The Condo Conundrum: 10 Reasons Why There's a 'For Sale' Shortage in Seattle
December 20, 2017 —
Dave Suggs - CDJ STAFFSeattle Washington is experiencing a shortage of in-city condos. Of the 27,000 units of new housing being built in downtown Seattle, 94 percent will be rentals. As housing prices are rising in the US’s fastest-growing large city, the median home price is $660,000. Dean Jones of the Seattle Magazine reports on why consumers consider condos, but home developers don’t in his article “The Condo Conundrum: 10 Reasons Why There's a 'For Sale' Shortage in Seattle.”
Reason 1, condominiums don’t always offer high returns and can be riskier for the home developer. Reason 2, the Washington State Condo Act “overprotects” buyers of condos with over-the-top warranties that makes everyone in the industry afraid to work with condos. Reason 3, the cost of condo building is increased because of the risk of defect litigation. Reason 4, condo presale buyers are not required to deposit a percentage to invest in a new development and before closing could decide to walk away. Reason 5, there is a lot of interest in apartment buildings from investment groups.
Reason 6, investors whose goal is to own “trophy” assets in rising markets can’t wait the years it takes developers to plan and construct a new multistory community. Reason 7, since rent prices have risen 50 percent on average in the last 7 years, it’s profitable to be a landlord. Reason 8, the millennials who live and work in this tech oriented region prefer to rent because of living through the rise and fall of the housing market. Reason 9, the costs is rising each year to deliver new projects. Reason 10, high-rise zoning was adopted 2 years before the recession, so just as condo development was gearing up, apartment building took over.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
What to Do Before OSHA Comes Knocking
December 19, 2018 —
Parker Rains - Construction ExecutiveEvery year, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) inspects workplaces around the country for safety and occupational hazards. In 2017 alone, OSHA conducted 32,408 inspections – more than half of which were unprogrammed inspections.
There are six reasons OSHA might come knocking on the door. They are (in order of priority):
- imminent danger situations;
- severe injuries and illnesses;
- worker complaints;
- referrals;
- targeted inspections; and
- follow-up inspections.
Reprinted courtesy of
Parker Rains, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Rains may be contacted at
prains@fbbins.com
Professional Liability Alert: California Appellate Courts In Conflict Regarding Statute of Limitations for Malicious Prosecution Suits Against Attorneys
April 28, 2014 —
David W. Evans & Stephen J. Squillario – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn conflict with an earlier decision by a different division within the same District, and with a prior decision of another District which followed the earlier case, Division Three of the Second Appellate District has concluded, contrary to established precedent, that the general two-year limitations period set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1 (“Section 335.1”) applies to malicious prosecution claims against attorneys, rather than the specific one-year statute of limitations for claims against attorneys codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 (“Section 340.6”).
In Roger Cleveland Golf Co., Inc. v. Krane & Smith, APC (filed April 15, 2014, Case No. B237424, consolidated with Case No. B239375), Roger Cleveland Golf Co., Inc. (“Cleveland Golf”), filed a malicious prosecution action against Krane & Smith (“the Attorneys”), who had unsuccessfully prosecuted the underlying breach of contract matter for their client against Cleveland Golf. In that action, on April 26, 2010, the trial court entered its order granting a motion for nonsuit and dismissing the complaint in favor of Cleveland Golf. On May 24, 2011, or approximately 13 months after the trial court had dismissed the underlying complaint, Cleveland Golf commenced a malicious prosecution action against the Attorneys. In the interim, the Attorneys initiated an appeal of the underlying judgment, which was eventually dismissed approximately seven months later. In response to the complaint, the Attorneys filed a special motion to strike, commonly referred to as an anti-SLAPP motion, which included the argument that the malicious prosecution claim was time-barred under the one-year limitations period of Section 340.6. The trial court granted the Attorneys’ motion based on the statute of limitations (and Cleveland Golf’s failure to demonstrate a probability of success on the merits) and dismissed the case. Cleveland Golf’s appeal followed.
Reprinted courtesy of
David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com, Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Florida Federal Court Reinforces Principle That Precise Policy Language Is Required Before An Insurer Can Deny Coverage Based On An Exclusion
February 07, 2018 —
Walter J. Andrews and Katherine Miller - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog A recent ruling by U.S. District Judge Paul Byron of the Middle District of Florida has made clear that the actual words used in an insurance contract matter. The court, in
Mt. Hawley Insurance Co. v. Tactic Security Enforcement, Inc., No. 6:16-cv-01425 (M.D. FL. 2018), denied an insurance company’s motion for summary judgment attempting to rely on an exclusion to deny coverage to its policyholder. The policyholder, Que Rico La Casa Del Mofongo, operated a restaurant establishment in Orlando, Florida, and sought coverage for two negligence lawsuits filed against it for allegedly failing to prevent a shooting and another violent incident on its premises.
Reprinted courtesy of
Walter J. Andrews, Hunton & Williams and
Katherine Miller, Hunton & Williams
Mr. Andrews may be contacted at wandrews@hunton.com
Ms. Miller may be contacted at kmiller@hunton.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Fourteen Years as a Solo!
July 08, 2024 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsI have always found it appropriate that my jump to solo practice and Independence Day are so close in time. Today marks 14 years since
my first day as a solo practitioner of construction law at The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC. Time sure has flown by thanks to the great clients and friends who followed me to solo practice and whom I have met since the firm’s founding on July 1, 2010. I also could not have made the transition and had the fun and success I have enjoyed over the past 14 years without the support of the best wife and family that any construction lawyer could want.
Since the firm’s last anniversary, my youngest child (who was 7 when this journey began!) started and completed her junior year at N. C. State University and is currently in Idaho working as an intern for Idaho Fish & Game, my second oldest is an assistant director of admissions at Appalachian State University in Boone, NC, and is newly married, and my oldest has bought a home, adopted an adorable golden retriever puppy, and celebrated her third marriage anniversary. Our home in Captiva, Florida has also continued its recovery from Hurricane Ian.
Professionally, I’ve had a great year. I am serving as the Vice Chair of the
Section Council of the Virginia Bar Association Construction and Public Contracts Law section. I was also honored to be nominated and elected to the
Virginia Legal Elite in Construction Law for the 17th straight year and to the
Virginia Super Lawyers in Construction Litigation for the 8th year running. I also continued to have the opportunity to teach in various construction-related venues on relevant topics and to help out some of the best clients around. I have also continued to grow my
ADR practice, including
arbitration and
mediation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Three Kahana Feld Attorneys Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® 2025
September 23, 2024 —
Linda Carter - Kahana FeldNEW YORK – Sep. 4, 2025 – Kahana Feld is pleased to announce that Eric Bernhardt and Kraig Kilger were included in the 2025 edition of The Best Lawyers in America® and Alice A. Trueman was included in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America.
Eric Bernhardt was awarded for his work in Litigation – Insurance. Bernhardt is a partner in the firm’s Buffalo, NY office, admitted in New York and California, and a member of Kahana Feld’s national appellate practice group. His practice encompasses multiple types of litigation including the defense of New York Labor Law, construction, product liability, trucking, professional and medical malpractice, automobile accident, and general negligence cases.
Kraig Kilger was recognized in the areas of Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law, Litigation – Real Estate, and Real Estate Law. Kilger is a partner in Kahana Feld’s Irvine, CA office. His experience spans all phases of residential and commercial real estate development, including acquisitions, financing, planning, entitlement, development, construction, leasing, and sales.
Alice Trueman was recognized by Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in the field of Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants. She is a litigation attorney in the firm’s Buffalo, NY office who focuses her practice on general liability defense and insurance defense. Ones to Watch recipients typically have been in practice for 5-9 years and are selected for their outstanding professional excellence in private practice.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Linda Carter, Kahana FeldMs. Carter may be contacted at
lcarter@kahanafeld.com
Washington State Enacts Law Restricting Non-Compete Agreements
September 23, 2019 —
Ellie Perka - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCWashington State has enacted a new law that means big changes for employers. The new law, in effect on January 1, 2020, will dramatically limit the enforcement of non-compete agreements in our state and imposes tough penalties on employers found to be in violation.
While the new law does not take effect for many months, businesses should nonetheless act quickly and before year’s end to evaluate practices and, if necessary, revise existing and future non-compete agreements to ensure compliance. Under the new law, if an employee successfully proves a company’s non-compete agreement is unenforceable, then the employer will be required to pay the greater of $5,000 or an employee’s actual damages, plus the employee’s attorneys’ fees (and its own, in defending the non-compete), expenses and costs incurred in challenging the agreement.
Brief Summary of Changes
Washington Courts have typically disfavored restrictive covenants but usually enforced a non-competition agreement that protected an employer’s legitimate business interests and was reasonable in scope, geographic reach, and duration. The Legislature halted this trend through passage of Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1450.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ellie Perka, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMs. Perka may be contacted at
ellie.perka@acslawyers.com
Illinois Supreme Court Holds that Constructions Defects May Constitute “Property Damage” Caused By An “Occurrence” Under Standard CGL Policy, Overruling Prior Appellate Court Precedent
January 08, 2024 —
Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogOn November 30, 2023, the Illinois Supreme Court issued an opinion that overturned precedent in Illinois regarding whether faulty workmanship that only caused damage to the insured’s own work constituted “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under Illinois law. In Acuity v. M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC, 2023 IL 129087, the Illinois Supreme Court considered whether Acuity, a mutual insurance company, had a duty to defend its additional insured, M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC (M/I Homes), under a subcontractor’s commercial general liability (CGL) policy in connection with an underlying lawsuit brought by a townhome owners’ association for breach of contract and breach of an implied warranty of habitability. The Cook County Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of Acuity finding no duty to defend because the underlying complaint did not allege “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under the initial grant of coverage of the insurance policy. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that Acuity owed M/I Homes a duty to defend. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, in part, holding construction defects to the general contractor’s own work may constitute “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under the standard CGL Policy. This is significant as it overrules prior Illinois precedent finding that repair or replacement of the insured’s defective work does not satisfy the initial grant of coverage of a CGL Policy.
By way of background, the underlying litigation stems from alleged construction defects in a residential townhome development in the village of Hanover Park, Illinois. The townhome owners’ association, through its board of directors (the Association) subsequently filed an action on behalf of the townhome owners for breach of contract and breach of the implied warranty of habitability against M/I Homes as the general contractor and successor developer/seller of the townhomes. The Association alleged that M/I Homes’ subcontractors caused construction defects by using defective materials, conducting faulty workmanship, and failing to comply with applicable building codes. As a result, “[t]he [d]efects caused physical injury to the [t]ownhomes (i.e. altered the exterior’s appearance, shape, color or other material dimension) after construction of the [t]ownhome[ ] was completed from repeated exposure to substantially the same general conditions.” The defects included “leakage and/or uncontrolled water and/or moisture in locations in the buildings where it was not intended or expected.” The Association alleged that the “[d]efects have caused substantial damage to the [t]ownhomes and damage to other property.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Taylor, Traub LiebermanMr. Taylor may be contacted at
jtaylor@tlsslaw.com
