Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Confidence Among U.S. Homebuilders Declines to Eight-Month Low

March 19, 2015 — Bloomberg News
(Bloomberg) -- Confidence among U.S. homebuilders unexpectedly fell in March to an eight-month low as prospective buyers were in little rush to shop for properties ahead of the busier spring selling season. The National Association of Home Builders/Wells Fargo sentiment gauge dropped to 53 from 55 in February, figures from the Washington-based group showed Monday. The median forecast in a Bloomberg survey called for a gain to 56. Sales of single-family homes declined to a five-month low and builder optimism about the outlook failed to improve, the report also showed. Low mortgage rates and job creation may help spur homebuyer interest in coming months. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg News
Michelle Jamrisko may be contacted at mjamrisko@bloomberg.net

Broken Buildings: Legal Rights and Remedies in the Wake of a Collapse

October 11, 2021 — David J. Pfeffer - Construction Executive
A tragedy transpired on June 24 in Surfside, Florida, when the Champlain Towers South suddenly fell, becoming one of the country’s most deadly unintentional building collapses. It is imperative that construction industry professionals be aware of the legal issues that are raised by such ill-fated events. Who Is Held Responsible? Who can be held responsible for such disasters lies among several possible parties:

The building’s design professionals, particularly its architects and structural engineers. They are charged with ensuring that the building’s design is safe. They must take many factors into account, including, but not limited to, the materials that are used, the foundation, the weight and the height.
General contractors and the subcontractors. General contractors implement the design created by the architects and engineers and are responsible for appropriate materials. The general contractor also supervises the subcontractors aiding with multiple areas of the building’s construction and which also share the responsibility of executing the design and maintaining the building’s structural integrity.

Reprinted courtesy of David J. Pfeffer, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Pfeffer may be contacted at dpfeffer@tarterkrinsky.com

Acquisition, Development, and Construction Lending Conditions Ease

May 21, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to the National Association of Home Builders’ (NAHB) Eye on Housing, “[b]uilders and developers continue to report easing credit conditions for acquisition, development, and construction (AD&C) loans according to NAHB’s survey on AD&C financing.” Eye on Housing stated that while “commercial banks remain the primary source of credit for AD&C by a wide margin, private individual investors have emerged as a viable alternative, especially for A&D loans.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Design and Construction Defects Not a Breach of Contract

February 14, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The California Court of Appeals tossed out a breach of contract award in Altman v. John Mourier Construction. The decision, which was issued on January 10, 2013, sent the construction defect case back to a lower court to calculate damages based on the conclusions of the appeals court. The case involved both design issues and construction issues. According to the plaintiffs’ expert, the design plans did not make the buildings sufficiently stiff to resist the wind, and that the framing was improperly constructed, further weakening the structures, and leading to the stucco cracking. Additionally, it was alleged that the roofs were improperly installed, leading to water intrusion. The contractor’s expert “agreed the roofs needed repair, but disputed what needed to be done to repair the roofs and the cost.” The jury rejected the plaintiffs’ claims of product liability and breach of warranty, but found in their favor on the claims of breach of contract and negligence. The plaintiffs were awarded differing amounts based on the jury’s conclusions about their particular properties. Both sides sought new trials. JMC, the contractor, claimed that the jury’s verdicts were “inconsistent in that the relieved JMC of liability for strict products liability and breach of warranty, but found JMC liable for breach of contract and negligence.” The plaintiffs “opposed the setoff motion on the ground that the jury heard evidence only of damages not covered by the settlements.” Both motions were denied. After this, the plaintiffs sought and received investigative costs as damages. JMC appealed this amended judgment. The appeals court rejected JMC’s claims that evidence was improperly excluded. JMC sought to introduce evidence concerning errors made by the stucco subcontractor. Earlier in the trial, JMC had insisted that the plaintiffs not be allowed to present evidence concerning the stucco, as that had been separately settled. When they wished to introduce it themselves, they noted that the settlement only precluded the plaintiffs from introducing stucco evidence, but the trial court did not find this persuasive, and the appeals court upheld the actions of the trial court. Nor did the appeals court find grounds for reversal based on claims that the jury saw excluded evidence, as JMC did not establish that the evidence went into the jury room. Further, this did not reach, according to the court, a “miscarriage of justice.” The court rejected two more of JMC’s arguments, concluding that the negligence award did not violate the economic loss rule. The court also noted that JMC failed to prove its contention that the plaintiffs were awarded damages for items that were covered in settlements with the subcontractors. The appeals court did accept JMC’s argument that the award for breach of contract was not supported by evidence. As the ruling notes, “plaintiffs did not submit the contracts into evidence or justify their absence; nor did plaintiffs provide any evidence regarding contract terms allegedly breached.” The court also did not allow the plaintiffs to claim the full amount of the investigative costs. Noting that the trial court had rational grounds for its decision, the appeals court noted that “the jury rejected most of the damages claimed by plaintiffs, and the trial court found that more than $86,000 of the costs itemized in plaintiffs’ invoices ‘appear questionable’ as ‘investigation’ costs/damages and appeared to the trial court to be litigation costs nonrecoverable under section 1033.5.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Halliburton to Pay $1.1 Billion to Settle Spill Lawsuits

September 03, 2014 — David Wethe, Margaret Cronin Fisk and Laurel Calkins – Bloomberg
Halliburton Co. agreed to pay $1.1 billion to settle a majority of lawsuits brought over its role in the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history. The agreement is subject to court approval and includes legal fees, the Houston-based company said in a statement today. Halliburton was accused by spill victims and BP Plc of doing defective cementing work on the Macondo well before the April 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Halliburton blamed the incident on decisions by BP, which owned the well. The settlement comes as the judge overseeing oil-spill cases weighs fault for the disaster. An agreement now averts the company’s risk of a more costly judgment for some spill victims and removes much of the uncertainty that has plagued Halliburton for the past four years as investors waited to see the payout tally. With its biggest piece of liability resolved, Halliburton can refocus its attention on developing new oilfield technology that will help it boost profits worldwide. Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg journalists David Wethe, Margaret Cronin Fisk and Laurel Calkins Mr. Wethe may be contacted at dwethe@bloomberg.net; Ms. Fisk may be contacted at mcfisk@bloomberg.net; and Ms. Calkins may be contacted at lcalkins@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

U.K. High Court COVID-19 Victory for Policyholders May Set a Trend in the U.S.

November 09, 2020 — Andres Avila & Anastasiya Collins - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
On September 15, 2020, in a matter entitled The Financial Conduct Authority v. Arch & Others1, the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, the equivalent of a trial court in the U.S., issued a ruling on a COVID-19 business interruption insurance case (the “Judgment”). Significantly, the Court sided with policyholders on most key coverage issues under specific non-damage business interruption insurance coverage forms. U.S. policyholders should review whether any of their policies issued by U.K.-based carriers, which may be subject to English law and have the forms discussed below, are impacted by this favorable decision. The Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”), the U.K. financial regulatory body, brought the case to establish liability under 21 lead representative sample policy wordings from eight insurer defendants. The case was filed on an expedited basis on June 9, 2020 under the Financial Market Test Case Scheme, which is used for claims of general importance that require authoritative court guidance. Although the Judgment is legally binding only on the carriers who were parties to the action, the FCA estimates the case could affect 700 types of policies across 60 different insurers, and 370,000 small to medium-sized enterprises policyholders (“SME”) in the U.K. While the Judgment may be appealed, it is expected to incentivize insurers to settle their claims before the outcome of an appeal is known. Reprinted courtesy of Andres Avila, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and Anastasiya Collins, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Mr. Avila may be contacted at AAvila@sdvlaw.com Ms. Collins may be contacted at ACollins@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (07/13/22)

August 07, 2022 — Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
The Biden administration will use infrastructure funds to upgrade 85 airports across the U.S., The Affordable New York tax provision expires, homebuyers in China refuse to pay mortgages, and more.

Hines, a Houston-based real estate giant, set a target of its 1,530 properties in 28 countries being net-zero operational carbon by 2040. (John Egan, Innovation Map)
The Biden administration announced it will spend roughly $1 billion from the infrastructure package to upgrade 85 airports across the country, including terminals and other facilities. (Jeff Mordock, The Washington Post)
The Affordable New York tax provision, which offered a property tax exemption for housing projects that include a percentage earmarked for lower-income renters, expired in June, creating an unsettled future for the city’s multifamily development. (Rebecca Picciotto, The Wall Street Journal)

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

Viewpoint: Firms Should Begin to Analyze Lessons Learned in 2020

January 04, 2021 — Rich Friedman - Engineering News-Record
If there’s one phrase that describes 2020, it was not “business as usual.” How AEC firms fared last year depended upon their strategies for navigating an uncertain landscape. While we talk about finding a new normal, company leaders in 2021 will have to think more expansively about what they want that “normal” to look like. Reprinted courtesy of Rich Friedman, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES