Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Federal Court Predicts Coverage In Nevada for Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship

April 03, 2013 — Tred Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Methodically analyzing the damage claims, the federal district court largely denied the insurers' motions for summary judgment for coverage of construction defect claims. Big-D Constr. Corp. v. Take It for Granite Too, 2013 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 8377 (D. Nev. Jan. 22, 2013). Big-D was the general contractor for a remodeling project of International Gaming Technologies' (IGT) building. Big-D subcontracted with Take it for Granite Too (TIFGT) to install various tiling and stonework on the interior and exterior of the building. After TIFGT began its stonework, a stone tile fill from an exterior wall. Over the next several months and after completion of TIFGT's work, two additional stones fell from exterior walls. IGT directed Big-D to replace TIFGT's stonework on the walls. Big-D notified TIFGT and requested that it make immediate repairs. TIFGT did not respond and eventually went out of business. Experts opined that the cause of the stones falling was efflorescence between the tile and the wall. Efflorescence occurred when the stone started to deteriorate, spall, and become soft. It was caused by water entering through an open joint and getting behind the stone tile. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

The Texas Storm – Guidance for Contractors

March 08, 2021 — Curtis W. Martin & Paulo Flores - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
The Texas snow and ice storm of February 2021 will long be remembered. It has affected everyone across the State, and its impacts continue to be felt a week later. This Alert provides the construction industry with guidance and recommendations for navigating commercial risk resulting from the storm. The potential impacts to your projects may be wide reaching. Consequences on a project site can include damage to the site, delays to work from the storm or from government orders, or simply the lack of help from trades who are dealing with serious personal catastrophes. Offsite impacts can cover a much broader scope of issues, including supply production issues or transportation interruptions. So, what can contractors facing such impacts do to avoid losses, mitigate the impacts, and prepare for what’s to come? Reprinted courtesy of Curtis W. Martin, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Paulo Flores, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@pecklaw.com Mr. Flores may be contacted at PFlores@Pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California Supreme Court Declines to Create Exception to Privette Doctrine for “Known Hazards”

September 13, 2021 — Tracy D. Forbath - Lewis Brisbois
In Gonzalez v. Mathis (Aug. 19, 2021, S247677) __ Cal.5th___, the California Supreme Court reversed an appellate decision holding that a landowner may be liable to an independent contractor, or the contractor’s workers, for injuries resulting from “known hazards,” as running contrary to the Privette doctrine. In Gonzalez, the contractor, who specialized in washing skylights, slipped and fell while accessing the landowner’s particularly hard to reach skylight from a narrow retaining wall that was allegedly covered in loose gravel and slippery. (Slip opn., p. 3.) While the trial court initially granted the landowner summary judgment pursuant to the Privette doctrine, the appellate court reversed and held that the landowner had a responsibility to take reasonable safety precautions where there was a known safety hazard on the landowner’s premises. (Id. at p. 6.) Whether the landowner could have taken various safety precautions also raised disputed issues of material fact precluding summary judgment. (Ibid.) However, the California Supreme Court concluded that no broad, third exception to the Privette doctrine lies; “unless a landowner retains control over any part of the contractor’s work and negligently exercises that retained control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the injury [citation], it will not be liable to an independent contractor or its workers for an injury resulting from a known hazard on the premises.” (Slip opn., p. 2.) Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tracy D. Forbath, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Forbath may be contacted at Tracy.Forbath@lewisbrisbois.com

No Jail Time for Disbarred Construction Defect Lawyer

May 10, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The New Mexico Supreme Court decided that a lawyer who defrauded clients will not be spending any time in jail, although they did disbar him in February. Bradley R. Sims brought a cashier’s check for $10,000 to repay his former client. Casa Bandera had hired Sims to sue over construction defects at apartment buildings it owned in Las Cruces, New Mexico. The court had found that Sims did not file the lawsuit but that created documents to convince his clients that he had. Sims initially intended to repay Casa Bandera through monies owed him by Sundland Park, New Mexico. When that did not arrive at the court, Sims borrowed the money. He has yet to comply with a court order to turn over his client lists so that the disciplinary board can determine if he owes money to any other clients. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Putting for a Cure: Don’t Forget to Visit BHA’s Booth at WCC to Support Charity

April 28, 2016 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc., (BHA) is excited to announce the return of their very popular Sink a Putt for Charity at the 2016 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar. This year, participant’s efforts on the green will help benefit the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure. As in years past, sink a putt in the BHA golf challenge and win a $25 gift card, and for every successful putt made, BHA will make a $25 cash donation in the golfer’s name to the Susan G. Komen Foundation. But it doesn’t stop there. Breast cancer touches so many lives, with wives, mothers, sisters, aunts, cousins and daughters all affected by this insidious disease. To further assist in their noble fight, BHA is doubling down. During three Championship Rounds on Thursday morning, afternoon, and evening, BHA will up the ante. For every putt ATTEMPTED (sink or miss), BHA will make a $50 donation to Susan G. Komen, and for every putt MADE, the golfer will also win a $50 gift card. These Championship Rounds will occur during the Thursday morning break, the afternoon break, and during the first hour of the Thursday evening cocktail party. Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc., strongly supports the goals and principles of the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure, and is honored to assist in fulfilling its mission of supporting research, community health, global outreach and public policy initiatives. While at the booth, don’t forget to test out BHA’s industry leading data collection and inspection analysis systems. BHA has recently added video overviews to their data collection process, as well as next-day viewing of inspection data via their secured BHA Client Access Portal. Discover meaningful cost improvements that translate to reduced billing while providing superior accuracy and credibility. Attendees can also enter to win Dodger baseball tickets or one of three new iPad Pros! Other BHA giveaways include USB charging blocks, pocket tape measures, multi-tools, laser pointers, foam stress balls, and Callaway golf balls. For more information on the Susan G. Komen Foundation, please visit their website. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Another Reminder that Contracts are Powerful in Virginia

February 08, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Regular readers of this construction law blog are likely tired of my refrain that the contract is king here in Virginia. With few exceptions, some of which have been passed in the last few years, the contract can and does essentially set the “law” for the transaction. A recent opinion from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals confirms this principle. In Bracey v. Lancaster Foods, LLC, the Court looked at the question as to whether parties can contractually limit the statute of limitations in which a plaintiff or arbitration claimant can file its claim for relief. In Bracey, Michael Bracey, a truck driver, sued his former employer, Lancaster Foods, asserting various employment law claims. Lancaster moved to dismiss and compel arbitration based on the terms of an alternative dispute resolution agreement Bracey signed when he was hired, under which he consented to arbitration of any employment-related claim and waived all rights he may otherwise have had to a trial. Bracey challenged the arbitration clause, one that also included a 1-year limitation on the time in which Bracey was allowed to file any claim, as unconscionable. A federal judge in Maryland agreed and granted the motion to dismiss. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

SEC Approves New Securitization Risk Retention Rule with Broad Exception for Qualified Residential Mortgages

November 26, 2014 — Neil P. Casey & Lori S. Smith – White and Williams LLP
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and five other federal agencies recently approved a joint rule (the “Risk Retention Rule”) mandating that sponsors of certain types of securitizations retain a minimum level of credit risk exposure in those transactions and prohibiting such sponsors from transferring or hedging against that retained credit risk.[i]The final Risk Retention Rule will be effective one year after its publication in the Federal Register for securitizations of residential mortgages, and two years after publication for securitizations of all other asset types. The SEC vote was 3-2, with sharp dissents from Commissioners Gallagher and Piwowar concluding that the adopting agencies had missed a prime opportunity to rein in risky mortgage lending practices that had precipitated the 2008 financial crisis. Background Following the meltdown of the securitization markets in 2007 (particularly subprime residential mortgage-backed securities), and the resulting global financial crisis, the Dodd-Frank Act mandated that the U.S. federal banking, securities and housing agencies adopt and implement rules to require sponsors of most new securitizations to retain not less than five percent of the credit risk of any assets that the securitizer, through the issuance of an asset-backed security, transfers, sells or conveys to a third party. It was thought that requiring securitization sponsors to keep “skin in the game” would align the interests of the sponsors with the interests of investors and thereby incentivize the sponsors to ensure the quality of the assets underlying the securitization through appropriate due diligence and underwriting procedures when selecting assets for securitization. Although the Dodd-Frank Act explicitly exempted securitizations of certain types of mortgage loans called “qualified residential mortgages” (or “QRMs”) from this risk retention requirement, it invited the rulemaking agencies to define that key term, provided that their definition could be no broader than the definition of “qualified mortgage”adopted by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act.[ii] In considering how to define QRM, the rulemaking agencies were directed by the Dodd-Frank Act to take into consideration “underwriting and product features that historical loan performance data indicate result in a lower risk of default.”[iii] Reprinted courtesy of Neil P. Casey, White and Williams LLP and Lori S. Smith, White and Williams LLP Mr. Casey may be contacted at caseyn@whiteandwilliams.com; Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Water Leak Covered for First Thirteen Days

April 11, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Florida Court of Appeals recently held the policy's exclusion for repeated water seepage over a period of fourteen days or more does not exclude loss caused by the seepage for the first thirteen days. Hicks v. Am. Integrity Ins. Co. of Florida, 2018 Fla. App. LEXIS 2616 (Fla. Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2018). 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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES