Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

A Game of Texas Hold’em: How Texas Stopped Wage Increases for Salaried Exempt Employees Nationwide

December 03, 2024 — Matthew DeVries - Best Practices Construction Law
Construction contractors often have to deal with classification of employees, particularly those who work in the home office. Today’s guest post by Alexandra Shulman and Leah Lively addresses a recent court decision affecting the wage protection of employees under the the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). On November 15, 2024, a federal court in Texas vacated a U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) rule (the “2024 Rule”) that increased the minimum salary threshold for employees classified as exempt from overtime and minimum wage protections under the FLSA. The Texas court’s decision nullifies the 2024 Rule nationwide, effective immediately. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Matthew DeVries, Buchalter
Mr. DeVries may be contacted at mdevries@buchalter.com

Nevada Judge says Class Analysis Not Needed in Construction Defect Case

October 22, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to the National Law Journal, “The Nevada Supreme Court has ruled it neither arbitrary nor capricious for a trial judge to decline to perform a class-action analysis in a lawsuit filed by a homeowners’ association against a general contractor over alleged defects.” Justice Michael Douglas stated, as quoted by the National Law Journal, “The district court was not required to conduct that analysis at this point in the litigation because nothing in the record indicates that the association sought to proceed as a class action.” The general contractor argued that the construction defect law did “not apply because the development’s units were no longer new residences once they were rented as apartments.” However, the justices declared “that the association can pursue its lawsuit for construction defects in common elements owned by multiple units as long as one unit is a new residence.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

When is a “Willful” Violation Willful (or Not) Under California’s Contractor Enforcement Statutes?

April 17, 2019 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
The enforcement statutes applicable to the California Contractors’ State License Board aren’t exactly models in clarity. A few examples: 1. Business and Professions Code Section 7107: Abandonment without legal excuse of any construction project or operation engaged in or undertaken by the license as a contractor constitutes a cause for disciplinary action. 2. Business and Professions Code Section 7109: A willful departure in any material respect from accepted trade standards for good and workmanlike construction constitutes a cause for disciplinary action, unless the departure was in accordance with plans and specifications prepared by or under the direct supervision of an architect. 3. Business and Professions Code Section 7110: Willful or deliberate disregard and violation of the building laws of the state, or any political subdivision thereof, . . . or of the safety or labor laws or compensation insurance laws or Unemployment Insurance Code of the State, or of the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practice Act, or violation by any licensee of any provision of the Health and Safety Code or Water Code, relating to the digging, boring, or drilling of water wells, constitutes a cause for disciplinary action. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

DC Circuit Approves, with Some Misgivings, FERC’s Approval of the Atlantic Sunrise Natural Gas Pipeline Extension

December 02, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit decided the case of Allegheny Defense Project, et al. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on August 2, 2019. In a Per Curiam opinion, the court denied petitions challenging the Commission’s orders permitting the Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company’s expansion of an existing natural gas pipeline which extends from northern Pennsylvania across the Carolinas into Alabama. The expansion is called the “Atlantic Sunrise Project.” In February 2017, FERC approved the expansion, and denied various petitions, filed by environmental organizations and affected landowners, who then challenged the decision in the DC Circuit. However, the court concluded, on the basis of the administrative record, that these challenges “cannot surmount the deferential standards of agency review and binding DC Circuit precedent.” Under the law, the Commission must consider whether the projected pipeline project meets a market need, and whether the public benefits outweigh the harms. If both criteria are satisfied, FERC will, as in this instance, issue a certificate authorizing the pipeline’s construction, and that certificate also empowers the certificate holder to exercise eminent domain authority under to the Natural Gas Act when necessary. It was the latter consequence of the FERC’s determinations that caused several Pennsylvania landowners to file their objections with the Commission and seek to stay construction. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

Where Breach of Contract and Tortious Interference Collide

January 11, 2022 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Claims for breach of contract are numerous in the construction law world. Without these claims we construction attorneys would have a hard time keeping the doors open. A 2021 case examined a different sort of claim that could arise (though, “spoiler alert” did not in this case) during the course of a construction project. That type of claim is one for tortious interference with business expectancy. In Clark Nexsen, Inc. et. al v. Rebkee, the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia gave a great explanation of the law of this type of claim in analyzing the following basic facts: In 2018, Clark Nexsen, Inc. (“Clark”) and MEB General Contractors, Inc. (“MEB”) responded to Henrico County’s (“Henrico”) Request for Proposals (“RFP”) for the design and construction of a sport and convocation center (the “Project”). Henrico initially shortlisted Clark and MEB as a “design-build” team for the Project, but later restarted the search, issuing a second RFP. Clark and MEB submitted a second “design-build” proposal, but Henrico selected Rebkee Co. (“Rebkee”) for certain development aspects of the Project. MEB also submitted proposals to Rebkee, and Rebkee selected MEB as the design-builder for the Project. MEB, at Rebkee’s request, solicited proposals from three design firms and ultimately selected Clark as its design partner. From December 2019 to May 2020, Clark and MEB served as the design-build team to assist Rebkee in developing the Project. In connection therewith, Clark developed proprietary designs, technical drawings, and, with MEB, several cost estimates. In February 2020, MEB submitted a $294,334.50 Pay Application to Rebkee for engineering, design, and Project development work. Rebkee never paid MEB. Henrico paid MEB $50,000.00 as partial payment for MEB’s and Clark’s work. MEB then learned that Rebkee was using Clark’s drawings to solicit design and construction proposals from other companies. On July 23, 2020, Rebkee told MEB that Henrico directed it to cancel the design-build arrangement with MEB and Clark and pursue a different planning method. MEB and Clark sued and Rebkee for, among other claims, tortious interference with a business expectancy. Rebkee moved to dismiss the tortious interference claim. 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

Three Payne & Fears Attorneys Named 2024 Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Stars

June 17, 2024 — Payne & Fears LLP
We congratulate our Payne & Fears attorneys named 2024 Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Stars in the following practice areas: Employment & Labor Blake A. Dillion Business Litigation Leilani L. Jones Employment Litigation: Defense Tyler B. Runge Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears LLP

Idaho Supreme Court Address Water Exclusion in Commercial Property Exclusion

March 09, 2020 — James M. Eastham - Traub Lieberman
In ABK, LLC v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 2019 WL 7046393 (Idaho Dec. 23, 2019) an insured gas station owner sued its property insurance carrier for breach of contract and bad faith after the carrier denied coverage for loss caused by water contamination of the insured’s underground storage tanks. Mid-Century had denied coverage because the underground storage tanks were damaged by water -- which was an excluded peril under the policy. Mid-Century issued Business Owners Special Property Coverage to the insured which provided all-risk coverage for physical loss or damage. The policy contained a number of exclusionary provisions including a water exclusion which provided that the policy did not pay for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by:

Flood, surface water, waves, tides, tidal waves, overflow or any body of water, or their spray, all whether driven by wind or not; ...
Water under the ground surface pressing on, or flowing or seeping through:

Foundations, walls, floors or paved surfaces:
Basements, whether paved or not; or
Doors, windows or other openings.

In upholding the District Court’s ruling in favor of Mid-Century, the Idaho Supreme Court held that a clear reading of the unambiguous policy provides damage caused by surface water or water under the ground when flowing or seeping through other openings is excluded from coverage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Eastham may be contacted at jeastham@tlsslaw.com

Eastern District of Pennsylvania Clarifies Standard for Imposing Spoliation Sanctions

October 19, 2020 — Kean Maynard - The Subrogation Strategist
Courts are faced with the difficult task of drawing a line to determine when the failure to preserve evidence becomes culpable enough to permit a judicial remedy. In State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Cohen, No. 19-1947, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163681, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (District Court) made clear that a party is not entitled to a spoliation sanction without proof that the alleged spoliation was beyond accident or mere negligence. The District Court emphasized that when evidence goes missing or is destroyed, the party seeking a spoliation sanction must show that the alleged spoliation was intentional and that the alleged spoliator acted in “bad faith” before adverse inferences will be provided. In Cohen, Joshua Cohen (Cohen) rented a residential property to Lugretta Bryant (Bryant). Bryant’s property suffered damages as a result of a kitchen fire. Bryant’s insurer, proceeding as subrogee, hired a fire investigator to determine the cause and origin of the fire. Based on eyewitness testimony and examination of the burn patterns, the fire investigator concluded that the fire started at the General Electric (GE) microwave located in the kitchen. The investigator advised all parties to preserve the microwave so that a joint examination could take place with the property owner and GE present. In the following weeks, the tenant returned to the property to collect belongings and perform some cleaning in anticipation of repairs beginning. Importantly, the tenant claimed the microwave was preserved during these cleaning efforts and remained at the site as instructed. However, in the fall of 2017, one of Cohen’s workers discovered that the microwave was missing and its whereabouts remain unknown. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kean Maynard, White and Williams
Mr. Maynard may be contacted at maynardk@whiteandwilliams.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES