Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

What You Need to Know About Home Improvement Contracts

July 30, 2019 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Given the variety of problems that can arise on a construction project, from defects to delays, it’s difficult to draft a construction contract that addresses every possible problem exactly right. However, so long as you adequately address the “big three” of scope, price and time, it’s also difficult to draft a construction contract wrong. That is, with one exception. And that one exception, in California, is home improvement contracts. In 2004, the California State Legislature enacted the state’s Home Improvement Business statute (Bus. & Prof. Code §§7150 et seq.). Section 7159 of the statute sets forth what must be included in home improvement contracts. It’s a section that could have been written by Felix Unger of the Odd Couple. In addition to setting forth required language that must be included in a home improvement contract, it directs where that language is to be set forth in a home improvement contract, and even how it is to be presented, down to type sizes. 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

Apartment Boom in Denver a Shortcut Around Condo Construction Defect Suits?

September 24, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
For every condo currently being built in Denver, there are 40 apartment units. And there are some who think that this is being done to evade construction defect lawsuits. At issue is the statute of limitations for construction defects. Under Colorado law, condominium buyers have six years after the completion of constrution to sue for construction defects, unless the defect isn’t discovered until the fifth or six year, in which case they are given until the eighth year. But what if someone built an apartment building, rented out the units for six years, and then converted the whole thing to condominiums? Some think that the construction defect clock would be reset. Amie Mayhew, the CEO of the Colorado Association of Home Builders noted that if this is the case, “you’d be back at square one.” But Doug Benson, a construction defect attorney, thinks that if a builder did this, and didn’t make any further construction, no one would be able to sue for construction defects, even if the condo owners found them. Mr. Benson, who represents homeowners, said that “they’re apartment homes and that’s just to avoid liability.” Mike Gifford, the president of the Associated General Contractors of Colorado, noted that insurance companies were already wary of apartment complexes, fearing that they would be turned into condos. Whatever the cause, Denver seems to have a shortage of condos. But, they’re going to have a lot of apartments available. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

No Conflict in Successive Representation of a Closely-Held Company and Its Insiders Where Insiders Already Possess Company’s Confidential Information

August 02, 2017 — Renata L. Hoddinott, David W. Evans, & Howard M. Garfield - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Beachcomber Management Crystal Cove, LLC v. Superior Court (Salisbury) (No. G054078, filed June 28, 2017; pub. and mod. order July 28, 2017), the Fourth Appellate District granted a writ of mandate vacating a trial court’s order disqualifying defendants’ counsel. In Beachcomber, plaintiffs filed a shareholder derivative action against defendants Beachcomber Management and Douglas Cavanaugh (collectively, “defendants”) alleging defendants abused their position and mismanaged nominal defendant and similarly named Beachcomber at Crystal Cove (“Beachcomber”). Between 2009 and 2011, defendants and Beachcomber had each hired Kohut & Kohut LLP (“Kohut”) to represent them on at least four different occasions. In the underlying action, defendants hired Kohut again to represent them, while Beachcomber hired another law firm to represent it. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Renata L. Hoddinott, David W. Evans and Howard M. Garfield Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Tokyo Building Flaws May Open Pandora's Box for Asahi Kasei

October 28, 2015 — Kathleen Chu, Joji Mochida & Katsuyo Kuwako – Bloomberg
Japanese real estate investment trusts are joining apartment owners and regulators in pushing Asahi Kasei Corp. for answers on an apartment building sagging sideways on the outskirts of Tokyo, as concerns are mounting that it may not be an isolated case. REITs including Advance Residence Investment, Nippon Accommodation Fund Inc., Daiwa House Residential Investment Corp. and Japan Rental Housing Investment Inc. have all asked Asahi Kasei for details on what other buildings might be flawed, according to the trusts. Asahi Kasei disclosed on Thursday the names of prefectures where the company has undertaken work in the past 10 years on more than 3,000 buildings, after the land ministry requested the data. The sites include 342 schools, 257 medical and health-care facilities, 696 housing complexes and 217 office buildings, the firm said. Asahi Kasei, the subcontractor of the project, said a unit didn’t properly install foundation piles at an apartment building in Yokohama, and the division falsified data on the work. The scandal has sent Asahi Kasei’s shares down more than 21 percent since Oct. 13, when news of the flawed building first emerged. Shares of Sumitomo Mitsui Construction Co., the contractor, plunged 25 percent and those of Mitsui Fudosan Co., which sold units at the Yokohama project in 2006, have tumbled 5 percent since then. All three companies said that the impact of the incident on their earnings is not yet clear. Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg reporters Kathleen Chu, Joji Mochida and Katsuyo Kuwako Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Perez Broke Records … But Should He Have Settled Earlier?

February 19, 2024 — Sofya Uvaydov & John F. Watkins - Kahana Feld
In 2021, Mark Perez’ Labor Law 240(1) lawsuit made legal news by breaking the record of the highest appellate-sustained pain and suffering award in New York history. While that record was short-lived, it still maintains its place as New York’s highest-ever pain and suffering award for a brain injury. This January 17th, the Appellate Division, First Department revisited the litigation but, this time, in a dispute between Perez and his then-lawyer, Ben Morelli and the Morelli Law Firm. Mr. Perez claims breach of contract over a 10% additional contingency fee charge related to the Perez v. Live Nation appeal and breach of fiduciary duty by his counsel in failing to convey settlement offers during the lifetime of the case. The Morelli firm counters, among other things, that the prior settlement offers – a $30 million offer during the 2019 trial and intermediate sums during the appellate stage – were still lower than the ultimate $55 million settlement. No harm, Mr. Morelli argues, and thus no foul in failing to convey the offers. But is that so? Did Mark Perez ultimately receive more money in his $55 million settlement than from the $30 million settlement offer mid-trial? Despite the glaring $25 million difference, the surprising calculations show that Perez would have been financially better off taking the $30 million mid-trial settlement. Reprinted courtesy of Sofya Uvaydov, Kahana Feld and John F. Watkins, Kahana Feld Ms. Uvaydov may be contacted at suvaydov@kahanafeld.com Mr. Watkins may be contacted at jwatkins@kahanafeld.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New York State Trial Court: Non-Cumulation Provision in Excess Policies Mandates “All Sums” Allocation

October 02, 2018 — Paul Briganti - White & Williams LLP
On August 18, 2018, the New York Supreme Court, New York County, confirmed a referee’s finding that “all sums” allocation was required under excess policies issued by Midland Insurance Company because they included a non-cumulation provision. See Matter of Liquidation of Midland Ins. Co., Index No. 041294/1986 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 18, 2018). Midland was a multi-line carrier that wrote a substantial amount of excess coverage for Fortune 500 companies. In the 1980s, Midland faced significant exposure for environmental, asbestos and product liability claims. In 1986, it was placed in liquidation and the New York State Superintendent of Insurance (the Liquidator) was appointed as its receiver. Since then, the New York Supreme Court has presided over the liquidation proceedings. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Paul Briganti, White & Williams LLP
Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com

Recent Bad Faith Decisions in Florida Raise Concerns

November 06, 2018 — Michael Kiernan, Lauren Curtis & Ashley Kellgren - TLSS Insurance Law Blog
The State of Florida has long been known as one of the most challenging jurisdictions for insurance carriers in the context of bad faith – to say the least. Two recent appellate decisions have taken an already difficult environment and seemingly “upped the ante” in what constitutes good faith claims handling in the context of third-party liability claims. Set forth below is an analysis of the Bannon v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co. and Harvey v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co. decisions. Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP attorneys Michael Kiernan, Lauren Curtis and Ashley Kellgren Mr. Kiernan may be contacted at mkiernan@tlsslaw.com Ms. Curtis may be contacted at lcurtis@tlsslaw.com Ms. Kellgren may be contacted at akellgren@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Is the Removal and Replacement of Nonconforming Work Economically Wasteful?

September 19, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
There are times a contractor installs the wrong material or system contrary to the plans and specifications. A nonconformity. The owner wants the already-installed material or system to be replaced in conformity with the plans and specifications. However, what was installed is functionally equivalent to what the plans and specifications required and would be cost prohibitive, i.e., economically wasteful. If the contractor elects to remove and replace the nonconforming work, it may seek a change order because it is economically wasteful. Or, the contractor may refuse (typically, not the best approach) in furtherance of taking on the fight based on the economic wastefulness associated with the removal and replacement. A recent case, David Boland, Inc. v. U.S., 2022 WL 3440349 (Fed.Cl. 2022), talks about this exaction situation and the economic waste doctrine. This is an important doctrine for contractors to understand when faced with a similar predicament. Here, a contractor was hired by the government to construct a wastewater collection system that was to be owned and operated by a private company. The contractor’s work was going to be incorporated into a larger sewer system that the private company already operated. The contractor was required to install sewer manholes reinforced with steel in accordance with an ASTM standard. The manholes could be rejected if they did not conform to the ASTM standard. Compliance with this ASTM standard was also required by the private company’s construction protocol for the infrastructure, which was incorporated into the contractor’s contract with the government. The contractor was required to strictly comply with the contract. 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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES