Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Payne & Fears LLP Recognized by U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers in 2023 “Best Law Firms” Rankings

November 28, 2022 — Payne & Fears LLP
Payne & Fears LLP is pleased to announce that the firm has been recognized by U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers 2023 “Best Law Firms” list. Firms included in the 2023 edition of U.S. News – Best Lawyers “Best Law Firms” are recognized for professional excellence with consistently impressive ratings from clients and peers. This includes the top 5% of private practicing lawyers in the United States. Payne & Fears LLP has been ranked in the following practice areas:

Commercial Litigation
Employment Law – Management
Insurance Law
Labor Law – Management
Litigation – Labor & Employment
Litigation – Real Estate
Litigation – Intellectual Property

Additionally, on August 15, 2022, 11 of our attorneys were selected for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® 2023. Collectively bringing decades of experience and dedication to their practice, Jeffrey K. Brown, Daniel F. Fears, Daniel M. Livingston, Thomas L. Vincent, Benjamin A. Nix, James L. Payne, Scott S. Thomas, and Kelby Van Patten received this respected achievement. Additionally, Leilani E. Jones, Sarah J. Odia, and Matthew C. Lewis were included in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch 2023. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears LLP

California Supreme Court Holds that Design Immunity Does Not Protect a Public Entity for Failure to Warn of Dangerous Conditions

June 26, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Get ready for more street signage. The California Supreme Court, in Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, (2023) 14 Cal.5th 639, has held that Government Code section 830.6, which protects public entities from claims alleging dangerous conditions on public property if the design was approved by a public agencies’ legislative body or their designee, does not shield a public entity from claims that the public entity should have warned the public of known dangers. We wrote about the Tansavatdi case a while back when it was before the Court of Appeals. The case involves a very sad set of facts. A young boy was killed by a semi-trailer while waiting at a stoplight on his bicycle in Rancho Palos Verdes, California. The area where the boy was killed did not have a bicycle lane although stretches of the same road did. The 2nd District Court of Appeal, on appeal from a motion for summary judgment, held that even if the public entity could establish that it was immune from liability under Government Code section 830.6, the trial court should have considered whether the public entity should have been liable for failing to warn of a dangerous condition on public property. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Library to Open with Roof Defect Lawsuit Pending

December 04, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Repairs to the Medina County District Library in Lodi, Ohio should be complete next spring. The library’s lawsuit over the roof is just beginning. The library building was a $3 million project in 2005, but the building had to close in 2011 when it was determined that the roof was not structurally sound. The lawsuit names six defendants, including the contractor, the framing subcontractor, and the engineering firm. The library seeking damages, legal expenses, and attorney fees. The cost of replacing the roof was $1.5 million. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

No Coverage for Co-Restaurant Owners Who Are Not Named In Policy

August 24, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Federal District Court denied two plaintiffs' claims for breach of the policy and for bad faith because they were not insureds under the policy. Tu v. Dongbu Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115200 (N.D. Calif. July 24, 2017). Dongbu, a Hawaii insurance company, issued a two-year policy to Plaintiff Ken Tu for his business. He was the only named insured under the policy. The waste system at Plaintiffs' restaurant failed, causing fumes to impact neighboring tenants and waste to contaminate the underlying soil. Plaintiffs were forced to close the restaurant. A claim was tendered for damage and repair, loss of business income, and other insured losses. Dongbu denied coverage. 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

Court Exclaims “Enough!” To Homeowner Who Kept Raising Wrongful Foreclosure Claims

April 01, 2015 — Krsto Mijanovic and Annette F. Mijanovic – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
“There are no free houses,” began the decision issued by the Court of Appeal on March 23, 2015 in Boyce v. T.D. Service Company (B255958). Examining three years of litigation in bankruptcy court, unlawful detainer court, and the superior court, and each of their respective appellate courts, the Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff’s wrongful foreclosure claims were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel. Plaintiff was a borrower who purchased a home subject to a deed of trust. After plaintiff defaulted on the loan, nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings were initiated. To avoid foreclosure, plaintiff engaged in a series of stall tactics, including filing an emergency bankruptcy petition, appealing the bankruptcy court’s decision to grant the trustee relief of stay, refusing to leave the property following the trustee’s sale thereby causing an unlawful detainer action to be filed, and appealing the granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendants in the unlawful detainer action. Once evicted, plaintiff sued all the entities involved in the foreclosure process for wrongful foreclosure, declaratory relief, violation of Unfair Practices Act, and quiet title. When the trial court sustained the defendants’ demurrers on the grounds of res judicata/collateral estoppel, plaintiff naturally appealed. Reprinted courtesy of Krsto Mijanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Annette F. Mijanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com Ms. Mijanovic may be contacted at amijanovic@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

$24 Million Verdict Against Material Supplier Overturned Where Plaintiff Failed to Prove Supplier’s Negligence or Breach of Contract Caused an SB800 Violation

November 21, 2017 — Jon A. Turigliatto, Esq. & Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq. – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Bulletin
Originally published by CDJ on March 16, 2017 Acqua Vista Homeowners Assoc. v. MWL Inc. (2017) 2017 WL 371379 COURT OF APPEAL EXTENDS GREYSTONE HOMES, INC. v. MIDTEC, INC., HOLDING THAT CIVIL CODE §936 CREATES A NEGLIGENCE STANDARD FOR CLAIMS AGAINST MATERIAL SUPPLIERS BROUGHT UNDER SB800. The Fourth District California Court of Appeal recently published its decision Acqua Vista Homeowners Assoc. v. MWI, Inc. (2017) 2017 WL 371379, holding that claims against a material supplier under SB800 (Civil Code §895 and §936) require proof that the SB800 violation was caused by the supplier's negligence or breach of contract. Civil Code §936 states in relevant part, that it applies "to general contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, individual product manufacturers, and design professionals to the extent that the general contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, individual product manufacturers, and design professionals caused, in whole or in part, a violation of a particular standard as the result of a negligent act or omission or a breach of contract .... [T]he negligence standard in this section does not apply to any general contractor, subcontractor, material supplier, individual product manufacturer, or design professional with respect to claims for which strict liability would apply." Reprinted courtesy of Jon A. Turigliatto, Esq., Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq., Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Mr. Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Huh? Action on Construction Lien “Relates Back” Despite Notice of Contest of Lien

May 01, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Not every case law you read makes sense. This sentiment goes to the uncertainty and grey area of certain legal issues. It is, what you call, “the nature of the beast.” You will read cases that make you say “HUH?!?” This is why you want to work with construction counsel to discuss procedures and pros / cons relative to construction liens. An example of a case that makes you say “HUH” can be found in Woolems, Inc. v. Catalina Capstone Creations, Inc., 2023 WL 2777506 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) dealing with a construction lien foreclosure dispute. Here, a contractor filed a lawsuit against a subcontractor with a summons to show cause why the subcontractor’s construction lien should not be discharged. This is a specific complaint filed under Florida Statute s. 713.21(4). This statute requires the lienor to essentially foreclose on its construction lien within 20 days after it was served with a “show cause” summons. The subcontractor filed its answer and counterclaim but did NOT assert a claim to foreclose its construction lien. 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

Washington State Enacts Law Restricting Non-Compete Agreements

September 23, 2019 — Ellie Perka - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Washington State has enacted a new law that means big changes for employers. The new law, in effect on January 1, 2020, will dramatically limit the enforcement of non-compete agreements in our state and imposes tough penalties on employers found to be in violation. While the new law does not take effect for many months, businesses should nonetheless act quickly and before year’s end to evaluate practices and, if necessary, revise existing and future non-compete agreements to ensure compliance. Under the new law, if an employee successfully proves a company’s non-compete agreement is unenforceable, then the employer will be required to pay the greater of $5,000 or an employee’s actual damages, plus the employee’s attorneys’ fees (and its own, in defending the non-compete), expenses and costs incurred in challenging the agreement. Brief Summary of Changes Washington Courts have typically disfavored restrictive covenants but usually enforced a non-competition agreement that protected an employer’s legitimate business interests and was reasonable in scope, geographic reach, and duration. The Legislature halted this trend through passage of Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1450. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ellie Perka, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ms. Perka may be contacted at ellie.perka@acslawyers.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES