Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Legislative Update – The CSLB’s Study Under SB465

March 22, 2018 — John Castro - Construction Law Blog
Following the tragic Berkeley balcony collapse in 2015, the Legislature enacted California Senate Bill 465 which commissioned the Contractors State License Board (“CSLB” or “Board”) to perform a study regarding the efficacy of having contractors report settlements to the Board. In December 2017 the CSLB released their findings in a report. The ultimate conclusion of the report is to recommend to the Legislature that the ability of the CSLB to protect the public “would be enhanced by regulations requiring licensees to report judgments, arbitration awards, or settlement payments of construction defect claims for rental residential units.” Senator Jerry Hill authored SB465, and his office is presently now drafting legislation on settlement reporting based in part on this study. The most troubling concern about the study is transparency. The report references nine exhibits, all of which have been withheld from publication under purposes of confidentiality. Therefore, much of the CSLB’s study must be taken at face value because much of the data they rely on to formulate their conclusions cannot be independently verified. One of the factors that the CSLB undertook in its study was to determine criteria for when a settlement was “nuisance value,” and therefore less important for reporting purposes. The CSLB acknowledged there was no industry-wide definition for “nuisance value,” whether it be in the insurance industry, construction industry, or otherwise. Insurer survey respondents reached a general consensus on aspects of what can constitute a “nuisance value” settlement, including the amount of the settlement and the size of the case. However, the response rate to the insurer survey was only 3.3 percent. In general, the concern with using settlement amount and size of the case as indicative factors is the fact that a large settlement size, for instance, may still constitute a “nuisance value” settlement. One example would be a large settlement figure in a case involving hundreds of homes in multiple subdivisions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John Castro, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP
Mr. Castro may be contacted at jcastro@grsm.com

Security on Large Construction Projects. The Payment Remedy You Probably Never Heard of

May 07, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
California has a number of statutory payment remedies available on construction projects. Some, such as the mechanics lien, are relatively well known and often utilized. Others, such as the stop payment notice, are somewhat less so. However, there’s one statutory payment remedy you may not have heard of at all. And that is, security requirements for large projects. What is security for large projects? Security is required on certain large construction projects to guarantee the payment by owners to direct contractors, and applies if either: 1. Fee Interest and Contract of Greater Than $5 million: The owner contracting for a work of improvement holds a fee interest in the property being improved and enters into a construction contract for the improvement of the property greater than $5 million; or 2. Less Than Fee Interest, Including Leasehold Interest, and Contract of Greater Than $1 million: The owner contracting for a work of improvement holds less than a fee interest (including a leasehold interest) in the property being improved and enters into a construction contract for the improvement of the property greater than $1 million. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Insurer’s Confession Of Judgment Through Post-Lawsuit Payment

June 25, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The recent opinion in the property insurance coverage dispute, Bryant v. Geovera Specialty Ins. Co., 44 Fla.L.Weekly D1232a (Fla. 4thDCA 2019), discusses the doctrine known as an insurer’s “confession of judgment.” In this case, an insured suffered water damage from a pipe leak. The insurer paid the insured $6,000 because of sublimits in the property insurance policy. There was a $5,000 sublimit for mold and a $1,000 sublimit for water leakage that occurs over a period of 14 days or more. The insured sued the insurer for covered water damage arguing that the sublimits did not apply. After the lawsuit was filed, an agreed order was entered that stayed the case pending an appraisal. The appraisal award did not apply the $1,000 sublimit to the water damage from the pipe leak and segregated out damage for mold. (The insurer already paid the mold sublimit). The insurer ended up paying the appraisal award for the water damage caused by the pipe leak after deducting its pre-lawsuit sublimit payment. The insurer paid the award and did NOT challenge the application of the $1,000 sublimit in court, although it could have since coverage issues are decided by courts. 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

“Based On”… What Exactly? NJ Appellate Division Examines Phrase and Estops Insurer From Disclaiming Coverage for 20-Month Delay

August 20, 2019 — Anthony L. Miscioscia and Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLP
On May 28, 2019, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division examined the phrase “based on” in an assault-and-battery exclusion, finding that the phrase means “to make, form, or serve as the foundation of any claim, demand or suit.” C.M.S. Investment Ventures, Inc. v. American European Insurance Company, No. A-2056-17T3, 2019 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1215, at *8-9 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. May 28, 2019) (CMS). The CMS case is also notable because the Appellate Division held that a 20-month delay in disclaiming coverage was unreasonable and therefore warranted estoppel. In CMS, the insured was allegedly warned by its tenant about a faulty ground-floor window that failed to lock properly. Afterward, an intruder broke into the tenant’s apartment and sexually assaulted the tenant, who sued the insured on a premises liability claim. Before she filed suit, the tenant sought payment from the insured’s CGL insurer directly. The insurer denied coverage based on the assault-and-battery exclusion and closed the file, but never informed the insured. Later, the tenant sued the insured, which sought a defense and indemnity from its insurer, which again denied coverage based on the exclusion. The insured then sought a declaration of coverage on grounds that the exclusion was ambiguous, and the insurer “was estopped from denying coverage, because it waited [20] months to inform CMS of its coverage decision.” The trial court ruled in the insured’s favor which led to the appeal in CMS. Reprinted courtesy of Timothy Carroll, White and Williams LLP and Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Legislation Update: S-865 Public-Private Partnerships in New Jersey Passed by Both Houses-Awaiting Governor’s Signature

July 02, 2018 — Steven M. Charney & Charles F. Kenny - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
New Jersey is finally close to being among the many states with broad authority to develop or improve public projects through a Public-Private Partnership (P3) delivery method. This contracting model has stimulated growth and improvements in other States and led to the delivery of projects that may not otherwise have happened. Senate Bill 865 (“S-865”), after undergoing some last-minute amendments in a frenzied legislature dealing with budget and other critical issues, has passed in both houses of the Legislature and is waiting for Governor Murphy’s signature, which is expected shortly. The law will be effective 180 days from formal enactment. The administrative framework is now in place to make Public-Private Partnerships a reality in New Jersey. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Charney, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Charles F. Kenny, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Charney may be contacted at scharney@pecklaw.com Mr. Kenny may be contacted at ckenny@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Surety Bond Producers Keep Eye Out For Illegal Waivers

July 01, 2019 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
The surety bond industry regularly reminds state and local governments, politely, that public works in all states must involve surety bonds. That’s the law. And the National Association of Surety Bond Producers, the bond brokers and agents trade group, has been letting state and local officials know, in writing. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, ENR
Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com

Poor Pleading Leads to Loss of Claim for Trespass Due to Relation-Back Doctrine, Statute of Limitations

April 13, 2017 — Brett G. Moore & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Scholes v. Lambirth Trucking Co. (No. C070770, Filed 4/6/2017), the California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District held that the relation-back doctrine could not save a property owner’s trespass claim against an adjacent neighbor where the property owner’s original complaint was factually devoid and was later amended to include the trespass claim after the statute of limitations had run. The relation-back doctrine is a well-settled legal principle which allows a plaintiff to amend a complaint to add a cause of action which would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations. As long as the factual allegations “relate back” to the those alleged in the original complaint, an additional cause of action will not be subject to the applicable statute of limitations. The policy behind statutes of limitation is to put a defendant on notice of the need to defend against a claim in time to prepare an adequate defense. On May 21, 2007, a fire broke out at defendant Lambirth Trucking Company’s (“Lambirth”) soil enhancement facility adjacent to plaintiff Vincent Scholes’ (“Scholes”) property. Scholes had previously notified Lambirth that wood chips and rice hulls were accumulating on his property as a result of Lambirth’s operations. Local authorities also warned Lambirth of the hazards presented by storage of those materials. Reprinted courtesy of Brett G. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Moore may be contacted at bmoore@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Blurred Lines: New York Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Privileged Documents in Connection with Pre-Denial Communications Prepared by Insurer's Coverage Counsel

September 17, 2015 — Greg Steinberg – White and Williams LLP
In a recent decision, the New York Supreme Court clarified the scope of privileged documents with respect to communications prepared by an insurer’s counsel prior to issuing a denial of coverage letter. The coverage litigation at issue arose out of MF Global Inc.’s claims under fidelity bonds for losses incurred as a result of large trades made by former MF Global employee, Evan Dooley. The trades cost MF Global, Dooley’s former clearing firm, $141 million after it had to reimburse the CME Group, Inc. futures clearinghouse that handled the trade. The insurers that issued the fidelity bonds contested coverage and sued MF Global in 2009. The opinion underscores the fact that there is no “bright line” rule in New York with respect to disclosure of communications in the insurance context prior to the issuance of a coverage determination – the disclosure requirement will instead turn on what’s actually privileged. In addition, while retention of counsel may not serve as an automatic shield for all documents prepared prior to the coverage decision, insurers will not be required to disclose, among other things, communications which include an “indicia of the provision of legal services.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Greg Steinberg, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Steinberg may be contacted at steinbergg@whiteandwilliams.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES