Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Negligent Misrepresentation in Sale of Building Altered without Permits

September 30, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire has ruled in the case Wyle v. Lees. The Leeses owned a two-unit apartment building in North Conway, New Hampshire. They hired a contractor to add a third, larger apartment, including a two-car garage. The Leeses and their contractor submitted a building permit application. They were informed that site plan review was required. After receiving approval on the site plan, construction started. At no point did they obtain a building permit and the construction was never inspected. The Leeses subsequently added more space to the unit, reducing parking spaces below the minimum required. Again, they did not obtain a building permit.

In 2007, three years after all these changes were complete, the Leeses sold their building to Mr. Wyle. To the question “are you aware of any modifications or repairs made without the necessary permits?” they answered “no.” About six weeks after closing, Wyle “received a letter from the town code enforcement officer regarding the legality of the removal of a garage door from the new unit.” A subsequent inspection revealed “numerous building and life safety code violations.”

Mr. Wyle brought a claim against the Leeses for negligent misrepresentation. The defendants filed a motion “seeking to preclude economic loss damages.” At a two-day bench trial, Mr. Wyle won. The Leeses appealed.

The appeals court found that “the defendants negligently misrepresented that the premises were licensed for immediate occupancy and that the defendants had obtained all necessary permits,” and thus upheld the lower court’s finding of negligent misrepresentation. The appeals court also rejected the Leeses’ argument that damages must be apportioned on all parties, including “the plaintiff himself, the plaintiff’s building inspector, and the defendant’s contractor,” finding a lack of “adequate evidence.”

The Leeses further argued that they were unaware that modifications and repairs were accomplished without the required permits. The appeals court noted that “the trial court found that both the conditional approval and final approval for the site plan stated that a building permit and a certificate of occupancy were required prior to any use.” The court concluded that the Leeses “knew or should have known of the falsity of their representation.”

The appeals affirmed the findings of the trial court.

Read the court’s decision…

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

Stuck in Seattle: The Aggravating Adventures of a Gigantic Tunnel Drill

April 01, 2015 — Karen Weise – Bloomberg
About 20 workers wearing hard hats and reflective vests clump together on the edge of a chasm near Seattle’s waterfront, peering down a hole 120 feet deep and 83 feet wide. The last men have been craned out of the pit in a yellow metal cage. Gulls squawk. A TV news helicopter hovers overhead. A dozen journalists stand nearby on the bed of a truck. We’re here to see Bertha, one of the world’s biggest tunneling machines. Or at least a piece of her. A 240-foot crane is about to haul a 540,000-pound steel shield out of the ground, 20 months after Bertha started digging a highway. Almost imperceptibly, the crane starts rising. The event, on a Thursday in mid-March, is part of a massive rescue mission to fix the $80 million machine. She broke abruptly in December 2013 after boring through just 1,000 feet, one-ninth of her job. Her seals busted, and her teeth clogged with grit and pieces of an 8-inch steel pipe left over from old groundwater tests. She stopped entirely. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Karen Weise, Bloomberg
Ms. Weise may be contacted at kweise@bloomberg.net

Understanding Lien Waivers

September 03, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Zlien on their Construction Payment Blog explained how to read a lien waiver. According to Zlien, “Lien waivers are meant to function as a sort of receipt – if a party is paid a certain amount that party waives his or her right to claim a lien for that amount. “ The blog post breaks down the types of lien waivers, including Conditional Waivers, Unconditional Waivers, Final Payment, and Progress Payment. Once the type of waiver has been identified, Zlien suggests checking the length: “Because the party signing the lien waiver may feel obligated to sign whatever document is presented in order to get paid, unscrupulous or oblivious parties may attempt to use the lien waiver as a legal positioning tool and cram all sorts of other language into the lien waiver that really has no legitimate right or reason to be there.” Zlien recommends that if the document is long or confusing to consult an attorney. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Defect Case Not Over, Despite Summary Judgment

November 07, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
The Supreme Court of Oregon has concluded in an en banc decision that a motion to reconsider a summary judgment is not a motion for a new trial. In coming to their conclusion the court overturned an earlier Oregon Supreme Court case, Carter v. U.S. National Bank. Although the decision does not bear on construction defects, the underlying case did. Due to the decision, these claims can now be evaluated in a trial. The case, Association of Unit Owners of Timbercrest Condominiums v. Warren, came about after an apartment complex was converted into condominium units. The developers hired Big Al’s Construction for some of the remodeling work. The condominium association later sued the developer and the contractor over claims of construction defects. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted. But that wasn’t the end of things. The plaintiff soon filed a “motion to reconsider,” noting that the summary judgment seemed to be in conflict with both law and other recent rulings, and additionally, the grounds for the decision were not in the order. The judge then notified the parties that the court had “pulled the trigger too quickly” and had seven questions for the parties to answer. The court dismissed all claims against the defendants. The defendants filed their responses, objecting that that “‘there is no such thing’ as a motion for reconsideration.” Further, while “the rules do allow for post-judgment review of pre-judgment rulings through a motion for a new trial,” the plaintiffs had not filed for a new trial. But did they need one? They did file an appeal. The judge in the case admitted that there was no such thing as a motion to reconsider, and felt bad about prematurely signing the judgment. The case was sent to the Court of Appeals to determine if the motion to reconsider was a request for a new trial. The Court of Appeals concurred. In reviewing the decision, the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that there were a maximum of three questions to address. Was the motion for reconsideration a motion for a new trial? If so, was the later notice of appeal premature? And if so, was the plaintiff required to file a new appeal? The court determined that the answer to the first question was no. Prior decisions pointed to the conclusion “that a motion for reconsideration of a summary judgment amounts to a motion for a new trial,” but here the court concluded that “our prior cases erred,” and turned to the summary judgment rule for clarification. The court noted that “the rule contemplates that summary judgment and trial are separate and distinct events.” With this conclusion, the Oregon Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Pollution Exclusion Found Ambiguous

May 23, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Mississippi Supreme Court found the pollution exclusion ambiguous under the facts presented. Omega Protein, Inc. v. Evanston Ins. Co., 2022 Miss. LEXIS 90 (Miss. March 31, 2022). Omega Protein, Inc., entered a contract with Ascu-fab to perform welding and other fabrication work at their facility. Accu-fab was required to have CGL coverage naming Omega as an additional insured. Accu-fab purchased a $1 million primer policy from Colony Insurance Company and a $5 million excess policy issued by Evanston Insurance Company. Accu-fab performed welding and other fabrication work on a large metal storage tank used for the temporary storage of stickwater, which was a liquid composed of water, fish oil, and fish solids. An explosion occurred at the Omega plant while Accu-fab workers were welding and grinding on a large metal tank that was used for the temporary storage of stickwater. One of Accu-fab's workers , Jerry Lee Tayler, was killed, another was seriously injured, and still others suffered less serous injuries. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Zillow Seen Dominating U.S. Home Searches with Trulia

July 30, 2014 — Alex Sherman, Jeffrey McCracken and Prashant Gopal – Bloomberg
A Zillow Inc. (Z) purchase of Trulia Inc. (TRLA) would create a dominant search website for U.S. house hunters, reshaping an online industry the companies helped popularize. Zillow, the largest U.S. real estate website, is seeking to buy No. 2 Trulia for as much as $2 billion in cash and stock, according to people with knowledge of the matter. An agreement may be announced as soon as next week, said one of the people, who asked not to be identified because the information is private. Talks are ongoing and may not lead to a deal. The companies help buyers and renters find information on homes, generating revenue by selling advertising and charging Realtors to place their listings prominently. Together the Zillow and Trulia networks had more than 68 million unique visitors in June, representing about 71 percent of all visitors to ComScore’s real estate category. That includes desktop and mobile users, ComScore said. A combination would make it hard for rivals to compete, said Steve Murray, president of Real Trends Inc. in Castle Rock, Colorado. Mr. Sherman may be contacted at asherman6@bloomberg.net; Mr. McCracken may be contacted at jmccracken3@bloomberg.net; Mr. Gopal may be contacted at pgopal2@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Alex Sherman, Jeffrey McCracken and Prashant Gopal, Bloomberg

Notice of Claim Sufficient to Invoke Coverage

August 06, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Indirect notice to the insurer was sufficient to trigger coverage for the additional insured under a liability policy. Spoleta Constr., LLC v. Aspen Ins. UK Ltd., 2014 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5174 (N.Y. App. Div. July 11, 2014). An employee of the subcontractor was injured at the construction project on October 20, 2008. The general contractor was named as an additional insured on the subcontractor's CGL policy with Aspen. Under the subcontract, the subcontractor also agreed to defend and indemnify the general contractor for all claims arising out of the subcontractor's work. The general contractor did not receive notice of the accident until late December 2009 in a letter from the injured employee's attorney. On January 27, 2010, the general contractor's liability carrier sent a letter to the subcontractor giving notice of the employee's claim and requesting that the subcontractor put its carrier on notice. On February 9, 2010, the subcontractor sent to Aspen a claim form with the January 2010 letter attached. 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

Wisconsin Supreme Court Upholds Asbestos Exclusion in Alleged Failure to Disclose Case

January 22, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In the case Phillips v. Parmelee, the Wisconsin Supreme court ruled “that an asbestos exclusion in a liability policy barred a duty to defend and indemnify a building seller for claims that the seller failed to disclose that the building contained asbestos,” according to an article in Mondaq by Ruth S. Kochenderfer and Deanna P. Cook, both from Steptoe & Johnson LLP. The policyholder received a building report stating that the “heating ducts likely contained asbestos,” however, the buyers alleged that the policyholder never provided them the report. After the buyers purchased the property, contractors “cut through the heating ducts, unknowingly dispersing asbestos throughout the building.” According to Kochenderfer and Cook’s article, “The insurer intervened in the buyers' suit and sought summary judgment against the policyholder and buyers, arguing that an asbestos exclusion precluded coverage for the buyers' suit against the policyholder.” The buyers took the case to the Wisconsin Supreme court and “attacked the asbestos exclusion,” but the court rejected every argument. Kochenderfer and Cook stated that the “decision is significant because three courts, including Wisconsin's highest court, squarely rejected attempts to narrow a broad, clearly-worded asbestos exclusion. Further, it confirms that such an asbestos exclusion will apply to all causes of action, including an alleged failure to disclose the presence of asbestos.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES