Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Balestreri Potocki & Holmes Attorneys Named 2020 Super Lawyers and Rising Star

July 06, 2020 — Balestreri Potocki & Holmes
The law firm of Balestreri Potocki & Holmes is pleased to announce that Shareholders Thomas A. Balestreri, Jr. and Joseph P. Potocki have been selected as 2020 Super Lawyers and Associate Robin H. Smith has been named a 2020 Rising Star. Each year no more than 5 percent of the lawyers in the state are selected to receive the honor of being included in the Super Lawyers list and no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers are selected to the Rising Stars list. Balestreri has been selected to the Super Lawyers list in the areas of Construction Litigation. Balestreri has dedicated most of his 30 plus years in practice to the representation of developers, property owners, and general contractors in litigation, negotiations, and risk management. A seasoned trial lawyer, he has tried a number of high exposure cases with great success. Selected as a Super Lawyer in the area of Construction Litigation, Potocki’s practice concentrates on litigation, transactional matters and construction contract drafting and negotiation. His extensive litigation experience involves high-value disputes relating to a wide variety of issues in the real estate, business and construction arenas. Smith has been named a Rising Star by Super Lawyers in the area of Civil Litigation. In her varied litigation practice, Smith represents individuals and business entities in complex catastrophic personal injury matters. She also represents employers in labor and employment matters and a variety of businesses, including automobile dealers, in breach of contract, unfair competition, unfair business practices, defamation, and consumer claims. Super Lawyers, a Thompson Reuters business, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area. The result is a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys. Balestreri Potocki & Holmes is headquartered in San Diego, California. The firm provides comprehensive counsel to large and small companies across a wide range of established and emerging industries. Balestreri Potocki & Holmes is located in downtown San Diego at 401 B Street, Suite 1470. More information about the firm can be found at: www.bph-law.com. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Balestreri Potocki & Holmes

California Supreme Court Finds Vertical Exhaustion Applies to First-Level Excess Policies

August 26, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Addressing issues left open in its seminal decision in Montrose, the California Supreme Court found that the language in the first-level excess policies meant that the insured could access the policies upon exhaustion of the directly underlying policies purchased for the same policy period. Truck Ins. Exchange v. Kaiser Cement & Gypsum Corp., 2024 Cal. LEXIS 3271 (Cal. June 17, 2024). From 1944 through the 1970's, Kaiser manufactured asbestos-containing products at numerous different facilities. By 2004, more than 24,000 claimants had filed product liability claims against Kaiser alleging that they had suffered bodily injury as a result of exposure to Kaiser's asbestos products. Kaiser tendered these claims to Truck, one of several primary insurers that had issued CGL policies to Kaiser. In 2001, Truck initiated this coverage action to determine its indemnity and defense obligations to Kaiser. Truck later amended its complaint to add a cause of action for contribution against several of Kaiser's excess insurers. The issue presently before the court was whether Truck was entitled to contribution from various coinsurers that issued first-level excess policies to Kaiser during the period in question. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Dorian Lashes East Canada, Then Weakens Heading Out to Sea

September 16, 2019 — The Associated Press (Rob Gillies) - Bloomberg
The storm that already walloped the Virgin Islands, Bahamas and North Carolina lashed at far-eastern Canada with hurricane-force winds for much of Sunday, knocking out power to hundreds of thousands of people before weakening and heading into the North Atlantic. Dorian had hit near the city of Halifax Saturday afternoon, ripping roofs off apartment buildings, toppling a huge construction crane and uprooting trees. There were no reported deaths in Canada, though the storm was blamed for at least 50 elsewhere along its path. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Associated Press (Rob Gillies), Bloomberg

Best Practices: Commercial Lockouts in Arizona

April 10, 2023 — Patrick Tighe - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
If a tenant defaults under a commercial lease, Arizona law permits the landlord to re-take possession of the premises by locking out the defaulting tenant. However, if the landlord’s lockout is wrongful, the landlord may be liable for the damages the tenant sustains because of the wrongful lockout. To minimize such liability, here are some general best practices to follow when locking out a defaulting tenant:

Do Not Breach the Peace. It is vital when performing a lockout to not breach the peace. What constitutes a “breach of the peace” depends on the particular circumstances at hand. For example, if a tenant arrives during the lockout and becomes angry or threatens violence, the landlord should stop performing the lockout and return at a later time. As a general rule of thumb, it is best to perform lockouts in the early morning hours or in the late evening hours when the landlord is less likely to encounter the tenant.
Provide A Notice of Default. Many commercial leases require the landlord to provide a notice of default before the landlord can lock out a defaulting tenant. Check, double check, and triple check that the landlord followed the lease’s notice of default provisions correctly, including that the landlord sent the notices to all required parties in accordance with the time requirements set forth in the lease.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Tighe, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Tighe may be contacted at ptighe@swlaw.com

California Cracking down on Phony Qualifiers

July 23, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Garret Murai in his California Construction Law Blog stated that “California’s Senate Bill 862, and amended Business and Professions Code 7068.1” has given the California Contractors State License Board (CSLB) “additional enforcement authority to crack down on phony qualifiers by allowing the CLSB to take disciplinary action against a qualifier and a licensee if the qualifier is not actively involved in the construction activities of the licensee’s business.” Murai explained that “[r]enting a qualifier means that you pay an individual who holds a California contractor’s license to act as the Responsible Managing Officer (RMO) or Responsible Managing Employee (RMO) of a construction company when they have no actual involvement in the day-to-day operations of the company.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Is Arbitration Final and Binding?

July 02, 2018 — Jeanne M. Harrison - Smith Currie
Parties involved in a dispute may face a choice between arbitration and litigation. Previous articles in this series have discussed various factors that can influence that choice. One generally perceived advantage of arbitration is finality. But how final and binding is an arbitration award? The answer is governed primarily by the Federal Arbitration Act. The Federal Arbitration Act

Valid
Irrevocable; and
Enforceable, except on legal or equitable grounds for the revocation of a contract.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeanne M. Harrison, Smith Currie
Ms. Harrison may be contacted at jmharrison@smithcurrie.com

Colorado Supreme Court Issues Decisions on Statute of Limitations for Statutory Bad Faith Claims and the Implied Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege

July 11, 2018 — Jennifer Arnett-Roehrich - Gordon & Rees Insurance Coverage Law Blog
The Colorado Supreme Court has been busy the past two weeks, issuing a couple rulings that should be of interest to the insurance industry:

Statute of Limitations for Bad Faith Statute: In Rooftop Restoration, Inc. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 2018 CO 44 (May 29, 2018), the Colorado Supreme Court held that the one-year statute of limitations that applies to penalties, does not apply to claims brought under C.R.S. 10-3-1116, Colorado’s statutory cause of action for unreasonable delay or denial of benefits. Section 10-3-1116 provides that a first-party claimant whose claim for payment of benefits has been unreasonably delayed or denied may seek to recover attorney fees, costs, and two times the covered benefit, in addition to the covered benefit. A separate Colorado statute, CRS 13-80-103(1)(d) provides a one-year statute of limitations for “any penalty or forfeiture of any penal statutes.” To arrive at the conclusion that the double damages available under section 10-3-1116 is not a penalty, the Court looked at yet another statutory provision, governing accrual of causes of action for penalties, which provides that a penalty cause of action accrues when “the determination of overpayment or delinquency . . . is no longer subject to appeal.” The Court stated that because a cause of action under 10-3-1116 “never leads to a determination of overpayment or delinquency . . . the claim would never accrue, and the statute of limitations would be rendered meaningless.” Para. 15. Presumably, the default two-year statute of limitations, provided by CRS 13-80-102(1)(i), will now be found to apply to causes of action seeking damages for undue delay or denial of insurance benefits.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jennifer Arnett-Roehrich, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
Ms. Arnett-Roehrich may be contacted at jarnett-roehrich@grsm.com

Revisiting Statutory Offers to Compromise

August 28, 2023 — Kathryne Baldwin - Wilke Fleury
The fourth appellate district published an opinion earlier this year in Smalley v. Subaru of America, Inc. (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 450 that serves as an excellent refresher on requirements of the “998 Offer,” or a statutory offer to compromise pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) §998. In Smalley, set in the context of a Lemon Law action, Defendant Subaru made a 998 Offer for $35,001.00, together with attorneys’ fees and costs totaling either $10,000.00 or costs and reasonably incurred attorneys’ fees, in an amount to be determined by the Court. (Smalley, supra, 87 Cal.App.5th at 454.) Plaintiff objected that the offer was not reasonable and the case proceeded to trial. At trial, a jury found in favor of Plaintiff and awarded him a total judgment award of $27,555.74 – far short of the $35,001.00 offer. The trial court found Plaintiff had failed to beat the 998 at trial and that Subaru’s earlier 998 offer was reasonable. Plaintiff appealed the post-judgment order awarding Plaintiff pre-offer costs and Defendant post-offer costs on the grounds that the 998 was not reasonable in that it did not specify whether Plaintiff would be deemed the prevailing party for purposes of a motion for attorneys’ fees. The fourth district affirmed the trial court’s order and engaged in a helpful review of 998 requirements. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kathryne Baldwin, Wilke Fleury
Ms. Baldwin may be contacted at kbaldwin@wilkefleury.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES