Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

The Show Must Go On: Navigating Arbitration in the Wake of the COVID-19 Outbreak

July 20, 2020 — Justin K. Fortescue, Zachery B. Roth & Marianne Bradley - White and Williams LLP
The recent COVID-19 outbreak has altered life for all of us, in ways both big and small. Unprecedented restrictions relating to the pandemic have forced individuals across the globe to change the ways in which they live and work. Perhaps not surprisingly, these restrictions have also changed the way we resolve disputes. Just as virtual conferencing has become the “new normal” for family gatherings and social events, it has also become the “new normal” for everything from mediation, to oral argument, to full-blown hearings. To be sure, there are a number of advantages to conducting adversarial proceedings virtually. First and foremost, it results in substantial cost savings for the parties involved. In-person proceedings typically require significant travel expenses, including airline tickets, hotel reservations, and food and beverage stipends. The use of a virtual forum essentially eliminates these expenses, cutting costs dramatically for attorneys, clients, judges, and arbitrators alike. Virtual conferencing also affords the opportunity for increased participation from party representatives living across the country, or even across the world. While demanding work schedules often make it impossible for multiple party representatives to attend a deposition, or even a hearing, in person, virtual proceedings require much less of a time commitment. Because these virtual proceedings require participants to spend less time away from other work-related obligations, party representatives are able to attend proceedings that they may otherwise have had to miss. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Justin K. Fortescue, Zachery B. Roth and Marianne Bradley Mr. Fortescue may be contacted at fortescuej@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Roth may be contacted at rothz@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Bradley may be contacted at bradleym@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Background Owner of Property Cannot Be Compelled to Arbitrate Construction Defects

November 07, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
In Truppi v. Pasco Engineering, John Quattro sued Property Management Contractors, Inc. over construction defects in William Truppi’s home. All parties are named in the suit. The California Court of Appeals ruled that Property Management Contractors, Inc. (PMCI) could not compel Mr. Quattro to arbitration. The background of the case involves two houses built in Encinitas, California by PCMI: one for Mr. Truppi at 560 Neptune, and one for Mr. Quattro at 566 Neptune. Both contracts contained an arbitration provision. Mr. Quattro signed the contract for his residence and Mr. Truppi signed the other. Mr. Quattro then sued PCMI and its principal, William Gregory. Mr. Quattro claimed to be the true contracting party for the 560 Neptune residence and a third party beneficiary of the contract Mr. Truppi signed, and stated that PCMI was aware of this. PCMI in a demurrer stated that Quattro “had only a ‘prospective beneficial interest in the property upon its eventual sale or lease.’” Mr. Quattro amended his complaint to account for the issues raised by PCMI. The court rejected PCMI’s demurrer to the amended complaint. Finally, PCMI and Gregory asserted that Quattro was “not the real party in interest” and could not sue. PCMI continues to assert that Quattro lacks standing, but their attorney sent Quattro an e-mail stating, “While my client disputes that you are a party, and that you lack standing to assert the claim, to the extent you do so I believe you are obligated to proceed by way of arbitration.” The court did not cover the issue of Quattro’s standing in the case, only if he could be compelled to arbitration. The court affirmed the lower court’s finding that Quattro could not be compelled to arbitrate the construction defect claim as neither he nor Gregory signed the contract in an individual capacity. Further, the court noted that PCMI and Gregory “denied the existence of an agreement between themselves and Quattro on the 560 contract,” and cannot compel arbitration on a non-existent agreement. And while non-signatories can, in some situations be compelled to arbitrate, the court found that “these cases are inapplicable because here they seek to have the alleged third party beneficiary (Quattro) compelled by a nonsignatory (Gregory).” The arbitration clause in question “expressly limited its application to persons or entities that signed the 560 contract.” As Mr. Quattro was not a signatory to that agreement, the court found that he could not be held to its arbitration provision. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

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

Don’t Let Construction Problems Become Construction Disputes (guest post)

October 01, 2014 — Melissa Dewey Brumback – Construction Law in North Carolina
To start our week off right, today we have another important article from guest blogger Christopher G. Hill, LEED AP. Chris is a Virginia Supreme Court certified mediator, construction lawyer and owner of the Richmond, VA firm, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC. He authors the Construction Law Musings blog where he discusses legal and policy issues relevant to construction professionals. His practice concentrates on mechanic’s liens, contract review and consulting, occupational safety issues (VOSH and OSHA), and risk management for construction professionals. [His blog was also one of the first construction law blogs I found and followed, even if he is a Duke alum!] Take it away, Chris! First and foremost, thanks to Melissa for inviting me back to post here at her great blog. She continues to invite me back despite my being a Blue Devil (and I try not to hold her Tar Heel status against her). So much of discussion relating to construction law and construction lawyers centers on the litigation of disputes. This discussion comes in many forms from avoidance of such litigation through the early intervention of good counsel prior to getting into a project to what sort of resolution mechanism to use. Another branch of this discussion is essentially the right way to pursue your claim (or as some may read it start the dispute ball rolling). Sometimes a payment bond claim is the best method while others a straight up contractual suit is the best way to go. Of course, all of this discussion presumes that there will be disputes. While I agree to some degree that in the Murphy’s Law riddled world of commercial construction, problems will arise. These problems need not rise to the level of a dispute that requires outside (read court or arbitrator) intervention. A few tips that are easy to write, but admittedly hard to practice at times can hopefully keep problems from blossoming into disputes. I’ve listed three big ones here: 1.Use “in house counsel.” Yes, I know that most of you engineers, architects, commercial general contractors and subcontractors out there aren’t big enough to either want or need a full time attorney on the payroll. What I mean by this is that when problems occur (or preferably before doing so), give your friendly local construction lawyer a call. As I learned from my dad, an ounce of prevention and all that. That 10 minute phone call may help avoid many hours of time and bills from your attorney later down the road. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina
Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

Anti-Fracking Win in N.Y. Court May Deal Blow to Industry

July 01, 2014 — Chris Dolmetsch, Freeman Klopott and Jim Efstathiou Jr. – Bloomberg
New York’s cities and towns can block hydraulic fracturing within their borders, the state’s highest court ruled, dealing a blow to an industry awaiting Governor Andrew Cuomo’s decision on whether to lift a six-year-old statewide moratorium. The case, closely watched by the energy industry, may invigorate local challenges to fracking in other states and convince the industry to stay out of New York even if Cuomo allows drilling. Pennsylvania’s highest court issued a similar ruling last year, striking down portions of a state law limiting localities’ ability to regulate drillers. “This sends a really strong and clear message to the gas companies who have tried to buy their way into the state that these community concerns have to be addressed,” Katherine Nadeau, policy director for Environmental Advocates of New York, an anti-fracking group, said in a phone interview. “This will empower more communities nationwide.” Mr. Dolmetsch may be contacted at cdolmetsch@bloomberg.net; Mr. Klopott may be contacted at fklopott@bloomberg.net; and Mr. Efstathiou Jr. may be contacted at jefstathiou@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chris Dolmetsch, Freeman Klopott and Jim Efstathiou Jr., Bloomberg

Kansas Man Caught for Construction Scam in Virginia

December 20, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
A Virginia court sent charges of construction fraud against a Kansas man to a grand jury. Larry Foster visited homes in Bedford County, Virginia, tested the water, and told homeowners that they needed new water filtration systems. The homeowners paid, but Mr. Foster never delivered. One homeowner who testified paid him $1,690. Another paid even more, giving $3,090 to Mr. Foster. In order to dupe his victims, Foster used the address of a chiropractor as a business address, unbeknownst to the actual business there.. He is wanted for charges in other states as well. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Formaldehyde-Free Products for Homes

March 05, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Builder Magazine reported that builders are “making indoor air quality a major concern,” including choosing healthier, formaldehyde-free products. Builder explained the problems with certain chemicals: “Formaldehyde and other VOCs, most frequently found in wood products, finishes, and paints, have been chief among the pollutants targeted for potentially dangerous health effects, such as respiratory issues and irritation of the eyes, nose, throat, and skin.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurers Subrogating in Arkansas Must Expend Energy to Prove That Their Insureds Have Been Made Whole

July 30, 2019 — Michael J. Ciamaichelo - The Subrogation Strategist
Arkansas employs the “made whole” doctrine, which requires an insured to be fully compensated for damages (i.e., to be “made whole”) before the insurer is entitled to recover in subrogation.[1] As the Riley court established, an insurer cannot unilaterally determine that its insured has been made whole (in order to establish a right of subrogation). Rather, in Arkansas, an insurer must establish that the insured has been made whole in one of two ways. First, the insurer and insured can reach an agreement that the insured has been made whole. Second, if the insurer and insured disagree on the issue, the insurer can ask a court to make a legal determination that the insured has been made whole.[2] If an insured has been made whole, the insurer is the real party in interest and must file the subrogation action in its own name.[3] However, when both the insured and an insurer have claims against the same tortfeasor (i.e., when there are both uninsured damages and subrogation damages), the insured is the real party in interest.[4] In EMC Ins. Cos. v. Entergy Ark., Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14251 (8th Cir. May 14, 2019), EMC Insurance Companies (EMC) filed a subrogation action in the District Court for the Western District of Arkansas alleging that its insureds’ home was damaged by a fire caused by an electric company’s equipment. EMC never obtained an agreement from the insureds or a judicial determination that its insureds had been made whole. In addition, EMC did not allege in the complaint that its insureds had been made whole and did not present any evidence or testimony at trial that its insureds had been made whole. After EMC presented its case-in-chief, the District Court ruled that EMC lacked standing to pursue its subrogation claim because “EMC failed to obtain a legal determination that its insureds had been made whole . . . prior to initiating this subrogation action.” Thus, the District Court granted Entergy Ark., Inc.’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and EMC appealed the decision. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael J. Ciamaichelo, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at ciamaichelom@whiteandwilliams.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES