SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Update Regarding McMillin Albany LLC v. Super Ct.

April 28, 2016 — Richard H. Glucksman and David A. Napper – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger In Focus
The construction industry continues to await the California Supreme Court's highly anticipated decision regarding McMillin Albany LLC v. Super Ct. 2015 F069370 (Cal.App.5 Dist.). The Supreme Court will attempt to resolve the conflict presented by the Fourth Appellate District Court's holding in Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98 and rejection of the same by the Fifth Appellate District Court in McMillin Albany. The issue is whether the Right to Repair Act (SB800) is the exclusive remedy for all defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2013. CGDRB has been closely monitoring the progress of the case and understands that the real parties in interest have submitted their opening brief on the merits. The Court granted Petitioners a further and final extension to file the answer brief on the merits. The answer deadline is Monday April 25, 2016. Stay tuned. Reprinted courtesy of Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and David A. Napper, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Partner Vik Nagpal is Recognized as a Top Lawyer of 2020

June 29, 2020 — Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Please join us in congratulating San Diego Partner Vik Nagpal for being recognized as a Top Lawyer of 2020 by San Diego Magazine! San Diego Magazine works with Martindale-Hubbell to choose top lawyers who have reached the highest level of ethical standards and professional excellence. Vik Nagpal was evaluated and given the highest ratings by the colleagues using a peer reviewed Vik Nagpal is the managing partner of Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara LLP’s San Diego offices, as well as directing the firm’s business development. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

---

Defeating the Ten-Year Statute of Repose For Latent Construction Defects

January 28, 2015 — The Porter Law Group
It is an all-too-common scenario in California construction: Nine and a half years after completion of a major California construction project, immediately before the 10-year “statute of repose” for suing on “latent” construction defects expires, a lawsuit claiming damages for “recently discovered” latent construction defects is filed. The property owner sues the contractor for the alleged defects. The direct contractor sues all its subcontractors for indemnity and defense. The attorneys spontaneously generate. Experts proliferate. Claimed defects are extrapolated. Four or five years later, after a few dozen attorneys earn a small fortune in fees, the insurance companies make payments. Attorneys collect more fees. The owners take what remains. They repair nothing... and buy vacation homes. Perhaps a cynical view, but there are many in the construction defect world who would reach a similar conclusion. The question is: How can you defeat this seemingly inevitable chain of events? Under a case known as Brisbane Lodging L.P. v. Webcor Builders, Inc. 216 Cal.App 4th 1249 (2013) there may be hope. California Code of Civil Procedure sections 337.1 and 337.15 grant a 10-year “statute of repose” for bringing claims for “latent” construction defects. These statutes allow a lawsuit for such claimed defects to be filed in court up until ten years after the project has been completed. Latent defects are generally defined as those which are “not apparent by reasonable inspection” (CCP §337.15(b)). It is extremely common for such claims to be filed immediately before this 10-year deadline expires. When the lawsuit is brought, the cash register begins to ring. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Porter Law Group

---

Housing Starts Fall as U.S. Single-Family Projects Decline

February 18, 2015 — Bloomberg News
(Bloomberg) -- Builders broke ground on fewer U.S. residential construction projects in January as demand for single-family homes cooled from an almost seven-year high, signaling the rebound in housing remains uneven. Housing starts declined 2 percent to a 1.07 million annual rate, following the prior month’s 1.09 million pace, a Commerce Department report showed Wednesday in Washington. The median forecast of 82 economists surveyed by Bloomberg was 1.07 million. Permits, a proxy for future construction, also fell. Student debt, tight credit conditions and rising prices are probably preventing would-be first-time homebuyers from entering the market, which will damp construction. At the same time, a strengthening labor market and rising household formation may support building of rental units, underpinning residential real estate. Nina Glinski may be contacted at nglinski@bloomberg.net; Shobhana Chandra may be contacted at schandra1@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

A Primer on Insurance for Construction Projects

November 30, 2020 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
People who live in glass houses should have insurance (in addition to not throwing stones). So too should your construction project. The risks inherent on a construction project are many and varied, ranging from property damage to personal injury to pollution remediation costs, and wise contractors and project owners know that one of the best ways to mitigate these risks is through insurance. So, here’s a primer on what you need to know about insurance on construction projects. Commercial General Liability Insurance (CGL) What it Covers:

• Property damage.
• Bodily injury.
• Personal and advertising injury (e.g., libel and slander).

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

History of Defects Leads to Punitive Damages for Bankrupt Developer

March 01, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The South Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled that evidence of construction defects at a developer’s other projects were admissible in a construction defect lawsuit. They issued their ruling on Magnolia North Property Owners’ Association v. Heritage Communities, Inc. on February 15, 2012.



Magnolia North is a condominium complex in South Carolina. The initial builder, Heritage Communities, had not completed construction when they filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11. The remaining four buildings were completed by another contractor. The Property Owners’ Association subsequently sued Heritage Communities, Inc. (HCI) alleging defects. The POA also sued Heritage Magnolia North, and the general contractor, BuildStar.



The trial court ruled that all three entities were in fact one. On appeal, the defendants claimed that the trial court improperly amalgamated the defendants. The appeals court noted, however, that “all these corporations share officers, directors, office space, and a phone number with HCI.” Until Heritage Communities turned over control of the POA to the actual homeowners, all of the POA’s officers were officers of HCI. The appeals court concluded that “the trial court’s ruling that Appellants’ entities were amalgamated is supported by the law and the evidence.”



Heritage also claimed that the trial court should not have allowed the plaintiffs to produce evidence of construction defects at other Heritage properties. Heritage argued that the evidence was a violation of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence. The court cited a South Carolina Supreme Court case which made an exception for “facts showing the other acts were substantially similar to the event at issue.” The court noted that the defects introduced by the plaintiffs were “virtually identical across all developments.” This included identical use of the same products from project to project. Further, these were used to demonstrate that “HCI was aware of water issues in the other projects as early as 1998, before construction on Magnolia North had begun.”



The trial case ended with a directed verdict. Heritage charged that the jury should have determined whether the alleged defects existed. The appeals court noted that there was “overwhelming evidence” that Heritage failed “to meet the industry standard of care.” Heritage did not dispute the existence of the damages during the trial, they “merely contested the extent.”



Further, Heritage claimed in its appeal that the case should have been rejected due to the three-year statute of limitations. They note that the first meeting of the POA was on March 8, 2000, yet the suit was not filed until May 28, 2003, just over three years. The court noted that here the statute of limitation must be tolled, as Heritage controlled the POA until September 9, 2002. The owner-controlled POA filed suit “approximately eight months after assuming control.”



The court also applied equitable estoppel to the statute of limitations. During the time in which Heritage controlled the board, Heritage “assured the unit owners the construction defects would be repaired, and, as a result, the owners were justified in relying on those assurances.” Since “a reasonable owner could have believed that it would be counter-productive to file suit,” the court found that also prevented Heritage from invoking the statute of limitations. In the end, the appeals court concluded that the even apart from equitable tolling and equitable estoppel, the statute of limitations could not have started until the unit owners took control of the board in September, 2002.



Heritage also contested the jury’s awarding of damages, asserting that “the POA failed to establish its damages as to any of its claims.” Noting that damages are determined “with reasonable certainty or accuracy,” and that “proof with mathematical certainty of the amount of loss or damage is not required,” the appeals court found a “sufficiently reasonable basis of computation of damages to support the trial court’s submission of damages to the jury.” Heritage also claimed that the POA did not show that the damage existed at the time of the transfer of control. The court rejected this claim as well.



Finally, Heritage argued that punitive damages were improperly applied for two reasons: that “the award of punitive damages has no deterrent effect because Appellants went out of business prior to the commencement of the litigation” and that Heritages has “no ability to pay punitive damages.” The punitive damages were upheld, as the relevant earlier decision includes “defendant’s degree of culpability,” “defendants awareness or concealment,” “existence of similar past conduct,” and “likelihood of deterring the defendant or others from similar conduct.”



The appeals court rejected all of the claims made by Heritage, fully upholding the decision of the trial court.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Index Demonstrates Increase in Builders’ Sentiment

September 17, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The National Association of Home Builders’ Eye on Housing reported that “[b]uilders’ sentiment jumped four points to 59, the highest level since November 2005, according to the September NAHB/Wells Fargo Housing Market Index.” Furthermore, builders mentioned “renewed interest by potential home buyers and higher traffic in their models and through their phone calls.” Eye on Housing also reported that the “inventory of new home for sale has increased to over 200,000.” While still lower than the 300,000 typical in 1990s and early 2000s, “the steady increase has provided a better selection for consumers.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Appeals Court Finds Manuscript Additional Insured Endorsements Ambiguous Regarding Completed Operations Coverage for Additional Insured

September 07, 2017 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Pulte Home Corp. v. American Safety Indemnity Co. (No. D070478; filed 8/30/17), a California appeals court found that manuscript additional insured endorsements on construction subcontractors’ policies were ambiguous regarding additional insured coverage for the developer, and that substantial evidence supported a finding that the insurer’s refusal to defend the developer was in bad faith. The court also approved awarding punitive damages on a one-to-one basis with the general damages. But the appeals court remanded the case for a further determination on the amount of Brandt fees, based on the developer’s change from a contingency to an hourly agreement. The Pulte case arose from the development of two residential housing projects beginning in 2003 and sold in 2005-2006. Subcontractors were required to name Pulte as additional insured on their policies, some of them issued by American Safety. In 2013, homeowners sued Pulte based in part on the work of subcontractors insured by American Safety, which then denied coverage to Pulte because the construction had taken place years earlier. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---