Court of Appeal, First District, held that a defendant was entitled to introduce evidence at trial reflecting amounts paid by co-defendants in settlement of a plaintiff’s claim. Plaintiff, Christine Diamond, was injured during an automobile accident that occurred while she was a passenger in a taxi driven by Amir Mansouri. Christine, and her husband Andrew, filed suit against Mr. Mansouri, the Yellow Cab Collective (“Yellow Cab”), and the driver of the vehicle that collided with the taxi, Serge Reshko. Before trial, Mansouri and the Yellow Cab Collective settled with Plaintiffs, but agreed to appear and participate as defendants at the jury trial of the action. Mansouri and Yellow Cab paid a total of $400,000 to Plaintiffs in settlement. Reshko filed a pre-trial motion seeking an order permitting Reshko to admit evidence of the settlement between Plaintiffs and the other defendants. The trial court refused to rule on the motion before trial. Ultimately, evidence of the settlement between Plaintiffs, Mansouri and Yellow Cab was excluded during trial. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs in the total amount of $745,778, finding Mansouri 40 percent at fault, and Reshko 60 percent at fault. The Trial Court entered judgment against Reshko in the sum of $406,698. Reshko appealed the judgment. The First District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that evidence of the settlement should have been admitted at trial because the settling defendant’s position should be revealed to the court and jury to avoid committing a fraud on the court, and in order to permit the trier of fact to properly weigh the settling defendant’s testimony. Reprinted courtesy of Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Manhattan Home Sales Rise at Slower Pace as Prices Jump

July 02, 2014 — Prashant Gopal – Bloomberg
Manhattan apartment sales rose at the slowest pace in more than a year, indicating a surge in demand is easing as prices jump and inventory climbs from record lows. Purchases of co-ops and condominiums increased 6.3 percent in the second quarter from a year earlier, the smallest gain since the start of 2013, according to a report today from appraiser Miller Samuel Inc. and brokerage Douglas Elliman Real Estate. The median price rose 5.2 percent to $910,000, and the average price per square foot surged 10 percent to $1,268. Higher prices are encouraging more sellers to list properties and softening competition among buyers. The market is taking a “breather” after sales rose by an average of 28 percent in each of the previous four quarters, said Jonathan Miller, president of New York-based Miller Samuel. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Prashant Gopal, Bloomberg
Mr. Gopal may be contacted at pgopal2@bloomberg.net

Pulling the Plug

December 13, 2022 — Todd R. Regan - Construction Executive
As a contractor, you may have wondered if your contract can be terminated by the owner for cause after the project has reached substantial completion. The answer is yes. Under certain circumstances it may be permissible—or even necessary—for a project owner to terminate the contract for cause after the project has reached substantial completion. Although the rights of the parties in any case will depend in large part on the specific contract language, the fact that a project has reached substantial completion is not an absolute bar to termination for cause, particularly when the owner intends to pursue a performance-bond claim. Completion Versus Performance Following substantial completion, a contractor typically will have outstanding contractual obligations such as paying its subcontractors and suppliers, bonding off any mechanic’s liens, completing the punch list, remediating defective work, testing and commissioning equipment, providing manufacturer’s warranties and performing its own warranty obligations. Reprinted courtesy of Todd R. Regan, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Florida Supreme Court: Notice of Right to Repair is a CGL “Suit,” SDV Amicus Brief Supports Decision

January 10, 2018 — Gregory Podolak & Brian Clifford - SD&V Case Alert
Construction policyholders in Florida have been given substantial ammunition to compel general liability insurers to provide a defense against pre-suit accusations of defective work. Florida is one of approximately thirty (30) states that require property owners to serve contractors with notice and an opportunity to repair construction defects before filing suit. Only a few states have addressed whether a CGL policy should provide a defense for similar processes. Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co., decided late in December by the Florida Supreme Court, acknowledged that the 558 process is a “suit,” thus impeding insurers from refusing a defense during this notice period. Section 558.004(1), Florida Statutes (2012) requires a property owner alleging construction defects to serve a written notice to repair on the contractor before filing an action in court. Altman Contractors built a condominium in Broward County, Florida. In 2012, the condominium owners alleged defects in accordance with Section 558. Altman demanded that its general liability carrier, Crum & Forster, defend and indemnify it against the 558 notices. Crum & Forster denied coverage, claiming that 558 notices are not a “suit” as defined by the policy. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory Podolak, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Brian Clifford, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Podolak may be contacted at gdp@sdvlaw.com Mr. Clifford may be contacted at bjc@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Building Permits Hit Five-Year High

October 01, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The New York Times reports that building permits in August were at their highest since May 2008, even despite a recent rise in mortgage rates. Construction starts on single-family homes were at their highest in six months as well. On the other hand, construction starts for condominiums and apartments fell slightly more than 11 percent. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Builders Seek to Modify Scaffold Law

June 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
New York’s scaffold law dates back to 1885 and requires contractors and building owners to take measures to protect worker from falls through “proper protection.” And although the law is more than 125 years old, Lou Colettie of the Building Trades Employers Association clams that the law “is going to destroy the construction industry.” On the other side, a former director of the NYC Central Labor Council says that builders want to get rid of the law because of “greed.” The New York Daily News notes that when workers using scaffolds or ladders are injured, the contractor must prove the site was safe. According to the claims of the building industry, this would let workers get settlements if their injuries were their own fault, such as working while intoxicated or failing to observe their employer’s safety procedures. A bill is currently working its way through the New York legislature that would make the employee’s actions relevant in an injury lawsuit. There have been past unsuccessful attempts to repeal the law, this year opponents are pushing to just amend it. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

It’s a COVID-19 Pandemic; It’s Everywhere – New Cal. Bill to Make Insurers Prove Otherwise

August 17, 2020 — Scott P. DeVries & Andrea DeField - Hunton Andrews Kurth
On June 29, in a development that may fundamentally change the landscape for California businesses which have sustained COVID-19 related business interruption loss, two California legislators amended pending legislation to address several of the most hotly contested issues regarding insurance recovery for these devastating losses. The bill, Assembly Bill 1552, focuses on All-Risk property insurance policies. As amended, it would create a “rebuttable presumption” that COVID-19 was present on and caused physical damage to property which was the direct cause of business interruption. A similar rebuttable presumption would apply to orders of civil authority coverage and to ingress/egress coverage. The bill would further prohibit COVID-19 from being construed as a pollutant or contaminant for purposes of any policy exclusion unless the exclusion specifically referred to viruses. The bill would apply to any All-Risk policy in effect on or after March 4, 2020 and is written to satisfy the standards for an “urgency” statute, taking effect immediately upon being signed into law. Reprinted courtesy of Scott P. DeVries , Hunton Andrews Kurth and Andrea DeField, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com Ms. DeField may be contacted at adefield@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Terminating Contracts for Convenience — “Just Because”

June 28, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Termination for convenience provisions are important provisions to include in construction contracts. These are provisions that allow a party to terminate the contract for ANY REASON. No cause is needed to exercise the termination for convenience provision. In other words, the terminating party does not have to demonstrate the other party breached the contract. A termination for convenience can be exercised “just because.” Typically, the party providing the service should not get to terminate for convenience. However, the party receiving the service will want to be afforded this contractual right. For example, an owner (receiving a service) will want to include a termination for convenience provision with its prime contractor (providing a service). And, a general contractor (receiving a service) will want to include a termination for convenience provision in its subcontract with its subcontractor (providing a service). However, a general contractor providing a service for an owner, or a subcontractor providing a service to a general contractor, should not be able to terminate the contract for their convenience “just because” a better opportunity comes along. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES