SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Restrictions On Out-Of-State Real Estate Brokers Being Challenged In Nevada

April 10, 2019 — Aaron D. Lovaas - Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
For years, the Nevada Real Estate Division (“NRED”) and its sub-entity, the Nevada Real Estate Commission (“NREC”), have been tasked with administering the licensing procedures applicable to real estate professionals in Nevada, as well as enforcement of the regulations governing business practices, advertising, commissions, license maintenance, and a host of other dayto-day parameters within which the profession operates. Within the past five years, however, the NREC has tasked itself with the publicly stated goal of “protecting” Nevada real estate licensees and the commissions they earn from out-of-state real estate professionals seeking to do business in the Silver State. While efforts to preserve local real estate opportunities for local brokers might seem sound, an international brokerage firm is challenging the foundation of that structure. If they win, the outcome could have huge implications on the real estate industry in Nevada. Businesses, here’s a breakdown of the existing structure and what the challenge is all about. The Existing Regulatory Structure Through amending their own regulations, the NRED and NREC have created a regulatory structure that:

• Prohibits any non-Nevada licensed real estate broker from representing any seller (Nevada based or non-Nevada based) of any Nevada real estate;
• Prohibits any non-Nevada licensed real estate broker from representing any Nevada resident in the purchase of Nevada real estate; and
• Allows non-Nevada licensed real estate brokers to represent non-Nevada purchasers of Nevada real estate only if the out-of-state broker formally affiliates (and therefore shares commissions with) a resident Nevada-licensed broker.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aaron D. Lovaas, Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
Mr. Lovaas may be contacted at aaron.lovaas@ndlf.com

---

When Is Mandatory Arbitration Not Mandatory?

August 19, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
I have discussed my views on mandatory mediation in construction contracts at other places here at Musings and also discussed how the contract is king here in Virginia. A recent Charlottesville, Virginia Circuit Court case combined these two concepts to allow a subcontractor to proceed straight to litigation despite various ADR provisions in the contract between it and the general contractor. In ProBuild v. DPR & Continental Casualty, the Court looked at a series of ADR steps that were to be followed in the contract between the parties in order to allow DPR, the general contractor to require arbitration as opposed to litigation. The Court considered the surety’s motion to stay the litigation against it pending arbitration between ProBuild and DPR. In ProBuild, the Court looked at a contractual provision that provided certain steps to be followed in the event of a dispute, starting with a notice of dispute, followed by negotiation, followed by mediation should the disputing party request it, and in the event that mediation was tried and failed, the disputing party or general contractor could require arbitration. The Court determined that ProBuild, the subcontractor, was the disputing party under the contract, had pursued unsuccessful formal negotiations and that neither ProBuild nor DPR requested mediation. The Court then held that because unsuccessful mediation was a prerequisite to required arbitration and because mediation was never pursued, the mandatory arbitration clause did not apply. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Construction Defect Bill a Long Shot in Nevada

June 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Construction defect reform may still be on the table in Nevada, according to the Reno Gazette Journal. Assembly member Pat Hickey got a committee hearing for Assembly Bill 504 on Sunday. The bill is backed by the construction industry and opposed by trial lawyers. Hickey told the Assembly Commerce and Labor committee that “this bill is not perfect, I would like for it to do more,” and said that without changes Nevada will “continue to reward litigation over resolution.” AB504 would, among other provisions, provide some protection to subcontractors from the actions of general contractors, though Ira Hansen, an assembly member from Sparks and the owner of a plumbing business, called it a “backhanded slap.” The Gazette noted that similar language pertaining to subcontractors was in AB367, which is sponsored by Democrats. Hickey and Hansen are both Republicans. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Crime Lab Beset by Ventilation Issues

January 29, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
A new crime lab in Clayton county, Missouri, is beset with “’hurricane-like’ gales and persistent dripping water that officials say threatened to contaminate key evidence from crimes,” reported the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. St. Louis County Police Chief Tim Fitch admitted that he didn’t believe any evidence has been destroyed yet, but we’re “talking about highly sensitive evidence from homicide scenes that we must assure is not being contaminated by leakage or other means.” According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the “general contractor and public works official insist the problems—and extreme temperature differences among rooms—were glitches expected in any major project, and are being fixed.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Labor Development Impacting Developers, Contractors, and Landowners

June 25, 2019 — John Bolesta & Keahn Morris - Sheppard Mullin Construction & Infrastructure Law Blog
It is unlawful for unions to secondarily picket construction sites or to coercively enmesh neutral parties in the disputes that a union may have with another employer. This area of the law is governed by the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), the federal law that regulates union-management relations and the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), the federal administrative agency that is tasked with enforcing the NLRA. But NLRB decisions issued during the Obama administration have allowed a union to secondarily demonstrate at job sites and to publicize their beefs over the use of non-union contractors there, provided the union does not actually “picket” the site. In those decisions, the NLRB narrowed its definition of unlawful “picketing,” thereby, limiting the scope of unlawful activity prohibited by law. Included in such permissible nonpicketing secondary activity is the use of stationary banners or signs and the use of inflatable effigies, typically blow-up rats or cats, designed to capture the public’s attention at an offending employer’s job site or facilities. A recently released NLRB advice memo, however, signals the likely reversal of those earlier decisions and that contractors and owners may now be able to stop such harassing union job site tactics simply by filing a secondary boycott unfair labor practice change with the NLRB. The 18 page memo, dated December 20, 2018 (and released to the public on May 14, 2019), directs the NLRB’s Region 13 to issue a complaint against the Electrician’s Union in a dispute coming out of Chicago where the union erected a large, inflatable effigy, a cat clutching a construction worker by the neck, and posted a large stationary banner proclaiming its dispute to be with the job’s general contractor over the use of a non-union electrical sub at the job site’s entrance. Though not an official Board decision, the memo suggests the NLRB General Counsel’s (GC) belief that the earlier Obama era decisions may have been wrongly decided and should be reconsidered by the NLRB on the theories that the Union’s nonpicketing conduct was tantamount to unlawful secondary picketing, that it constituted “signal” picketing that unlawfully induced or encouraged the employees of others to cease working with the subs or that it constituted unlawful coercion. Reprinted courtesy of John Bolesta, Sheppard Mullin and Keahn Morris, Sheppard Mullin Mr. Bolesta may be contacted at jbolesta@sheppardmullin.com Mr. Morris may be contacted at kmorris@sheppardmullin.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

The Multigenerational Housing Trend

May 02, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Reuters reported that “[m]ore than 50 million Americans already live in multigenerational situations, according to Pew Research, and the number is expected to grow as baby boomers age.” Lennar Corp has “Next Gen” home models, which provides multigenerational housing for prices similar to traditional homes. For instance, according to Reuters, one of the Next Gen models contains “an 800-square-foot house-within-a-house” with “a separate entrance and its own patio, plus a bedroom, sitting area, and bathroom.” Other home builders are also providing multigenerational housing: “Gertz Fine Homes, which builds between 12-30 houses a year near Portland, Oregon, says about 30 percent of sales are now multigenerational models, which can cost around $600,000.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Boyfriend Pleads Guilty in Las Vegas Construction Defect Scam Suicide

November 07, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
One of the odder twists of the Las Vegas construction defect scandal was the charge that Nancy Quon’s boyfriend helped her in an initial suicide attempt. Quon, implicated by not charged in the case of taking control of homeowner boards in order to profit from construction defect settlements. William Webb was alleged to have bought the drug GBH in order to allow Quon, his girlfriend, to commit suicide. Ms. Quon later overdosed on a combination of alcohol and prescription drugs. In addition to pleading guilty to the drug charges, Webb also made a plea bargain with prosecutors in which he did not admit guilt in an insurance fraud charge, but acknowledged that prosecutors would likely be successful at obtaining a conviction. Webb will be sentenced February 7 and is expected to receive a sentence of six years imprisonment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Not Everything is a Pollutant: A Summary of Recent Cases Supporting a Common Sense and Narrow Interpretation of the CGL's Pollution Exclusion

October 26, 2020 — Philip B. Wilusz & Jeffrey J. Vita - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Those of us who suffered through law school are familiar with the argument that there are fundamental rules applicable to contract interpretation and that a certain contract language interpretation would “swallow the rule.” However, insurance companies have long advocated for an interpretation of the CGL policy’s pollution exclusion that would “swallow the coverage” that the insureds thought they were purchasing. Insurers have successfully argued in several states that the pollution exclusion’s definition of “pollutant” should be read literally, and be applied to any “solid, liquid, gaseous, or thermal irritant or contaminant including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals, and waste.” As anyone with children can attest to, the range of items and substances that can be considered an “irritant” is limitless. The logical extent of the insurer’s interpretation brings to mind the high school student who, for his science fair project, convinced his fellow students to ban “dihydrogen monoxide.”1 Citing evidence such as the fact that everyone who has ever died was found to have consumed “dihydrogen monoxide,” he convinced them of the dangers of . . . water. Similarly, an overly expansive reading of the definition of “pollutant” could lead to the absurd result of even applying it to ubiquitous harmless substances such as water. The pollution exclusion, therefore, has run amok in many states and has allowed insurers to avoid liability for otherwise covered claims. Fortunately, insureds in many states have successfully argued that the pollution exclusion is subject to a more limited interpretation based on several different theories. For example, some courts have agreed that the pollution exclusion, as initially introduced by the insurance industry, should be limited to instances of traditional environmental pollution. Others have held that the exclusion is ambiguous as to its interpretation. The reasonable expectations of the insureds do not support a broad reading of the defined term “pollutant.” Below, this article addresses a number of recent decisions that have adopted a pro policyholder interpretation of the pollution exclusion. As with most insurance coverage issues, choice of law clearly matters. Reprinted courtesy of Philip B. Wilusz, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Mr. Wilusz may be contacted at pbw@sdvlaw.com Mr. Vita may be contacted at jjv@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---