SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

The Greenest U.S. Cities & States

August 13, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
ECOBUILDING Pulse discussed the results of the 2014 U.S. Clean Tech Leadership Index, which “tracks clean tech progress by state, and in the 50 largest metro areas.” The top three states with the highest Clean Tech Index score were California, Massachusetts, and Oregon. Out of the top 10 cities, 5 were located in California. The top three cities with the highest score were San Francisco, San Jose, and San Diego. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Second Circuit Upholds Constitutionality of NY’s Zero Emissions Credit Program

November 21, 2018 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
On September 27, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling that the “Zero Emissions Credit” (ZEC) program of the New York Public Service Commission is not unconstitutional. The case is Coalition for Competitive Electricity, et al. v. Zibelman, Chair of the New York Public Service Commission, et al. In effect, the ZEC program provides subsidies to qualifying New York nuclear power plants as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The ZEC program is intended to prevent nuclear plants from being prematurely retired from generating power until suitable replacement facilities are operating. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

---

Construction Law Client Alert: California’s Right to Repair Act (SB 800) Takes Another Hit, Then Fights Back

February 25, 2014 — Steven M. Cvitanovic and Whitney L. Stefko - Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP
Last week, the California appellate courts decided two cases with ramifications under the Right to Repair Act. The first case, Burch, addresses whether the Right to Repair Act is the exclusive remedy for the homeowner. The second case, KB Home, addresses a situation where a homeowner or the homeowner's insurer fails to follow the procedures under the Right to Repair Act. Last August, the Fourth Appellate District announced its decision in Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98 holding that SB 800 is not a homeowner’s exclusive remedy in situations where defects cause actual damage. Many lawyers believed that Liberty Mutual would be a one-off because of its facts – it was a subrogation case brought by an insurance company. So much for that. Now the Second Appellate District is getting into the act. In Burch v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, et al., the Second Appellate District overturned an order granting summary adjudication in favor of a developer, general contractor, and their respective owners, in a construction defect action brought by a residential homeowner. The trial court found that the Right to Repair Act precluded the homeowner’s negligence and implied warranty claims but the Court of Appeal reversed. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP and Whitney L. Stefko, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com, Ms. Stefko may be contacted at wstefko@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Harsh New Time Limits on Construction Defect Claims

April 26, 2011 — Scott F. Sullan, Esq., Mari K. Perczak, Esq., and Leslie A. Tuft, Esq.

A recent Colorado Supreme Court decision, Smith v. Executive Custom Homes, Inc., 230 P.3d 1186 (Colo. 2010), considerably shortens the time limit for bringing many construction defect lawsuits. Homeowners and homeowner associations risk losing the right to seek reimbursement from builders, developers and other construction professionals unless they carefully and quickly act upon discovery of evidence of any potential construction defect.



The Statute of Limitations for Construction Defect Claims
Colorado’s construction defect statute of limitations limits the time for homeowners and homeowners associations to bring lawsuits for construction defects against “construction professionals,” including developers, general contractors, builders, engineers, architects, other design professionals, inspectors and subcontractors. The statute requires homeowners and associations to file suit within two years “after the claim for relief arises.” A claim for relief “arises” when a homeowner or association discovers or reasonably should have discovered the physical manifestation of a construction defect.



The two-year time limitation applies to each construction defect separately, and will begin to run upon the appearance of a “manifestation” of a construction defect (which may include, for example, a condition as simple as a roof leak or drywall cracks), even if the homeowner or association does not know the cause of the apparent problem.



The Smith Opinion and its Effect on the Statute of Limitations
In Smith v. Executive Custom Homes, Inc., the plaintiff homeowner, Mrs. Smith, slipped on ice that had accumulated on her sidewalk because of a leaking gutter and suffered injury. When she first noticed the leak, she reported it to her property manager, who reported it to the builder. The builder attempted to repair the gutter, unbeknownst to Mrs. Smith, and she did not notice further problems until approximately one year after she first observed the leak, when she fell and suffered serious injury. She sued the builder within two years of her injury, but nearly three years after she first learned of the leak.



The Colorado Supreme Court dismissed Mrs. Smith’s claims as untimely and held that under the construction defect statute of limitations, the two-year period for suing for injuries due to construction defects begins when the homeowner first observes the physical manifestation of the defect, even if the resulting injury has not yet occurred. The court acknowledged that this ruling could result in “unfair results,” especially if a serious and unforeseeable injury occurs more than two years after the first time the homeowner noticed the problem, and as a result the victim is unable to seek redress from those responsible for the defect.



Read the full story…



Reprinted courtesy of Scott F. Sullan, Esq., Mari K. Perczak, Esq., and Leslie A. Tuft, Esq. of Sullan², Sandgrund, Smith & Perczak, P.C., and they can be contacted through their web site.

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

---

Coping With The New Cap And Trade Law

January 04, 2023 — John P. Ahlers - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
On May 17, 2021, Governor Jay Inslee signed a new carbon pricing bill making Washington only the second in the nation to have such an extensive climate-change reduction policy (Senate Bill 5126). The Stated Purpose of the New Law: SB5126 creates a system to cap carbon pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, and individual businesses are provided specific limits on emissions (“Cap”). Those businesses then have to purchase credits for allowed emissions. The businesses which emit fewer greenhouse gases than the credits allotted them can sell their credits to businesses that are not reducing emissions as quickly (“Trade”). The overall pool of carbon credits are to be gradually reduced by 2050 to hit a goal of net-zero emissions. This bill is colloquially known as the “Cap and Trade Law.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at john.ahlers@acslawyers.com

---

Doctrine of Merger Not a Good Blend for Seller of Sonoma Winery Property

April 15, 2015 — Kristen Lee Price and Lawrence S. Zucker II – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Ram’s Gate Winery, LLC v. Joseph G. Roche, et al. (No. A139189 & A141090, filed 4/9/15) (Ram’s Gate), the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District held the doctrine of merger did not extinguish a seller’s contractual duty to disclose potentially hazardous seismic conditions on a Sonoma winery property. In Ram’s Gate, the buyer of the property filed a lawsuit alleging the seller failed to disclose information relating to earthquake issues prior to the close of escrow. In the parties’ “Purchase and Sales Agreement” (Purchase Agreement) the seller agreed to disclose any information known to it regarding “known geological hazards . . . soil reports . . . geotechnical reports” and other facts “having effect on the value of the ownership or use of the property.” The seller, however, argued this disclosure warranty did not survive the escrow period because it did not expressly provide for survival while other provisions in the Purchase Agreement did. Reprinted courtesy of Kristen Lee Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Price may be contacted at kprice@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

#3 CDJ Topic: Underwriters of Interest Subscribing to Policy No. A15274001 v. ProBuilders Specialty Ins. Co., Case No. D066615

December 30, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Michael R. Vellado and Nicole R. Kardassakis of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP analyzed the appeals case that “reversed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of ProBuilders Specialty Insurance Company (“ProBuilders”) and held that the ‘other insurance’ clause in the ProBuilders policy did not relieve it of its duty to participate in the defense of its insured, Pacific Trades Construction & Development, Inc. ('Pacific Trades')." Read the full story... Another discussion of the ProBuilders appeal ruling occurred on the California Construction Law Blog, written by Yas Omidi of Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP. Omidi explained the appeal’s court decision: “In reversing the trial court’s decision, the appellate court characterized ProBuilder’s ‘other insurance’ clause as an ‘escape clause’—i.e., a clause that attempts to have coverage, paid for with the insured’s premiums, evaporate in the presence of other insurance.” Furthermore, she noted that “California public policy disfavors such clauses.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

New York Appellate Court Holds Insurers May Suffer Consequences of Delayed Payment of Energy Company Property and Business Interruption Claims

March 16, 2020 — Syed S. Ahmad & Geoffrey B. Fehling - Hunton Andrews Kurth
A New York appellate court recently held that renewable bio-diesel fuel manufacturer BioEnergy Development Group LLC may pursue tens of millions of dollars in damages from its insurers under two all-risk insurance policies, including amounts in excess of the policy limits, where the insurers refused to pay claims in a timely manner. BioEnergy purchased two all-risk property policies from Lloyd’s to provide coverage for its manufacturing plant in Memphis, Tennessee. A fire destroyed the Memphis plant in March 2016, eliminating BioEnergy’s production capacity and sole source of revenue. BioEnergy made claims under the policies and sought to rebuild its plant. The insurers acknowledged coverage and eventually made approximately $8 million in interim payments, but the parties disagreed over the value of the total property damage claim, which BioEnergy contended was in excess of $24 million. The disputed claim was submitted to appraisal, which resulted in the insurers agreeing to pay the full business interruption limit of $15.1 million. The insurers filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit, however, seeking to limit BioEnergy’s recovery to the policy limits of $15.1 million. BioEnergy alleged that the insurers failed to make interim payments in a timely manner after the fire and, as a result, the company suffered increased losses because it could not rebuild without the insurance proceeds. BioEnergy sought actual and consequential damages, plus attorneys’ fees, arising from the delayed payments, including payment of its business interruption losses in excess of the policy limits. Reprinted courtesy of Syed S. Ahmad, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Ahmad may be contacted at sahmad@HuntonAK.com Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---