Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Newmeyer & Dillion Announces New Partner Bahaar Cadambi

May 06, 2019 — Newmeyer & Dillion
Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is pleased to announce that Newport Beach attorney Bahaar Cadambi has been elected to partnership. "Bahaar has worked hard to become an integral part of the firm's litigation practice, delivering exceptional value to her colleagues and clients at every opportunity," said the firm's Managing Partner, Paul Tetzloff, "We are proud to count her among our partners and look forward to her continued success and contributions." Cadambi concentrates her practice in business, insurance, and real estate litigation. She represents businesses, homebuilders, developers, and general contractors in complex, multi-party real estate, construction defect, and insurance disputes. She also represents individuals and businesses across a variety of business litigation matters. Her approach to litigation ensures that clients are informed of all potential strategies, the consequences of those strategies, and how the implementation of those strategies will affect their business. Passionate about the legal community, Cadambi is an adjunct professor at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law and an active member of CREW (Commercial Real Estate Women Orange County). She is also a Barry's Bootcamp and yoga enthusiast, lover of all things interior design, avid traveler, devoted wife, and favorite aunt to two energetic nieces and one cheerful nephew. Bahaar earned her B.A. from the University of California, Los Angeles and her J.D. from the University of California, Hastings College of Law. Prior to joining Newmeyer & Dillion, she served as a Judicial Extern for the Honorable William Alsup in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Bahaar Cadambi: bahaar.cadambi@ndlf.com

Practice Areas

Business Litigation
Construction Litigation
Insurance Law

About Newmeyer & Dillion For almost 35 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client's needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.ndlf.com. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Poor Pleading Leads to Loss of Claim for Trespass Due to Relation-Back Doctrine, Statute of Limitations

April 13, 2017 — Brett G. Moore & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Scholes v. Lambirth Trucking Co. (No. C070770, Filed 4/6/2017), the California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District held that the relation-back doctrine could not save a property owner’s trespass claim against an adjacent neighbor where the property owner’s original complaint was factually devoid and was later amended to include the trespass claim after the statute of limitations had run. The relation-back doctrine is a well-settled legal principle which allows a plaintiff to amend a complaint to add a cause of action which would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations. As long as the factual allegations “relate back” to the those alleged in the original complaint, an additional cause of action will not be subject to the applicable statute of limitations. The policy behind statutes of limitation is to put a defendant on notice of the need to defend against a claim in time to prepare an adequate defense. On May 21, 2007, a fire broke out at defendant Lambirth Trucking Company’s (“Lambirth”) soil enhancement facility adjacent to plaintiff Vincent Scholes’ (“Scholes”) property. Scholes had previously notified Lambirth that wood chips and rice hulls were accumulating on his property as a result of Lambirth’s operations. Local authorities also warned Lambirth of the hazards presented by storage of those materials. Reprinted courtesy of Brett G. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Moore may be contacted at bmoore@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Oregon Supreme Court Confirms Broad Duty to Defend

November 21, 2017 — Theresa A. Guertin - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Blog
Originally published by CDJ on January 13, 2017 The Supreme Court of Oregon issued a decision at the end of last year which perfectly illustrates the lengths to which a court may go to grant a contractor’s claim for defense from its insurer in a construction defect suit. In West Hills Development Co. v. Chartis Claims, Inc.,1 the Court held that a subcontractor’s insurer had a duty to defend a general contractor as an additional insured because the allegations of a homeowner’s association’s complaint could be interpreted to fall within the ambit of coverage provided under the policy—despite the fact that the policy only provided ongoing operations coverage, and despite the fact that the subcontractor was never mentioned in the complaint. The decision is favorable to policyholders but also provides an important lesson: that contractors may avoid additional insured disputes if those contractors have solid contractual insurance requirements for both ongoing and completed operations risks. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Guertin may be contacted at tag@sdvlaw.com

One More Statutory Tweak of Interest to VA Construction Pros

April 25, 2022 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
While I have focused on the recent “pay if paid” legislation in recent posts, the Virginia General Assembly has taken other action that is of interest to those of us that represent construction professionals in Virginia. One such action is yet another tweak to the so-called “wage theft” statute that essentially made a general contractor the guarantor of all wage payments of its downstream construction partners. The first of the tweaks to the statute passed in 2020 was to create a defense for a general contractor if it obtained a written certification of wage payment from its immediate downstream subcontractor. This year, the General Assembly expanded the protection provided by such certification to all subcontractors. In other words, any contractor or subcontractor can now protect itself from wage theft claims by the use of a certification that all wages were paid from its immediate downstream partner. The text of the changes can be found here. [note that the Governor has sent suggested grammatical amendments that did not affect the substance] Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

What Will the 2024 Construction Economy Look Like?

January 02, 2024 — Grace Calengor - Construction Executive
CE just wrapped its "2024 Economic Update and Forecast" webinar, which revealed some interesting insights for 2023 and projections for next year. Anirban Basu, chief economist for ABC and CEO of Sage Policy Group, began his presentation by stating auspiciously: “The economy has been much stronger along more dimensions than I expected.” Polling: good news for the supply chain Not only did Basu's own research reveal strong construction growth in a majority of sectors, a decent number of construction job openings and wage increases, as well as supply-chain improvement and a stagnating federal rate—but webinar attendees who answered Basu's polling questions felt similarly. Reprinted courtesy of Grace Calengor, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Unions Win Prevailing Wage Challenge Brought By Charter Cities: Next Stop The Supreme Court?

April 06, 2016 — Steven M. Cvitanovic & Sarah A. Marsey – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In City Of El Centro v. David Lanier (State Building And Construction Trades Council Of California, AFL-CIO), the 4th appellate district upheld by a 2-1 majority the constitutionality of Labor Code section 1782, which prohibits a charter city from receiving or using state funding or financial assistance for a public construction project if the city has a charter provision or ordinance that authorizes a contractor to not comply with the state prevailing wage laws. As we wrote on this topic back in 2012 (See alert here), charter cities are governed by a municipal constitution and may make and enforce its own ordinances and regulations with respect to municipal affairs (i.e., the ‘home rule’ doctrine), as opposed to general law cities, which must comply with the state laws such as the Public Wage Rate Act (requiring municipalities to pay prevailing wages). The California Supreme Court previously held in State Building and Construction Trade Council of California, AFL-CIO v. City of Vista that the ‘home rule’ rule permits charter cities not to pay prevailing wages to its contract workers on locally funded public works because such determination is a municipal affair and not a statewide concern. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Sarah A. Marsey, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Ms. Marsey may be contacted at smarsey@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Do We Really Want Courts Deciding if Our Construction Contracts are Fair?

March 19, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
As I posted recently, the Virginia General Assembly has passed, and I can see no reason why the governor won’t sign, a bill that would essentially invalidate preemptive contractual waivers of lien rights as they relate to subcontractors and material suppliers. It does not apply to General Contractors, but it is a step in what many (including those attorneys that represent subcontractors and suppliers) believe is the right direction. Of course, as soon as I posted last week, my friend and colleague Scott Wolfe (@scottwolfejr) commented on that post and then gave his two cents worth at his Zlien blog. The gist of the comments here at Musings and the post over at his blog was essentially that these contractual provisions were inherently unfair and therefore should be abolished because of both a relative disparity in leverage between the Owner or GC and the Subcontractor when it comes to negotiations and the fact that subcontractors often don’t read their contracts or discuss them with a construction attorney prior to signing them. I hear this first of his arguments often when I am reviewing a contract after the fact and a client or potential client acts surprised that a provision will be enforced and the courts of the Commonwealth of Virginia will actually enforce them. As to Scott’s second reason, I have always warned here at Musings that you should read your contracts carefully because they will be the law of your business relationship in the future. The first of his two points is more interesting and in some ways more easily supported. However, where we are speaking of contracts between businesses where both sides are bound by the terms of the contract, it begs the question of whether in seeking to make contracts more “fair” we could add a layer of uncertainty that could cause more problems than it solves. Do we really want courts stepping in after the fact to renegotiate the terms of a deal that was struck months or possibly years before because one judge believes that the deal was too one sided? Do we really need such “Monday morning quarterbacking?” Is one person’s idea of “fair” better than another’s when both parties to the contract had the full ability to read, negotiate and possibly reject the deal long ago? Personally, I think that the answer to these questions is, in all but the most egregious cases or where the legislatures have stepped in adding certainty (whether to the good or bad), “No.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Texas Federal Court Upholds Professional Services Exclusion to Preclude Duty to Defend

March 16, 2020 — Jeremy S. Macklin - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
In Project Surveillance, Inc. v. The Travelers Indemnity Company, No. 4:19-CV-03324, 2020 WL 292247 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 21, 2020), a Texas federal court held that a professional services exclusion in a commercial general liability policy precluded Travelers’ duty to defend its insured. The underlying lawsuit was a wrongful death action brought by the family of a worker killed on a construction site. Project Surveillance was present at the construction site “to provide safety supervision or other services.” The underlying lawsuit alleged that Project Surveillance negligently failed to inspect or adequately inspect the project and failed to warn or adequately warn the decedent of a dangerous condition. The underlying lawsuit also alleged that Project Surveillance was negligent in failing to stop work. At the time of the incident, Project Surveillance had commercial general liability insurance through Travelers and professional liability insurance through RLI. RLI agreed to defend Project Surveillance in the underlying lawsuit. Travelers, however, denied owing a duty to defend or indemnify based on an exclusion for “bodily injury” arising out of the rendering or failure to render any “professional service.” The Traveler policy defined the term “professional services” to mean any service requiring specialized skill or training, including “failure to prepare [. . .] any warning,” “supervision,” “inspection,” “control,” “surveying activity or service,” “job site safety,” “construction administration,” and “monitoring [. . .] necessary to perform and of [those] services.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES