SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Failure to Comply with Contract Leaves No Additional Insured Coverage

January 07, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Indemnity obligations and additional insured coverage were at issue in Strauss Painting, Inc. v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 2014 N.Y. LEXIS 3347 (N.Y. Nov. 24, 2014). Strauss Painting, Inc. (Strauss) contracted with the Metropolitan Opera Association, Inc. (the Met) to strip and repaint the rooftop steel carriage track for the opera house's automated window-washing equipment. The contract provided that Strauss would indemnify and hold the Met harmless. Exhibit D to the contract set forth three types of insurance that Strauss was to procure: (1) workers' compensation; (2) owners and contractors protective liability (OCP); and (3) comprehensive general liability. The OCP policy was to add the Met as an additional insured. Strauss failed to obtain the OCP policy. At the time it contracted with the Met, Strauss had a CGL policy issued by Mt. Hawley. The policy's additional insured endorsement (ICO form CG 20 33 07 04) stated that "an insured" included "any organization for whom Strauss is performing operations when Strauss and such organization have agreed in writing that such organization be added as an additional insured." 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

---

Doctrine of Merger Not a Good Blend for Seller of Sonoma Winery Property

April 15, 2015 — Kristen Lee Price and Lawrence S. Zucker II – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Ram’s Gate Winery, LLC v. Joseph G. Roche, et al. (No. A139189 & A141090, filed 4/9/15) (Ram’s Gate), the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District held the doctrine of merger did not extinguish a seller’s contractual duty to disclose potentially hazardous seismic conditions on a Sonoma winery property. In Ram’s Gate, the buyer of the property filed a lawsuit alleging the seller failed to disclose information relating to earthquake issues prior to the close of escrow. In the parties’ “Purchase and Sales Agreement” (Purchase Agreement) the seller agreed to disclose any information known to it regarding “known geological hazards . . . soil reports . . . geotechnical reports” and other facts “having effect on the value of the ownership or use of the property.” The seller, however, argued this disclosure warranty did not survive the escrow period because it did not expressly provide for survival while other provisions in the Purchase Agreement did. Reprinted courtesy of Kristen Lee Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Price may be contacted at kprice@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Court Holds That One-Year SOL Applies to Disgorgement Claims Under B&P Section 7031

November 23, 2020 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
We’ve talked before about Business and Professions Code section 7031 which courts have referred to as “harsh[ ],” “unjust[ ]” and even “draconian.” Under Section 7031, a contractor performing work requiring a contractor’s license, but who doesn’t: (1) is prohibited from suing to recover payment for work performed; and (2) is required to disgorge all money paid by the project owner for work performed. This is true even if the project owner knew that the contractor was unlicensed, the contractor was only unlicensed during part of the time it performed work requiring a license, and even if the work performed by the contractor was free of defects. In short, it’s the nuclear bomb of remedies against a contractor. However, until now, no court has addressed when a project owner is permitted to raise a Business and Professions Code section 7031 claim against a contractor. In the next case, Eisenberg Village of the Los Angeles Jewish Home for the Aging v. Suffolk Construction Company, Inc., Case No B297247 (August 26, 2020), the 2nd District Court Appeal finally answers this question. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Housing Gains Not Leading to Hiring

October 25, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Although construction spending has been rising steadily, the Labor Department noted that most of the 20,000 jobs added by the construction industry in September were for nonresidential construction. In a year that saw an 18% gain in residential construction spending, there was only an increase of 4.8% in employment. The lack of hiring seems to indicate a lingering lack of confidence in the homebuilding market. Employers are having workers do overtime, rather than employ additional people. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Neighbor Allowed to Remove Tree Roots on Her Property That Supported Adjoining Landowners’ Two Large Trees With Legal Immunity

July 14, 2016 — Paul R. Cressman, Jr. – Ahlers & Cressman PLLC Blog
A recent Washington Court of Appeals opinion addressed the rights of a neighbor to destroy roots and branches on her property that belonged to trees located on an adjoining landowner’s property.[1] Mustoe had two large Douglas-fir trees located entirely on her property, about two and one-half feet from the property line with her neighbor Ma. Ma caused a ditch to be dug on her property along the border with Mustoe’s lot. The ditch was 18-20 inches deep. In the process, Ma exposed and removed the trees’ roots, leaving them to extend only three-four feet from the trunks of the trees. This resulted in a loss of nearly half of the trees’ roots, all from the south side, exposing them to southerly winds with no support. The damaged trees posed a high risk of falling on Mustoe’s home. The landscape value of the trees was estimated to be $16,418. The cost of their removal was estimated to be $3,913. Mustoe filed suit against Ma asserting that Ma had negligently, recklessly, and intentionally excavated and damaged her trees, along with other property, and also sought emotional distress damages. The trial court dismissed Mustoe’s suit. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Paul R. Cressman, Jr., Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Mr. Cressman may be contacted at pcressman@ac-lawyers.com

---

Compliance with Building Code Included in Property Damage

February 07, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii

A Circuit Court in Florida issued a final judgment determining that the insured's obligation to comply with building code provisions was included in the property damage experienced. Pin-Pon Corp. v. Landmark, Am. Ins. Co., No. 312009CA012244 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Dec. 28, 2017). The decision is here.

At trial, the plaintiff's architect testified that the total pricing for the code upgrades was $6.2 million. On appeal, the appellate court ruled that plaintiff's Exhibit 98, an Upgrade Insurance Claim, was improperly admitted as a business record. The appellate court stated that the jury may have considered Exhibit 98 in determining the amount of code upgrade damages. Therefore, the verdict was reversed and remanded for a trial on the code upgrade damages only.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawarii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up 04/20/22

May 02, 2022 — Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
Construction defects emerge in pandemic-era buildings, investor confidence is improving in China’s real estate market, the proptech field continues to show significant signs of growth, and more.

• Investor confidence in China’s real estate market is improving, with bond trading volumes and prices rising over the last few weeks, but the market is not projected to resume its high growth rate of the past. (Weizhen Tan & Evelyn Cheng, CNBC)
• The economic shock caused by soaring mortgage rates over the past few weeks has dramatically increased mortgage payments for new homebuyers. (Lance Lambert, Fortune)
• With the metaverse economy projected to be worth between $8 and $13 trillion by 2030, blockchain technology serves as a key driver for virtual real estate sales, allowing for “true” ownership of a property. (Robert Koonin, Dan Jasnow, & Kinnon McDonald, TFL)

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

---

White and Williams LLP Secures Affirmation of Denial to Change Trial Settings Based on Plaintiffs’ Failure to Meet the Texas Causation Standard for Asbestos Cases

July 06, 2020 — Christian Singewald & Rochelle Gumapac - White and Williams LLP
The Delaware Supreme Court, in a rare split opinion, affirmed the trial court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ Request to Change Trial Settings in favor of all defendants, including a major automotive manufacturer represented by White and Williams LLP, in a mesothelioma case with a young decedent who had an alleged economic loss claim exceeding $9,000,000, in Shaw v. American Friction, Inc. et al., No. 86, 2019. This decision operates to dismiss all of Plaintiffs’ claims based on their failure to meet Delaware’s strict expert deadlines and establish a prima facie case under Texas law. Plaintiffs’ Complaint invoked the application of Texas substantive law and alleged that multiple manufacturers were negligent and strictly liable for failing to warn the decedent of the alleged dangers posed by the use of asbestos-containing products. Plaintiffs’ alleged asbestos exposures from defendants’ products caused Mr. Shaw’s disease and subsequent death. In 2007, Texas instituted its now well-known causation requirement, which requires the “dose” of asbestos exposure from each defendant’s products to be quantified by an expert. Borg-Warner Corp. v. Flores, 232 S.W.3d 765, 773 (Tex. 2007). Prior to decedent’s death, Plaintiffs’ counsel deposed decedent and his father for product identification purposes. During the depositions, Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to obtain the necessary factual information from his clients for an expert to be able to opine as to alleged exposure doses from any defendant’s product. Despite lacking the requisite information for a prima facie case under Texas law, Plaintiffs sought and were given placement in an expedited trial setting, which had strict, defined deadlines. Reprinted courtesy of Christian Singewald, White and Williams LLP and Rochelle Gumapac, White and Williams LLP Mr. Singewald may be contacted at singewaldc@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Gumapac may be contacted at gumapacr@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---