Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Appraisers May Determine Causation

January 21, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
In a case of first impression, the Iowa Court of Appeals held that an appraisal may determine issues of causation. North Glenn Homeowners Association v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 854 N.W. 2d 67 (Iowa Ct. App. 2014). On July 15, 2009, North Glenn Homeowners Association submitted a claim to State Farm for hail damage on the roof. The claim was paid. North Glenn did not repair all of the damage, instead deciding to use some of the money to make other repairs to the property. 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

Public-Employee Union Fees, Water Wars Are Key in High Court Rulings

August 20, 2018 — Jeff Yoders, Pam Radtke Russell, JT Long, and Debra K. Rubin - Engineering News-Record
Two U.S. Supreme Court rulings on June 27 that wrapped the court’s current case calendar addressed labor relations and water rights issues with construction sector impact. Its 5-4 decision in Janus v. AFSCME that public-sector employees can’t be forced to pay “fair-share fees” to unions could affect industry professionals represented by labor groups in 22 states. Reprinted courtesy of ENR journalists Jeff Yoders, Pam Radtke Russell, JT Long and Debra K. Rubin Mr. Yoders may be contacted at yodersj@enr.com Ms. Russell may be contacted at Russellp@bnpmedia.com Ms. Debra may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Monitoring Building Moisture with RFID – Interview with Jarmo Tuppurainen

February 22, 2018 — Aarni Heiskanen – aec business
I met Jarmo, the Technology Manager at Helsinki Metropolia University of Applied Sciences, at the leading event for housing markets in Helsinki (Asuntomarkkinat). He and his team had set up an impressive display of devices and structures in the KIRA-digi showroom. 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

No Coverage for Co-Restaurant Owners Who Are Not Named In Policy

August 24, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Federal District Court denied two plaintiffs' claims for breach of the policy and for bad faith because they were not insureds under the policy. Tu v. Dongbu Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115200 (N.D. Calif. July 24, 2017). Dongbu, a Hawaii insurance company, issued a two-year policy to Plaintiff Ken Tu for his business. He was the only named insured under the policy. The waste system at Plaintiffs' restaurant failed, causing fumes to impact neighboring tenants and waste to contaminate the underlying soil. Plaintiffs were forced to close the restaurant. A claim was tendered for damage and repair, loss of business income, and other insured losses. Dongbu denied coverage. 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

New Index Tracking Mortgages for New Homes

June 18, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The National Association of Home Builders’ Eye on Housing reported that the Mortage Bankers Association (MBA) completed their Builder Application Survey (BAS), which demonstrated that “mortgage applications for new home purchases decreased by a not seasonally adjusted monthly rate of 8.4% in May 2014. However, on a 12-month basis, mortgage applications for new home purchases in May 2014 were 4.9% higher than their level in May 2013.” According to Eye on Housing, “This is the fifth consecutive month of year-over-year increases in mortgage applications for new home purchases.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Keeping Detailed Records: The Best Defense to Constructive Eviction

October 24, 2023 — Ben T. Welch & Ken Brown - Snell & Wilmer
Inevitably, commercial property owners and managers will be faced with a claim by a tenant of constructive eviction. This article is intended to describe what constructive eviction is and to suggest what owners and managers can do to prepare for, and ward off, such claims. Constructive eviction occurs where a tenant’s “right of possession and enjoyment” of the leasehold is disrupted by the landlord in a manner that renders the premises “unsuitable for the purposes intended.”i Put another way, it is interference that is so “substantial nature and so injurious as to deprive the tenant of the beneficial enjoyment of a part or the whole of the demised premises.”ii Although easy to describe in theory, constructive eviction can be devilishly difficult to determine in the real world. In litigation, determining when interference crosses over the line to constructive eviction is intensely fact-sensitive and resists sweeping generalizations.iii For instance, Utah courts have held that tenants have been constructively evicted when they have been subjected to continual harassment or insults by the landlord or the landlord’s agent,iv prevented or impaired in their access to the leased premises during operating hours,v or when a landlord fails to provide an operable elevator (or other essential commercial amenities) necessary for a tenant’s business operations.vi By contrast, claims of “discomfort” or “inconvenience” have been rejected as a basis for constructive eviction.vii The same goes for claims that a landlord wrongfully served a three-day notice to pay or quit.viii Generally, constructive eviction is an affirmative defense made in response to a landlord’s lawsuit for nonpayment of rent.ix It is not, as is commonly supposed, a basis for a tenant’s premature abandonment of the premises. In other words, the defense is raised after the tenant has vacated as a result of being effectively “evicted.”x Further, the defense requires the tenant to actually abandon the premises and do so within a “reasonable time” after the alleged interference.xi A tenant cannot stay in possession and simply refuse to pay rent on the basis of constructive eviction.xii The key consideration in preparing for, and responding to, a claim of constructive eviction is keeping good records. A tenant claiming constructive evicting likely must prove that the issue was raised in a timely manner and, despite multiple entreaties, was never resolved.xiii As such, it is critical that landlords acknowledge tenant complaints as well as document in writing their efforts to ameliorate those complaints. While a landlord does not carry the burden of proof for constructive eviction, detailed documentation can thwart a tenant’s claim that a landlord has been inattentive or unwilling to address the tenant’s concerns. Detailed records are also useful in disputes where a tenant claims substantial interference. “The whole point of constructive eviction is that the landlord basically drove the tenant out through the landlord’s action or inaction.”xiv As such, a landlord that is unable to document the steps taken in response to complaints will be grossly disadvantaged whereas the tenant, which had control and knowledge of the premises, will have a much easier time describing how the alleged interference deprived them of enjoying the premises. Even with meticulous records, however, owners and managers may still face claims of construction eviction. In such instances, counsel should be retained to properly advise on compiling, preserving, and employing the evidence necessary to refute the tenant’s claims. i Gray v. Oxford Worldwide Grp., Inc., 139 P.3d 267, 269 (Utah Ct. App. 2006). ii Gray, 139 P.3d at 270 (citing Neslen, 254 P.2d at 850) (internal formatting omitted). iii See Gray, 139 P.3d at 269–70 (citing Thirteenth & Washington Sts. Corp. v. Neslen, 254 P.2d 847, 850 (Utah 1953)); Brugger v. Fonoti, 645 P.2d 647, 648 (Utah 1982). iv See Gray, 139 P.3d at 270–71. v Thirteenth & Washington Sts. Corp. v. Neslen, 254 P.2d 847 (Utah 1953). vi See Richard Barton Enterprises, Inc. v. Tsern, 928 P.2d 368, 375, 378 (Utah 1996) (citing Union City Union Suit Co. v. Miller, 162 A.D.2d 101, 556 N.Y.S.2d 864 (1990)). vii See Myrah v. Campbell, 163 P.3d 679, 682–84 (Utah Ct. App. 2007). viii Barton v. MTB Enterprises, 889 P.2d 476, 477 (Utah Ct. App. 1995); see also Brugger, 645 P.2d at 648 (stating that the tenant’s complaints revolved around standard problems commonly associated with building maintenance and did not rise to the level of substantial interference); viv Reid v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 776 P.2d 896, 898–900 (Utah 1989) (upholding trial court’s findings of fact concerning insufficiency of disruption so as to justify claim for constructive eviction). ix See Kenyon v. Regan, 826 P.2d 140, 142 (Utah Ct. App. 1992). x See Kenyon, 826 P.2d at 142. xi See Kenyon, 826 P.2d at 142; see also Barton v. MTB Enterprises, Inc., 889 P.2d 476, 477 (Utah Ct. App. 1995); Brugger, 645 P.2d at 648. xii See Kenyon, 826 P.2d at 142 (citing Fernandez v. Purdue, 518 P.2d 684, 686 (Utah 1974)). xiii See Brugger, 645 P.2d at 648 (noting that while the tenant had raised legitimate issues concerning state of the premises, the landorld had taken steps to remedy the problems within a reasonable time) (citing 49 Am.Jur.2d, Landlord and Tenant, § 617). xiv Barton, 889 P.2d at 477. Reprinted courtesy of Ben T. Welch, Snell & Wilmer and Ken Brown, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Welch may be contacted at bwelch@swlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Builder Survey Focuses on Green Practices of Top 200 Builders

October 01, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Builder magazine reported that the 2013 Builder 100/Next 100 survey provided data on how many builders constructed homes using a certified third-party green rating system. They discovered that nearly half of the 200 top U.S. builders constructed 100% of its homes to a third-party standard, while 38.5% reported that some of the homes were constructed using a third-party standard, while 12.5% stated that none of their homes were built to a third-party standard. “The decision to offer homes that are high-performance, energy-efficient, non-toxic, sustainable--whatever the preferred term--involves many considerations and builders must weigh expenses and impediments against potential benefits,” according to Builder magazine. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Client Alert: Court Settles Conflict between CCP and Rules of Court Regarding Demurrer Deadline Following Amended Complaint

August 20, 2014 — R. Bryan Martin and Kristian B. Moriarty - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Carlton v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. (No. E056566, filed 8/14/2014), The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, held a demurrer was timely filed in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 471.5, despite being filed after the 10-day filing period prescribed in California Rule of Court 3.1320(j). This case appears to settle the conflict that existed between the CCP and the Rules of Court as to the timing of demurrers following amendments to Complaints. Prior to this case, the validity of Rule of Court 3.1320(j)(2) was unclear as it arguably conflicted with CCP Section 471.5, which requires defendants to “answer” an amended complaint within 30 days after service. At the same time, it was not clear that CCP Section 471.5 applied to amendments after a demurrer had been sustained, and it was even more unclear whether the statutory 30-day period to “answer” an amended complaint foreclosed the shorter 10-day period prescribed under Rule of Court 3.1320(j)(2) for a demurrer or motion to strike. On July 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. (“Dr. Pepper”) and others. On October 24, 2011, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Dr. Pepper demurred to the FAC on various grounds. On January 5, 2012, the trial court sustained the demurrer in part, and overruled it in part. The Court granted Plaintiff 30 days to amend the FAC. Reprinted courtesy of R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com, Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES