SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

'Right to Repair' and Fixing Equipment in a Digital Age

August 30, 2021 — Jeff Rubenstone - Engineering News-Record
When a piece of equipment breaks down on site, rental agreements, subcontractor contracts and other arrangements generally make it clear who gets to open the hood and start tinkering. But heavy equipment made in the last two decades increasingly relies on digital components for many basic functions. Embedded computer systems oversee electronically controlled hydraulics and regulate engine behavior and emissions-control systems. The tools to access these firmware and software systems are not always easy to come by, and in some cases repairs can’t be done without working directly with a manufacturer-approved dealer or technician. Some repairs may require a digital handshake to take effect. Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Rubenstone, Engineering News-Record Mr. Rubenstone may be contacted at rubenstonej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

California Builders’ Right To Repair Is Alive

March 19, 2014 — David J. Byassee - Ulich & Terry LLP
The California Supreme Court surprised everyone on December 11, 2013 when it denied Brookfield Homes’ request for review of the ruling in the case of Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC (2014) 219 Cal.App.4th 98, which was decided by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District Division Three (Orange County). In that case the Court of Appeal held that the Right to Repair Act aka SB800 is not the exclusive remedy for a homeowner seeking damages for construction defects that have resulted in property damage. Under the ruling, homeowners may choose to sue builders under common law theories of liability such as strict liability and negligence, in addition to liability under the Act. This ruling made homeowners' compliance with the prelitigation requirements of the Act optional and thereby put builders' “right to repair” in jeopardy. The ruling undermined the expectations of California's homebuilders who, for the past decade, understood that their liability is limited by the Act and that they have a right to repair. Since the Liberty Mutual case was handed down, the topic has become a hotbed item with several divisions of the Court of Appeal. On February 19, 2014, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District Division Three (Los Angeles County) issued a ruling against Premier Homes in the case of Burch v. Superior Court 2014 Cal.App.LEXIS 159 that, without independent analysis, simply adopted the holding in the Liberty Mutual case. But on February 21, 2014, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District Division Four (Los Angeles County) ruled in the case of KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc. v.Superior Court 2014 Cal.App.LEXIS 167 that a homeowner's failure to give the builder an opportunity to inspect and repair a construction defect excused the builder's liability under the Act. Additionally, the Court of Appeal went out of its way to state it had ruled earlier in that case that the Act is the exclusive remedy. The various rulings lay a foundation for ultimate intervention by the California Supreme Court. In the meantime, these opposing cases will be cited by counsel for homeowners and builders alike for opposing positions as they continue to navigate construction defect disputes. Mr. Byassee is a strategic litigator specializing in representation of builders and developers. For more information regarding dispute resolution procedures under SB800, Mr. Byassee may be contacted at (949) 250-9797 or by email at dbyassee@ut-law.com. Published courtesy of David J. Byassee, Ulich & Terry LLP Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Client Alert: California’s Unfair Competition Law (B&P §17200) Preempted by Federal Workplace Safety Law

September 24, 2014 — R. Bryan Martin, Yvette Davis, & Kristian Moriarty - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Solus Industrial Innovations LLC v. Superior Court (No. G047661, filed 9/22/2014) (“Solus”) the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, held California’s Unfair Competition Law (Business & Professions Code §17200) is preempted by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (“Fed/OSHA”) because the Unfair Competition law, as approved by the United States Secretary of Labor, does not include any provision for civil enforcement of workplace safety standards by a state prosecutor through a complaint for penalties. Solus Industrial Innovations, LLC (“Solus”) is a plastics manufacturer. In 2007, Solus installed a residential water heater at its commercial facility in Orange County. The water heater exploded in March 2009, killing two workers. California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (“Cal/OSHA”) investigated and determined the explosion was caused by a failed safety valve and lack of any proper safety feature on the water heater. Cal/OSHA charged Solus with five violations of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations. Because deaths were involved, Cal/OSHA forwarded the results of its investigation to the Orange County District Attorney. In March 2012, the Orange County District Attorney filed criminal charges against Solus’ plant manager and maintenance supervisor. The District Attorney also filed a civil action against Solus, including two causes of action for violation of California Business & Professions Code §17200 – the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”). The action sought civil penalties under the UCL in the amount of $2,500 per day, per employee, from November 29, 2007 through March 19, 2009. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys R. Bryan Martin, Yvette Davis and Kristian Moriarty Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Ms. Davis may be contacted at ydavis@hbblaw.com Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Former Sponsor of the Lenox Facing Suit in Supreme Court

January 13, 2014 — Melissa Zaya-CDJ STAFF
Lewis Futterman, former sponsor of the Lenox condominium in Harlem, New York, is being sued by the condo board for alleged “building code violations, construction defects, and fraud” according to New York Curbed. The residents claim that Futterman filed for bankruptcy in 2010 to avoid paying for repairs. The Lenox condo board filed suit in the New York Supreme Court last December 31st. The Lenox’s condo board claims that the building has “fundamental structural flaws, a defective roof and pervasive leakage,” reports Rowley Amato of New York Curbed. The board also claims the original offering plans were not the same as the units purchased by residents in 2006. Residents paid an estimated two hundred and sixty thousand to repair defects within the condominium, and they are pursuing a minimum of four million in damages. Katherine Clarke of The Real Deal stated that Futterman would only “say that the issue was between the residents and the construction company which built the project.” Read the full story at New York Curbed... Read the full story at The Real Deal... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Can a Lease Force a Tenant's Insurer to Defend the Landlord?

October 10, 2022 — Kerianne Kane Luckett - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Can an indemnification clause in a commercial lease obligate a tenant’s insurer to defend a landlord? Recently, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York said, “Yes!” On August 9, 2022, the district court issued a decision in ConMed Corp. vs. Federal Insurance Company, holding that the indemnification clause in a policyholder’s lease triggered the insurer’s duty to defend the landlord in an action arising out of the tenant’s negligence. Facts of the Case ConMed is a medical technology company that leases warehouse space in Georgia from Breit Industrial Canyon (“the Landlord”) to sterilize its medical equipment. ConMed’s employees filed suit against ConMed and a contractor that performed the sterilization, alleging injuries caused by exposure to excessive amounts of chemicals used in the sterilization process (the “ConMed Action”). Thereafter, ConMed’s employees filed a separate lawsuit against the Landlord, alleging that the Landlord permitted storage of unsafe levels of the chemicals at the warehouse without adequate ventilation (the “Landlord Action”). The lease agreement required ConMed to indemnify the Landlord “except in the event of, and to the extent of, Landlord’s negligence or willful misconduct.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kerianne Kane Luckett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Luckett may be contacted at KKane@sdvlaw.com

---

Coverage for Construction Defects Barred by Business Risk Exclusions

September 01, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

Although the court determined there was an occurrence, coverage was excluded by the business risk exclusions.  See Cont’l W. Ins. Co. v. Shay Constr. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82839 (D. Colo. July 28, 2011).

White was the general contractor on the project. White had three subcontracts with Shay to provide framing, siding, and related work on the project. Shay was insured under a CGL policy issued by Continental Western.

Two of Shay’s subcontractors furnished materials, labor and equipment to Shay. These subcontractors filed suit in state court alleging they had not been compensated for the work and materials. White and Shay were named as defendants. White cross claimed against Shay, alleging Shay had breached its obligations under the subcontracts. Several allegations sounded in contract. Other allegations, however, contended Shay had performed defective work and had damaged the work of other trades in correcting deficiencies in its own performance.

Shay sought coverage under Continental Western’s policy. Continental Western filed suit for a declaratory judgment and moved for summary judgment.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

---

Contract Provisions That Help Manage Risk on Long-Term Projects

June 29, 2020 — Jason Lambert - Construction Executive
Few things can dampen the thrill and promise of a newly closed construction deal than the realization that it could quickly become a losing proposition for the contractor depending on economic and other conditions. In an era of instant information, constantly adjusting markets and political extremes, projects that start under one set of assumptions or conditions can occur or conclude under much different ones. While no one has a crystal ball, there are contractual provisions that can provide clear guidance in the face of many “what ifs” that can arise in construction. One of the chief concerns a contractor should have in a project lasting more than a few months is what impact price increases will have on the profitability of the job. On a true cost-plus project, this may be of little concern, but on any project with a limitation on costs or a guaranteed maximum price, contractors should insist on a procedure to revisit the limitation or price if certain conditions change. This can be as simple as allowing the contractor to receive an upward adjustment in the price if costs increase by more than a certain percentage. It can be as complicated as requiring multiple new bids and disclosures to the property owner, architect or project manager and allowing approval of new suppliers or subcontractors to limit cost increases to the cheapest increase. The protection—and certainty—to the contractor though, comes from having a process in the contract to address cost increases, whether it is simple or complex. Reprinted courtesy of Jason Lambert, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Lambert may be contacted at Jason.lambert@dinsmore.com

---

Water Intrusion Judged Not Related to Construction

October 09, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A Wisconsin couple has lost their lawsuit against the city of Stoughton. Jerry and Maxine King claimed that construction of the Stoughton Fire Station lead to flooding of their basement. The city conceded that in 2008, the contractor failed to “have in place some of the measures that could have prevented the water from running onto the King property.” The contractor’s insurance company compensated the Kings. Subsequently, the Kings complained of further water damage. But Matt Dregne, Stoughton’s attorney, said that the Kings “didn’t repair the basement.” The judge in the case dismissed the suit with prejudice, disallowing any further suits from the Kings on these circumstances. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---