Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Congratulations to Las Vegas Team on Their Successful Motion for Summary Judgment!

May 06, 2024 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
This case arose from an alleged trip and fall on an uneven surface in a parking lot outside of BWBO’s client’s restaurant. Plaintiff alleged more than $385,000 in past medical specials (with high potential for future care and treatment) with exposure in excess of $1,000,000.00. The Plaintiff named as Defendants BWBO’s client as well as several entities related to their landlord. Early in the case, Las Vegas Partner Jeffrey W. Saab and Senior Associate D. Ryan Efros moved for summary judgment based on terms of the restaurant’s lease. They argued that based on the lease, the duty to maintain the surface of the parking lot fell exclusively to the landlord, rather than the restaurant’s client. Plaintiff opposed the motion arguing that the prevailing case law held that any agreement between a tenant and its landlord does not preclude a plaintiff from asserting either or both defendants breached their duties of care. Jeff and Ryan distinguished that case and successfully persuaded the Court that there could be no contractual duty and no common law duty to maintain the parking surface, clearing the way for the court to grant summary judgment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Can an Owner Preemptively Avoid a Mechanics Lien?

May 25, 2020 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
Various sections of the California Civil Code, beginning with section 8000, protect the right of contractors, subcontractors and suppliers in the construction industry to obtain payment for work performed and materials supplied to construction projects. Under these statutes, unpaid claimants are entitled to use mechanics liens, stop payment notices and other methods to protect their right to payment. Mechanics liens allow unpaid claimants to sell the property where the work was performed in order to obtain payment. Stop payment notices force the owner or the bank to set money aside to pay unpaid claimants. Article XIV of our California Constitution even elevates the mechanics lien remedy to a “constitutional right”. The system generally works well, and claimants are paid. As someone who practices and teaches construction law, I have noticed a seldom used statutory tool that seems to provide a mechanism for property owners under certain circumstances to prevent subcontractors and suppliers from imposing enforceable mechanics lien on property where work was performed. Under California Civil Code section 8520, it appears that all that an owner of property need do to avoid a mechanics lien on its property is to give a proper notice (per Civil Code section 8100 et seq.) to a person who has a mechanics lien right (a subcontractor or supplier) that the owner is invoking Civil Code section 8520 and that if the claimant is unpaid for work performed or materials supplied to the owner’s property that the claimant must either provide the owner with a stop payment notice or forfeit the right to a mechanics lien on the owner’s property. This would allow an owner to avoid a mechanics lien on its property if the claimant failed to send a stop payment notice to the owner. Providing the “notice” under Civil Code section 8100 appears to be easy. It can be sent by “registered or certified mail or by express mail or by overnight delivery by an express service carrier”. It can even be by “hand delivery”. As far as the notice itself, it would seem that it can be very simple and easily performed under the process described below, which can be implemented within the office of any owner or developer. 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

Mitsubishi Estate to Rebuild Apartments After Defects Found

March 19, 2014 — Kathleen Chu and Takahiko Hyuga – Bloomberg
Mitsubishi Estate Co. (8802), Japan’s biggest developer by market value, will rebuild a Tokyo residential complex where it stopped selling apartments that went for as much as 350 million yen ($3.4 million) after finding defects. The reconstruction will take about three to four years to complete, and builder Kajima Corp. will be in charge of the project and cover the cost, said Masayuki Watanabe, a spokesman at Tokyo-based Mitsubishi Estate. The building was constructed by Kajima along with Kandenko (1942) Co., according to the developer. Mitsubishi Estate stopped selling apartments in the building in central Tokyo’s upscale Aoyama neighborhood after finding it needed repairs, including to some of the pipes, the developer said in an e-mail on Feb. 3. Eighty-three out of 86 units were under contract and were expected to be handed over to the owners on March 20, the company said last month. Ms. Chu may be contacted at kchu2@bloomberg.net; Mr. Hyuga may be contacted at thyuga@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kathleen Chu and Takahiko Hyuga, Bloomberg

The Fifth Circuit, Applying Texas Law, Strikes Down Auto Exclusion

July 11, 2022 — Jeremy S. Macklin - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
Penn-America Ins. Co. v. Tarango Trucking, LLC, 30 F.4th 440 (5th Cir. 2022), involved a coverage dispute over Penn-America Insurance Company’s (“Penn-America”) duty to defend and indemnify third-party claims against Tarango Trucking, LLC (“Tarango”) for a fatal accident on its property. At the time of the accident, Penn-America insured Tarango under a commercial general liability policy, which included an “Auto Exclusion” and “Parking Exception” provision. The Auto Exclusion stated the policy did not apply to bodily injury or property damage arising out of the use of any automobile, including the operation and loading or unloading. The Parking Exception stated the Auto Exclusion did not apply to parking an auto on Tarango’s premises. The main issues on appeal were whether the Parking Exception restored coverage otherwise precluded by the Auto Exclusion, and whether the district court prematurely decided Penn-America’s duty to indemnify. The appellate court answered yes to both. On March 2, 2020, a truck driver employed by WS Excavation, LLC (“WS”), parked his tractor-trailer on Tarango’s property and proceeded to inspect and off-load heavy equipment. While operating the hydraulic lift, the tractor’s braking system disengaged. The tractor rolled back and struck the WS driver and his personal vehicle, resulting in his death and significant property damage. Notably, WS allegedly failed to properly maintain the tractor’s electronic and braking systems, and Tarango allegedly failed to maintain a level parking and loading facility compliant with industry standards and guidelines. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com

Insurer’s Broad Duty to Defend in Oregon, and the Recent Ruling in State of Oregon v. Pacific Indemnity Company

January 02, 2024 — Keith Sparks - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Oregon law mandates a broad duty to defend, requiring insurers to provide legal representation to their policyholders whenever there is a potential for coverage under the policy. The significance of this broad interpretation means that an insurer has a duty to defend an insured even in situations where the alleged facts only imply a covered claim, and even in situations where the underlying claim is ultimately not covered by the policy. The insurer’s duty to defend is triggered if the allegations of the complaint, reasonably interpreted, could result in the insured being held liable for damages covered by the policy. This is referred to as the “four-corners” rule; it is also sometimes referred to as the eight-corners rule (for the four corners of the complaint plus the four corners of the policy). Oregon’s adoption of a broad interpretation of the duty to defend affirmatively places the onus on insurers to err on the side of coverage. This broad duty to defend is based on the principle that an insured should not have to bear the expense of defending a lawsuit that the insurer may ultimately have to pay for. The duty to defend is also important because it helps ensure that insureds have access to legal representation when faced with a lawsuit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Keith Sparks, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Sparks may be contacted at keith.sparks@acslawyers.com

Drawing the Line: In Tennessee, the Economic Loss Doctrine Does Not Apply to Contracts for Services

December 11, 2023 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Commercial Painting Co. v. Weitz Co. LLC, No. W2019-02089-SC-R11-CV, 2023 Tenn. LEXIS 39 (Weitz), the Supreme Court of Tennessee (Supreme Court) considered whether the economic loss doctrine barred the plaintiff’s claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation and punitive damages arising out of a contract with the defendant for construction services. The court held that the economic loss doctrine only applies to product liability cases and does not apply to claims arising from contracts for services. This case establishes that, in Tennessee, the economic loss doctrine does not bar tort claims in disputes arising from service contracts. In Weitz, defendant, Weitz Co. LLC (Weitz), was the general contractor for a construction project and hired plaintiff Commercial Painting Co. (Commercial) as a drywall subcontractor. Weitz refused to pay Commercial for several of its payment applications, claiming that the applications were submitted untimely and contained improper change order requests. Commercial filed a lawsuit against Weitz seeking over $1.9 million in damages, alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, enforcement of a mechanic’s lien, and interest and attorney’s fees under the Prompt Pay Act of 1991. Weitz filed a counterclaim for $500,000 for costs allegedly incurred due to Commercial’s delay and defective workmanship. In response, Commercial amended its complaint to add claims for fraud, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, rescission of the contract and $10 million in punitive damages. Commercial alleged that Weitz received an extension of the construction schedule but fraudulently withheld this information from Commercial and continued to impose unrealistic deadlines. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

Colorado Chamber of Commerce CEO Calls for Change to Condo Defect Law

March 05, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez - CDJ STAFF
According to the Denver Business Journal, Dennis Houston, president and CEO of the Parker Chamber of Commerce in Colorado, spoke at the state’s capitol recently, calling legislators “to make it harder for attorneys to file class-action lawsuits against condominium builders so that areas like his can attract a workforce of millennials.” Houston and other Chamber of Commerce leaders gathered at the capitol “to lobby for sensible energy policies and construction defects reform, among other things.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

White and Williams Defeats Policyholder’s Attempt to Invalidate Asbestos Exclusions

January 28, 2014 — White and Williams LLP
White and Williams attorneys scored a significant victory for the insurance industry on January 15, 2014, when a federal jury of four men and four women rejected a policyholder’s novel efforts to invalidate asbestos exclusions contained in insurance policies issued between February 1, 1979 and August 1, 1985. In General Refractories Co. v. First State Ins. Co., Civil Action No. 04-CV-3509 (E.D. Pa.), General Refractories Company contended that asbestos exclusions in insurance policies issued by various insurance companies in the late 1970s and 1980s had not been submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Insurance for approval prior to use and, therefore, were unenforceable. Holding a failure to obtain approval, by itself, would not be sufficient to render the exclusions unenforceable, the Honorable Edmund Ludwig sent the matter to trial to determine whether the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner implemented a policy that was uniformly executed by the Insurance Department to disapprove all asbestos exclusions between February 1, 1979 and August 1, 1985, such that the exclusions violated a “dominant public policy.”

Reprinted courtesy of Gregory LoCasale, White and Williams LLP

and Patricia Santelle , White and Williams LLP

Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com and Mr. LoCasale may be contacted at locasaleg@whiteandwilliams.com. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES