Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Wilke Fleury and Attorneys Recognized as ‘Best Law Firm’ and ‘Best Lawyers’ by U.S. News!

November 08, 2017 — Wilke Fleury
Wilke Fleury is pleased to announce its inclusion in the 2018 editions of ‘Best Law Firms’ in America and ‘Best Lawyers’ in America. The two award categories reflect excellence in legal service – firms included in the 2018 “Best Law Firms” list are recognized for professional excellence by clients and peers and Best Lawyers® has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Wilke Fleury Recognized in U.S. News 2018 Edition ‘Best Law Firms’ in America Wilke Fleury is honored to be recognized among the nation’s Best Law Firms by U.S. News – Best Lawyers. “Firms included in the 2018 “Best Law Firms” list are recognized for professional excellence with persistently impressive ratings from clients and peers. Achieving a tiered ranking signals a unique combination of quality law practice and breadth of legal expertise.” Wilke Fleury Attorneys Elected to U.S. News 2018 Edition ‘Best Lawyers’ in America Congratulations to David A. Frenznick and Ernest James Krtil on their election to the 2018 Edition ‘Best Lawyers in America.’ Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wilke Fleury

Inverse Condemnation and Roadwork

October 09, 2023 — David R. Cook Jr. - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
The following case, issued yesterday by the Georgia Supreme Court, addresses the accrual of the statute of limitations on a claim of inverse condemnation based on nuisance. Wise Bus. Forms, Inc. v. Forsyth Cnty., S22G0874, 2023 WL 6065278 (Ga. Sept. 19, 2023) We granted certiorari in this case to clarify the standards for determining when a claim for inverse condemnation by permanent nuisance accrues for purposes of applying the four-year statute of limitation set forth in OCGA § 9-3-30 (a). [. . .] Permanent nuisance cases vary in relation to when the alleged harm to a plaintiff’s property caused by the nuisance becomes “observable” to the plaintiff. Forrister, 289 Ga. at 333 (2), 711 S.E.2d 641. In some cases, the harm to the plaintiff’s property is immediately observable “upon the creation of the nuisance.” Id. For example, where a landowner or governmental agency “erects a harmful structure such as a bridge or conducts a harmful activity such as opening a sewer that pollutes a stream,” and it is immediately obvious that the structure or activity interferes with the plaintiff’s interests, the plaintiff must file “one cause of action for the recovery of past and future damages caused by [the] permanent nuisance” within four years of the date the structure is completed or the harmful activity is commenced. Id. at 333-336 (2) and (3), 711 S.E.2d 641 (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 899 and 930). Phrased another way, where the “construction and continuance” of the permanent nuisance at issue is “necessarily an injury, the damage is original, and may be at once fully compensated. In such cases[,] the statute of limitations begins to run upon the construction of the nuisance.” City Council of Augusta v. Lombard, 101 Ga. 724, 727, 28 S.E. 994 (1897). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

Unpaid Hurricane Maria Insurance Claims, New Laws in Puerto Rico, and the Lesson for all Policyholders

January 09, 2019 — Walter J. Andrews & Cary D. Steklof - Hunton Andrews Kurth
Puerto Rico’s dire insurance situation more than a year after Hurricane Maria remains a constant reminder of why policyholders must diligently pursue their property and business interruption claims in the immediate aftermath of a storm. The numbers are staggering. On an island the approximate size of Connecticut, Hurricane Maria caused an estimated $100 billion in damage. According to the Office of the Insurance Commissioner of Puerto Rico, the hurricane resulted in more than 287,000 insurance claims. Roughly 11,000 of those claims, representing an estimated $2 billion in losses, remain unresolved. Reprinted courtesy of Walter J. Andrews , Hunton Andrews Kurth and Cary D. Steklof , Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Andrews may be contacted at wandrews@HuntonAK.com Mr. Steklof may be contacted at csteklof@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

KF-103 v. American Family Mutual Insurance: An Exception to the Four Corners Rule

October 29, 2014 — Zach McLeroy – Colorado Construction Litigation
In Colorado, the “complaint rule,” also known as the “four corners rule,” requires an insurer to provide a defense when an underlying complaint alleges any set of facts that may fall within an insurance policy. This can result in a situation where an insurer has a duty to defend although the underlying facts ultimately do not fall within the policy. In KF-103 v. American Family Mutual Insurance, 2014 WL 4409876, District Court Judge Richard P. Matsch recognized an exception to the complaint rule. In doing so, Judge Matsch determined that a court may look beyond the complaint to judicial orders preceding the filing of the complaint to determine whether an insurer has a duty to defend. Therefore, a party may not be able to assert unsupported facts in a complaint for the sole purpose of triggering an insurance policy. KF 103 v. American Family arose out of an underlying easement dispute. In the underlying case, KF 103-CV, LLC (“KF 103”) purchased a piece of property from the Infinity Group. As a condition of the purchase agreement, Infinity Group was required to complete improvements to boundary streets and the intersection of Ski Lane and Sorpresa Lane. Several adjoining property owners (the “neighbors”) objected to the modification of the intersection because it violated an express easement (the “easement”) that provided access to their properties. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Zach McLeroy, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLeroy may be contacted at McLeroy@hhmrlaw.com

Four White and Williams Lawyers Recognized as "Lawyer of the Year" by Best Lawyers®

September 19, 2022 — White and Williams LLP
White and Williams is proud to announce that Chuck Eppolito, Michael Kassak, Anthony Miscioscia and Christian Singewald have been recognized by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® as a “Lawyer of the Year” in their respective practices. "Lawyer of the Year" recognitions are awarded to individual lawyers with the highest overall peer-feedback for a specific practice area and geographic location. Chuck Eppolito was named in the area of Litigation - Heath Care in Philadelphia, PA. His practice consists primarily of medical malpractice defense as well as other insurance-related defense, including general negligence, electrical engineering and product liability issues in utilities cases. Chuck's clients include hospitals and physicians throughout Pennsylvania, utility companies and insurance carriers, including primary, excess and reinsurance, throughout the nation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

Turning Back the Clock: DOL Proposes Previous Davis-Bacon Prevailing Wage Definition

April 19, 2022 — David Chidlaw & Carina Novell - Sheppard Mullin Construction & Infrastructure Law Blog
On March 11, 2022, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) proposed reverting the definition of “prevailing wage” under the Davis-Bacon Act to a definition used over 40 years ago. According to the DOL, the proposal is meant to modernize the law and “reflect better the needs of workers in the construction industry and planned federal construction investments.”[1] Brief History Lesson The Davis-Bacon Act was enacted in 1931 and requires the payment of locally prevailing wages and fringe benefits on federal construction contracts. The law applies to workers on contracts in excess of $2,000 entered into by federal agencies and the District of Columbia for the construction, alteration, or repair of public buildings or public works.[2] From the 1930s to the early 1980s, the DOL used the following three-step process to define prevailing wage:

Any wage rate paid to a majority of workers.
If there was no wage rate paid to a majority of workers, then the wage rate paid to the greatest number of workers, provided it was paid to at least 30 percent of workers (i.e., the “30 percent rule”).
If the 30 percent rule was not met, the weighted average rate.

Reprinted courtesy of David Chidlaw, Sheppard Mullin and Carina Novell, Sheppard Mullin Mr. Chidlaw may be contacted at dchidlaw@sheppardmullin.com Ms. Novell may be contacted at cnovell@sheppardmullin.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

DC Circuit Issues Two Important Clean Air Act and Administrative Law Decisions

December 16, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
The U.S. Court of Appeals or the District of Columbia has recently issued two important rulings on the Clean Air Act in particular and administrative law in general: California Communities Against Toxics, et al., v. EPA and Murray Energy Corporation v. EPA. The Battle of the Memos: Seitz Makes Way for Wehrum In the California Communities case, decided on August 20, 2019, the court held, in a 2 to 1 decision, that a petition to review a change in EPA policy announced in an agency memorandum which reversed an agency policy announced nearly 25 years ago in another agency memo must be rejected because the memo at issue was not a “final agency action” subject to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). In 1995, the “Seitz Memo,” which interpreted Section 112 of the Clean Air Act and addresses the regulation and control of hazardous air pollutants from stationary sources, stated that once a source of toxic emissions is classified as “major,” the facility remains subject to regulation as a major source even if the facility makes changes to the facility to limit its potential to emit such toxics below the major source threshold. Then, in 2018 under a new administration, the “Wehrum Memorandum” was issued which reversed this policy and its interpretation of the law. (Both memos were issued without any kind of advance notice or opportunity to comment.) If a source takes steps to limit its potential to emit, then it may be regulated as an area source, and subject to less rigid regulation. The court majority held that the Wehrum Memo was not a final agency action and was not subject to judicial review when it was measured against both prongs of the “finality test” devised by the Supreme Court in the cases of Bennet v. Spear, 520 US 154 (1997) and US Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes, 136 S. Ct. 1807 (2016). While the memo undoubtedly represented the consummation of the agency’s decision-making process, the memo had no direct and appreciable legal consequences, and not therefore being a final action, the case must be dismissed. Judge Rogers filed a strong dissenting opinion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

Serial ADA Lawsuits Targeting Small Business Owners

February 04, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Jennifer Wadsworth reports in the San Jose Inside that small business owners in the South Bay area of California have been targeted for ADA Compliance lawsuits. Specifically, John Ho, “a wheelchair-bound paraplegic from the Southern California town of Rosemead” has hit close to “80 businesses in San Jose and more throughout South Bay” with ADA complaints. Another resident, Cecil Shaw has also “filed hundreds of lawsuits in federal court through a San Jose-based law firm alleging similar violations.” According to Wadsworth, these lawsuits have “become a multimillion-dollar industry.” Communities are often hit with “a hundred or more” lawsuits at a time: “Law firms team up with disabled clients to inspect businesses for compliance issues, and then sue in droves, expecting half or more defendants to settle out of court.” Niccandro Barrita, owner of one of four La Victoria Mexican Restaurants in South Bay, lost an ADA lawsuit. “I thought because when the building was remodeled in 1996 and the city waived the lift requirement that I was in the clear. But that wasn’t the case,” he told San Jose Inside. Barrita claims to have paid $900,000 in attorney fees. His advice to other owners is to be proactive: “Don’t rely on someone to point out a deficiency to you. Find out for yourself if you’re compliant.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES