Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Land Planners Not Held to Professional Standard of Care

October 10, 2013 — Heather Anderson — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC.
Recently, the Colorado Court of Appeals indicated that there is no professional duty of care applicable to land planners. See Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. v. Coleman Brothers Constr., LLC, 297 P.3d 1042 (Colo. App. 2013). Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. (“SCA”) agreed to provide land planning services to Coleman Brothers Construction, LLC (“Coleman”) for property referred to as Crown Mountain in a letter and then verbally agreed to provide a development analysis for another property, located on Emma Road in Basalt, Colorado. Thereafter, SCA sent letters to the defendant concerning the possible subdivision and development of the Emma Road property. Approximately two years later, SCA sued Coleman for breach of the verbal agreement concerning the Emma Road property. Coleman then asserted counterclaims against SCA for negligently providing inaccurate advice about whether the Emma Road property could be subdivided and developed, and that the county had denied the planned unit development sketch plan SCA prepared and submitted on behalf of Coleman. The district court granted SCA’s motion for summary judgment thereby concluding that the economic loss rule barred Coleman’s negligence counterclaims. The Court of Appeals agreed. In its opinion, the Court of Appeals reiterated the economic loss rule espoused in the Colorado Supreme Court in the Town of Alma v. AZCO Constr., Inc., 10 P.3d 1256, 1264 (Colo. 2000) case. “Under the economic loss rule, ‘a party suffering only economic loss from the breach of an express or implied contractual duty may not assert a tort claim for such a breach absent an independent duty of care under tort law.’” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Heather Anderson
Heather Anderson can be contacted at anderson@hhmrlaw.com

Is Arbitration Final and Binding?

July 02, 2018 — Jeanne M. Harrison - Smith Currie
Parties involved in a dispute may face a choice between arbitration and litigation. Previous articles in this series have discussed various factors that can influence that choice. One generally perceived advantage of arbitration is finality. But how final and binding is an arbitration award? The answer is governed primarily by the Federal Arbitration Act. The Federal Arbitration Act

Valid
Irrevocable; and
Enforceable, except on legal or equitable grounds for the revocation of a contract.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeanne M. Harrison, Smith Currie
Ms. Harrison may be contacted at jmharrison@smithcurrie.com

Hawaii Supreme Court Construes Designated Premises Endorsement In Insured's Favor

April 01, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Hawaii Supreme Court held that a Designated Premises Endorsement provided coverage for injury and damage that occurred away from a listed location if the injury or damage arose out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the designated premises. C. Brewer and Co., Ltd. v. Marine Indemn. Ins. Co., 2015 Haw. LEXIS 62 (Haw. March 27, 2015). [Disclosure: our office represents C. Brewer]. The case involves coverage for the former owner (C. Brewer) of land under the Kaloko Reservoir. The Reservoir was fronted by an earthen dam. The Dam burst in March 2006, killing seven people and causing extensive property damage downstream. In 1977, the State of Hawaii and C. Brewer entered an agreement requiring C. Brewer to, among other things, restore and expand the irrigation system that provided water to sugar cane fields in Kilauea, Kauai. C. Brewer formed the Kilauea Irrigation Company (KIC) to satisfy obligations to the State, revitalize the System, and sell System water to local farmers for irrigation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

A Court-Side Seat: Flint Failures, Missed Deadlines, Toad Work and a Game of Chicken

October 05, 2020 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
The last few weeks have yielded a number of interesting developments in the Federal courts. FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEAL In re Flint Water Cases Several local and State of Michigan officials, including the former governor, requested dismissal from the civil litigation seeking damages for the massive failure of Flint, Michigan’s public drinking water system. On August 5, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit agreed that the plaintiffs, residents of Flint, have successfully pled a case that the conduct of the defendants so “shocked the conscience” that a claim for a violation of their substantive due process rights was appropriately alleged. The defendants, including the former governor, argued that they were entitled to a qualified immunity defense. The court rejected this argument on the basis of the earlier decisions made by the court in this matter. Judge Sutton concurred because he was bound by this precedent, but remarked that the evidence for the governor’s culpability was very thin; he was not intimately connected to the extraordinary error in judgment. The majority was very upset with this concurrence as indicted by their own opinion. 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

New York Construction Practice Team Obtains Summary Judgment, Dismissal of Labor Law §240(1) Claim Against Municipal Entities

August 19, 2024 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
New York, N.Y. (August 8, 2024) – In Josan v. City of New York, et al., New York Associate Jonathan A. Bartlett, a member of New York Partner Meghan A. Cavalieri’s Construction Practice Team, recently obtained summary judgment and dismissal of the plaintiffs’ Labor Law §240(1) claim against the City of New York, the New York City School Construction Authority, and the New York City Department of Education. The plaintiff alleged to have sustained injuries as the result of a construction site accident occurring on January 9, 2020, while in the scope of his employment as a forklift operator in connection with the construction/renovation of a school building in Brooklyn, New York. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that he was injured when a forklift he was operating in order to lift scaffold frame materials tipped over, causing him disabling injuries. The plaintiffs’ counsel articulated an eight-figure initial settlement demand. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

Where-Forum Art Thou? Is the Chosen Forum Akin to No Forum at All?

May 30, 2022 — William Doerler - The Subrogation Strategist
Many courts enforce forum selection clauses in contracts between parties. In W. Bay Plaza Condo. Ass’n v. Sika Corp., No. 3D21-1834, 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 1637 (W. Bay Plaza), the Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District (Court of Appeal) answered the question of whether a mandatory forum selection clause in a manufacturer’s warranty was enforceable as to a condominium association, who was a non-signatory. The trial court enforced the forum selection clause – calling for litigation in New Jersey rather than Florida – and the Court of Appeal affirmed the ruling. As stated in W. Bay Plaza, in late 2013 and early 2014, West Bay Plaza Condominium Association (W.B. Plaza Condo. Ass’n) contracted with Built Right Installers International Corporation, R.J. Miranda Consultants, Inc. and UCI Engineering Inc. (collectively, the Construction Defendants) to have repairs done to the exterior of the property. In 2016, Sika Corporation (Sika), a New Jersey corporation, gave a five-year warranty to W.B. Plaza Condo. Ass’n for three sealant products used to repair the garage at the property. In 2019, W.B. Plaza Condo. Ass’n sued the Construction Defendants for breach of contract and professional negligence. Subsequently, W.B. Plaza Condo. Ass’n amended its complaint and filed a claim against Sika, alleging that Sika breached its warranty because its products failed to provide a watertight barrier. Sika filed a motion to dismiss the action, alleging that Florida was an improper venue because its’ warranty contained a mandatory forum selection clause. W.B. Plaza Condo. Ass’n argued that it was not bound by the forum selection clause because it was a non-signatory to the warranty and, even if it was bound by the clause, there were compelling reasons not to enforce it. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

Massachusetts Roofer Killed in Nine-story Fall

January 08, 2019 — Johanna Knapschaefer - Engineering News-Record
A 41-year-old roofer from Haverhill, Mass. fell through a roof hole nine stories to his death on Dec. 18 while working on an apartment building project in Haverhill, a city north of Boston. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Johanna Knapschaefer, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

New WA Law Caps Retainage on Private Projects at 5%

May 29, 2023 — Brett M. Hill & Ryanne S. Mathisen - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
This month, Governor Jay Inslee signed into law a new statute that caps retainage on private construction projects to five percent (5%), provides a mechanism for subcontractors to get paid their retainage prior to project completion, and allows for contractors and subcontractors to post a retainage bond and get paid their retainage early. For those interested in reading the full text of this new law, the statute can be found here. The new statute goes into effect on July 23, 2023. Under the statute, when a contractor or subcontractor considers their work under a contract subject to retainage complete, they may notify the party they contracted to perform the work for. Within 15 days of receiving the notice of completion of work, the party receiving the notice must respond with either (1) notice of acceptance of work or (2) notice of uncompleted items to the contractor or subcontractor. If the party receiving notice does not provide notice of uncompleted items within 15 days or fails to respond to the notice of completion entirely, the unpaid retainage will begin to accrue interest at a rate of one percent (1%) per month, 30 days after the initial 15-day period. However, this interest will not accrue against a contractor who has not been paid the retainage by an upper-tier contractor or owner until payment has been received, so long as that contractor has submitted its subcontractor’s notice of completion to the upper-tier contractor or owner within 30 days of receipt. Reprinted courtesy of Brett M. Hill, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC and Ryanne S. Mathisen, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC Mr. Hill may be contacted at brett.hill@acslawyers.com Ms. Mathisen may be contacted at ryanne.mathisen@acslawyers.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES