Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Common Law Indemnification - A Primer

April 12, 2021 — Brian F. Mark - Hurwitz & Fine, P.C.
“Common law indemnification is generally available ‘in favor of one who is held responsible solely by operation of law because of his relationship to the wrongdoer.’” McCarthy v. Turner Constr., Inc., 17 N.Y.3d 369, 375 (2011), quoting Mas v. Two Bridges Assocs., 75 N.Y.2d 680, 690 (1990). What is Common Law Indemnification and Who Can Assert it? Indemnification, in general terms, is the right of one party to shift a loss to another and may be based upon an express contract or an implied obligation. Bellevue S. Assoc. v. HRH Constr. Corp., 78 N.Y.2d 282 (1991). Based on a separate duty owed the indemnitee by the indemnitor, common law indemnification, or implied indemnification, permits one who was compelled to pay for the wrong of another to recover from the wrongdoer the damages paid to the injured party. D’Ambrosio v. City of New York, 55 N.Y.2d 454, 460 (1982); Curreri v. Heritage Prop. Inv. Trust, Inc., 48 A.D.3d 505, 507 (2d Dept. 2008). The premise of common law indemnification is vicarious liability, defined as “liability that a supervisory party (such as an employer) bears for the actionable conduct of a subordinate or associate (such as an employee) based on the relationship between the two parties” Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). Common law indemnification “reflects an inherent fairness as to which party should be held liable for indemnity.” McCarthy, 17 N.Y.3d at 375. It is a restitution concept which permits shifting the loss because, to fail to do so, would result in the unjust enrichment of one party at the expense of the other. Mas, 75 N.Y.2d at 680, 690; Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center v. Islam, 172 A.D.3d 1342, 1343 (2d Dept. 2019). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian F. Mark, Hurwitz & Fine, P.C.
Mr. Mark may be contacted at bfm@hurwitzfine.com

California Supreme Court Holds that Design Immunity Does Not Protect a Public Entity for Failure to Warn of Dangerous Conditions

June 26, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Get ready for more street signage. The California Supreme Court, in Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, (2023) 14 Cal.5th 639, has held that Government Code section 830.6, which protects public entities from claims alleging dangerous conditions on public property if the design was approved by a public agencies’ legislative body or their designee, does not shield a public entity from claims that the public entity should have warned the public of known dangers. We wrote about the Tansavatdi case a while back when it was before the Court of Appeals. The case involves a very sad set of facts. A young boy was killed by a semi-trailer while waiting at a stoplight on his bicycle in Rancho Palos Verdes, California. The area where the boy was killed did not have a bicycle lane although stretches of the same road did. The 2nd District Court of Appeal, on appeal from a motion for summary judgment, held that even if the public entity could establish that it was immune from liability under Government Code section 830.6, the trial court should have considered whether the public entity should have been liable for failing to warn of a dangerous condition on public property. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Never, Ever, Ever Assume! (Or, How a Stuck Shoe is Like a Construction Project Assumption)

October 21, 2019 — Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North Carolina
This summer, I had the fortune of taking a trip to Europe. The first place I visited was Amsterdam. A lovely town with a lot of culture and more canals than you can shake a stick at. I was meeting family there, but had hours to kill ahead of time. So, I decided to take the train from the airport into the City Centre, leave my bags at the train station luggage locker, and begin exploring. My plan took its first misstep when I attempted to board the train. Not being in a hurry, I let the other passengers get on first. Sure, I noticed the train conductor blowing his whistle while I stepped onto the train, but figured I was fine since I was already on the steps up. Until, that is, the door began to close, with me in the doorway, suitcase in the train, one foot inside, and one foot mid step up to the cabin. The door closed on my backpack (which was still on my back), but I managed to force it into the train compartment. My shoe, however, was not quite as lucky. Part of my shoe made it inside, and part was outside the door. No worry– just look for the door release mechanism, right? Wrong! There was none. The train started up, with my shoe still halfway in and halfway out of the train. (Luckily my foot itself made it inside all in one piece). The conductor came along to scold me, and told me that he could *probably* rescue my shoe once we got to Central Station. In the meantime, I sat on a nearby jump seat, keeping tabs on my shoe and fuming that this was *not* the way I planned to start my vacation. Long story short– the train conductor was able to salvage my shoe, but not without a lot of commentary on how I should never have boarded the train after the whistle blew. Lesson learned. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLC
Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

The Contractor’s Contingency: What Contractors and Construction Managers Need to Know and Be Wary Of

December 04, 2023 — Skyler L. Santomartino - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Contractors and construction managers who enter into cost reimbursable contracts subject to a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) are responsible for all project costs exceeding the GMP. For this reason, it is imperative that contractors negotiate and incorporate into the GMP a financial buffer that accounts for the unanticipated project costs that are not reimbursable as change orders or costs of the work. This is where the contractor’s contingency comes into play.[1] The contractor’s contingency is a vehicle that allows contractors to mitigate some of the risks inherent in GMP contracts. When drafted properly, a contingency clause allows the contractor and only the contractor to access funds set aside by the owner to address unpredictable or unknown project costs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Skyler L. Santomartino, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Santomartino may be contacted at ssantomartino@pecklaw.com

Colorado Court of Appeals to Rule on Arbitrability of an HOA's Construction Defect Claims

November 20, 2013 — W. Berkeley Mann, Jr. — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
On October 24, 2013 the Colorado Court of Appeals granted a rare interlocutory appeal in a multi-family residential construction defect case. The Court of Appeals accepted the case ofTriple Crown at Observatory Village Association, Inc. v. Village Homes of Colorado, Inc.(2013 WL 5761028) as an interlocutory appeal after the parties briefed and obtained rulings from the trial court that compelled the case to binding arbitration in lieu of a jury trial on all issues. The appellate decision of October 24, 2013 did not decide the merits of the case, but discussed the issues to be decided in the eventual merits decision. The significance of the issues presented and the interlocutory nature of this appeal both make this case worth watching for further appellate proceedings. The core issue in this appeal was the applicability of Colorado’s Uniform Arbitration Act (C.R.S. § 13-22-201, et seq.), based on recorded Declarations filed by the developer. The Declarations mandated that the HOA arbitrate any design/construction disputes with the developer. Immediately prior to suit, the Association sought to amend the Declarations in order to avoid the arbitration process for these claims. The interlocutory appellate issues resulted from the trial court’s order compelling the arbitration over the objections of the Association. The trial court’s decision was based on a reading of the Colorado Revised Non-Profit Corporation Act (“CRNPC,” at C.R.S. § 7-127-107), which was found applicable to the Association. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of W. Berkeley Mann, Jr.
W. Berkeley Mann, Jr. can be contacted at mann@hhmrlaw.com

California to Build ‘Total Disaster City’ for Training

July 30, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
California is building a “world-class $56 million training facility in eastern Sacramento County that would pit fire crews against a variety of realistic, pressure-packed simulated disasters,” according to the Sacramento Bee. Construction has begun on the Emergency Response Training Center in Mather Field in Rancho Cordova. “The project is a joint effort between Henke’s fire department, the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services and the Sacramento Fire Department,” reported the Sacramento Bee. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Nevada’s Construction Defect Law

March 05, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Constructive Dive reported on the effects of Nevada’s new construction defect law, which is a revision of the original 1995 Homeowners Protection Act: “The new rules more tightly define ‘defect,’ strike the requirement for the losing party to pay the other’s legal fees, and require homeowners to be much more specific about the defects they claim.” Furthermore, it reduces “the length of time a homeowner has to make a construction-defects claim at six years, down from the 10-year statute of limitations in the original law.” Arizona, Colorado, Florida, and Washington legislators are debating revising their current construction defect laws, according to Construction Dive. “If the Colorado measure passes, homeowners will have to go through arbitration before they’ll be allowed to sue their builders. The proposal in Washington would require the owner making the claim to have a third-party professional inspect the defect before filing a suit,” Construction Dive reported. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Legal Risks of Green Building

March 22, 2021 — Mark D. Shifton - Construction Executive
All construction projects involve elements of legal risk. Insurance and indemnity claims, delay claims and professional negligence claims are simply accepted risks when involved in construction. Green building projects are no exception to this rule, and often involve unique issues that are not present in typical construction projects. Green building projects commonly employ new or untested construction materials, require construction methods that lack significant track records, and ultimate building performance often fails to meet design expectations. As such, green building projects may give rise to entirely new types of legal risk that should be considered and allocated early in the process. In the past 15 years, the number of buildings for which green certifications have been sought has grown exponentially, and the growth rate of green building and sustainable construction has far outpaced the growth rate of the construction industry as a whole. As green building projects become increasingly common (and often increasingly required by the federal, as well as state and local governments), the unique legal risks presented by green building projects take on an increase importance. Reprinted courtesy of Mark D. Shifton, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Shifton may be contacted at mshifton@gllawgroup.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES