SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Purely “Compensatory” Debts Owed by Attorneys to Clients (Which Are Not Disciplinary or Punitive Fees Imposed by the State Bar) Are Dischargeable In Bankruptcy

April 28, 2016 — Renata L. Hoddinott & David W. Evans – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Scheer v. The State Bar of California (4/14/16 – Case no. 2:14-cv-04829-JFW) reversed the district court’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s decision that a suspended attorney’s debt was nondischargeable in bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7). In Scheer, the client (Clark) retained attorney Scheer to help modify his home mortgage loan. Clark paid Scheer $5,500 before any modification occurred. Clark then fired Scheer and sought return of the $5,500 under California’s mandatory attorney fee dispute arbitration program. An arbitrator concluded that, although Scheer performed competently, she violated California Civil Code §2944.7(a) by receiving advance fees for residential mortgage modification services. Although the arbitrator believed that Scheer’s violations were neither willful nor malicious, he concluded California law required a full refund of the improperly collected fees. Scheer made a few payments against the arbitration award but, claiming a lack of funds, failed to pay the outstanding balance. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Renata L. Hoddinott, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Hoddinott may be contacted at rhoddinott@hbblaw.com Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

After Breaching its Duty to Defend, Insurer Must Indemnify

August 11, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

In a brief decision analyzing Oregon law, the Ninth Circuit determined that once an insurer breaches its duty to defend, it must indemnify. See Desrosiers v. Hudson Speciality Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 12591 (9th CIr. June 21, 2011).



The victim secured a judgment against the insured after he was beaten by another patron outside the insured's bar. Hudson Speciality Insurance refused to defend the insured, claiming the injury arose from an assault and battery, which excluded coverage.

Read the full story…



Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

---

Denver Court Rules that Condo Owners Must Follow Arbitration Agreement

November 07, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
Prior to initiating a construction defect lawsuit, the Glass House Residential Association voted to invalidate the arbitration agreement that had been written into its declaration and bylaws by the developer and general contractor. After the association started their construction defect claims, the developer and general contractor argued that the case must go to arbitration, as the arbitration clause contained a provision that it could not be altered without the agreement of the developer and general contractor. The Denver District Court has ruled against that association, determining that the res triction was not in violation of Colorado condominium law. And, as a post from Polsinelli Shughart PC on JDSupra notes, the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act encourages the use of arbitration procedures to settle disputes. The CCIOA does prohibit “certain restrictions on the homeowners association’s ability to amend the condominium declarations,” however, preserving an arbitration agreement is not one of them. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

New York Federal Court Enforces Construction Exclusion, Rejects Reimbursement Claim

August 03, 2020 — Eric D. Suben - Traub Lieberman
In Crescent Beach Club, LLC v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2020 WL 3414697 (E.D.N.Y. June 22, 2020), the district court considered application of a CGL policy issued to a property owner containing the following exclusion: "This policy does not apply to any ‘bodily injury’, ‘property damage’, ‘personal and advertising injury’, or any other loss, cost, defense fee, expense, injury, damage, claim, dispute or ‘suit’ either arising out of, or related to, any construction, renovation, rehabilitation, demolition, erection, excavation or remedition [sic] of any building and includes planning, site preparation, surveying or other other [sic] construction or development of real property. This exclusion, however, shall not apply to routine maintenance activities." Plaintiff in the underlying action alleged injury while engaged in construction work at the insured’s premises. The information the insurer received was conflicting as to whether plaintiff was demolishing a pergola (excluded) or merely removing vines (not excluded). The insurer reserved its rights accordingly. At his deposition in the underlying action, the plaintiff testified he was in a manlift performing demolition at the time he was injured. The insured’s property manager also testified that the pergola was being demolished. Approximately one month after the depositions, the insurer denied coverage based on the exclusion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Suben may be contacted at esuben@tlsslaw.com

---

You Have Choices (Litigation Versus Mediation)

December 14, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
As I sit here thinking about an impending trial in the Goochland County General District Court, it hit me that I also serve as a mediator in that court from time to time. Coincidentally, I will be “wearing both hats” (litigator and mediator) this week on back to back days. It will be interesting to have to switch roles so quickly on back to back days. While I don’t have the results of this thought experiment as I sit here typing this post, the timeline does bring into focus the two possible avenues to resolve a dispute. Neither is perfect and either works in the proper situation. Both lend a final “result” and closure to the dispute, they just each do so in a different manner and with a different role for me, the construction attorney/construction mediator. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

The Economic Loss Rule and the Disclosure of Latent Defects: In re the Estate of Carol S. Gattis

January 15, 2014 — Brady Iandiorio - Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
In a recent case of first impression, the Colorado Court of Appeals determined that the economic loss rule does not bar a nondisclosure tort claim against a seller of a home, built on expansive soils which caused damage to the house after the sale. The case of In re the Estate of Carol S. Gattis represents a new decision regarding the economic loss rule. Because it is a case of first impression, we must wait to see whether the Colorado Supreme Court grants a petition for certiorari. Until then, we will analyze the decision handed down on November 7, 2013. The sellers of the home sold it to an entity they controlled for the purpose of repairing and reselling the home. Before that purchase, Sellers obtained engineering reports including discussion of structural problems resulting from expansive soils. A structural repair entity, also controlled by Sellers, oversaw the needed repair work. After the repair work was completed, Sellers obtained title to the residence and listed it for sale. Sellers had no direct contact with Gattis, who purchased the residence from Sellers. The purchase was executed through a standard-form real estate contract, approved by the Colorado Real Estate Commission: Contract to Buy and Sell Real Estate, to which no changes were made. Several years after taking title to the residence, Gattis commenced action, pleading several tort claims alleging only economic losses based on damage to the residence resulting from expansive soils. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brady Iandiorio, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. Iandiorio may be contacted at iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com

---

The First UK Hospital Being Built Using AI Technology

February 01, 2023 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
University Hospitals Dorset (UHD) has announced that the new Royal Bournemouth Hospital is the first hospital facility in the UK to be built using groundbreaking AI technology, which increases efficiency and decreases costs. The technology, Buildots, automatically analyses data captured at the site via helmet-mounted 360-degree cameras. The platform then generates true-to-life progress reports supported by visuals, providing managers and stakeholders with accurate, objective data and in-depth analysis, leading to improved efficiency. Evidence-Based Real-Time Analysis The Royal Bournemouth Hospital’s new BEACH building (Births, Emergency And Critical Care, Children’s Health) will include a new purpose-built maternity unit, purpose-built children’s unit, enhanced emergency department, and critical care unit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

---

Why Biden’s Infrastructure Plan Is a Green Jobs Plan

April 26, 2021 — Gernot Wagner - Bloomberg
“Once you put capital money to work, jobs are created.” These are not the words of President Joe Biden, announcing his administration’s infrastructure plan in Pittsburgh on Wednesday. Nor were they the words of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, standing on a train platform to announce expanded service, or of any of the administration’s economists charged with touting the virtues of the $2.25 trillion spending plan. It was Michael Morris, then-CEO of Ohio utility American Electric Power, who uttered them on an investor call a decade ago. AEP was fighting an Environmental Protection Agency proposal to reduce mercury and other pollutants from power plants, citing the expense of creating jobs to install new scrubbers on smokestacks or build cleaner plants. Morris, taking his fiduciary responsibility to the utility’s investors seriously, argued these new roles would come at a cost to AEP and were, thus, bad. What he did not question, and correctly so, was whether more investments would indeed create more jobs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gernot Wagner, Bloomberg

---