SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

It’s Getting Harder and Harder to be a Concrete Supplier in California

December 04, 2018 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
In 2015, the California state legislature passed AB 219, which amended the state’s prevailing wage law to add Labor Code section 1720.9, which requires the payment of prevailing wages to “ready-mixed concrete” drivers on state and local public works projects. Ready-mixed concrete suppliers filed suit in Allied Concrete and Supply Co. v. Baker (September 20, 2018) U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, challenging the law on the ground that, because AB 219 singled out ready-mixed concrete drivers but not other drivers of materials on state and local public works projects, the law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---

Open & Known Hazards Under the Kinsman Exception to Privette

February 15, 2018 — Frances Ma & Lawrence S. Zucker II – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Publications & Insights
Gonzalez v. Mathis, 2018 WL 718528 confirms the difficulties a defendant will face when trying to overcome the Kinsman exception to the Privette doctrine on a dispositive motion when dealing with an open and obvious hazard. There, a professional window washer fell off a roof while walking along a parapet wall constructed by the owner of a home. The window washer filed suit against the homeowner and alleged three dangerous conditions on the roof: (1) the parapet wall forced those who needed to access a skylight to walk along an exposed two-foot ledge that lacked a safety railing; (2) dilapidated and slippery roof shingles; and (3) the lack of tie off points that would allow maintenance workers to secure themselves with ropes or harnesses. The homeowner filed a motion for summary judgment under Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 and its progeny which prohibits an independent contractor from suing his or her hirer for workplace injuries (“Privette doctrine”). There are two exceptions to the Privette doctrine. First, a hirer cannot avoid liability when he or she exercises control over the manner and means in which a contractor does his or her work and that control contributes to the injuries sustained – known as the “Hooker exception” (premised on the holding of Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198). Second, a hirer may be found liable if he or she fails to warn the contractor of a concealed hazard on the premises – known as the “Kinsman exception” (premised on the holding of Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. (2005)). Reprinted courtesy of Frances Ma, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Ma may be contacted at fma@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

NY Estimating Consultant Settles $3.1M Government Project Fraud Case

November 23, 2020 — Eva Fedderly - Engineering News-Record
VJ Associates, a Hicksville, N.Y., estimating consultant, has agreed to pay $3.13 million in civil and criminal penalties to settle charges that the firm overbilled and falsified hours on multiple federal and state government-funded transportation and other contracts in New York and Massachusetts, the U.S. Attorney's office in Boston announced on Oct. 29. Reprinted courtesy of Eva Fedderly, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Negligent Misrepresentation in Sale of Building Altered without Permits

September 30, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire has ruled in the case Wyle v. Lees. The Leeses owned a two-unit apartment building in North Conway, New Hampshire. They hired a contractor to add a third, larger apartment, including a two-car garage. The Leeses and their contractor submitted a building permit application. They were informed that site plan review was required. After receiving approval on the site plan, construction started. At no point did they obtain a building permit and the construction was never inspected. The Leeses subsequently added more space to the unit, reducing parking spaces below the minimum required. Again, they did not obtain a building permit.

In 2007, three years after all these changes were complete, the Leeses sold their building to Mr. Wyle. To the question “are you aware of any modifications or repairs made without the necessary permits?” they answered “no.” About six weeks after closing, Wyle “received a letter from the town code enforcement officer regarding the legality of the removal of a garage door from the new unit.” A subsequent inspection revealed “numerous building and life safety code violations.”

Mr. Wyle brought a claim against the Leeses for negligent misrepresentation. The defendants filed a motion “seeking to preclude economic loss damages.” At a two-day bench trial, Mr. Wyle won. The Leeses appealed.

The appeals court found that “the defendants negligently misrepresented that the premises were licensed for immediate occupancy and that the defendants had obtained all necessary permits,” and thus upheld the lower court’s finding of negligent misrepresentation. The appeals court also rejected the Leeses’ argument that damages must be apportioned on all parties, including “the plaintiff himself, the plaintiff’s building inspector, and the defendant’s contractor,” finding a lack of “adequate evidence.”

The Leeses further argued that they were unaware that modifications and repairs were accomplished without the required permits. The appeals court noted that “the trial court found that both the conditional approval and final approval for the site plan stated that a building permit and a certificate of occupancy were required prior to any use.” The court concluded that the Leeses “knew or should have known of the falsity of their representation.”

The appeals affirmed the findings of the trial court.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

New Jersey Traffic Circle to be Eliminated after 12 Years of Discussion

February 04, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The online publication New Jersey.com reported that on February 6th a “Pre-Construction Public Information hearing” will be held in Little Ferry, New Jersey, to discuss “the upcoming Route 46 Circle Elimination construction project.” The project includes “installation of a storm water pump station” as well as reconfiguring the circle into “a conventional four-way signalized intersection with a brand new traffic signal.” Conti Enterprises of Edison was awarded the bid “at a cost of $33,837,739,” according to New Jersey.com. The project, which has been discussed for over a decade, stalled over combining the elimination of the traffic school with rehabilitation of a bridge. Improvements include “replacing of the entire bridge deck, structural steel member replacement and strengthening, sidewalk replacement on both sides of the structure and substructure patching, crack sealing and reconstruction where needed.” The informational meeting will introduce the public to the engineer and contractor for the project. "This information session will help residents learn more about the project and what to expect as the state undertakes this work," Little Ferry Mayor Mauro Raguseo told New Jersey.com. "I wish we could fast forward to the completion of the project so we can realize the benefits without the headaches, but that's not reality. We all need to be prepared." Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

LA Lakers Partially Survive Motion to Dismiss COVID-19 Claims

June 13, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
While the appellate court affirmed dismissal of a majority of the claims submitted by the Los Angeles Lakers for closure of the Staples Center and other properties due to COVID-19, a portion of their claims survived. L.A. Lakers v. Fed Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31503 (C.D. Calif. March 17, 2022). Government orders closed the Staples Center in March 2020. The Lakers alleged they lost tens of millions of dollars in revenue. They further alleged that the presence of coronavirus particles on fixtures and building systems caused physical alterations to the covered properties. The Lakers had to upgrade their properties to include new air filters, touchless light switches, toilets and sinks; sleeves or coatings for high-touch surfaces; and plexiglass dividers. The Lakers also alleged that five Metro stations within a mile of the Staples Center, that was used to get to games, were closed by civil authorities due to the presence of COVID-19. The Lakers submitted a claim for property damage and business interruption to Federal. The claim was denied and the Lakers filed suit. In February 2021, the court granted Federal's motion to dismiss without prejudice, after concluding that the Lakers' allegations of direct physical loss or damage were mere legal conclusions and not sufficient to state a claim. 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

---

Florida Appellate Court Holds Four-Year Statute of Limitations Applicable Irrespective of Contractor Licensure

June 22, 2016 — Clay Whittaker – Florida Construction Law Update
In Brock v. Garner Window & Door Sales, Inc.,[1] Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal rejected a novel attempt to circumvent Florida’s well-established four-year statute of limitations for all actions founded on the construction of an improvement to real property. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging breach of contract as a result of water intrusion damage following the installation of windows.[2] It was undisputed that Plaintiff commenced the litigation more than four years following the discovery of the allegedly latent defect in the window installation.[3] Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the window contractor could not rely on the four-year statute of limitations because the window subcontractor was not a licensed contractor and, therefore, the five-year statute of limitations for actions founded on written contracts should apply. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Clay Whittaker, Cole, Scott, & Kissane, P.A.
Mr. Whittaker may be contacted at clay.whittaker@csklegal.com

---

Reminder About the Upcoming Mechanic’s Lien Form Change

August 26, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
As July 1, 2019 approaches with its inevitable changes to the Virginia Code, I wanted to remind you once again that the statutory form for a Virginia mechanic’s lien will change as of that date. HB2409 passed both houses of the General Assembly and has been signed by the Governor. This bill reconciled the language found in Virginia Code Sec. 43-4 with the various forms for general contractor, subcontractor and sub-subcontractor/supplier forms found in later sections of the code. As you will see if you download the .pdf of the bill as signed, this involved some tweaks to 43-4 and some updates to the mechanic’s lien forms that are in the code. The recent Desai case from the Virginia Supreme Court made it clear that such action was necessary. 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

---