Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Contractual Fee-Shifting in Litigation: Who Pays the Price?

December 31, 2024 — Caitlin Kicklighter - ConsensusDocs
When disputes on a construction project escalate to litigation, general contractors may find themselves entangled in a costly and time-consuming legal battle. One important concept to understand is contractual fee-shifting under a “prevailing party” provision, which can significantly impact damages recovered in litigation. The general rule, known as the “American Rule,” requires each party to pay its own legal costs, including attorney’s fees, expert witness expenses, and other court-related costs. This differs from other legal systems where the losing party typically pays the winning party’s fees. One exception to the American Rule is contractual fee-shifting, specifically through “prevailing party” provisions, which allows for the award of attorney’s fees and costs when explicitly provided for in a contract. This article explores this exception to the American Rule, delves into the challenges posed by prevailing party provisions, and shares tips to consider for drafting these clauses to improve clarity and minimize uncertainty in the face of litigation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Caitlin Kicklighter, Jones Walker LLP
Ms. Kicklighter may be contacted at ckicklighter@joneswalker.com

Construction Defect Case Not Over, Despite Summary Judgment

November 07, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
The Supreme Court of Oregon has concluded in an en banc decision that a motion to reconsider a summary judgment is not a motion for a new trial. In coming to their conclusion the court overturned an earlier Oregon Supreme Court case, Carter v. U.S. National Bank. Although the decision does not bear on construction defects, the underlying case did. Due to the decision, these claims can now be evaluated in a trial. The case, Association of Unit Owners of Timbercrest Condominiums v. Warren, came about after an apartment complex was converted into condominium units. The developers hired Big Al’s Construction for some of the remodeling work. The condominium association later sued the developer and the contractor over claims of construction defects. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted. But that wasn’t the end of things. The plaintiff soon filed a “motion to reconsider,” noting that the summary judgment seemed to be in conflict with both law and other recent rulings, and additionally, the grounds for the decision were not in the order. The judge then notified the parties that the court had “pulled the trigger too quickly” and had seven questions for the parties to answer. The court dismissed all claims against the defendants. The defendants filed their responses, objecting that that “‘there is no such thing’ as a motion for reconsideration.” Further, while “the rules do allow for post-judgment review of pre-judgment rulings through a motion for a new trial,” the plaintiffs had not filed for a new trial. But did they need one? They did file an appeal. The judge in the case admitted that there was no such thing as a motion to reconsider, and felt bad about prematurely signing the judgment. The case was sent to the Court of Appeals to determine if the motion to reconsider was a request for a new trial. The Court of Appeals concurred. In reviewing the decision, the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that there were a maximum of three questions to address. Was the motion for reconsideration a motion for a new trial? If so, was the later notice of appeal premature? And if so, was the plaintiff required to file a new appeal? The court determined that the answer to the first question was no. Prior decisions pointed to the conclusion “that a motion for reconsideration of a summary judgment amounts to a motion for a new trial,” but here the court concluded that “our prior cases erred,” and turned to the summary judgment rule for clarification. The court noted that “the rule contemplates that summary judgment and trial are separate and distinct events.” With this conclusion, the Oregon Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Zell Says Homeownership Rate to Fall as Marriages Delayed

April 30, 2014 — John Gittelsohn – Bloomberg
The U.S. homeownership rate may fall to as low as 55 percent because more Americans are choosing to rent as they postpone getting married and having children, said Sam Zell, chairman of landlord Equity Residential. Demographic and lifestyle changes, more than economic factors, are driving down the ownership rate over the long term, Zell said yesterday at the Milken Institute Global Conference in Beverly Hills, California. As of 2010, about 54 percent of adults were married, down from 57 percent a decade earlier, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. “The deferral of marriage has such a staggering impact on real estate and I just don’t think people focus on it,” said Zell, 72, whose Chicago-based Equity Residential is the largest U.S. apartment landlord. “I don’t think the multifamily market has ever had a better set of future demographics.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John Gittelsohn, Bloomberg
Mr. Gittelsohn may be contacted at johngitt@bloomberg.net

Vertical vs. Horizontal Exhaustion – California Supreme Court Issues Ruling Favorable to Policyholders

May 11, 2020 — Alan Packer & James Hultz - Newmeyer Dillion
For years, when faced with damage or injury spanning several policy periods, excess general liability insurers have argued that all potentially applicable underlying policies must be exhausted before the excess drops down to provide coverage (“horizontal exhaustion”). Insureds, on the other hand, insist that they are entitled to immediately access an excess policy for any given policy year, if that year’s underlying policy has exhausted (“vertical exhaustion”). Vertical exhaustion not only enables insureds to directly tap into the excess insurance for which they paid substantial premiums, but also enables the insured to moderate risk given that different lower level policies might (1) be needed for other claims, (2) have larger self-insured retentions, or (3) have other less favorable coverage provisions. Allowing an insured to proceed via vertical exhaustion would also eliminate the heavy administrative and logistical burden that could result from having to pursue and exhaust all underlying coverage on multi-year claims. In Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court, 2020 WL 1671560 (April 6, 2020), the California Supreme Court has come down in favor of policyholders and vertical exhaustion. The Montrose case involved contamination that allegedly occurred between 1947 and 1982 and different liability insurance towers (comprised of primary and excess layers) for each year. The insured, Montrose, maintained a tower of insurance coverage, year by year, and faced claims asserting damage that spanned several decades. Montrose sought coverage from excess insurers under a vertical exhaustion approach. Not surprisingly, Montrose’s excess insurers insisted that horizontal exclusion was required and that Montrose was required to exhausted all other policies with lower attachment points in every single involved policy period. The California Supreme Court ruled in Montrose’s favor, holding that the insured may insist upon full coverage from an excess insurer once the layer directly below it has exhausted. The Court reasoned that the burden of spreading the loss among insurers is one that is appropriately borne by insurers, not insureds. Reprinted courtesy of Alan H. Packer, Newmeyer Dillion and James S. Hultz, Newmeyer Dillion Mr. Packer may be contacted at alan.packer@ndlf.com Mr. Hultz may be contacted at james.hultz@ndlf.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Is Construction Defect Litigation a Cause for Lack of Condos in Minneapolis?

September 17, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Peter Callaghan writing for the Minn Post, while multi-family residential real estate is “hot” right now, most developers are building apartments rather than condos. Four developers spoke on the topic during Minneapolis City Council Member Lisa Goodman’s monthly “Lunch with Lisa” program. The developers stated that financing is more difficult for condos than it is for apartments, and millennials and baby boomers seem to prefer renting over buying. However, some developers stated that “the 10-year liability exposure for construction defects” was another reason to avoid condo building. However, not all developers avoid condo building in Minneapolis. Jim Stanton, owner of Shamrock Development, said that he still is building condos. Stanton declared that he “has a good relationship with his lender,” and “he hasn’t been sued a lot and has never had a suit reach court.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Burg Simpson to Create Construction Defect Group

November 06, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine, P.C. has announced that the attorneys of Sullan2, Sandgrund, Perczak & Nuss, P.C. will be joining them as S2SPN Construction Defect Group of Berg Simpson. The group will be headquartered at Burg Simpson’s Engelwood offices. The combined firms will comprise 55 attorneys. Michael Burg, founding shareholder at Burg Simpson, said that “in Colorado for the past 29 years, these lawyers have provided the highest level of construction defect representation.” His counterpart, Scott Sullan of Sullan2, Sandgrund, Perczak & Nuss said that he and his colleagues are “delighted to be a part of the Burg Simpson team.” The two firms join forces effective January 1, 2014. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Liability Cap Does Not Exclude Defense Costs for Loss Related to Deep Water Horizon

May 01, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Texas Supreme Court found that Lloyd's endorsement imposing a cap on liability for a joint venture did not exclude coverage for defense costs. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. v. Houston Cas. Co. et al., 2019 Texas LEXIS 53 (Texas Jan. 25 2019j. Pursuant to a joint venture agreement, Anadarko held a 25% ownership interest in the Macondo Well in the Gulf of Mexico. When the well blew out, numerous third parties filed claims against BP entities and Anadarko. Many of the claims were consolidated into a multi-district litigation (MDL). The MDL court granted a declaratory judgment finding BP and Anadarko jointly and severally liable. BP and Anadarko reached a settlement in which Anadarko agreed to transfer its 25% ownership interest to BP and pay BP $4 billion. In exchange, BP agreed to release any claims it had against Anadarko and to indemnify Anadarko against all other liabilities arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident. BP did not agree, however, to cover Anadarko's defense costs. Anadarko had a policy through Lloyd's. The policy provided excess-liability coverage limited to $150 million per occurrence. Lloyd's paid Anadarko $37.5 million (25% of the $150 million limit) based upon Anadarko 25% ownership in the joint venture. Anadarko argued that Lloyd's still owed all of Anadarko's defense expenses, up to the $150 million limit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

The Relevance and Reasonableness of Destructive Testing

August 17, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Destructive testing is a routine investigatory procedure in construction defect disputes. The destructive testing is necessary to determine liability (causation), the extent of damage, and the repair protocol. Destructive testing is designed to answer numerous questions: Why did the building component fail? Was the building component constructed incorrectly? What is the magnitude of the damage caused by the failure? What specifically caused the damage? What is the most effective way to fix the failure and damage? There are different iterations to the same questions, but in many instances, destructive testing is necessary to answer these questions. Claimants sometimes prohibit destructive testing. Of course, destructive testing is intrusive. In many instances, it is very intrusive. But, this testing is a necessary evil. Without this testing, how can a defendant truly analyze their potential exposure and culpability? They need to be in a position to prepare a defense and figure out their liability. This does not mean destructive testing is warranted in every single construction defect dispute. That is not the case. However, to say it is never warranted is irrational. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES