SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Unlicensed Contractors Nabbed in Sting Operation

September 09, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The California State License Board charged sixteen people in the Fresno area with accepting contracting jobs without licenses. The Statewide Investigative Fraud Team of the CSLB set up a sting operation at a home in Clovis, California seeking bids on tree service, painting, and general contracting services. Those who bid for jobs at more than $500 are required under California law to be licensed. Unlicensed contractors can only work on jobs with a cost to the homeowner of less than $500 and must inform the homeowner that they are not licensed.

In addition to citing contractors for not possessing appropriate licenses, the CSLB also cited contractors for failure to carry workers compensation insurance and illegal advertising. Further, California law limits down payments to the lesser of ten percent or $1,000. Two contractors were cited for requesting excessive down payments.

One contractor, an unlicensed tree service contractor, had been cited previously in a sting operation. He failed to show up for his court date.

Read the full story…

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

---

Benefit of the Coblentz Agreement and Consent Judgment

August 26, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
If you are not familiar with the concept of what is commonly known as a Coblentz agreement relative to an insurance coverage dispute, review these prior postings (here and here and here). This is a good-to-know agreement if you are a claimant and need to consider an avenue of collection if the insured’s carrier denies coverage out of the gate (meaning the carrier has denied both the duty to defend and the duty to indemnify). A recent Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals opinion demonstrates the Coblentz agreement concept. In Barrs v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 2024 WL 3673089 (11th Cir. 2024), an owner asserted a construction defect claim against its contractor. The owner hired the contractor to deconstruct a building and the contractor hired a demolition subcontractor. The owner noticed work was not being performed and materials (e.g., lumber) were missing; the demolition subcontractor had stolen materials. The subcontractor was terminated, and the owner claimed the contractor’s negligence allowed the theft and delayed his project. The contractor’s commercial general liability (CGL) insurer notified the insured-contractor that coverage did not exist and refused to defend the contractor. The owner sued the contractor under various theories of liability. The owner and contractor entered into a settlement agreement (i.e., the Coblentz agreement) where the contractor “admitted liability in the amount of $557,500.00….A consent judgment was entered against [the contractor] that closely tracked the settlement agreement but did not indicate which portion of the damages award was attributed to which claims. The agreement also assigned [owner] and all of [the contractor’s] rights to claim coverage and to recover available funds under [the contractor’s CGL policy].” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Update: Supreme Court Issues Opinion in West Virginia v. EPA

August 03, 2022 — Anne Idsal Austin, Shelby L. Dyl & Sheila McCafferty Harvey - Pillsbury
Takeaways

• The Supreme Court sided with a coalition of states and coal mining companies constraining EPA’s ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants.
• The Supreme Court’s deployment of the “major questions doctrine” could have far-reaching implications for agencies’ authority to take actions that are politically and economically significant.
• The Court also announced a broad interpretation of standing, finding that the challengers could bring their suit notwithstanding EPA’s announced nonenforcement of the Clean Power Plan and intent to engage in a rulemaking to replace it.

Introduction On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in West Virginia v. EPA, invalidating the 2015 Obama-era Clean Power Plan (CPP). Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the court, holding that Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act does not authorize EPA to devise emissions caps based on “generation shifting”—the approach EPA took in the CPP wherein power plants would be required to transition from higher-emitting (e.g., coal) to lower-emitting (e.g., natural-gas) to then even lower-emitting (e.g., wind and solar) electricity production. The Court’s holding that the case was justiciable despite the Biden administration’s stated intent to repeal the Clean Power Plan and engage in a new rulemaking, as well as its deployment of the “major questions doctrine,” is likely to have far-reaching implications for legal challenges to all administrative agency actions. Reprinted courtesy of Anne Idsal Austin, Pillsbury, Shelby L. Dyl, Pillsbury and Sheila McCafferty Harvey, Pillsbury Ms. Austin may be contacted at anne.austin@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Dyl may be contacted at shelby.dyl@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Harvey may be contacted at sheila.harvey@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Crews Tested By Rocky Ground, Utility Challenges

September 03, 2019 — Louise Poirier - Engineering News-Record
Problematic utility locations and difficult ground conditions required the project team to develop innovative solutions on the University of Texas at San Antonio’s $95-million Science and Engineering Building. Reprinted courtesy of Louise Poirier, Engineering News-Record Ms. Poirier may be contacted at poirierl@enr.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

---

The Future of Pandemic Coverage for Real Estate Owners and Developers

November 09, 2020 — Ashley McWilliams - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Shutdowns resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic have prompted an unprecedented number of business income and business interruption insurance claims. Many claims have resulted in litigation and require judicial intervention to determine whether private insurance carriers owe policyholders indemnification for pandemic related losses. Private insurance carriers that have denied the claims, in large part, argue that they did not underwrite coverage for the pandemic and assert that pandemic coverage is much too unpredictable to underwrite. Private carriers contend that a government-backed insurance program is necessary to mitigate the economic impact resulting from pandemic claims. The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted real estate owners and developers. Real estate owners and developers have sustained business income losses in the form of lost rents at commercial properties, service disruption, labor and/ or material shortages, to name a few. Questions about whether the virus caused “direct physical damage,” as well as whether specific “virus exclusions” on policies, have provided hurdles to coverage under existing schemes, click here.Those that have filed lawsuits against their insurers seeking coverage under current policy terms are having mixed results, at best. Click here to view SDV’s Litigation Tracker. A predictable source of indemnification for future pandemic-related losses would greatly relieve business disruption and, ultimately, the impact on the economy. However, the question remains, who will pay for such massive losses? Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ashley McWilliams, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Ms. McWilliams may be contacted at AMcWilliams@sdvlaw.com

---

Avoid the Headache – Submit the Sworn Proof of Loss to Property Insurer

September 28, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Property insurance policies (first party insurance policies) contain post-loss obligations that an insured must (and should) comply with otherwise they risk forfeiting insurance coverage. One post-loss obligation is the insurer’s right to request the insured to submit a sworn proof of loss. Not complying with a post-loss obligation such as submitting a sworn proof of loss can lead to unnecessary headaches for the insured. Most of the times the headache can be avoided. Even with a sworn proof of loss, there is a way to disclaim the finality of damages and amounts included by couching information as estimates or by affirming that the final and complete loss is still unknown while you work with an adjuster to quantify the loss. The point is, ignoring the obligation altogether will result in a headache that you will have to deal with down the road because the property insurer will use it against you and is a headache that is easily avoidable. And, it will result in an added burden to you, as the insured, to demonstrate the failure to comply did not actually cause any prejudice to the insurer. By way of example, in Prem v. Universal Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2044a (Fla. 3d DCA 2020), the insured notified their property insurer of a plumbing leak in the bathroom. The insurer requested for the insured to submit a sworn proof of loss per the terms of the insured’s property insurance policy. The insurer follow-up with its request for a sworn proof of loss on a few occasions. None was provided and the insured filed a lawsuit without ever furnishing a sworn proof of loss. The insurer moved for summary judgment due the insured’s failure to comply with the post-loss obligations, specifically by not submitting a sworn proof of loss, and the trial court granted the insurer’s motion. Even at the time of the summary judgment hearing, the insured still did not submit a sworn proof of loss. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

The COVID-19 Impact: Navigating the Legal Landscape’s New Normal

July 27, 2020 — Amanda Mathieu - Lewis Brisbois
While most of the country has been at a standstill since March, you might be wondering, what about my lawsuit or my administrative charge? For the past couple of months, most litigation cases have largely been put on pause in the courts and at administrative agencies. However, as we adjust to what is clearly a new normal in both our lives and the legal landscape as we know it, cases will begin to pick up speed again, albeit with new strategies and challenges to keep in mind. As courts begin to reopen, judges are emphasizing in many jurisdictions that criminal cases will take priority in an effort to attend to constitutionally required timelines. Nevertheless, it will remain just as important as before the pause button was hit to keep cases moving forward. This ramp up period presents a unique opportunity for clients and attorneys to invest meaningful time into investigating and developing defenses to claims while the court system and related case pace remains slowed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Amanda Mathieu, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Mathieu may be contacted at Amanda.Mathieu@lewisbrisbois.com

---