SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Preserving Lien Rights on Private Projects in Washington: Three Common Mistakes to Avoid

September 16, 2024 — Kristina Southwell - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
The Washington Construction Lien Statute, RCW 60.04 et seq., exists to help secure payment for work performed for the improvement of real property.[1] The statute grants “any person furnishing labor, professional services, materials, or equipment for the improvement of real property” the authority to claim “a lien upon the improvement for the contract price of labor, professional services, materials, or equipment furnished.” RCW 60.04.021. Exercising lien rights is one of the most useful tools available to a contractor or supplier trying to recover payment owed on a project. A properly recorded lien binds the project property, which is typically the most valuable asset held by the owner, as security for the amounts owed to the lien claimant. Additionally, the lien statute provides a basis for the claimant to recover the costs of recording the lien and its attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in litigating the foreclosure of the lien. While the lien statute authorizes the right to lien, it also provides a series of strict requirements and procedures that a claimant must follow to properly exercise its rights. The claimant must carefully comply with all statutory requirements. This article does not endeavor to explain all the intricacies of the lien statute, but rather discusses three of the most common mistakes that result in the loss of lien rights. See our lien and bond claim manual for a more detailed guide to construction liens in Washington. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kristina Southwell, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ms. Southwell may be contacted at kristina.southwell@acslawyers.com

---

Statute of Limitations and Bad Faith Claims: Factors to Consider

May 16, 2022 — Anastasiya Collins - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
How much time do our clients have to bring a bad faith action against an insurer? Although we are not frequently asked this question, it is one that we constantly analyze before asserting a bad faith claim. To answer this question, we look to the statute of limitations, which is a law passed by a state legislative body that sets the maximum amount of time for a party to bring a claim based upon a particular cause of action. For policyholders, knowing which statute of limitations applies to their bad faith claim is critical because it indicates whether it is possible to initiate legal proceedings. In addition, it determines the amount in damages available in case of a successful resolution. Statute of Limitations in Breach of Contract vs. Tort Claims One key determinant of a statute of limitations for bad faith is whether the claim is brought as a tort or a breach of contract action. The consequence of framing bad faith as a tort is that a policyholder is not just limited to contract damages. The policyholder can also receive recourse for emotional distress, pain, suffering, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and other damages that the court may consider appropriate. Unfortunately, however, not every jurisdiction allows plaintiffs to bring bad faith actions as tort claims. While, for example, courts in California, Colorado, and Connecticut allow bad faith claims sounding in tort, courts in jurisdictions such as Tennessee do not. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anastasiya Collins, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Ms. Collins may be contacted at ACollins@sdvlaw.com

---

Property Insurance Exclusion for Constant or Repeated Leakage of Water

March 14, 2018 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
A property insurance policy, no different than any insurance policy, contains exclusions for events that are NOT covered under the terms of the policy. One such common exclusion in a property insurance policy is an exclusion for damages caused by "constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water…over a period of 14 or more days." The application of this exclusion was discussed in the recent opinion of Hicks v. American Integrity Ins. Co. of Florida, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D446a (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). In this case, while the insured was out of town, the water line to his refrigerator started to leak. When the insured return home over a month later, the supply line was discharging almost a thousand gallons of water per day. The insured submitted a property insurance claim. The property insurer engaged a consultant that opined (likely, correctly) that the water line had been leaking for at least five weeks. Based on the above-mentioned exclusion, i.e., that water had been constantly leaking for over a period of 14 days, the insurer denied coverage. This denial led to the inevitable coverage dispute. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

---

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine Addresses Earth Movement Exclusion

March 01, 2021 — James M. Eastham - Traub Lieberman
In Bibeau v. Concord Gen. Mut. Ins. Co., 2021 WL 243867, 2021 ME 4, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine addressed an earth movement exclusion contained in a residential homeowners policy. In 2017, the insured submitted a claim to Concord for damage to the insured’s home which included foundation cracks and settlement resulting in interior damage to the home. The insured contended that the damage was the result of a 2006 water line leak. Concord denied the claim based on the Earth Movement exclusion contained in it’s policy which precluded coverage for losses caused by earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, mudflow, subsidence, sinkholes or “[a]ny other earth movement including earth sinking, rising or shifting; caused by or resulting from human or animal forces or any act of nature”. The insured filed suit asserting a breach of the policy and unfair claims settlement practices. According to the insured’s expert, the damage was caused by a 2006 water line leak -- which in turn caused the foundation to settle. Concord's expert, however, concluded that the settling was caused by the house being built on “unprepared or uncontrolled fill” which allowed the house to settle at different rates. Despite the disagreement regarding the cause of the settling, the parties ultimately agreed that the damage was the result of earth moving under the house's foundation. Concord moved for summary judgment and the trial court entered summary judgment for Concord, reasoning that because there was no genuine dispute that the losses were caused by “subsurface soils being undermined and earth movement,” the Earth Movement exclusion precluded coverage. The trial court further concluded that the disagreement over the cause of the settlement was not material because regardless of the cause of the earth movement, the losses were clearly excluded by the policy's Earth Movement exclusion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Eastham may be contacted at jeastham@tlsslaw.com

---

Three Attorneys Named Among The Best Lawyers in America 2018

August 24, 2017 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Partners Denis Moriarty and Mark VonderHaar, and Of Counsel William Baumgaertner were selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America 2018. This marks the twelfth consecutive year Mr. Baumgaertner has been listed for his defendants’ and plaintiffs’ work in personal injury and product liability litigation, and the sixth consecutive year Mr. Moriarty has been listed for his work in insurance law. Mr. VonderHaar was listed for the first time for his work in insurance law. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Renee Zellweger Selling Connecticut Country Home

August 06, 2014 — Emily Heffter – Bloomberg
You had me at seven fireplaces (and a bread oven). Actress Renee Zellweger’s Connecticut country home, on the market for $1.6 million, is hardly roughing it. The luxury farmhouse, built in 1770 and updated in 2004, is a stylish and luxurious country getaway. Set on 38 acres overlooking the Quinebaug River in rural Pomfret Center, the retreat at 96 Cotton Rd is 3,463 square feet with a top-of-the-line kitchen, a bread oven in the family room and a swimming pool. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Emily Heffter, Zillow

---

Vegas Hi-Rise Not Earthquake Safe

July 12, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

If an earthquake hit Las Vegas, the Harmon Tower would not withstand it. A report from Weidlinger Associates told MGM Resorts that “in a code-level earthquake, using either the permitted or current code specified loads, it is likely that critical structural members in the tower will fail and become incapable of supporting gravity loads, leading to a partial or complete collapse of the tower.” The inspection came at the request of county officials, according to the article in Forbes.



According to Ronald Lynn, directory of the building division in the county’s development services division, “these deficiencies, in their current state, make the building uninhabitable.” The county is concerned about risks to adjacent buildings.



MGM Resorts is currently in litigation, separate from the stability issues, with Perini Corp., the builders of Harmon Tower.



Read the full story…

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

---

Modification: Exceptions to Privette Doctrine Do Not Apply Where There is No Evidence a General Contractor Affirmatively Contributed to the Injuries of an Independent Contractor’s Employee

November 23, 2016 — Renata L. Hoddinott & Lawrence S. Zucker II – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In a case which was the subject of our Alert dated October 31, 2016 (click here for prior alert), the Court of Appeal of the State of California – Second Appellate District on November 17, 2016 issued a modification to the opinion in Khosh v. Staples Construction Company, Inc. (10/26/16 – Case No. B268937) with no change in judgment. In Khosh, the Court affirmed the trial court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendant under the Privette doctrine where plaintiff presented no evidence that the defendant affirmatively contributed to his injuries. Reprinted courtesy of Renata L. Hoddinott, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Hoddinott may be contacted at rhoddinott@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---