Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

The Fair Share Act Impacts the Strategic Planning of a Jury Trial

May 10, 2017 — Andrew Ralston, Jr. - White and Williams LLP
Complex questions surrounding the application of the Fair Share Act, which modified Pennsylvania’s common law “joint and several” liability law, are being taken up by courts in the Commonwealth with increasing frequency. Given the practical consequences of the differences in application between the Act and “joint and several” liability, additional litigation over the application of the Fair Share Act to real world factual situations will undoubtedly arise. Recent Caselaw Currently, in Roverano v. PECO Energy, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania is considering the question of whether, under the Fair Share Act, the jury, or else the trial judge, is responsible for the task of apportioning liability to multiple defendants in a strict liability case. In Roverano – an asbestos case -- a jury awarded the plaintiff $6.3 million. On the verdict sheet were eight joint tortfeasor co-defendants. The judge did not allow the jury to apportion liability to each defendant and, as a result, no guidance was provided by the jury about how much each defendant was to contribute to the award. Instead, the judge merely divided the jury’s award by eight (the number of defendants in the case) and apportioned to each defendant one-eighth of the verdict amount. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Andrew Ralston, Jr., White and Williams LLP
Mr. Ralston may be contacted at ralstona@whiteandwilliams.com

The Devil is in the Details: The Texas Construction Trust Fund Pitfalls Residential Remodelers (and General Contractors) Should Avoid

December 26, 2022 — Rochelle Cabe & Roni Most - Kahana Feld
A tale of Texas Construction Trust Account woe. You’re a contractor running a business doing interior remodels for clients in a major metropolitan Texas area. You sign up clients with a contract developed by our friends at LegalZoom and get your team to work. Three months into your remodeling project with Mr. and Mrs. “you thought they were happy” Clients, you get this letter: “Consistent with the requirements of §162.006 and §162.007 of the Texas Property Code, Mr. and Mrs. “you thought they were happy” Clients demand a full and complete accounting of all funds you have received from any source relating to this project.” What should you do? Should you ignore it? Should you respond? Fear sets in, you call your crew, and you stop the work. Mr. and Mrs. “you thought they were happy” Clients become Mr. and Mrs. “irate and angry” Clients and they sue you alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and perhaps fraud. Reprinted courtesy of Rochelle Cabe, Kahana Feld and Roni Most, Kahana Feld Ms. Cabe may be contacted at rcabe@kahanafeld.com Mr. Most may be contacted at rmost@kahanafeld.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Federal Miller Act Payment Bond Claim: Who Gets Paid and Who Does Not? What Are the Deadlines?

September 16, 2019 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
When working on federal public works construction projects there are no Stop Payment Notice or Mechanics Lien remedies available to protect subcontractors’ and suppliers’ right to payment. Instead, unpaid subcontractors and suppliers must resort to making a claim for payment under a federal law known as the AMiller Act@ (40 USCS 3131 et seq.). Many claimants however, do not realize that the right to make a Miller Act claim is not available to all subcontractors and suppliers. Before committing to performing work on a federal project it is important for subcontractors and suppliers to understand whether or not a Miller Act claim will be available. For those who have no Miller Act rights, careful consideration must be given to whether it is worth the risk to take on the project. For those who have valid Miller Act claim rights, important deadlines must be considered. Who Gets Paid Under a Miller Act and Who Does Not For federal projects in excess of $100,000, contractors who have a contract directly with the Federal Government must obtain Miller Act Payment Bond intended for the protection of Subcontractors, laborers and material suppliers to the project. As a general rule, every subcontractor, laborer, or material supplier who deals directly with the prime contractor and is unpaid may bring a lawsuit for payment against the Miller Act Payment Bond. Further, every unpaid subcontractor, laborer, or material supplier who has a direct contractual relationship with a first-tier subcontractor may bring such an action. The deadlines for these claims are described below. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Allegations of Collapse Rejected

August 08, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
In yet another of the collapse cases being litigated in state and federal courts in Connecticut, the federal district court denied the insurer's motion to dismiss. Rosenberger v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95345 (D. Conn. June 6, 2018). The insureds had policies with Amica since 1989. Policies before December 18, 2006, covered collapse caused by hidden decay or other specified causes. "Collapse" was not defined by the policy. These policies did not include any provisions explicitly excluding coverage for a chemical reaction. The post-2006 policies held by the insureds covered collapse, but under a significantly modified definition. The newer policy language stated that "collapse applies only to an abrupt collapse." Further, collapse was defined as "an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building or any part of a building with the result that the building or part of the building cannot be occupied for its intended purpose." 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

Neighbor Allowed to Remove Tree Roots on Her Property That Supported Adjoining Landowners’ Two Large Trees With Legal Immunity

July 14, 2016 — Paul R. Cressman, Jr. – Ahlers & Cressman PLLC Blog
A recent Washington Court of Appeals opinion addressed the rights of a neighbor to destroy roots and branches on her property that belonged to trees located on an adjoining landowner’s property.[1] Mustoe had two large Douglas-fir trees located entirely on her property, about two and one-half feet from the property line with her neighbor Ma. Ma caused a ditch to be dug on her property along the border with Mustoe’s lot. The ditch was 18-20 inches deep. In the process, Ma exposed and removed the trees’ roots, leaving them to extend only three-four feet from the trunks of the trees. This resulted in a loss of nearly half of the trees’ roots, all from the south side, exposing them to southerly winds with no support. The damaged trees posed a high risk of falling on Mustoe’s home. The landscape value of the trees was estimated to be $16,418. The cost of their removal was estimated to be $3,913. Mustoe filed suit against Ma asserting that Ma had negligently, recklessly, and intentionally excavated and damaged her trees, along with other property, and also sought emotional distress damages. The trial court dismissed Mustoe’s suit. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Paul R. Cressman, Jr., Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Mr. Cressman may be contacted at pcressman@ac-lawyers.com

Congratulations to BWB&O’s Las Vegas Team on Obtaining Summary Judgment for the Firm’s Landowner Client!

August 03, 2022 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is proud to announce Partner Anthony Garasi, Senior Associate Madeline Arcellana, and Associate Laura Rios successfully won a Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”), while also defeating two competing MSJs filed by Plaintiff, and ultimately obtaining a full dismissal of their landowner client against claims of premises liability. Plaintiff, who sued both BWB&O’s client (the landowner) and its tenant, alleged injury when he slipped and fell, while utilizing a temporary wooden board as a ramp that was placed on the subject property by the tenant, who was occupying the property subject to a lease-to-own arrangement with BWB&O’s client. In this Motion practice, the BWB&O team successfully obtained a ruling from the Court to find that BWB&O’s client had effectively contracted to delegate its maintenance responsibilities to its tenant, and also that the tenant owed BWB&O’s client full indemnity for Plaintiff’s alleged losses. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Traub Lieberman Partner Bradley T. Guldalian Wins Summary Judgment in Pinellas County Circuit Court

November 29, 2021 — Bradley T. Guldalian - Traub Lieberman
On September 20, 2021, Traub Lieberman Partner Bradley T. Guldalian secured summary judgment in Pinellas County Circuit Court in St. Petersburg, Florida, on behalf of a Homeowner who invited an acquaintance to his house to assist him with hanging a gutter on his roof. While he was assisting the Homeowner installing the gutter, the Plaintiff fell from a ladder and sustained a comminuted left intertrochanteric (hip) fracture. The Plaintiff was taken to the hospital, where he underwent open reduction, internal fixation of his left hip fracture. He was hospitalized for five days and released in wheelchair. He incurred more than $70,000 in medical bills and was confined to a wheelchair for two months. The Plaintiff filed a negligence action against the Homeowner alleging he improperly set up the ladder causing it to become unstable, thereby creating a dangerous condition on the premises which proximately caused his fall. The Plaintiff claimed the Homeowner breached the duty he owed the Plaintiff to provide safe and stable equipment for his use. After engaging in discovery, Mr. Guldalian moved for summary judgment arguing that because the Plaintiff could not explain in his deposition why he fell from the ladder, the Plaintiff could not establish—as a matter of law—the Homeowner was negligent, did anything, or failed to do something, that proximately caused his injury. In support of his argument, Mr. Guldalian submitted the affidavit of an investigator who inspected the ladder after the Plaintiff’s fall and found no defect in, on, or about the ladder, and affirmed that the area where the ladder was set up had no raised or defective areas which could have caused the ladder to become unstable. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bradley T. Guldalian, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Guldalian may be contacted at bguldalian@tlsslaw.com

Can Your Employee File a Personal Injury Claim if They’re Injured at Work?

March 14, 2022 — Louis Patino - Construction Executive
Construction accidents can happen to anyone. It’s common for employees to work at height, with machinery or alongside any number of potential hazards, so it’s no surprise that injury rates in construction are 71% higher compared to other industries. Anything from a ladder manufacturing defect to an unguarded ledge or wet surface can increase the likelihood of a fall, but those aren’t the only dangers. If scaffolding collapses due to an excessive load or improper construction, it can prove fatal. Then, there are struck-by hazards—one of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) “Fatal Four”—including falling, swinging and rolling objects; crane misuse; electrical faults; and issues with personal protective equipment. These are all hazards construction workers have to contend with daily. Reprinted courtesy of Louis Patino, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES