Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

There's No Such Thing as a Free House

April 01, 2015 — Megan McArdle – Bloomberg
Should people be able to get a free house by refusing to pay their mortgage? That's the question Florida has to answer. The housing crisis is over, and the housing market is healing itself, though slowly in some places. But a backlog of foreclosures still remains ... and it has been going on so long that some homes are now past the statute of limitations for collecting debt. Lawyers for the homeowners are arguing that this means they get to keep the house. Lawyers for the banks are, unsurprisingly, arguing that each month they fail to pay the mortgage payment starts the statutory clock anew. Both arguments create problems if the courts endorse them. If failing to pay really restarted the clock every month, then there wouldn't be a statute of limitations on debt -- creditors could just keep sending you bills forever and dun you right up to the edge of your grave. There's a very good reason that we have statutes of limitations on most crimes and most debts: The law recognizes that our interests in justice and contract rights must be balanced against other considerations. People need to be able to plan their lives without decades-old problems coming back to bite them, and also, as cases age, they get harder and harder to prove as witnesses die, evidence gets lost and memories fade. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Megan McArdle, Bloomberg
Ms. McArdle may be contacted at mmcardle3@bloomberg.net

The National Labor Relations Board Joint Employer Standard is Vacated by the Eastern District of Texas

April 22, 2024 — Andrew G. Vicknair - The Dispute Resolver
Many employment laws use the concept of joint employer to make more than one business entity responsible for complying with employment law obligations towards employees who to varying degrees work for, or under the direction of entities who are not technically the employees primary employer. Nowhere is that issue more prevalent than in contractor subcontractor relationships. Over the years the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has developed various tests for determining joint employer status. Unless a business entity is an employer of individuals, the NLRB has no jurisdiction over a dispute between the workers and a business entity for whom they work. It is important for contractors to understand the importance of being an employer and the obligations that flow from such status. Likewise, it is also important to understand when a contractor may be classified as a “joint employer” over certain individuals. Depending on the specific laws involved, such a finding of joint-employer status can happen under the “joint employer doctrine” which often exists in subcontractor and temporary employment arrangements. The “joint-employer doctrine” may render a contractor responsible for another company’s employment liabilities. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Andrew G. Vicknair, D'Arcy Vicknair, LLC
Mr. Vicknair may be contacted at agv@darcyvicknair.com

Coverage for Construction Defect Barred by Contractual-Liability Exclusion

July 30, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Relying upon precedent from the Texas Supreme Court, the Fifth Circuit upheld the District Court's denial of coverage based upon the policy's contractual-liability exclusion. Crownover v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12158 (5th Cir. June. 27, 2014). The Crownovers entered a construction contract with Arrow Development, Inc. to construct a home. Paragraph 23.1 of the contract contained a warranty-to-repair clause, which provided Arrow "would correct work . . . failing to conform to the requirements of the Contract Documents." After the work was completed, cracks began to appear in the walls and foundation of the Crownovers' home. Additional problems with the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system caused leaking in exterior lines and air ducts inside the home. When Arrow refused to correct the problems, the Crownovers initiated arbitration. The arbitrator found that the Crownovers had a meritorious claim for breach of the express warranty to repair contained in paragraph 23.1 of the construction contract. Damages were awarded. 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

Architect Sues over Bidding Procedure

November 13, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The city of Louisville, Ohio is being sued by an architect who claims that city officials split projects into parts in order to circumvent state laws on public bidding. Rodney Meadows, the architect who filed the suit, also claims he is not motivated by any interest in working for the city. “I wouldn’t want to work with them,” he said. Nor is he seeking damages in the suit. The project at contention is Louisville’s renovations of an existing building for the Police Department. The city has spent $328,692 on the renovations, but state law says that projects costing more than $25,000 or $50,000 (depending on other matters) must be put out for public bidding. But city officials contend they haven’t broken the law. “A significant amount of work was done by our own people,” said E. Thomas Ault, the Louisville city manager. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Illinois Court Addresses Rip-And-Tear Coverage And Existence Of An “Occurrence” In Defective Product Suit

September 04, 2018 — Brian Bassett - TLSS Insurance Law Blog
In Lexington Ins. Co. v. Chi. Flameproof & Wood Specialties Corp., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135871, 2018 WL 3819109 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 10, 2018), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois found that rip-and-tear costs could qualify as covered “property damage,” but the court rejected coverage for claims that the insured intentionally sold a noncompliant product as the suit did not allege an “occurrence.” Lexington Insurance Company (“Lexington”) issued a CGL policy to Chicago Flameproof & Wood Specialties Corp. (“Flameproof”). During the policy period, a third party ordered fire-retardant-treated lumber from Flameproof for construction in Minnesota. Flameproof instead sent materials that were not tested, certified, or labeled as compliant. The third party installed the materials, discovered the non-compliance, and then removed the materials. Removing the materials allegedly damaged other portions of the building on the project. The third party then sued Flameproof, alleging costs associated with replacing the lumber as well as property damage to the other materials from the removal of the lumber. Flameproof tendered the claim to Lexington seeking a defense. Lexington filed a declaratory action in the Northern District of Illinois. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian Bassett, Traub Lieberman Strauss & Shrewsberry LLP
Mr. Bassett may be contacted at bbassett@tlsslaw.com

Water Bond Would Authorize $7.5 Billion for California Water Supply Infrastructure Projects

October 29, 2014 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
When California voters cast their votes on November 4, 2014 they will decide the fate of a $7.5 billion water bond proposal – Proposition 1 – which would authorize $7.12 billion in new general obligation bonds and reallocate $425 million in previously authorized but unissued bonds for water supply infrastructure projects. Proposition 1 – The Water Quality, Supply and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 If you live in California you know that the state is in the midst of its third straight year of drought. And it’s no ordinary drought. According to some, it’s the severest drought on record, as nearly the entire state experiences “severe” to “exceptional” drought conditions across its counties. The California Water Resources Board has implemented emergency water conservation regulations including hefty fines for those who don’t comply and even Governor Brown has allowed the grounds of the State Capitol to go brown to underscore the severity of the situation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@kmtg.com

The A, B and C’s of Contracting and Self-Performing Work Under California’s Contractor’s License Law

July 19, 2017 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog

Class A – General Engineering Contractors;
Class B – General Building Contractors; and
Class C – Specialty Contractors of which there are currently 42 different Class C specialty contractors license types.

Each of these license classifications has separate contracting rules, and rules regarding when work can be self-performed, which for many can be confusing. Minor Work Exception One important (albeit “minor”) exception is that no contractor’s license is required no matter what type of work is being performed if the project has a value of less than $500. Known as the “minor work exception,” the exception is a project-based, not work-based, exception. Thus, for example, if a project owner is remodeling their kitchen at a cost of $6,000 and the cost of doing the flooring is only $300, the person doing the flooring would need to have a contractor’s license in the appropriate classification since the aggregate cost of the work is $500 or more. 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

Contractor Definition Central to Coverage Dispute

July 22, 2024 — Stacy R. Goldscher & Tracy M. Lewis - Wood Smith Henning & Berman
How do you define the term "contractor?" In the case of California Specialty Insulation Inc. v. Allied World Surplus Lines Insurance Company, No. B324805 (2024), the court ultimately honored the reasonable expectations of the insured and ordered that the insurer defend and indemnify in an underlying suit stemming from the policy. This case involves a commercial general liability insurance policy issued by Allied World Surplus Lines Insurance Company (Allied) to California Specialty Insulation, Inc. (CSI). The central issue is whether Allied World is obligated to defend and indemnify CSI against a negligence claim stemming from a construction site accident. The dispute hinges on the interpretation of a policy exclusion for bodily injury to employees of any "contractor," a term not defined in the policy. Factual Background In 2017 Air Control Systems. Inc. (Air Control) was contracted to perform improvement work at a Los Angeles building and subsequently hired CSI to install duct insulation. In 2019, Jason Standiford, and Air Control employee, filed a negligence lawsuit against CSI, alleging injuries from a 2017 incident where a CSI employee allegedly drove a scissor lift into a ladder Standiford was on, causing him to fall. CSI requested Allied World to defend it in the Standiford lawsuit. Initially, Allied World accepted the defense, but later withdrew, citing the Contractor Exclusion in the policy. CSI filed for declaratory relief, leading to cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court ruled in favor of CSI, finding the term contractor ambiguous and construing it in CSI's favor. Allied World appealed the decision. Reprinted courtesy of Stacy R. Goldscher, Wood Smith Henning & Berman and Tracy M. Lewis, Wood Smith Henning & Berman Ms. Goldscher may be contacted at sgoldscher@wshblaw.com Ms. Lewis may be contacted at tlewis@wshblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES