Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Florida Court Puts the Claim of Landlord’s Insurer In The No-Fly Zone

March 06, 2023 — William L. Doerler - The Subrogation Strategist
In United States Aviation Underwriters v. Turnberry Airport Holdings, LLC, No. 3D22-270, 2023 Fla. App. LEXIS 1207 (U.S. Aviation), the Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District (Appellate Court) considered whether the insurer for a commercial landlord could pursue subrogation against the landlord’s tenant. Based on the terms of the lease between the landlord and the tenant, the Appellate Court held that the landlord’s insurer could not pursue subrogation. In U.S. Aviation, the defendant, Turnberry Airport Holdings, LLC (Turnberry Airport) leased space to an insured aircraft owner. The lease contained the following provision: TENANT agrees that all policies of insurance obtained by it in connection with the Space or as required hereunder shall contain appropriate waiver of subrogation clauses. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.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

Court Dismisses Cross Claims Against Utility Based on Construction Anti-Indemnity Statute

August 14, 2018 — David R. Cook - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
When a plane crashed and several passengers and crew died or were injured, their representatives sued several defendants, including a nearby plant owner, Milliken & Company (“Plant Owner”), based on claims that transmission lines on Plant Owner’s property were too close to the runways, were too high, and encroached on the airport easements. Plant Owner cross claimed against utility owner, Georgia Power Company (“Utility”). Plant Owner’s claim was based on an easement it granted to Utility, which required Utility to indemnify it for any claims arising out of Utility’s construction or maintenance of the transmission lines. In defense, Utility argued that the easement’s indemnity provision violated Georgia’s construction anti-indemnity statute. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

CEB’s Mechanics Liens and Related Remedies – 2014 Update

November 26, 2014 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
I’ve been writing for the CEB – the Continuing Education of the Bar – which publishes legal practice guides for lawyers for some time now. But I don’t think I’ve been quite as excited to write for the CEB than writing for its publication, California Mechanics Liens and Related Construction Remedies, for the first time this year. Particularly, since it’s one of the first publications I used as a young lawyer to learn about construction law, and still use today. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Parties Can Agree to Anything In A Settlement Agreement………Or Can They?

October 17, 2023 — Alexa Stephenson & Ivette Kincaid - Kahana Feld
A settlement agreement is a contract. When parties to pending litigation enter into a settlement, they enter into a contract. Such a contract is subject to the general law governing all contracts. (T. M. Cobb Co. v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 273, 280 [204 Cal. Rptr. 143, 682 P.2d 338] [offers by a party to compromise under Code Civ. Proc., § 998].) Courts seek to interpret contracts in a manner that will render them “lawful, operative, definite, reasonable, and capable of being carried into effect’” without violating the intent of the parties. (Robbins v. Pacific Eastern Corp. (1937) 8 Cal.2d 241, 272–273; Kaufman v. Goldman, (2011) 195 Cal. App. 4th 734, 745. A settlement agreement like a contract is a document that is typically negotiated between the parties to the agreement and it is up to the parties to determine its terms. Settlements take time and sometimes negotiating the settlement terms takes longer. This is especially true in complex litigation and multiparty matters where negotiating the settlement terms is just as contentious as litigating the matter. Just like contracts, in a settlement agreement the parties cannot agree to terms that violate public policy. A contract is thought to be against public policy if it results in a breach of law, harms citizens, or causes injury to the state. Contracts that are voided on public policy grounds carry no legal obligations. For example, an employer cannot force an employee to sign a contract that forbids the worker from joining a union. Reprinted courtesy of Alexa Stephenson, Kahana Feld and Ivette Kincaid, Kahana Feld Ms. Stephenson may be contacted at astephenson@kahanafeld.com Ms. Kincaid may be contacted at ikincaid@kahanafeld.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Ohio Supreme Court Rules That Wrongful Death Claims Are Subject to the Four-Year Statute of Repose for Medical Claims

January 16, 2024 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
Cleveland, Ohio (January 2, 2024) - In a landmark 4-3 ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled on December 28 that wrongful death claims are subject to the four-year statute of repose contained in O.R.C. 2305.113(C) (“Medical Claim Statute of Repose”). Everhart v. Coshocton County Memorial Hospital, Slip No. 2023-Ohio-4670. Statutes of repose create an absolute bar to filing a lawsuit. When applicable, they bar plaintiffs from filing claims outside a specified time frame. The Medical Claim Statute of Repose creates a four-year window for commencing medical claims, which begins to run from “the occurrence of the act or omission constituting the alleged basis of the medical…claim.” O.R.C. 2305.113(C)(1). Medical claims commenced after the four-year period are barred. The primary question before the Court was whether a wrongful death claim, which is separate and distinct from a medical negligence claim, can qualify as a “medical claim” within the context of the Medical Claim Statute of Repose. The Court answered in the affirmative. A wrongful death claim can qualify as a medical claim if the wrongful death claim “…arises out the medical diagnosis, care, or treatment, of any person.” O.R.C. 2305.113(E)(3). According to the majority, a wrongful death claim can fall within the broad definition of “medical claim” and, if it does, is subject to the Medical Claim Statute of Repose. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

Denial of Motion to Dissolve Lis Pendens Does Not Automatically Create Basis for Certiorari Relief

November 16, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent appellate decision out of Florida’s Sixth District Court of Appeal holds that a trial court’s denial of motion to dissolve a lis pendens does NOT automatically give a basis for a petition for a writ of certiorari. Generalized allegations of “irreparable harm” to support the basis for the petition for writ of certiorari are insufficient. Rather, the party moving for the petition MUST clearly demonstrate the irreparable harm; otherwise, the petition for writ of certiorari will fail. A lis pendens has legal significance. It is a recorded document that notifies the world that there is a pending lawsuit dealing with the real property at issue. This is important because who wants to buy a piece of property that is subject to litigation – that would be a risky transaction! In CPPB, LLC v. Taurus Apopka City Center, LLC, 48 Fla.L.Weekly D1837a (Fla. 6th DCA 2023), a dispute arose as to a real estate transaction. The owner sold a parcel to a buyer. The owner also owned three adjacent parcels. As part of the transaction, the buyer agreed to perform certain improvements to all of the parcels including those adjacent parcels owned by the owner. The owner deposited funds in escrow for purposes of its share of the improvements. A payment dispute arose regarding the improvements and the buyer sued the seller. The seller filed a counterclaim to rescind the transaction along with a recorded lis pendens on the parcel purchased by the buyer. The buyer moved to dissolve the lis pendens which the trial court denied. This prompted the appeal – a petition for a write of certiorari based on the trial court’s denial of the motion to dissolve the lis pendens. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

2023 Construction Law Update

January 04, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
As we approach 2023 we want to wish you and yours a happy holiday season. A total of 1,726 bills were introduced during the second half of the 2021-2022 legislative session of which 997 were signed into law. This compares with the 2,421 bills introduced during the first half of the 2021-2022 of which 770 were signed into law. Among the legislation taking effect in 2023 are new laws applying to contractors include new workers’ compensation laws (even if you don’t have employees), a continuation of a record number of new housing affordability laws as well as environmental laws aimed at climate change, and, of course, as we see nearly every year, new procurement authorizations. Licensing AB 1747 – Authorizes the Contractors State License Board to issue penalties of up to $30,000 for the willful or deliberate disregard of state or local laws relating to the issuance of building permits. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES