SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Specific Performance: Equitable Remedy to Enforce Affirmative Obligation

January 18, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When a party breaches an agreement, particularly when dealing with real estate, there is an equitable remedy known as specific performance that requests the trial judge issue an order to affirmatively force the breaching party to perform, i.e., close on the real estate contract. You are asking the court to require the other party to specifically perform an affirmative obligation. See Melbourne Ocean Club Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Elledge, 71 So.3d 144, 146 (Fla. 2011).

A decree of specific performance is an equitable remedy ‘not granted as a matter of right or grace but as a matter of sound judicial discretion’ governed by legal and equitable principles. Specific performance shall only be granted when 1) the plaintiff is clearly entitled to it, 2) there is no adequate remedy at law, and 3) the judge believes that justice requires it. Castigliano v. O’Connor, 911 So.2d 145, 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (internal citations omitted).

An example of specific performance may play out, as mentioned, in a real estate contract where a seller refuses to close on the transaction. 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

---

Drop in Civil Trials May Cause Problems for Construction Defect Cases

August 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Over the last fifty years, the number of lawsuits that have been settled by trial have dropped sharply, according to Kenneth Childs, writing in the Idaho Business Review. Childs notes that in 1962, 11.5% of federal civil cases were resolved at trial, but in 2002, only 1.8 % percent went to trial. He makes the supposition that, due to their complexity, construction defect trials are even less likely to be resolved at trial. Instead, they are being resolved in mandatory arbitration. Views on arbitration have changed over the years and the courts have gone from what he describes as “somewhat hostile to it” to embracing, encouraging, and even mandating it. Childs notes there are some problems to this climate of arbitration. He notes that arbitrators can “operate by their own rules and according to their own standards.” The decisions made by arbitrators “are not subject to appellate review,” which allows arbitrators “to ignore the law entirely.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

“To Indemnify, or Not to Indemnify, that is the Question: California Court of Appeal Addresses Active Negligence in Indemnity Provisions”

April 05, 2017 — Steven M. Cvitanovic & Omar Parra – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In California, it is well-established that the extent of a party’s obligation under an indemnity agreement is an issue of contractual interpretation, and it is therefore the intent of the parties that should control. What is the parties’ intent, then, when a subcontractor (indemnitor) agrees to indemnify the general contractor (indemnitee) “except to the extent the claims arise out of the general contractor’s active negligence or willful misconduct”? Does this mean the general contractor is barred entirely from recovering any indemnity if its active negligence contributed to the injury? Not according to the First Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal, which recently held that an actively negligent general contractor may still recover indemnity for the portion of liability attributable to the fault of others. Oltmans Construction Co. v. Bayside Interiors, Inc., No. A147313, 2017 WL 1179391, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2017). In Oltmans Construction, an employee of O’Donnell Plastering, Inc. (“O’Donnell”), a sub-subcontractor of Bayside Interiors, Inc. (“Bayside”), which was a subcontractor to Oltmans Construction Company (“Oltmans”), sustained injuries when he fell through a skylight opening in the roof of a building under construction. The employee filed suit against Bayside, Oltmans, and the building’s owner, arguing Oltmans negligently cut and left unsecured the skylight opening. Oltmans subsequently filed a Cross-Complaint against Bayside and O’Donnell, contending it was entitled to indemnification under the governing agreements. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Omar Parra, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Mr. Parra may be contacted at oparra@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Couple Claims Contractor’s Work Is Defective and Incomplete

December 04, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
William and Prudence Dziatkowicz have sued Vince Bruno Construction, LLC over a house they contracted to have built in Weirton, West Virginia. According to the Dziatkowiczes, they contracted with Mr. Bruno and his self-named company to build a house, for which they would pay $248,250. The couple claims that Vince Bruno construction never completed work on the house, eventually abandoning the project. Further, they allege that the work done is defective, including improper installation of floor beams, and a failure to properly protect the project from weather. Additionally, the couple contends that the contractor failed to pay a lumber company, leading to a lawsuit against the Dziatkowiczes and a lien on their house. The Dziatkowiczes are suing Vince Bruno Construction for more than $355,000 in damages. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Court Rejects Anti-SLAPP Motion in Construction Defect Suit

September 01, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The California Court of Appeals has upheld the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion in Claredon American Insurance Company v. Bishop, Barry, Howe, Haney & Ryder. This case was triggered by a water intrusion problem at a condominium complex, the Terraces at Emerystation, built and sold by Wareham Development Corporation. The insurer, Claredon, retained Risk Enterprise Management as the third party claims administrator. REM retained the law firm Bishop, Barry, Howe, Haney & Ryder. The construction defect case was settled in 2007 and the condo owners moved back by early 2008.

Due to issues with the claims settlement, Claredon filed against REM for “professional negligence, indemnity, apportionment and contribution,” with a cross-complaint that the cross-defendants negligently defended the developer, Wareham.

In response, the cross-defendants filed a motion to strike the cross-complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court denied this motion and now this has been upheld by the appeals court.

The court noted that “The fundamental thrust of the cross-complaint is not protected litigation-related speech and petitioning activity undertaken on another’s behalf in a judicial proceeding.”

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Congratulations to Las Vegas Partner Jeffrey W. Saab and Associate Shanna B. Carter on Obtaining Another Defense Award at Arbitration!

January 14, 2025 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
The case arose from an incident at Plaintiff’s residence where she alleged that a failure to properly diagnose an issue with her HVAC unit led to its destruction, displacement from her home, and damage to her roof and kitchen, resulting in a diminution of value to her house. Jeff and Shanna represented the HVAC contractor, who denied any wrongdoing during the two-day arbitration at which a total of six witnesses were examined. Jeff and Shanna utilized Plaintiff’s own experts’ testimony to successfully challenge liability and bring forth a motion for spoliation, resulting in a complete defense award for Jeff and Shanna’s client, which included an award of costs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

---

Liability Coverage for Claims of Publishing Secret Data Does Not Require Access by Others

April 20, 2016 — Sean Mahoney and Laura Schmidt – White and Williams LLP
On April 11, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit concluded that general liability insurance covered claims alleging that an insured was negligent in securing private medical records, even where there was no evidence that any third parties had actually viewed the underlying plaintiffs’ medical records. This “unpublished” decision was issued in Travelers Indemnity Company of America v. Portal Healthcare Solutions, LLC less than three weeks after the court heard oral argument. Portal Healthcare accordingly stands for the proposition that “publication” within the meaning of the standard commercial general liability coverage for “personal and advertising injury” only requires that claims against an insured allege that confidential information was made available to the public, without allegations that any third party actually accessed it, to trigger the insurer’s duty to defend. Reprinted courtesy of Sean Mahoney, White & Williams LLP and Laura Schmidt, White & Williams LLP Mr. Mahoney may be contacted at mahoneys@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Schmidt may be contacted at schmidtl@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

NY Appellate Court Holds Common Interest Privilege Applies to Parties to a Merger

January 07, 2015 — Jay Shapiro, Lori S. Smith and Brittney Edwards – White and Williams LLP
The common interest privilege is a doctrine that operates to maintain the confidentiality of communications between parties and counsel that have aligned interests. It is designed to encourage the free flow of information between these parties, and has historically been utilized primarily in the context of litigation. However, in Ambac Assurance Corp., et al. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., et al., the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department recently expanded the common interest privilege by holding that it is applicable in transactional contexts. 2014 WL 6803006, No. 651612/10 (1st Dep’t 2014). The Ambac court defined the common interest doctrine as “a limited exception to waiver of the attorney-client privilege” when a third party is present during a communication between an attorney and his or her client. The doctrine shields such communications from disclosure when they are (1) protected by the attorney client privilege and (2) “made for the purpose of furthering a legal interest or strategy common to the parties.” Until Ambac, New York courts touched on, but never squarely addressed, whether a third requirement must be satisfied before the common interest doctrine can be invoked: “that the communication must affect pending or reasonably anticipated litigation.” The Ambac court addressed and rejected this purported third requirement while reversing the decision of the trial court which found that defendant Bank of America failed “to cite any New York case that applied the common-interest doctrine outside of either joint-representation of two parties by one attorney, or where parties reasonably anticipated litigation.” Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Jay Shapiro, Lori S. Smith and Brittney Edwards Mr. Shapiro may be contacted at shapiroj@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Edwards may be contacted at edwardsb@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---