Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

The Murky Waters Between "Good Faith" and "Bad Faith"

September 30, 2019 — Theresa A. Guertin - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
In honor of Shark Week, that annual television-event where we eagerly flip on the Discovery Channel to get our fix of these magnificent (and terrifying!) creatures, I was inspired to write about the “predatory” practices we’ve encountered recently in our construction insurance practice. The more sophisticated the business and risk management department is, the more likely they have a sophisticated insurer writing their coverage. Although peaceful coexistence is possible, that doesn’t mean that insurers won’t use every advantage available to them – compared to even large corporate insureds, insurance companies are the apex predators of the insurance industry. In order to safeguard policyholders’ interests, most states have developed a body of law (some statutory, some based on judicial decisions) requiring insurers to act in good faith when dealing with their insureds. This is typically embodied as a requirement that the insurer act “fairly and reasonably” in processing, investigating, and handling claims. If the insurer does not meet this standard, insureds may be entitled to damages above and beyond that which they could otherwise recover for breach of contract. Proving that an insurer acted in “bad faith,” however, can be like swimming against the riptide. Most states hold that bad faith requires more than just a difference of opinion between insured and insurer over the available coverage – the policyholder must show that the insurer acted “wantonly” or “maliciously,” or, in less stringent jurisdictions, that the insurer was “unreasonable.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Ms. Guertin may be contacted at tag@sdvlaw.com

With VA Mechanic’s Liens Sometimes “Substantial Compliance” is Enough (but don’t count on it) [UPDATE]

October 14, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Virginia mechanic’s liens are a powerful and tricky beast that in most cases require absolute precision in their preparation. However, an interesting opinion recently came out of the Virginia Supreme Court that may provide a bit of a “safe harbor” from the total form over function nature of a mechanic’s lien. In Desai, Executrix v. A.R. Design Group Inc., the Court considered a lien memorandum that had what could be described as technical flaws in the preparation of the mechanic’s lien by A. R. Design Group. The basic facts are that A. R. Design Group used the form of lien found in Va. Code Sec. 43-5 (also found as Form CC-1512 at the Virginia Judiciary website) when it recorded two lien memoranda for two pieces of property owned by a trust. Relating to one of the two properties, the memorandum failed to identify the “Owner” as the trustee of the trust. On the memoranda relating to both properties the affidavit verifying the amounts claimed did not identify the signatory as agent for A. R. Design Group, instead listing the agent as the claimant and further failed to state a date from which interest is claimed or a date on which the debt was due. Needless to say, the owner argued that each of these technical defects invalidated the memoranda and therefore they should have been released. Somewhat surprisingly the Fairfax, Virginia Circuit Court disagreed and held the liens to be valid. On appeal, the Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the lower court. The held that the failure to add the word “Trustee” after Ulka Desai’s name did not invalidate the lien because the trustee had all of the rights of ownership and furthermore that naming Desai in the memorandum served the purpose of putting third parties on notice of the lien. 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

Coverage Denied for Ensuing Loss After Foundation Damage

February 07, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The insureds attempt to secure coverage for ensuing losses after foundation damage was properly denied by the insurer. Walker v. Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6683 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2014). Two provisions excluding coverage under Nationwide's homeowner's policy were key to the court's decision. Exclusion 3 (e) barred coverage for "continuous or repeated seepage or leakage of water or stem over a period of time . . . ." Exclusion 3 (f) (6) precluded coverage for settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging or expansion of pavements, patios, foundations, walls, floors, roof or ceiling. The policy also included a Dwelling Foundation Endorsement which covered settling, cracking, bulging of floor slabs or footings that supported the dwelling caused by seepage or leakage of water or steam. This endorsement stated the limit of liability would not exceed an amount equal to 15% of the limit of coverage for the dwelling. 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

Co-Housing Startups Fly in the Face of Old-School NYC Housing Law

December 18, 2022 — Amelia Pollard & Diego Lasarte - Bloomberg
A room in an eight-bedroom Bed-Stuy brownstone with “charming views.” A five-bedroom “modern Manhattan” home. In a housing market as hot as New York City’s, these units advertised on co-housing companies’ websites sound promising. According to the city’s housing regulations, however, neither is legal. That hasn’t stopped companies from offering the rooms, as renters clamor for affordable living space. With the average studio apartment in Manhattan going for nearly $3,100 a month, newcomers to the city often find living with multiple roommates to be their best affordable-housing option. It’s a trend that startups have jumped on, and one some experts endorse as a way to quickly scale up affordable housing — even though municipal housing laws aren’t on board yet. The reality is that in many cities, housing laws that limit the number of unrelated individuals in a dwelling are still in place. New York, for instance, doesn’t allow more than three unrelated people to live in the same unit. To be sure, New Yorkers often break that law, as expensive housing forces people to find roommates through friends or on sites like Craigslist. But multimillion-dollar companies breaking that law is new. Reprinted courtesy of Amelia Pollard, Bloomberg and Diego Lasarte, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Homebuyers Aren't Sweating the Fed

December 17, 2015 — Rani Molla – BloombergGadfly
Home prices are escalating, but the culprit isn't the Federal Reserve. The Fed is expected to raise its benchmark rate for the first time since 2006, meaning mortgage rate hikes are likely to follow. Small mortgage-rate increases and, by extension, incrementally higher monthly mortgage payments, usually won't undermine sales because buyers aren't sensitive to small payment changes. Mortgage rates, still at historic lows, have already baked in an expected rate increase of 25 basis points, according to PwC Real Estate Advisory Leader Mitch Roschelle. The National Association of Home Builders Chief Economist David Crowe agrees, adding that the housing market could even digest a cumulative 50 basis point hike by the end of 2016. The real stress in the housing market is coming from somewhere else: labor shortages. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Rani Molla, BloombergGadfly

Court Rules Planned Development of Banning Ranch May Proceed

June 10, 2015 — Kristian B. Moriarty and Lawrence S. Zucker II – Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP
In Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (filed 5/20/2015, No. G049691), the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, held the Environmental Impact Report prepared by the City of Newport Beach for the partial development of Banning Ranch complied with California environmental protection statutes and local ordinances. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), a city desiring to approve or carry out a project that may have significant effect on the environment must prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) designed to provide the public with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project will have on the environment. The California Coastal Act of 1976 provides for heightened protection of environmentally sensitive habitat areas (“ESHA”) defined as any “area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments.” In 2006, the City of Newport Beach adopted a General Plan for the physical development of the city. The plan specifically identifies Banning Ranch as having significant value as a wildlife habitat and open space resource for citizens. The general plan includes a primary goal of complete preservation of Banning Ranch as open space. To the extent the primary goal cannot be achieved, the plan identifies a secondary goal allowing limited development of Banning Ranch “to fund preservation of the majority of the property as open space.” The plan also requires the City to coordinate any development with the state and federal agencies. Reprinted courtesy of Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com; Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Contractor Succeeds At the Supreme Court Against Public Owner – Obtaining Fee Award and Determination The City Acted In Bad Faith

September 20, 2021 — Lindsay T. Watkins - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
A contractor won a rare but much-deserved victory at the Supreme Court on July 8, 2021 in Conway Construction Co. v. City of Puyallup, 197 Wn.2d 825, 490 P.2d 221 (2021). The case, which involved an aggressive stance by a public owner:

confirmed that the public owner bears the burden of demonstrating a termination for default is justified,
reaffirmed the requirement to provide an opportunity to cure, and
rejected the public owner’s attempts to escape its own contract language that the contractor relied upon.

John Ahlers and Lindsay Watkins of Ahlers Cressman and Sleight and Jamie Becker of Osborne Construction submitted the Amicus Brief for the Associated General Contractors (AGC) of Washington in support of Conway to the Supreme Court. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lindsay T. Watkins, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ms. Watkins may be contacted at Lindsay.Watkins@acslawyers.com

California Trial Court Clarifies Application of SB800 Roofing Standards and Expert’s Opinions

February 18, 2020 — Scott Calkins & Anthony Gaeta - Collinsworth, Specht, Calkins & Giampaoli; Mark Chapman - Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.
Collinsworth, Specht, Calkins & Giampaoli partners Scott Calkins and Anthony Gaeta obtained a trial victory when the jury returned a 12-0 defense verdict against one plaintiff homeowner, and awarded the other homeowner less than $2,000, an amount well below the defendant’s pre-trial CCP 998 Offers to Compromise. One of the main issues in the case was the application of SB800 roofing standards. Plaintiffs’ roofing expert testified in deposition no water entered the structure or passed through a moisture barrier [Civ. Code §896(a)(4)], and no materials had fallen off the roof [§896(g)(11)]. In an attempt to circumvent the applicable performance standards, Plaintiffs argued Civ. Code §869(g)(3)(A), also known as the ‘useful life’ exception, applied because the various components of the roof (nailing pattern, tiles, vents, etc.) were installed in such a manner so as to reduce the useful life of the roof. Following pre-trial motions and objections made during Plaintiffs’ direct examination, the Court ruled Section 896(g)(3)(A) did not apply to a conventional roof, as it is not a “manufactured product” as defined in §896(g)(3)(C). Plaintiffs’ roofing claims were summarily dismissed and Plaintiffs’ expert was prevented from testifying. In contrast, the defense expert, Mark Chapman, was allowed to testify regarding his expert opinions as to the appropriate SB800 standard relative to each alleged defect and whether the standards were violated. The SB800 performance standards were included on the jury verdict form, and the jury found Mr. Chapman’s testimony compelling, which was a substantial factor in awarding only minor damages to one Plaintiff. For more information, contact Scott Calkins (scalkins@cslawoffices.com), Anthony Gaeta (ageta@cslawoffices.com) or Mark Chapman (mchapman@berthowe.com). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES