SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Home Construction Slows in Las Vegas

November 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Although home builders in the Las Vegas area are doing better than they were in 2012, growth is still slow and October saw a decline in the sale of new homes. However, as with other areas, the average home price actually increased over prior months, despite the cooling off the actual number of sales. Taken as a whole though, 2013 looks a lot better than 2012, with 44% more homes sold this year. Dennis Smith, the president of Home Builders Research said that 2013 “will be remembered as ‘the year of recovery,’” but added that “there is still a long path ahead for everyone to feel a sense of comfort.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Damron Agreement Questioned in Colorado Casualty Insurance v Safety Control Company, et al.

February 10, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

Safety Control and EMC appealed the judgment in Colorado Casualty Insurance Company versus Safety Control Company, Inc., et al. (Ariz. App., 2012). The Superior Court in Maricopa County addressed “the validity and effect of a Damron agreement a contractor and its excess insurer entered into that assigned their rights to sue the primary insurer.” Judge Johnsen stated, “We hold the agreement is enforceable but remand for a determination of whether the stipulated judgment falls within the primary insurer’s policy.”



The Opinion provides some facts and procedural history regarding the claim. “The Arizona Department of Transportation (“ADOT”) hired DBA Construction Company (“DBA”) to perform a road-improvement project on the Loop 101 freeway. Safety Control Company, Inc. was one of DBA’s subcontractors. As required by the subcontract, Safety Control purchased from Employer’s Mutual Casualty Company (“EMC”) a certificate of insurance identifying DBA as an additional insured on a policy providing primary coverage for liability arising out of Safety Control’s work.”



A collision occurred on site, injuring Hugo Roman. Roman then sued ADT and DBA for damages. “Colorado Casualty tendered DBA’s defense to the subcontractors, including Safety Control. Safety Control and EMC rejected the tender. Roman eventually settled his claims against DBA and ADOT. DBA and ADOT stipulated with Roman for entry of judgment of $750,000; Roman received $75,000 from DBA (paid by Colorado Casualty) and $20,000 from ADOT, and agreed not to execute on the stipulated judgment. Finally, DBA, ADOT and Colorado Casualty assigned to Roman their rights against the subcontractors and other insurers.”



Colorado Casualty attempted to recover what “it had paid to defend DBA and ADOT and settle with Roman. However, Roman intervened, and argued that “Colorado Casualty had assigned its subrogation rights to him as part of the settlement agreement.” The suit was not dismissed, but the Superior Court allowed Roman to intervene. “Roman then filed a counterclaim against Colorado Casualty and a cross-claim against the subcontractors.”



All claims were settled against all of the defendants except Safety Control and EMC. “The superior court ruled on summary judgment that EMC breached a duty to defend DBA and that as a result, ‘DBA was entitled to settle with Roman without EMC’s consent as long as the settlement was not collusive or fraudulent.’ After more briefing, the court held the stipulated judgment was neither collusive nor procured by fraud and that EMC therefore was liable to Roman on the stipulated judgment and for his attorney’s fees. The court also held Safety Control breached its subcontract with DBA by failing to procure completed-operations insurance coverage and would be liable for damages to the extent that EMC did not satisfy what remained (after the other settlements) of the stipulated judgment and awards of attorney’s fees.” Safety Control and EMC appealed the judgment.



Four reasons were given for the decision of the ruling. First, “the disagreement between Roman and Colorado Casualty does not preclude them from pursuing their claims against EMC and Safety Control.” Second, “the settlement agreement is not otherwise invalid.” Third, “issues of fact remain about whether the judgment falls within the EMC policy.” Finally, “Safety Control breached the subcontract by failing to procure ‘Completed Operations’ coverage for DBA.”



In conclusion, the Superior Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded . “Although, as stated above, we have affirmed several rulings of the superior court, we reverse the judgment against EMC and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion to determine whether the stipulated judgment was a liability that arose out of Safety Control’s operations. In addition, we affirm the superior court’s declaratory judgment against Safety Control but remand so that the court may clarify the circumstances under which Safety Control may be liable for damages and may conduct whatever further proceedings it deems appropriate to ascertain the amount of those damages. We decline all parties’ requests for attorney’s fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01 without prejudice to a request for fees incurred in this appeal to be filed by the prevailing party on remand before the superior court.”

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Just When You Thought General Contractors Were Necessary Parties. . .

December 31, 2014 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
Did you think that a subcontractor had to name a general contractor in a mechanic’s lien suit? I did. Did you think that nothing about this changed in the case where a Virginia mechanic’s lien was “bonded off” pursuant to Va. Code Section 43-71? I did. Well, a recent Virginia Supreme Court case, Synchronized Construction Services Inc. v. Prav Lodging LLC, seems to at least create some doubt as to whether the a general contractor is a “necessary” party to a lawsuit by a subcontractor in the case where a bond is posted for release of a mechanic’s lien. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

The Preservation Maze

June 12, 2023 — Sofya Uvaydov - Kahana & Feld LLP
To appropriately preserve an issue for appeal is frankly confusing to many attorneys due to differing rules depending on the issue or procedural posture (presumably why appellate attorneys are more commonly used during trial). On May 25th, the US Supreme Court handed down Dupree v. Younger, 598 U.S. __ (2023) clarifying preservation requirements from denied summary judgment orders. When a federal court denies summary judgment on sufficiency of evidence grounds, a party must raise the argument again post-trial to preserve it for appeal as per the Court’s prior ruling in Ortiz v. Jordan, 562 U.S. 180 (2011). When a court denies summary judgment on a purely legal issue, the Court unanimously held that the issue is preserved in an appeal from a final judgment without having to raise it again post-trial. The Supreme Court distinguished this from their prior rule in Ortiz by explaining that sufficiency or factual issues which were previously denied at summary judgment must be evaluated based on the totality of the evidence adduced at trial. A purely legal issue decided on summary judgment is not changed by factual evidence at trial. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sofya Uvaydov, Kahana & Feld LLP
Ms. Uvaydov may be contacted at suvaydov@kahanafeld.com

---

Modification: Exceptions to Privette Doctrine Do Not Apply Where There is No Evidence a General Contractor Affirmatively Contributed to the Injuries of an Independent Contractor’s Employee

November 23, 2016 — Renata L. Hoddinott & Lawrence S. Zucker II – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In a case which was the subject of our Alert dated October 31, 2016 (click here for prior alert), the Court of Appeal of the State of California – Second Appellate District on November 17, 2016 issued a modification to the opinion in Khosh v. Staples Construction Company, Inc. (10/26/16 – Case No. B268937) with no change in judgment. In Khosh, the Court affirmed the trial court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendant under the Privette doctrine where plaintiff presented no evidence that the defendant affirmatively contributed to his injuries. Reprinted courtesy of Renata L. Hoddinott, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Hoddinott may be contacted at rhoddinott@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Save a Legal Fee: Prevent Costly Lawsuits With Claim Limitation Clauses

April 25, 2012 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Council Blog

Ever had that lingering problem with a contracting partner that went away for awhile and then came back to bite you ? years later? In Washington, construction contract claims can be raised for up to six years after substantial completion. Six years!? Why would I want to wait that long to find out if I have a problem? You don’t have to.



Over the past few years, I have discussed the notion of “contractual claim periods” on The Builders Counsel. For today’s Save a Legal Fee column, I cannot think of a better topic. These provisions are specifically intended to save you from unnecessary legal fees that might arise if a problem goes unnoticed for too long.



Contractual claim periods are simply a way to reduce the amount of time that a contracting party has to raise a claim against its contracting partner. For example, a subcontractor might require that a general contractor raise any claim that it might have ? for defective or incomplete work, injury, damages, etc ? within a particular amount of time or forever lose the ability to raise the claim in a legal proceeding.



Read the full story…



Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

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

---

Hawaii Federal District Court Denies Motion for Remand

December 21, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court refused to remand the insureds' case after the insurer removed from state court. Maui Land & Pineapple Co. v. Liberty Ins. Underwriters, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15681 (D. Haw. Nov. 10, 2016). The underlying case was filed in state court on Maui. The underlying plaintiffs were condominium owners who brought claims against the insured, Maui Land and Pineapple Co., Inc. (MLP), and other defendants allegedly involved in the development of the project. Ryan Churchill, one of the named defendants, served as president of MLP and was on the board of the project's Association of Apartment Owners (AOAO). The underlying plaintiffs asserted claims for: breach of fiduciary duty; seeking access to books and records of the AOAO; and for injunctive/declaratory relief against MLP, Mr. Churchill, and all other defendants. 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

---

Developer Transition - Maryland Condominiums

June 21, 2017 — Nicholas D. Cowie - Maryland Condo Construction Defect Law Blog
INTRODUCTION “Developer transition” is the process by which the governance of a condominium association is transferred from developer to unit owner control. This article provides a brief overview of the legal requirements that govern the developer transition process for Maryland condominiums. This article also as well as a “transition checklist” for transitioning unit owner-controlled boards of directors. PERIOD OF DEVELOPER CONTROL A developer initially controls an association because it owns all unsold units in the newly created condominium community. As such, the developer has the controlling votes associated with majority ownership and can appoint its own employees as the initial members of the board of directors and thereby control how the condominium association conducts its affairs. This is referred to as the “period of developer control,” during which the developer makes all decisions on behalf of the association. The developer also creates an association’s governing documents, allowing it to dictate, subject to applicable law, the procedures and time periods under which control over the association’s board of directors will eventually be transferred to the homeowners. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas D. Cowie, Cowie & Mott, P.A.
Mr. Cowie may be contacted at ndc@cowiemott.com

---