SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Court Denies Insurers' Motions for Summary Judgment Under All Risk Policies

June 05, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court found that the insurers could not escape coverage by summary judgment under their all risk policies. Eagle Harbour Condo Assoc'n v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54761 (W.D. Wash. April 10, 2017). Eagle Harbour Condominium Association sued several of its insurers who denied coverage for hidden water damage. Various insurers provided coverage from 1988 to 2015. The Association asserted that wind-driven rain and inadequate construction allowed water to penetrate the buildings' sheathing and framing, causing decades of deterioration and decay, until the damage was exposed to view in August 2014. The insurers claimed that the loss resulted from poor decisions in constructing and inadequately maintaining a stucco building in the wet and windy Pacific Northwest. The Association argued that the policies did not explicitly exclude damage caused by wind-driven rain, so there was coverage. 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

---

Language California Construction Direct Contractors Must Add to Subcontracts Beginning on January 1, 2022, Per Senate Bill 727

December 20, 2021 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
Senate Bill No. 727, Imposing Liability on Contractors for Wage Claims of Subcontractor Employees: California Senate Bill 727 was approved by the Governor on September 27, 2021. The new Act amended Labor Code Section 218.7 and added a new section 218.8 to the Labor Code. Both Labor Code sections impose on “direct contractors” in the construction industry (defined by Civil Code 8018 as “a contractor that has a direct contractual relationship with an owner”) liability for the wage violations of their subcontractors and sub-subcontractors at any tier when working on California private construction projects. Specifically, new Section 218.8 expands the liability of direct contractors for wage claims of the employees of subordinate subcontractors on projects for contracts executed beginning on January 1, 2022. The liability of the direct contractor under Labor Code 218.8 will include “any debt owed to a wage claimant or third party on the wage claimant’s behalf, incurred by a subcontractor at any tier acting under, by, or for the direct contractor.” Specifically included as listed liabilities of the direct contractor are: “any unpaid wage, fringe or other benefit payment or contribution, penalties or liquidated damages, and interest owed by the subcontractor on account of the performance of the labor.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

---

AB 685 and COVID-19 Workplace Exposure: New California Notice and Reporting Requirements of COVID Exposure Starting January 1, 2021

February 01, 2021 — Sewar K. Sunnaa & Nathan A. Cohen - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
SUMMARY Effective January 1, 2021, a new California law requires employers to notify employees about possible or known exposure to COVID-19 at the workplace. The law requires actual notification to employees within one day. In addition, the law requires notifications to local public health authorities of a COVID-19 outbreak. The law also gives Cal/OSHA a new emergency police power to issue Orders Prohibiting Use (“OPU”), permitting Cal/OSHA to close workplaces that constitute an imminent hazard to employees due to COVID-19. ANALYSIS AND GUIDANCE On January 1, 2021, a new California law took effect, which will enforce stringent new mandatory protocols governing notification of employees of COVID-19 exposures in the workplace. Until now, federal agencies such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) and state agencies such as the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“Cal/OSHA”) have released guidance to help employers navigate employee training, workplace surveillance and temperature-taking, among many other issues, that have arisen during the COVID-19 pandemic. Beginning January 1st, the new law places mandatory notice requirements of COVID-19 contact on all public and private employers under Labor Code Section 6409.6, with two exceptions: (1) health facilities, as defined in Section 1250 of the Health and Safety Code and (2) employees whose regular duties include COVID-19 testing or screening, or who provide patient care to individuals who are known or suspected to have COVID-19. Reprinted courtesy of Sewar K. Sunnaa, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Nathan A. Cohen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Ms. Sunnaa may be contacted at ssunnaa@pecklaw.com Mr. Cohen may be contacted at ncohen@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Shifting Fees and Costs in Nevada Construction Defect Cases

November 26, 2014 — Casey J. Quinn - Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
In Nevada, homeowners who sue a builder for residential constructional defects may recover attorneys’ fees and costs caused by the defect. Many times, the request for attorneys’ fees can outpace the size of the actual claim for defects. However, Nevada provides builders with two ways to potentially shift the right to recover attorneys’ fees and costs away from the homeowner and to the builder. The first arises during the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 40 process (Nevada’s Right to Repair law). After a builder receives notice of construction defects, it is required to provide the claimant with a written response to each defect, which may include a proposal for monetary compensation (including contribution from a subcontractor, supplier, or design professional). See NRS 40.6472. If a claimant unreasonably rejects a reasonable written offer of settlement included in the response and decides to commence litigation, the court may deny the claimant’s attorneys’ fees and costs and award attorneys’ fees and costs to the builder. See NRS 40.650. Thus, by including a reasonable offer of monetary compensation in a Chapter 40 response, a builder could possibly avoid paying any fees and costs and even recover its own fees in defending against the claim. A second method for shifting fees and costs is through a written offer of judgment (OOJ). See NRS 17.115 and NRCP 68. Not limited solely to construction defect matters, an OOJ is a useful tool in all kinds of litigation. OOJs are designed to facilitate and encourage pre-trial settlement by incentivizing parties to make reasonable settlement offers that—when unreasonably rejected—have the consequence of shifting the right to recover attorneys’ fees. Basically, when a party rejects an OOJ and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, the court cannot award any attorneys’ fees and costs to the rejecting party and may award attorneys’ fees incurred from the date of the offer to the entry of judgment, as well as all reasonable costs, to the party who made the offer. In a recent decision, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed that when a homeowner rejects an OOJ and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, it can wipe out that homeowner’s right to Chapter 40 fees and costs. See Gunderson, et al. v. D.R. Horton, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 9 (Feb. 27, 2014). In other words, “While NRS Chapter 40 permits an award of reasonable attorney fees proximately caused by a construction defect, it does not guarantee it.” Id. Because of the potentially harsh consequences of rejecting an OOJ, there are specific requirements that must be met to trigger them. An offer of judgment must be made in writing, can be made at any time at least 10 days before trial, and is irrevocable for 10 days with no provision for withdrawal before the 10 days expire. See Nava v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 118 Nev. 396, 46 P.3d 60 (2002). A party may make successive offers of judgment, but the most recent offer extinguishes previous offers and is controlling for determining the date from which attorneys’ fees may be awarded. See Albios v. Horizon Communities, Inc. 132 P.3d 1022 (2006). In Beattie v. Thomas, 99 Nev. 579, 668 P.2d 268, 274 (1983), the Nevada Supreme Court explained that the purpose of OOJs are not to cause plaintiffs to unfairly forego legitimate claims. However, when a valid offer of judgment is made, the offer is rejected, and the party rejecting the offer fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, a court must evaluate whether the plaintiff's claim was brought in good faith; whether the offer of judgment was reasonable and in good faith in both its timing and amount; whether the plaintiff's decision to reject the offer and proceed to trial was grossly unreasonable or in bad faith; and whether the fees sought by the offer are reasonable and justified. “After weighing the foregoing factors, the district judge may, where warranted, award up to the full amount of fees requested.” Id. It is worth noting that in Albios v. Horizon Communities, Inc. 132 P.3d 1022 (2006), the Nevada Supreme Court held that when a party rejects a reasonable OOJ and is foreclosed from recovering fees and costs, the party is likewise foreclosed from an award of fees and costs under Chapter 40. This means that even if a builder fails to include a monetary settlement offer as part of a Chapter 40 response, it may still avoid paying the claimant’s fees and costs with a reasonable and timely OOJ. Finally, it is important to remember that OOJs are a powerful tool that can cut both ways. If an OOJ is not reasonable and timely, or if it fails to contemplate all the potential recovery of an offeree, the OOJ may have no effect on the outcome of a case. Moreover, if a party rejects an OOJ and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, that party could end up paying the offeror’s costs and attorney’s fees incurred from the date of the offer. Given this powerful impact, OOJs should be an integral part of pre-litigation planning and overall litigation strategy. About the Author Casey J. Quinn is an associate in the Las Vegas office of Newmeyer & Dillion LLP. His practice focuses on complex commercial, construction, and insurance litigation and appellate work. Casey can be reached by email at Casey.Quinn@ndlf.com. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Remodels Replace Construction in Redding

September 09, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Record Searchlight reports that while new construction is down in Redding, California, residential and commercial remodel permits are up 17 percent. By August 2010, there had been 63 housing and commercial business starts in Redding, while this year has seen only 15.

One such remodel, that of Parkview Market, will cost about $201,000. Safeway is planning on two $80,000 remodels of its grocery stores in Redding. In all, the 150 building permits for remodels are worth a total of $2.8 million.

Read the full story…

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

---

Contractor Sentenced to 7 Years for “Hail Damage” Fraud

November 13, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The hailstorm might have spared homes in New Jersey, but the contractor didn’t. Marcin Gradziel entered a guilty plea when he was accused of filing fraudulent insurance claims for homes in New Jersey. In order to fool the inspectors from the insurance agency, after homeowners agreed to their pitch, Mr. Gradziel would damage their homes. After admitting this in court, Mr. Gradziel has now been sentenced to seven years in prison. His former employers, Precision Building, has gone out of business after paying restitution to the defrauded insurers. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Bank Sues over Defective Windows

July 31, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis replaced 498 windows in its building in 2008. According to a consultant, they all have to be replaced again. The bank estimates that the damages will exceed $1.5 million, and they are suing the contractor who installed them, the window manufacturer, and others. The windows were replaced to provide greater blast protection. But in 2011, the bank found that the special glass used was beginning to delaminate. The Federal Reserve is seeking to have all of the windows replaced “with windows that meet the specifications of the contract.” McCarthy Building Construction says that it is attempting to resolve things. The contractor noted that it is “continuing to work with the Federal Reserve and other parties and hope we can resolve this matter in a timely manner.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Employees Versus Independent Contractors

February 23, 2017 — Chadd Reynolds – Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Are the workers you employ on the job site considered employees or independent contractors? This is an important distinction that contractors and subcontractors must understand for many purposes, including federal taxes. The classification of your workers can affect their federal income, social security, and Medicare taxes, and the type of benefits they can receive. When determining whether workers should be classified as employees or independent contractors, courts generally look at three key factors: behavioral control, financial control, and the relationship of the parties. Behavior Control Behavior control concerns the business’s right to direct or control how the worker does its work. A worker is likely to be considered an employee when the business maintains behavior control. Such control can be exercised by giving instructions. This would include instructions on how, when, or where to do the work, what tools or equipment to use, who to hire to help with the work, or where to purchase the supplies to be used. Behavioral control can also occur through training. If the business provides training to tell the worker to do the work in a certain manner then the worker is more likely to be an employee. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chadd Reynolds, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Reynolds may be contacted at reynolds@ahclaw.com

---