SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Contractor Sues License Board

June 30, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

Judge Kendall J. Newman of the US District Court handed down a decision on June 24 on the case of Kent v California Department of Consumer Affairs. Mr. Kent, appearing as his own counsel, had brought the suit against the California Department of Consumer Affairs and the Contractors State Licensing Board after he was arrested in a sting operation and, as the plaintiff put it, “was absurdly arrested and uncooperatively detained for a time longer than necessary or allowed by law under the false pretense of contracting with out a license.” Mr. Kent’s alleged that Rick Lopez, one of the defendants, formed him to read allow from the California Business and Professions Code. He said he was later handcuffed and placed in an uncomfortable chair, “enduring physical pain and emotional agony.”



Although Kent was given a Notice to Appear, he alleged that a further defendant, Stuart Rind, “closed the plaintiff’s case marked citation A7773 without giving written notice to anyone.” As a result, the Placer County District Attorney’s Office had no record of his Notice to Appear.



Kent alleged that subsequently his firm was essentially shut down for two years and that he was prevented from “legally contracting or selling services for any other contractor or qualifying for any other licensed capacity governed by the CSLB.” After this, the CSLB suspended the license for his firm, DSI Construction. He was assessed a $1,500 fine, after which he claims he sent a letter to the CSLB demanding money damages. The judge noted that the letter was not included in the plaintiff’s Ninth Amended Complaint.



Judge Kendall recommended that the plaintiff’s Complaints be dismissed, although he did allow that sixth, and perhaps the eighth and ninth, could be amended with a tenth amended complaint.



Read the court’s decision…

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

---

One World Trade Center Due to Be America’s Tallest and World’s Priciest

February 10, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

As One World Trade Center rises, so does the price tag. After construction delays and cost overruns, the cost of the building at the site of the September 11 attacks has risen to $3.8 billion. Part of the expense of the skyscraper is the heavily reinforced base of the building. The elevator shafts are also heavily reinforced, all part of guarding against future terrorist attacks.



In comparison, the world’s tallest tower, the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, cost only $1.5 billion, less than half the cost of One World Trade Center. As a result, the Port Authority does not see the building as being profitable in near future. In order to fund it, the agency is raising tolls on bridge and tunnel traffic.



Currently, about the half the unfinished building is leased. Construction is expected to conclude in 2013.

Read the full story…

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

---

The Prompt Payment Rollercoaster

February 23, 2016 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
This past year we wrote about a case involving California’s prompt payment laws and the current state of confusion with the prompt payment statutes which are scattered throughout the state Code and which are inconsistent in the use of their terminology and, thus importantly, application. In United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co., California Court of Appeals for the Second District, Case No. B258860 (December 18, 2015), the Court of Appeals for the Second District addressed whether under one of the prompt payment statutes, Civil Code section 8814, a general contractor may withhold retention without being subject to prompt payment penalties if there is a dispute of any kind between the general contractor and the subcontractor, or only when the dispute relates to the retention itself. 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

---

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

---

Owner Bankruptcy: What’s a Contractor to Do?

February 28, 2018 — Troy R. Covington and Stephen M. Parham - Construction Executive Magazine
Bankruptcy of the owner or developer of a real estate construction project can be very unsettling to contractors. But a declaration of bankruptcy by the developer, in and of itself, does not constitute a breach of contract such that the contractor can stop working. Contract provisions providing that the contract is terminated if a party becomes insolvent or files for bankruptcy are generally unenforceable. Partially-performed construction contracts are executory contracts, meaning that the obligations of the parties to the contract have not yet been fully performed. The Bankruptcy Code allows a bankruptcy trustee (in a Chapter 7 dissolution case) or the debtor-in-possession (in a Chapter 11 reorganization case) either to assume or to reject an executory contract. A debtor-in-possession has until the time of the confirmation of its plan of reorganization to decide if it will assume or reject the contract. The contractor may ask the bankruptcy court to require the debtor-in-possession to make a decision on the contract sooner, but the court will most likely give the debtor-in-possession a fair amount of time to make the decision. Reprinted courtesy of Troy R. Covington and Stephen M. Parham, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Covington may be contacted at sparham@bloomparham.com Mr. Parham may be contacted at tcovington@bloom-law.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Harmon Towers Case to Last into 2014

December 20, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
Don’t expect a fast resolution to the Harmon Tower case in Las Vegas. The latest schedule sets trial for the construction defect claims in January 2014. Previously, these claims were going to be heard during the trial set to start in June 2013. Now the June trial will be over payment issues only. Don’t expect the building to come down soon either. While CityCenter claims the building could come down in an earthquake, Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez had determined that as the structural testing was not random; its results cannot be extrapolated through the entire structure. As a result, CityCenter has elected to do more testing, holding off on demolishing the building. They are appealing Gonzalez’s order to the Nevada Supreme Court. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Coverage Denied for Condominium Managing Agent

May 24, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Determining there were no allegations of bodily injury or property damage in the underlying lawsuit, the court found there was no duty to defend or indemnify the condominium's managing agent. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Certified Mgmt., 2018 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 71124 (D. Haw. April 27, 2018). Frederick Caven sued Certified Management, dba Associa Hawaii ("Associa") on behalf of himself and a class. Caven alleged that he owned a condominium and was a member of the Regency homeowners' association. The suit alleged that Associa was the managing agent for the association. Caven sold his unit in April 2016. Caven asked Associa for condominium documents to provide to the purchaser. Associa charged Caven $182.29 to download 197 pages of condominium documents for Regency. Associa also charged Caven $286.46 for a one-page "fee status confirmation," a document prepared by Associa which contained financial and other information needed to complete the sale. Caven alleged that the fees charged by Associa and other unit owners were excessive and in violation of Hawaii law. 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

---

Traub Lieberman Attorneys Jessica Burtnett and Jessica Kull Obtain Dismissal of Claim Against Insurance Producer Based Upon Statute of Limitations

August 20, 2019 — Jessica Burtnett & Jessica N. Kull - Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry attorneys Jessica Burtnett and Jessica Kull successfully obtained a dismissal with prejudice on behalf of their client after oral argument for a lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County. Mrs. Burtnett and Ms. Kull represented an insurance broker who was sued by one of its customers, a property management company, for failure to procure a correct policy of insurance that would have provided coverage for an underlying class action lawsuit asserting statutory violations. In their motion, Mrs. Burtnett and Ms. Kull argued that the Plaintiff failed to file the lawsuit within the applicable two year statute of limitations outlined in the Illinois Insurance Producers Act 735 ILCS 5/13-214.4. Based on a recent ruling by the Illinois Supreme Court in the case of Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Krop, 2018 IL 122556, ¶ 13, reh’g denied (Nov. 26, 2018), Mrs. Burtnett and Ms. Kull argued that the statute of limitations began to accrue at the moment the allegedly non-conforming policy was delivered to the customer Plaintiff. In this case, Mrs. Burtnett and Ms. Kull argued that the subject policy was purchased and received before it became effective on November 25, 2015. Thus, at the absolute latest, the statute of limitations expired two years later on November 25, 2017. Since the lawsuit was not filed until October 4, 2018, the Plaintiff was approximately 10 months too late to assert a valid claim. In response, the Plaintiff tried to factually distinguish the Krop case by arguing it involved a claim against a captive agent rather than a broker. Plaintiff further argued that a broker maintains a fiduciary duty to its clients and, therefore, the two year statute of limitations applied in Krop did not apply to a broker. Plaintiff also argued the Illinois Insurance Placement Liability Act was unconstitutional. Reprinted courtesy of Jessica Burtnett, Traub Lieberman and Jessica N. Kull, Traub Lieberman Ms. Burtnett may be contacted at jburtnett@tlsslaw.com Ms. Kull may be contacted at jkull@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---