Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Florida’s Fourth District Appeals Court Clarifies What Actions Satisfy Florida’s Construction Defect Statute of Repose

November 14, 2018 — Rahul Gogineni - The Subrogation Specialist
In Gindel v. Centex Homes, 2018 Fla.App. LEXIS 13019, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal recently concluded that the date on which the plaintiffs provided a pre-suit notice in compliance with §558.004 of Florida’s construction defect Right-to-Cure statute, Fla. Stat. §§ 558.001 to 558.005, et. seq., is the date on which the plaintiff commenced a “civil action or proceeding,” i.e. an “action,” within the meaning of Florida’s construction defect statute of repose, Florida Statue § 95.11(3)(c). Thus, reversing the decision of the trial court, the Fourth District held that the plaintiffs timely-filed their construction defect action against the defendants. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Rahul Gogineni, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Gogineni may be contacted at goginenir@whiteandwilliams.com

Builder’s Risk Coverage—Construction Defects

August 20, 2019 — Brian Hearst - Construction Executive
This is the second of three articles bringing clarity to the complex and challenging course of construction exposures and providing solutions for mitigating risk through builder’s risk insurance coverage. Part I, Builder’s Risk Coverage – Language Matters, addressed a select few critical exposures to projects under the course of construction. Part II addresses how a standard builder’s risk policy may respond to a loss arising from defective construction and alternative insurance market offerings that can help with specific costs associated with construction defect loss. Coverage for Loss Ensuing from Faulty Workmanship Part I tackled the standard builder’s risk exclusion that applies to losses arising from faulty materials or workmanship. Traditionally, carriers do not have an appetite for covering a contractor’s failure to perform their work properly. There is one exception, which is coverage is available for ensuing loss – or the resulting damage to other property from faulty workmanship. If the excluded cause of loss (i.e., faulty workmanship) causes resultant damage, the builder’s risk policy will cover the damages to the extent the peril of fire is covered. The ensuing loss exception limits the faulty work exclusion to costs directly related to repairing or replacing the faulty work. For example, suppose faulty wiring work leads to a fire which damages part of a structure under construction. The faulty workmanship exclusion would apply to the actual faulty wiring work, but if fire is a covered peril under the policy (this is nearly always the case), the policy would respond to the structure’s fire damage. Reprinted courtesy of Brian Hearst, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Hearst may be contacted at Brian.Hearst@lockton.com

Haight Lawyers Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© 2019

September 04, 2018 — William G. Baumgaertner & Denis J. Moriarty - 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© 2019. Mr. Moriarty has been listed for his work in insurance law, and Mr. Baumgaertner has been listed for his defendants’ and plaintiffs’ work in personal injury and product liability litigation. Reprinted courtesy of William G. Baumgaertner, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Denis J. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Baumgaertner may be contacted at wbaum@hbblaw.com Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at dmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Thank You for 18 Straight Years in the Virginia Legal Elite in Construction Law

December 31, 2024 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Thank you once again to those in the Virginia legal community who elected me to the Virginia Business Legal Elite in the Construction Law category for the 18th consecutive year. The 18 consecutive years of election to the Legal Elite in the Construction Category span my nearly 15 years as a solo construction attorney. The fact that you all have continued to elect “100%” of the lawyers at The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC for the last 14 years is most gratifying and only confirms that my decision to “go solo” over 14 years ago was a good one. To be included in this list of top construction attorneys is both humbling and gratifying. For the complete list of the Virginia construction lawyers who were elected along with me, see the 2024 Virginia Business Legal Elite in Construction Law. 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

The Latest News on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

May 01, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Federal Housing Finance Agency released a report on April 30th, which stated that in a severe economic downturn Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac (FMCC) “could require an additional bailout of as much as $190 billion… according to the results of stress tests,” according to Clea Benson writing for Bloomberg. “These results of the severely adverse scenario are not surprising given the company’s limited capital,” FNMA Senior Vice President Kelli Parsons said in a statement, as reported by Benson published in Bloomberg. “Under the terms of the senior preferred stock purchase agreement, Fannie Mae is not permitted to retain capital to withstand a sudden, unexpected economic shock of the magnitude required by the stress test.” Furthermore, in another Bloomberg article, Cheyenne Hopkins and Clea Benson reported that Democrats remain divided on how to replace FNMA and FMCC. “If we don’t get this right, we’ll create major disturbances in the housing market which will have a profound impact on families, on homeownership and certainly on our national economy,” Oregon Democrat Jeff Merkley said in an interview, as reported by Cheyenne and Benson. “Merkley described himself as ‘still in negotiations’ with the bill’s sponsors.” Read the full story, Clea Benson Article... Read the full story, Cheyenne Hopkins & Clea Benson Article... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Breach of an Oral Contract and Unjust Enrichment and Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

December 23, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In an ideal world, parties would have written contracts. In reality, parties should endeavor to ensure every transaction they enter into is memorialized in a written contract. This should not be disputed. Of course, written contracts are not always the case. Parties enter transactions too often whereby the transaction is not memorialized in a clean written agreement. Rather, it is piecemealing invoices, or texts, or discussions, or proposals and the course of business. A contract can still exist in this context but it is likely an oral contract. Keep in mind if there is a dispute, what you think the oral contract says will invariably be different than what the other party believes the oral contract says. This “he said she said” scenario gets removed, for the most part, with a written contract that memorializes the written terms, conditions, and scope. A recent federal district court opinion dealt with the alleged breach of an oral contract. In Movie Prop Rentals LLC vs. The Kingdom of God Global Church, 2023 WL 8275922 (S.D.Fla. 2023), a dispute concerned the fabrication and installation of a complex, modular stage prop to be used for an event. But here lies the problem. The dispute was based on an oral contract and invoices. The plaintiff, the party that was fabricating the modular stage prop, sued the defendant, the party that ordered the stage prop for the event, for non-payment under various claims. The defendant countersued under various claims. 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

Georgia Appellate Court Supports County Claim Against Surety Company’s Failure to Pay

August 30, 2017 — David R. Cook Jr. - Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
In 2015, Hall County (Georgia) brought legal action against Selective Insurance Company of America, Inc., the surety company for contractor Ruby Forrest. Hall County had contracted Ruby Forrest to complete and maintain sidewalk systems within three residential subdivisions that Ruby Forrest owned and was developing. Ruby Forrest did not complete the work as promised, and Hall County brought action against the contractor’s surety to recover under performance / maintenance bonds for uncompleted work and to assert bad faith claim for punitive damages and attorney fees. Selective Insurance did not dispute that it had issued the bonds, that Ruby Forrest did not complete the sidewalk systems within the bond periods or their extensions, or that Hall County provided Selective Insurance with timely notice of Ruby Forrest’s failure to complete the work. Instead, Selective Insurance asserted that the original claim by Hall County was time-barred under a provision in the bonds that stated that “the Issuer will have no more liability after” the expiration date of the bond. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

Additional Elements a Plaintiff Must Plead and Prove to Enforce Restrictive Covenant

April 19, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Florida Statute s. 542.335 is a statute that deals with restrictive covenants in contracts that impose a restraint on trade. It is an important statute to determine invalid restraints on trade that unreasonably or unfairly prevent competition. Any invalid restraint on trade is unenforceable. Restrictive covenants–or covenants in agreements that restrict you or prevent you from doing something–may unsuspectingly be included in contracts or the impact of the restrictive covenant may not be appreciated at the onset. A party seeking to enforce a restrictive covenant in a contract has the additional burden of PROVING the validity and reasonableness of the restrictive covenant:

Under section 542.335, three requirements must be satisfied for a restrictive covenant to be enforceable: (1) the restrictive covenant must be “set forth in a writing signed by the person against whom enforcement is sought”; (2) the party seeking to enforce the restrictive covenant “shall plead and prove the existence of one or more legitimate business interests justifying the restrictive covenant”; and (3) the party seeking to enforce the restrictive covenant “shall plead and prove that the contractually specified restraint is reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate business interest or interests justifying the restriction.”

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