SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Smart Home Products go Mainstream as Consumer Demand Increases

November 05, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Gigaom reported that Wal-Mart announced yesterday that they will begin selling Insteon gear, one of the Smart Home products, in 1,500 of its stores across the country. "The products in store will include a starter kit, motion sensors, dimmers, IP cameras, LED bulbs, leak sensors and door/window sensors among others. Wal-Mart also sells Chamberlain gear and a few other connected devices on its web site." According to Builder, a Savant survey demonstrated that "Americans are eager for home automation, proving that technology is a great way for builders to distinguish their new homes from the rest of the market." In another article, Gigaom announced that Netgear will be introducing a line of Smart Home products under the name Arlo. Read the full story, Gigaom, Wal-Mart now sells Insteon gear... Read the full story, Gigaom, Netgear launches its Arlo smart home brand with a camera... Read the full story, Builder... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Manhattan Developer Wants Claims Dismissed in Breach of Contract Suit

August 27, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Real Deal reported that Savannah, the developer of the condo conversion at 141 Fifth Avenue, “has filed to dismiss a number of claims in a $7.5 million breach of contract lawsuit by the property’s board of managers, while alleging professional negligence against several of its own contractors.” Savanah’s lawyers stated, according to The Real Deal, that whether or not construction defects exist, their client isn’t responsible: “However to the extent that any of the alleged defects exist at the building, sponsor cannot be held liable for the existence of such defects.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Ten Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Selected to the Best Lawyers in America© 2019

September 17, 2018 — Newmeyer & Dillion
NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. – AUGUST 15, 2018 – Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is pleased to announce that ten of the firm's Newport Beach attorneys were recently recognized in their respective practice areas in The Best Lawyers in America© 2019. Attorneys named to The Best Lawyers in America, include:

Jason M. Caruso Personal Injury Litigation - Plaintiffs Product Liability Litigation – Plaintiffs

Michael S. Cucchissi Real Estate Law

Jeffrey M. Dennis Insurance Law

Gregory L. Dillion Commercial Litigation Construction Law Insurance Law Litigation - Construction Litigation - Real Estate

Joseph A. Ferrentino Litigation - Construction Litigation - Real Estate

Thomas F. Newmeyer Commercial Litigation Litigation - Real Estate

John O'Hara Litigation - Construction

Bonnie T. Roadarmel Insurance Law

Jane Samson Real Estate Law

Carol Sherman Zaist Commercial Litigation

Best Lawyers is the oldest peer-review publication within the legal profession with a history of over 35 years. Attorneys are selected through exhaustive peer-review surveys in which leading lawyers confidentially evaluate their professional peers. Their listings are published in 75 countries worldwide and are recognized for their reliable and unbiased selections. Newmeyer & Dillion is immensely proud of these lawyers and looks forward to their continued contributions to the firm, and the Orange County community as a whole. About Newmeyer & Dillion For almost 35 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of cybersecurity and privacy, corporate, employment, real estate, construction, insurance law and trial work, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client's needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.ndlf.com. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Florida Court Gives Parties Assigned a Subrogation Claim a Math Lesson

August 04, 2021 — Lian Skaf - The Subrogation Strategist
Although the focus of most subrogation cases is usually on proving liability, determining the appropriate measure of damages is just as important. Sometimes turning on a nuanced argument for recoverability, an adverse holding can significantly boost or reduce the total damages in a case. The Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District (Court) recently decided such an issue in a case involving subrogation, holding that the defendants owed much more than they originally anticipated. In Five Solas v. Ram Realty Servs., No. 4D19-2211 2021, 2021 Fla. App. LEXIS 7546, the Court reviewed the appropriate setoff in damages that the defendants were entitled to when measuring the recoverable damages. The Court reversed the lower court’s holding, which held that the defendants were entitled to a setoff that limited the jury’s award to $104,481.75. Instead the Court held that the defendants were only entitled to a setoff equal to the excess recovery over replacement cost. The case involves, among other things, property damage sustained by building owner Five Solas (Owner) and its lessee William Price, P.A. from a collapsed wall originating from the property of the defendants, Ram Realty Services, LLC and Sodix Fern, LLC d/b/a Alexander Lofts (collectively referred to as Defendants). Owner’s carrier, Foremost Insurance Company (Foremost), paid out its policy limit of $430,518.25 to Owner for damage to the building. Owner then pursued its claim against the tortfeasors for the remaining damages not paid by its carrier.[1] Foremost also pursued a subrogation claim, but settled its subrogation claim with Defendants, assigning its subrogation rights to Defendants. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Client Alert: Stipulated Judgment For Full Amount Of Underlying Claim As Security For Compromise Settlement Void As Unenforceable Penalty

March 26, 2014 — David W. Evans, Krsto Mijanovic, and Gregory M. Smith-Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Purcell v. Schweitzer (No. D063435 - filed February 24, 2014, certified for publication March 17, 2014), the Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld an order setting aside a stipulated default judgment for the full amount of plaintiff’s claim which had been agreed to by the parties to a settlement agreement, finding that it constituted an unenforceable penalty because the amount bore no reasonable relationship to the settling party’s actual damages resulting from a breach of the settlement agreement. In an agreement settling a breach of contract action seeking $85,000 in damages based on an unpaid debt, the plaintiff agreed to settle the claim and to accept $38,000 in 24 monthly installments, including interest on the unpaid principal at 8.5 percent. The agreement provided that payments were due on the first day of each month and to be considered “timely,” had to be received by the fifth day of each month. If any payment was not made on time, it was to be considered a breach of the entire settlement agreement, making the entire $85,000 original liability due pursuant to a stipulation for entry of judgment for such amount. The stipulation included language to the effect that the $85,000 figure accounted for the “economics” of further proceedings. The agreement also specified that the foregoing provision did not constitute an unlawful “penalty” or “forfeiture” and that defendant waived any right to an appeal and any right to contest or seek to set aside such a judgment. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys David W. Evans, Krsto Mijanovic, and Gregory M. Smith Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com; Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com, and Mr. Smith may be contacted at gsmith@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Curtain Wall Suppliers Claim Rival Duplicated Unique System

February 28, 2022 — Annemarie Mannion - Engineering News-Record
Chicago-area construction material suppliers that hold patents for a curtain wall system used in high-rise construction projects are suing a rival, claiming it created a knock-off of the system based on a former employee’s knowledge and put the system to use on construction projects. Reprinted courtesy of Annemarie Mannion, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Colorado Senate Bill 13-052 Dies in Committee

May 10, 2013 — David M. McLain
On April 17, 2013, the Colorado Senate Judiciary Committee voted, along party lines, to postpone indefinitely SB 52. Here is a link to the Denver Business Journal's story regarding the bill and its untimely demise: "Lawmakers kill lawsuit limits on condo defects." Unfortunately, it will be at least another year before the legislature will have the ability to provide some much needed relief to the Colorado construction industry. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain
Mr. McLain can be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

---

Avoiding Lender Liability for Credit-Related Actions in California

October 27, 2016 — Anthony J. Carucci – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Aside from general statutory prohibitions on lender discrimination, there are certain circumstances under California law in which lenders may be held liable for credit-related actions, such as negotiating or denying credit. See generally 11 Cal. Real Est. § 35:3 (explaining that the business of lending money is subject to the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51 et seq., the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov. Code § 12900 et seq., the Federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691, et seq.). Specifically, lenders have been held liable for credit-related actions where, among other things, the lender (1) breached a loan commitment; (2) committed fraud; or (3) breached a fiduciary duty owed to the borrower. The Lender-Borrower Relationship As a general rule, a lender does not owe a duty of care to a borrower when the lender’s involvement in a transaction does not exceed the scope of its conventional role as a lender of money. Oaks Management Corp. v. Superior Court (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 453, 466 (“[I]t is established that absent special circumstances . . . a loan transaction is at arms-length and there is no fiduciary relationship between the borrower and lender.”); Nymark v. Heart Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1089, 1096 (holding lender owed no duty of care to a borrower in preparing an appraisal of the real property that was security for the loan when the purpose of the appraisal is to protect the lender by satisfying it that the collateral provided adequate security for the loan, and noting that “as a general rule, a financial institution owes no duty of care to a borrower when the institution’s involvement in the loan transaction does not exceed the scope of its conventional role as a mere lender of money”). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony J. Carucci, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Carucci may be contacted at acarucci@swlaw.com

---