Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

City of Aspen v. Burlingame Ranch II Condominium Owners Association: Clarifying the Application of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act

June 17, 2024 — David McLain - Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
On June 17, 2024, the Colorado Supreme Court delivered a significant opinion in the case of City of Aspen v. Burlingame Ranch II Condominium Owners Association (Case No. 22SC293). This decision provides crucial guidance on the interplay between the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (“CGIA”) and the economic loss rule in the context of construction defect claims. Background of the Case The case arose from a construction defect dispute between the City of Aspen, which served as the developer and declarant for the affordable housing condominiums at issue, and the Burlingame Ranch II Condominium Owners Association, the HOA created by Aspen to manage the association after the period of declarant control. The Association alleged that Aspen breached various warranties related to the construction of affordable housing units, leading to structural deficiencies. Aspen argued that the CGIA barred these claims because they could lie in tort. The Lower Court’s Decision The district court initially agreed with Aspen, holding that the Association’s claims sounded in tort and were therefore barred by the CGIA. The court relied on the principle that governmental immunity protects public entities from liability for claims that ‘lie in tort or could lie in tort,’ as established by the CGIA. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Seventh Circuit Confirms Additional Insured's Coverage for Alleged Construction Defects

August 10, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Seventh Circuit held that the underlying complaint alleged an occurrence by asserting that the painting subcontractor was negligent in causing damage to the building. Westfield Ins. Co. v. Nat'l Decorating Serv., Inc., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12516 (7th Cir. July 13, 2017). McHugh Construction, the general contractor for construction of a 24 story condominium building in Chicago, retained National Decorating Service, Inc. as a subcontractor to perform all of the painting work. This meant National Decorating would paint the exterior of the building with a protective coating that was a waterproof sealant. After completion, the building's board of managers sued McHugh, National Decorating, and others for damages resulting from faulty workmanship. The third amended complaint alleged: (1) significant cracking of the exterior concrete walls, interior walls, and ceilings; (2) significant leakage through the exterior concrete walls, balconies, and windows; (3) defects to the common elements of the building; and (4) damage to the interior ceilings, floors, interior painting, drywall, and furniture in the units. 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

South Africa Wants Payment From Colluding World Cup Builders

July 23, 2014 — Kamlesh Bhuckory and Mike Cohen – Bloomberg
South Africa’s government is putting pressure on construction companies to make further payments as punishment for rigging contracts to build stadiums for the 2010 FIFA Soccer World Cup and other projects. Antitrust authorities fined 15 builders, including Murray & Roberts Holdings Ltd. (MUR) and Aveng Ltd., a total of 1.5 billion rand ($141 million) in June 2013, after a probe that spanned almost four years found they colluded to drive up prices. “The 1.5 billion rand in penalties is not the end of the story with the construction industry,” Economic Development Minister Ebrahim Patel told lawmakers in Cape Town today. “We are now in discussion with the construction industry on a restitution package for their collusion and price fixing.” Mr. Bhuckory may be contacted at kbhuckory@bloomberg.net; Mr. Cohen may be contacted at mcohen21@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kamlesh Bhuckory and Mike Cohen, Bloomberg

Mediation Confidentiality Bars Malpractice Claim but for How Long?

April 01, 2015 — Jennifer K. Saunders – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
The California Court of Appeal yesterday upheld application of the mediation confidentiality statutes to bar a malpractice action which was based on the attorneys’ actions during mediation. John Amis vs. Greenberg Traurig LLP, et al. (3/18/15) Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, No. B248447. Inferences about the attorneys’ conduct during mediation were also determined to be unusable in an attempt to circumvent the privilege. Plaintiff, John Amis, filed an action against his former attorneys, Greenberg Traurig, alleging they were negligent by “causing” him to execute a settlement agreement during a two-day mediation which converted a corporate obligation into a personal obligation. The causes of action included breach of fiduciary duty, malpractice and breach of a conflict waiver, in support of which Amis alleged that the attorneys failed to advise him of the risk involved in entering into the settlement agreement, “drafted, structured and caused it to be executed” during mediation and breached a conflict waiver by failing to negotiate a settlement that provided him with financial security. During plaintiff’s deposition he admitted that all of the advice he had received in connection with the settlement agreement occurred during mediation and that all the damages incurred were from his execution of that agreement during mediation. Greenberg Traurig filed a motion for summary judgment based upon plaintiff’s deposition admissions and argued that since the mediation confidentiality statutes barred each side from presenting testimony as to what occurred during mediation, the plaintiff could not establish the elements of his claims and they could not defend against those allegations. The trial court agreed with the defense, granting summary judgment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jennifer K. Saunders, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Saunders may be contacted at jsaunders@hbblaw.com

2017 Colorado Construction Defect Recap: Colorado Legislature and Judiciary Make Favorable Advances for Development Community

January 24, 2018 — Kaitlin Marsh-Blake – Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
Last March, the Colorado General Assembly introduced House Bill 17-1279 concerning the requirement that a unit owners’ association obtain approval through a vote of unit owners before filing a construction defect action. The bill, passed in May, requires a home owners’ association to first notify all unit owners and the developer or builder of a potential construction defect action, call a meeting where both the HOA and developer or builder have an opportunity to present arguments and potentially remedy the defect, and obtain a majority vote of approval from the unit owners to pursue a lawsuit before bringing a construction defect action against a developer or builder. The bill amends C.R.S. § 38-33.3-303.5, which previously only required substantial compliance with the above-mentioned actions. Moreover, the previous version of C.R.S. § 38-33.3-303.5 did not require the HOA to perform these actions prior to a suit being filed. HB 17-1279 also removed the provision of C.R.S. § 38-33.3-303.5 that made it only applicable to buildings of five or more units. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kaitlin Marsh-Blake, Gordon & Rees
Ms. Marsh-Blake may be contacted at kmarsh-blake@grsm.com

It’s Too Late, Lloyd’s: New York Federal Court Finds Insurer Waived Late Notice Defense

June 05, 2023 — Latosha M. Ellis & Janine A. Hanrahan - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
A New York federal judge recently ruled that an insurer waived its late notice defense because a generic reservation of rights was insufficient to preserve it. As a result, the policyholder’s claim was preserved despite being submitted more than three months after the loss—a delay which would ordinarily be fatal under New York law. The decision underscores the importance both of timely submission of claims and careful attention to reservation of rights letters. Background Mave Hotel Investors LLC (“Mave”) owns a small hotel in Manhattan that was insured by Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London (“Lloyd’s”). From October 2017 to October 2020, Mave contracted with a housing network to temporarily house homeless families and their children in the hotel. When the contract with the housing network terminated in October 2020, Mave alleged that the rooms were severely damaged and that it had to pay $1.4 million to repair them. Reprinted courtesy of Latosha M. Ellis, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Janine A. Hanrahan, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Ellis may be contacted at lellis@HuntonAK.com Ms. Hanrahan may be contacted at jhanrahan@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

September 08, 2016 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Partner Denis Moriarty and Of Counsel William Baumgaertner were selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America© 2017. This marks the fifth consecutive year Mr. Moriarty has been listed for his work in insurance law, and this marks the eleventh year Mr. Baumgaertner has been listed for his defendants’ and plaintiffs’ work in personal injury and product liability litigation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Illinois Appellate Court Address the Scope of the Term “Resident” in Homeowners Policy

April 11, 2022 — James M. Eastham - Traub Lieberman
In Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Cheekati, 2022 IL App (4th) 210023, the 4th District Court of Appeals for the State of Illinois addressed whether the term “resident” in a homeowners policy included a tenant leasing the insured premises. The Insureds owned property which was insured through Farmers under a homeowner’s policy. Unable to sell the property, the Insureds entered into a two-year lease agreement with a tenant. Several months after entering into the lease agreement, the tenant allegedly sustained physical injuries inside of the rented premises when a staircase collapsed. The tenant sued the Insureds and the matter was tendered to Farmers. Thereafter, Farmers denied coverage based on an exclusionary provision in the homeowner’s policy. Specifically, the policy contained a "Liability Exclusions" section, which provided:

"Coverage E (Personal Liability) *** and personal injury coverage, if covered under this policy, do not apply to: Any insured or other residents of the residence premises. We do not cover bodily injury or personal injury to: (a) any insured; or (b) any resident of the residence premises, whether resident in the dwelling or a separate structure." (Emphases in original.)

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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES