Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Court Upholds Plan to Eliminate Vehicles from Balboa Park Complex

June 10, 2015 — Kristen Lee Price and Lawrence S. Zucker II – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Save Our Heritage Organisation v. City of San Diego, et al. (No. D063992, filed 5/28/15), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District upheld a controversial plan to eliminate vehicles from various plazas in historic Balboa Park. In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal considered a question of first impression involving the interpretation of San Diego Municipal Code section 126.0504. Balboa Park, designated a National Historic Landmark in 1940, is a large urban park in the center of San Diego. The City of San Diego (“City”) recently approved a proposed plan (“Project”) to eliminate vehicles from the plazas within the Balboa Park complex and to return the plazas to purely pedestrian zones. Subsequently, a community group named Save Our Heritage Organisation (“SOHO”) filed a petition for a writ of mandate alleging, among other things, the City erroneously approved the Project. SOHO contended Municipal Code section 126.0504 mandated two key findings be made before the Project could be approved: (1) that the intended purpose of the property would not be adversely affected; and (2) without the proposed project, the property would not be put to a “reasonable beneficial use.” SOHO argued that although the City made the requisite findings, those findings lacked substantial evidentiary support. The trial court agreed with SOHO and directed the City to rescind the site development permit. The City argued on appeal that Municipal Code section 126.0504 vested it with “discretion to make a qualitative determination of whether an existing use of the property, even if deemed beneficial, is also a reasonable use of that property under all of the facts and circumstances applicable to the particular property in question.” The Court of Appeal agreed and reversed. Reprinted courtesy of Kristen Lee Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Price may be contacted at kprice@hbblaw.com; Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Boston-area Asbestos-Abatement Firms Face Wage and Safety Complaints

January 26, 2017 — Justin Rice - Engineering News-Record
Several federal and state complaints against asbestos-abatement and demolition firms operating in Massachusetts have sprouted in the wake of the region’s construction boom. Involving mostly small companies and immigrant workers, the cases allege wage and benefit violations as well as improper exposure to asbestos fibers, which contain cancer-causing carcinogens. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Justin Rice, ENR
Mr. Rice may be contacted at ricej@enr.com

New Jersey Judge Declared Arbitrator had no Duty to Disclose Past Contact with Lawyer

October 22, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to the New Jersey Law Journal, in a recent ruling, a federal judge in Newark “ruled that an arbitration award should not be vacated based on the arbitrator’s failure to disclose his professional contacts with defense counsel during his prior career as a federal judge.” The plaintiff had sought to vacate an award “because he failed to disclose interactions he had with Dennis Drasco, the lawyer for the defendant, while serving on the bench. But Brown was not required to disclose his contacts with Drasco because they would not cause a reasonable person to question Brown’s impartiality, U.S. District Judge William Walls ruled Oct. 21,” reported the New Jersey Law Journal. The plaintiff’s assertions “suggest nothing more than that Judge Brown and Mr. Drasco were familiar with one another in their professional capacities,” Walls stated, as quoted by the New Jersey Law Journal. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

March 28, 2012 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

Charles and Valerie Myers hired Perry Miller to build their home. Myers v. United Ohio Ins. Co., 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 287 (Ohio Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2012). After completion of the home, Miller was again hired to construct an addition which included a full basement, staircases, bathroom, bedroom, hallway and garage.

After the addition was completed, one of the basement walls began to crack and bow. Miller began to make repairs, but eventually stopped working on the project. Other contractors were hired to make repairs, but further problems developed. A second basement wall began to bow and crack, allowing water into the basement. The wall eventually had to be replaced. Subsequently, the roof over the addition began to leak in five or six places before the drywall could be painted. The leaks caused water stains on the drywall and caused it to separate and tear. It was discovered the roof needed to be replaced.

The Myers sued Miller and his insurer, United Ohio Insurance Company. The trial court ruled that the policy did not provide coverage for faulty workmanship, but did provide coverage for consequential damages caused by repeated exposure to the elements. United Ohio conceded liability in the amount of $2,000 to repair water damage to the drywall. United Ohio was also found liable for $51,576, which included $31,000 to repair the roof and ceiling and $18,576 to replace the basement wall.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

Idaho Federal Court Rules Against Sacketts After SCOTUS Decided Judicial Review of an EPA Compliance Order was Permissible

May 13, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
In a decision released on March 31, in Sackett v. EPA, the U.S. District Court for Idaho held, without benefit of oral argument, that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) motion for summary judgment should be granted, and accordingly, the Sacketts had violated the Clean Water Act (CWA) by making improvements to 0.63 acres of land they owned without a required CWA permit when the land qualified as a “wetlands.” The EPA had determined the Sacketts’ “property is subject to the CWA because it contains wetlands adjacent to Priest Lake, a traditionally ‘navigable water,’ and, additionally, their property is wetland adjacent to a tributary and similarly situated to other wetlands and has a significant nexus to Priest Lake.” The District Court rejected the Sacketts’ arguments that their property was not a “wetlands” subject to the CWA. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

Not Pandemic-Proof: The Ongoing Impact of COVID-19 on the Commercial Construction Industry

December 06, 2021 — George B. Green Jr. - Construction Executive
The impact of COVID-19 has been felt in nearly every industry and arena across the country, with the exception of construction—or so that is the general perception. Perceptions are often wrong though, and this one is no different. The truth is that the construction industry has been hit just as hard, if not harder, than every other industry. As the COVID-19 pandemic struck in the spring of 2020, construction projects plowed forward full steam ahead. Roadwork seemed to increase and developers continued to systematically acquire property and initiate large-scale projects. Perhaps it was these observations that led many to the conclusion that construction was pandemic-proof as the rest of society attempted to cobble together something that vaguely resembled a normal business year. But the construction industry has endured many challenges over the last 18 months, and unfortunately, the challenges do not appear to be evaporating anytime soon. The industry has been primarily affected in the areas of scheduling, manpower and permitting, which has ultimately affected pricing. The entire way jobs are scheduled has been turned upside down. The supply chain issues that many have experienced for everyday household items have hit the construction industry as well. Reprinted courtesy of George B. Green Jr., Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Green may be contacted at ggreen@wwhgd.com

In Supreme Court Showdown, California Appeals Courts Choose Sides Regarding Whether Right to Repair Act is Exclusive Remedy for Homeowners

August 10, 2017 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Earlier, we wrote about an appellate court split concerning the Right to Repair Act (Civil Code sections 895 et seq.) which applies to construction defects in newly constructed residential properties including single-family homes and condominiums (but not condominium conversions) sold after January 1, 2003. The California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District, in Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98, held that the Right to Repair Act does not provide the exclusive remedy when pursing claims for construction defects involving “actual” property damage (e.g., a defectively constructed roof causing actual physical damage due to water intrusion as opposed to a defectively constructed roof that while constructed improperly does not cause actual physical damage). However, the California Court of Appeals for the Fifth District, in McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132, which is currently pending before the California Supreme Court, held that the Right to Repair Act does in fact provide the exclusive remedy when pursuing claims for construction defects whether they involve “actual” property damage or merely “economic” damages. For homeowners, they would prefer the option of pursuing remedies under either or both the Right to Repair Act (which includes detailed pre-litigation procedures and statutory construction standards) or under common law claims such as negligence (which do not include pre-litigation procedures and have more flexible standards of care). The California Court of Appeals for the Third District has now thrown its hat into the ring . . . on the side of McMillan. 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

Liability policy covers negligent construction: GA high court

October 31, 2010 — Michael Bradford in Business Insurance

ATLANTA—Negligent construction that results in damage to surrounding property constitutes an occurrence under a commercial general liability policy, the Georgia Supreme Court has ruled.

In a 6-1 opinion Monday in American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Co. Inc. vs. Hathaway Development Co. Inc., the Georgia high court upheld a lower court ruling that the general contractor’s claim for damage caused by a subcontractor’s faulty plumbing work was covered.

The ruling on construction defects is the latest in number of such cases across the United States

Read Full Story...

Reprinted courtesy of Michael Bradford of Business Insurance.