SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

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

---

Update: Lawyers Can Be Bound to Confidentiality Provision in Settlement Agreement

January 13, 2020 — Danielle Ward, Esq. - Balestreri Potocki & Holmes
In July 2019, the California Supreme Court ruled that an attorney’s signature under the often-used phrase “approved as to form and content” does not preclude a finding that the attorney could be bound to the terms of a settlement agreement. (Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter (2019) 7 Cal.5th 781.) This decision marks a reversal of the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s 2018 ruling that approval of a contract is not tantamount to an agreement to be bound by that contract. The underlying action stemmed out of a wrongful death suit by Wendy Crossland and Richard Fournier, parents of the decedent, against Monster Energy Company. The parties negotiated a settlement, a critical of element of which was a confidentiality provision aimed at keeping the the settlement secret. The confidentiality provision prohibited plaintiffs and their counsel of record from disclosing both the existence of the settlement, or the terms thereof, to any person, entity, or publication, including the legal website Lawyers & Settlements. The attorneys signed the agreement under the phrase “approved as to form and content.” Shortly after the settlement agreement was executed, the Plaintiffs’ attorney Bruce Schechter disclosed his clients’ settlement with Monster in an interview with Lawyers & Settlements. Monster filed suit against Mr. Schechter for breach of contract, among other causes of action. Mr. Schechter challenged the lawsuit with a SLAPP motion, essentially arguing that the lawsuit was meritless and merely an attempt to thwart freedom of speech. The trial court denied Mr. Schechter’s motion as to the breach of contract cause of action finding that the settlement clearly contemplated that the attorneys were subjected to the terms of the agreement, and Schechter’s claim that he was not a party because he merely approved as to form and content was “beyond reason.” The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that Mr. Schechter was not a party to the agreement by virtue of his signature approving the form and content, and the Plaintiffs had no authority to bind their attorney to the terms of the agreement. The Court of Appeal found that by affixing his signature to the agreement Mr. Schechter was merely manifesting his “professional thumbs up” in line with legal industry’s customary understanding. In its reversal, the California Supreme Court did not disturb the legal community’s understanding of the phrase “approved as to form and content.” Rather, the Court concluded that an attorney’s signature under that often-used phrase does not preclude as a matter of law that the attorney intended to be bound by the agreement. The entire agreement, including the substantive provisions, need to be examined to determine the attorney’s intent in affixing his/her signature to the agreement. Turning to the Crossland/Fournier Monster settlement agreement, the Court was unpersuaded by Mr. Schechter’s argument that he was not bound to the agreement because counsel was not included in the definition of “party”. The Court stated that it’s the substance of the agreement that determines whether counsel is a party to the contract, as opposed to a party to the lawsuit. The Court was persuaded, in part, by the important role that confidentiality plays in brokering settlements. It noted that public disclosure of private settlements would serve to “chill” parties’ ability to resolve matters short of trial, and there was little doubt that confidentiality was an important term of the Crossland/Fournier Monster settlement. In concluding that Monster had met its burden to defeat an anti-SLAPP motion, the Court pointed to the numerous references to counsel in the substantive provisions of the agreement which a trier of fact could conclude bound Mr. Schechter to the confidentiality terms. Danielle Ward has concentrated her law practice on defending developer, general contractor, and subcontractor clients in a variety of construction matters. She has been an attorney with Balestreri Potocki & Holmes since 2010 and can be reached at dward@bph-law.com. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Suit Limitation Provisions in New York

January 28, 2025 — Bill Wilson - Construction Law Zone
New York law generally enforces a contractual suit limitation that specifies a “reasonable” period of time (usually shorter than the applicable statute of limitations) within which an action must be commenced. The contractual suit limitation needs to be fair and reasonable, given the circumstances of each particular case. The New York Court of Appeals recently examined this precedent in the context of an insurance policy enforcing an insurance contract’s two-year suit limitation period in Farage v. Associated Insurance Management Corp., 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 05875 (Nov. 26, 2024). In Farage, a Staten Island multi-unit apartment building was damaged in a fire. The plaintiff owner filed its full repair claim for damages with its insurer six years after the fire and four years after the expiration of the contractual limitation period. The insurer denied the claim. The plaintiff filed suit for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith fair dealing. The insurer moved to dismiss the action based on the two-year limitation provision in the insurance contract. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLP
Mr. Wilson may be contacted at wwilson@rc.com

---

The Texas Supreme Court Limits the Use of the Economic Loss Rule

September 03, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to David Fisk of Kane Russell Coleman & Logan PC, in an article published by JD Supra Business Advisor, “[T]he Texas Supreme Court issued a per curium opinion limiting the application of the economic loss doctrine or rule, as it is referred to in Texas, in the context of residential construction defect claims.” In Chapman Custom Homes, Inc. v Dallas Plumbing Co., the court “ruled that a plumbing subcontractor assumes an implied duty not to flood or otherwise damage a home while performing its contract with a builder” and that “the economic loss rule does not apply in this context.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Unjust Enrichment and Express Contract Don’t Mix

August 23, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I am a huge fan of clearly written construction contracts. Virginia state and federal courts will interpret contract provisions as written and will seek to enforce all of those terms where possible. Where the contract is ambiguous, we construction attorneys make money and the courts are forced to make decisions that the parties may not like. A recent case out of the Eastern District of Virginia federal court highlights the ways in which a clear contract affects the claims that can be brought and limits the scope of possible litigation. In First Call Environmental LLC v. Murphy Oil USA LLC, the Court looked at a relatively typical Owner, Contractor, Subcontractor set of agreements. In this matter, Murphy Oil entered a contract with National Rapid Response, Inc. (“NRR”) whereby NRR would provide emergency and environmental management and waste disposal services to Murphy Oil. NRR then subcontracted with the Plaintiff First Call to perform the services for Murphy Oil. First Call filed suit against Murphy Oil alleging two counts: breach of contract (based on a third-party beneficiary theory), and unjust enrichment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

CISA Guidance 3.1: Not Much Change for Construction

June 22, 2020 — Laura Bourgeois LoBue - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
This week, the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) issued Version 3.1 of its Guidance on the Essential Critical Infrastructure Workforce. For the most part, CISA’s Guidance 3.1 did not change from Version 3.0 as it relates to construction. However, CISA added a few construction-related services to “Essential Critical Infrastructure”:

• “Workers who support the construction and maintenance of electric vehicle charging stations.”
• “Engineers performing or supporting safety inspections.”

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Laura Bourgeois LoBue, Pillsbury
Ms. LoBue may be contacted at laura.lobue@pillsburylaw.com

---

Construction on the Rise in Washington Town

June 16, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Kitsap Sun reports that Gig Harbor, a town in the area near Tacoma, Washington, has had a 60% increase in building permit applications as compared to 2010. May, 2011 had as many permits issued for single-family residences in Gig Harbor as were issued for all of 2010. Additionally, a Safeway shopping center on Point Fosdick is described by Dick Bower, Gig Harbor Building and Fire Safety Director, as “a huge project and it’s going to bring in quite a bit of revenue.” He called the increase in building “economic recovery at the grassroots level.”



Bower said that the building officials in other towns have also seen upswings in construction. He anticipates more activity in the future.



Read the full story…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

New Jersey Imposes New Apprenticeship Training Requirements

February 11, 2019 — Joanna Masterson - Construction Executive
The New Jersey Senate and Assembly approved a bill (A-3666) that requires construction businesses to certify participation in a U.S. Department of Labor-approved apprenticeship program in order to obtain or renew a public works contractor registration certificate. The DOL-approved program requirements apply to every classification of worker employed on a public works jobsite. New Jersey businesses that don’t want to set up an in-house program can satisfy these mandates by participating in a trade association’s DOL-registered apprenticeship program. Reprinted courtesy of Joanna Masterson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---