SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Commonwealth Court Strikes Blow to Philly Window and Door Ordinance

January 05, 2017 — Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions
On December 22, 2016, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court issued an important opinion that has flown under the radar somewhat. The case Rufo v. Board of Licenses and Inspection Review, invalidates a major portion of Philadelphia’s so called windows and doors ordinance, which requires owners of vacant properties to install glass windows and doors with frames on vacant properties. A copy of the opinion can be found here. (I only learned about the case because of a tweet by a litigator with the pro-freedom group the Institute for Justice.) The Windows and Doors Ordinance The case concerns Section 306.2 of the Property Maintenance Code which requires “the owner of a vacant building that is a blighting influence, as defined in this subcode, [to] secure all spaces designed as windows with windows that have frames and glazing and all entryways with doors.” Property owners found in violation of the ordinance can face stiff fines. Property owners are subject to a daily fine for each door and window in violation of the Ordinance. The fine is $300 per window or door. However, because most vacant properties have multiple windows and doors the fines can add up exponentially. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

---

Withdrawal of an Admission in California May Shift Costs—Including Attorneys’ Fees—Incurred in Connection with the Withdrawal

January 24, 2018 — Tony Carucci – Real Estate Litigation Blog
Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.300, a court may permit a party to withdraw an admission made in response to a request for admission upon noticed motion. The court may only do so, however, “if it determines that the admission was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, and that the party who obtained the admission will not be substantially prejudiced in maintaining that party’s action or defense on the merits.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.300(b). The court may also “impose conditions on the granting of the motion that are just, including, but not limited to . . . (2) An order that the costs of any additional discovery be borne in whole or in part by the party withdrawing or amending the admission.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.300(c). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tony Carucci, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Carucci may be contacted at acarucci@swlaw.com

---

A New AAA Study Confirms that Arbitration is Faster to Resolution Than Court – And the Difference Can be Assessed Monetarily

June 05, 2017 — John P. Ahlers - Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
There has been a perception among some litigators that arbitration is more expensive than court due to several factors. Among them:

• The “upfront” costs are higher in that filing fees for arbitration exceed those in court. Arbitrators are paid, whether hourly or a flat rate, and the three arbitration panels can become very expensive.
• Some arbitration clauses preserve statutory discovery rights, basically defeating the advantage of a simplified arbitration process. Discovery wars are extremely expensive. Depositions are the most costly of discovery, and in arbitration, as opposed to court, depositions are limited or do not exist.
• Some arbitration clauses integrate the statutory rules of civil procedure, making arbitration almost equivalent to litigation. These types of clauses do the parties no favors.

These notions are all dispelled in a recent American Arbitration Association (AAA) study comparing the length of time in court, based on published federal court statistics, to the length of time in arbitration, based on data from the AAA. The study demonstrates that federal courts take much longer to resolve cases by trial and appeal than arbitration by AAA. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at jahlers@ac-lawyers.com

---

Legal Fallout Begins Over Delayed Edmonton Bridges

June 22, 2016 — Scott Van Voorhis - Engineering News-Record
The project teams for Edmonton’s two problem bridge-replacement projects have put most of their woes behind them—if trips to civil court and possible late-completion penalties are excluded. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted with questions or comments at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

---

Law Firm Fails to Survive Insurer's and Agent's Motions to Dismiss

May 08, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Interpreting New Jersey law, the federal district court dismissed without prejudice the law firm's complaint against its insurer and agent. Law Office of Drew J. Bauman v. Hanover Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31844 (D. N. J. Feb. 27, 2023). The law firm had a professional liability policy issued by Hanover. The law firm was sued in the underlying case involving a real estate transaction. The law firm tendered the defense and indemnity of the underlying complaint, but coverage was denied. The law firm sued, contending Hanover breached the policy by refusing to abide by its obligations under the policy. In the alternative, the law firm alleged that its agent, USI Insurance Services, LLC, was liable if the policy did not require Hanover to defend and indemnify in the underlying case. It was further alleged that USI was responsible for procuring coverage for the law firm and knew of its insurance needs. USI was negligent in securing a policy with inadequate coverage. 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

---

New Standard Addresses Wind Turbine Construction Safety Requirements and Identifies Hazards

October 09, 2018 — Christopher Daniels - Construction Executive
American Society of Safety Professionals’ industry consensus standard, ANSI/ASSP A10.21 – 2018 Safety Requirements for Safe Construction and Demolition of Wind Generation/Turbine Facilities, is the first standard to identify and address hazards specific to wind turbine construction. It includes nearly a dozen appendices that provide additional consideration and guidance for hazards that vary between projects, turbines and geographical areas. The new A10.21 standard starts by requiring a site hazard identification prior to construction commencing. It establishes the general contractor as the responsible party for site hazard identification assessment. This is because the general contractor is usually one of the first entities on site able to assess the various challenges/concerns such as: geography, utilities, environmental, etc. This assessment is usually done by driving the project site and identifying GPS coordinates of specific challenges. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Daniels, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Daniels may be contacted at chris.daniels@mortenson.com

---

Keeping Your Workers Safe When Air Quality Isn't

August 21, 2023 — Kim Ritchie - Construction Executive
Kim Ritchie, Vice President, Canada, ISN Construction Executive Q&A What risks do wildfires and poor air quality pose to workers? Exposure to smoke caused by wildfires can have significant health risks, especially for those with preexisting medical conditions. Smoke exposure and poor air quality can trigger immediate effects such as coughing, difficulty breathing and irritation of the throat, eyes and lungs. However, despite smoke dissipating, it could have long-term health complications with cardiovascular impacts, such as heart attacks and stroke. With the lasting impacts caused by exposure to wildfire smoke and poor air quality, it's essential for organizations to look out for their workers’ long-term health. Reprinted courtesy of Kim Ritchie, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

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

---