Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Court Calls Lease-Leaseback Project What it is: A Design-Bid-Build Project

August 19, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
First there was “Prince.” Then there was “The Artist Formerly Known as Prince.” Then there was “The Artist Formerly Known as Prince (Because he Changed His Name to a Symbol), But Then Realized That No One Could Pronounce the Symbol (and What Good is a Symbol if Everyone Has to Wave Their Hands Wildly at You to Get Your Attention or Scream ‘Hey You!’), and So Changed His Name Back to Prince Again.” Whatever name (or symbol) he was going by, everyone knew him as the guy who told us to party like it was 1999 (when 1999 still seemed like the distant future), who sang about a girl with a “pocket full of horses” (which totally flew past my junior high school brain at the time), and gave us such great metaphors as “if the elevator tries to bring you down, go crazy, punch a higher floor!” Like Prince or his symbol, sometimes it doesn’t matter what label you put on something when everyone knows what that something is. In law, we call it looking at the “substance” rather than its “form.” And, in the next case, Davis v. Fresno Unified School District, the California Court of Appeals for the Fifth District made quick work of a purported “lease-leaseback” project – a project delivery method available to school districts whereby a school district leases property it owns to a developer for a minimum of $1, who in turns builds a school facility on the site and leases the facility and the site back to the school district, who in turn takes ownership of the facility and site at the end of the lease – and called it for what it was: a run-of-the-mill “design-bid-build” project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Following Mishaps, D.C. Metro Presses on With Repairs

February 23, 2017 — Jim Parsons - Engineering News-Record
An aggressive effort to overhaul the aging Metro system in Washington, D.C., is producing results as it nears the one-year mark, with more than 28,000 cross-ties and nearly two miles of grout pads now replaced. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Adopts New Rule in Breach-of-the-Consent-to-Settle-Clause Cases

August 19, 2015 — Sean Mahoney – White and Williams LLP
In Babcock & Wilcox Company, et al. v. America Nuclear Insurers, et al., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently held that where a liability insurer has agreed to provide a defense to its insured in an underlying tort action subject to a reservation of rights but refuses to consent to a settlement in that action, the insured may nevertheless accept the settlement over the insurer’s objection where the settlement is “fair, reasonable, and non-collusive” from the perspective of a reasonably prudent person in the insured’s position in light of the totality of the circumstances and is covered. Babcock & Wilcox Company v. America Nuclear Insurers, No. 2 WAP 2014, 2015 WL 4430352 (Pa. Jul. 21, 2015). This decision fills an important gap in Pennsylvania precedent addressing the rules applicable when an insurer refuses to consent to an insured’s settlement of a lawsuit. In Babcock, the underlying plaintiffs sued Babcock & Wilcox Company and Atlantic Richfield Company (“the Insureds”) alleging that the Insured’s nuclear facilities caused bodily injury and property damage. The Insureds’ liability insurers agreed to defend the Insureds subject to a reservation of rights. The insurers later refused to consent to an offer to settle the underlying action for a total of $80 million because they believed the Insureds were likely to succeed on the merits. Nevertheless, in 2009, the Insureds accepted that offer and settled the underlying action for $80 million, notwithstanding the insurer’s refusal. The Insureds then sought reimbursement of the $80 million settlement from their insurers, who rejected that request on the ground that the Insureds had breached the consent-to-settlement/cooperation provisions of the implicated policies. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sean Mahoney, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Mahoney may be contacted at mahoneys@whiteandwilliams.com

Traub Lieberman Partner Adam Joffe Named to 2022 Emerging Lawyers List

February 01, 2022 — Adam P. Joffe, Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman is pleased to announce that Adam Joffe has been selected by his peers as a 2022 Emerging Lawyer in Leading Lawyers Magazine in the area of Insurance, Insurance Coverage & Reinsurance Law. Those selected as Emerging Lawyers have been identified by their peers to be among the TOP LAWYERS who are age 40 or younger unless they have practiced for no more than 10 years. Less than 2% of all lawyers licensed in each state have received the distinction of Emerging Lawyer. Reprinted courtesy of Adam P. Joffe, Traub Lieberman Mr. Joffe may be contacted at ajoffe@tlsslaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

White and Williams Elects Four Lawyers to Partnership, Promotes Six Associates to Counsel

January 13, 2017 — White and Williams LLP
White and Williams is pleased to announce the election of Edward Beitz, Justin Fortescue, Jennifer Santangelo and Amy Vulpio to the partnership and the promotion of Paul Briganti, Joshua Galante, Dana Spring Monzo, George Morrison, Craig O’Neill and Steven Urgo from associate to counsel. The newly elected partners and promoted counsel represent the wide array of practices that White and Williams offers its clients, including bankruptcy, corporate, finance, healthcare, insurance coverage, labor and employment, real estate and reinsurance. These lawyers have earned their elevations based on their contributions to the firm and their practices. “We are thrilled to elect these four lawyers to the partnership and promote six associates to counsel. These promotions are representative of the breadth of services and deep bench that we have to offer at White and Williams,” said Patti Santelle, Managing Partner. “The election of our new partners and promotion of our counsel is a reflection of their success and dedication as well as the continued health of the firm.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

Utah Supreme Court Allows Citizens to Block Real Estate Development Project by Voter Referendum

June 10, 2019 — Sean M. Mosman & Mark O. Morris - Snell & Wilmer Under Construction
The Utah Supreme Court recently decided Baker v. Carlson, 2018 UT 59, which considered a developer’s ongoing effort to build a mixed-use, part-residential and part-commercial development on the site of the long-defunct Cottonwood Mall located in Holladay, Utah. On November 28, 2018, the Supreme Court affirmed the Third District Court’s ruling that a voter referendum to block the development was valid. This ruling calls into question the certainty of investment-backed real estate decisions in Utah and thus could carry negative implications for the Utah construction and real estate development communities. The Cottonwood Mall opened in the early 1960s, and for several decades was a popular regional shopping destination. But the mall fell on financial hard times in the mid-1990s, and since 2007 the 57-acre lot has sat vacant. Around that time, the owner of the lot made plans to redevelop it, and asked Holladay City to rezone the site to permit mixed uses. In response, the City rezoned the lot as Regional/Mixed-Use (R/M-U). The City also created a process to control the development of an R/M-U zone, requiring prospective builders to first submit a site development master plan—which sets forth guidelines for the overall development and design of the site—to the City for approval. After the City approves a master plan, the developer must enter into a development agreement with the City, giving the developer certain rights and addressing other development-related issues. Reprinted courtesy of Sean M. Mosman, Snell & Wilmer and Mark O. Morris, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Mosman may be contacted at smosman@swlaw.com Mr. Morris may be contacted at mmorris@swlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California Appeals Court Says Loss of Use Is “Property Damage” Under Liability Policy, and Damages Can be Measured by Diminished Value

December 11, 2018 — Michael S. Levine & David M. Costello - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In a win for policyholders, a California appellate court has held that the loss of use of property resulting from alleged negligence constitutes property damage under a liability insurance policy. In Thee Sombrero, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, the property owner, Thee Sombrero, operated a venue as a nightclub. After a shooting inside the nightclub caused a patron’s death, the local government revoked Sombrero’s right to use the property as a nightclub and, instead, limited permissible use of the property to a banquet hall. Sombrero sued the security company it had hired to keep guns out of the club, alleging that it was the security company’s negligence that caused the city to revoke Sombrero’s nightclub use permit and that the loss of use of the facility as a nightclub resulted in damages of almost a million dollars based on an assessment of the property’s diminished market value. The security company did not contest the claim, and Sombrero obtained a default judgment. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and David M. Costello, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Costello may be contacted at dcostello@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Genuine Dispute Summary Judgment Reversed for Abuse of Discretion and Trial of Fact Questions About Expert Opinions

July 27, 2020 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Fadeeff v. State Farm General Ins. Co. (No. A155691, filed 5/22/20 ord. pub. 6/8/20), a California appeals court held that triable issues of fact and the trial court’s failure to address a request for a continuance precluded summary judgment for an insurer under the genuine dispute doctrine. In Fadeeff, the policyholders made a claim to State Farm for smoke damage to their home from the 2015 Valley Fire in Hidden Valley Lake, California. With State Farm’s approval, the insureds retained the restoration company, ServPro, to assist with smoke and soot mitigation. State Farm documented smoke and soot on the interior walls, ceilings and carpeting, and on all exterior elevations, including on the deck and handrail. State Farm made a series of payments on the claim totaling about $50,000. The insureds then hired a public adjuster and submitted supplemental claims for further dwelling repairs and additional contents replacement, totaling approximately $75,000. State Farm responded by using its own independent adjuster to investigate, who was neither licensed as an adjuster, nor as a contractor. State Farm also retained forensic consultants for the structure and the HVAC system, but neither the independent adjuster nor the consultants were aware that State Farm had an internal operation guide for the use of third-party experts in handling first party claims, which guidelines were therefore not followed. In addition, the consultants made allegedly superficial inspections, with one attributing smoke and soot damage to other sources of combustion, including the insureds’ exterior propane barbecue, an internal wood fireplace and wood stove and candles that had been burned in the living room. None of the consultants asked the insureds when they had last used any of the sources of combustion. 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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES