Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Calls for CFPB Investigation into Tenant Screening Businesses

December 13, 2021 — Brian H. Montgomery - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, has written to newly confirmed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Director Rohit Chopra, asking him to review companies in the tenant screening industry for possible Fair Credit Reporting Act violations and other violations of U.S. laws. The CFPB, for its part, has already published a bulletin alerting Consumer Reporting Agencies (CRAs) and other furnishers of consumer information that, as federal, state and local pandemic-related housing protections expire, the Bureau will be giving greater enforcement focus to these businesses’ compliance with accuracy and dispute obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and Regulation V. While it is still unclear whether Director Chopra will direct the Bureau to investigate specific businesses flagged by Chairman Brown, the tenant screening industry will likely face increased scrutiny in the coming months, which may impact their service offerings and cause interruptions for landlords relying on these businesses and services. There are approximately 2,000 tenant screening companies across the United States. These companies are used by landlords to better identify and perform background checks on prospective tenants. These reports typically provide a prospective tenant’s rental and eviction histories, credit score, debt-to-income ratio, and outstanding credit obligations, among other financial metrics. The reports also usually include a criminal background check, including searches of sex offender registries and other public records searches. Many tenant screening companies then use this information to provide an estimate of the risk that each tenant presents, calculated through proprietary algorithmic formulas. These reports are usually available to landlords at a cost ranging from approximately $5 to $55 per report, usually passed through to the prospective tenant through application fees. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian H. Montgomery, Pillsbury
Mr. Montgomery may be contacted at brian.montgomery@pillsburylaw.com

Construction Contracts and The Uniform Commercial Code: When Does it Apply and Understanding the Pre-Dominant Factor Test

November 01, 2022 — Keith Sparks - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
The Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) replaces the common law in many commercial transactions, providing provisions and a framework governing the conduct of business. The UCC attempts to develop uniformity among state laws on commercial matters as many of these contracts involve parties from different states. The UCC has been adopted in almost all states, including Washington, and substantially mirror each other throughout the country. The question that is most commonly presented, in the Construction law context, is when does the UCC apply and control? Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Keith Sparks, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Sparks may be contacted at keith.sparks@acslawyers.com

Payment Bond Claim Notice Requires More than Mailing

June 18, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
It’s been a while since I posted something new relating to Virginia’s “Little Miller Act” and its various notice requirements for a subcontractor to make a payment bond claim. I have posted on the basics of a Virginia payment bond claim previously here at Musings. One of these basics is the 90 day notice requirement for suppliers or second tier subcontractors with no direct contractual relationship to the general contractor. A recent case from the Norfolk, Virginia Circuit Court examined when notice is “given” under the Little Miller Act. In R T Atkinson Building Corp v Archer Western Construction, LLC the Court looked at the question of whether mailing of the notice of claim is enough to constitute notice being “given” in a manner that would satisfy the statutory requirements. In that case, the supplier mailed the notice within the 90 day window, but the defendant argued on summary judgment that it did not receive the notice until 2 days after the 90 day window had closed. In support of this contention, the defendant provided tracking information showing delivery by the USPS on the non-compliant date. 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

Construction Defect Bill a Long Shot in Nevada

June 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Construction defect reform may still be on the table in Nevada, according to the Reno Gazette Journal. Assembly member Pat Hickey got a committee hearing for Assembly Bill 504 on Sunday. The bill is backed by the construction industry and opposed by trial lawyers. Hickey told the Assembly Commerce and Labor committee that “this bill is not perfect, I would like for it to do more,” and said that without changes Nevada will “continue to reward litigation over resolution.” AB504 would, among other provisions, provide some protection to subcontractors from the actions of general contractors, though Ira Hansen, an assembly member from Sparks and the owner of a plumbing business, called it a “backhanded slap.” The Gazette noted that similar language pertaining to subcontractors was in AB367, which is sponsored by Democrats. Hickey and Hansen are both Republicans. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Nevada’s Changing Liability Insurance Landscape—State Insurance Regulator Issues Emergency Regulation and Guidance Addressing Controversial “Defense-Within-Limits” Legislation

August 28, 2023 — Geoffrey B. Fehling & Andrew S. Koelz - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
We recently posted about Nevada becoming the first state to prohibit defense-within-limits provisions in liability insurance policies. Defense-within-limits provisions—resulting in what is called “eroding” or “wasting” policies—reduce the policy’s applicable limit of insurance by amounts the insurer pays to defend the policyholder against a claim or suit. In response to uncertainty and industry concern about the potential effects the new law may have on the state’s insurance marketplace, Nevada’s Division of Insurance issued an Emergency Regulation and Guidance to Insurers on the new law to minimize disruption to the marketplace. After noting that the new law “has the potential to eliminate or greatly reduce the availability of certain policies of liability insurance and significantly increase their costs, which will affect all types of Nevada businesses, non-profit entities, and state and local governments,” Nevada’s Division of Insurance addressed three issues relating to the new law in the Emergency Regulation:

The meaning of the term “policy of liability insurance,” as used in the new law.
The insurers to which the new law does not apply.
How defense coverage is required to be made available.

Reprinted courtesy of Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Andrew S. Koelz, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Mr. Koelz may be contacted at akoelz@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Dispute between City and Construction Company Over Unsightly Arches

April 01, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The city of Swartz Creek, Michigan alleged that Slagter Construction’s work on “Texas-style arches along a new bridge” was “terrible” and doesn’t “match up to what the company promised when it took the job to build the $20,000 walkways that include the arches,” reported M Live. However, Slagter Construction “maintains its repairs were adequate and claims in a letter to the state that the issue shouldn't resolved by local officials who have ‘no formal training or education on these matters.’” According to M Live, “[t]he two sides are set to meet on May 5 with MDOT officials on May 5 in Bay City for arbitration.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

October 19, 2020 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
David McLain is a founding member of Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell. Mr. McLain has over 22 years of experience and is well known for his work in the defense of the construction industry, particularly in the area of construction defect litigation. He is a member of the Executive Committee of the CLM Claims College - School of Construction, which is the premier course for insurance, industry, and legal professionals. Law Week Colorado recently named Mr. McLain as the 2019 People’s Choice for Best Construction Defects Lawyer for Defendants. HHMR is highly regarded for its expertise in construction law and the litigation of construction-related claims, including the defense of large and complex construction defect matters. Our attorneys provide exceptional service to individuals, business owners, Fortune 500 companies, and the insurance industry. The firm is experienced in providing legal support throughout trials and alternative dispute resolution such as mediations and arbitrations. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

When an Intentional Act Results in Injury or Damage, it is not an Accident within the Meaning of an Insurance Policy Even When the Insured did not Intend to Cause the Injury or Damage

June 06, 2022 — Gary L. LaHendro - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Maryam Ghukasian v. Aegis Security Insurance Company (No. B311310, filed April 14, 2022, and certified for publication on May 5, 2022), the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District held that Maryam Ghukasian’s insurer, Aegis Security Insurance Company (“Aegis”), had no duty to defend her in an underlying lawsuit alleging she cleared land and cut trees on her neighbors’ property without their consent. The appellate court explained Ms. Ghukasian’s acts of intentionally cutting the trees and clearing the land were not accidental for purposes of insurance coverage, even if she acted on the good faith but mistaken belief the trees were on her property. Ms. Ghukasian owns a home in Glendale, California. She purchased a homeowner’s insurance policy from Aegis for the policy period of June 13, 2018 to June 13, 2019 (the “Aegis Policy”). In August 2018, Ms. Ghukasian hired a contractor to clear and cut trees she believed were on her property. However, the trees were on the property of her neighbors, Vrej and George Aintablian. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gary L. LaHendro, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. LaHendro may be contacted at glahendro@hbblaw.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES