Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

A Tuesday With Lisa Colon

July 02, 2024 — Lisa Colon - The Dispute Resolver
As a seasoned construction lawyer, I've always prided myself on being independent and tough. However, my toughness was tested when my life took an unexpected turn. In 2013, I was diagnosed with a genetic cardiomyopathy, a condition which made it harder for my heart to pump blood. That diagnosis in itself was devasting since I had to change many things about the way I lived, including having to abandon running, my favorite hobby. After living 10 years in this new normal, in May 2023, I was told my right ventricle was no longer working and there were no further therapies available. I needed a heart transplant. The journey was long, arduous, and filled with both physical and emotional challenges. This life-altering experience not only gave me a new lease on life but also profoundly changed my perspective on practicing law. In this post, I will share three key lessons I learned from my heart transplant journey that have significantly impacted how I approach my legal practice. Lesson 1: The Importance of Patience and Persistence The journey to receiving a heart transplant is often fraught with uncertainty and long waiting periods. My new heart came quickly. I waited 22 days on the transplant list, but for me, the wait seemed interminable, filled with numerous hospital visits, medical tests, and moments of despair. Then came the recovery. The early days were filled with weekly biopsies, unimaginable nerve pain, and days of wondering if things would ever get better. During this time, I learned the true meaning of patience. Each day was a test of my resolve, and giving up was never an option. I had to persist through the toughest days, believing that a positive outcome was possible. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lisa Colon, Saul Ewing
Ms. Colon may be contacted at lisa.colon@saul.com

Homebuilding Continues to Recover in San Antonio Area

December 04, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
There was a slowing in the third quarter, but home builders expect that 2013 will see more than 9,000 home starts in the San Antonio area. And even though the third quarter was slow, it was still about 3% above the same quarter in 2012. And the new homes are more expensive. Jack Inselmann, a senior vice president at MetroStudy noted that “in 2011, 40 percent of housing activity was under $175,000. And here we are two years later and 31 percent is under $175,000.” He worries that people looking for homes will go to the resale market, instead of buying a new home. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

A Landlord’s Guide to California’s New Statewide Rent Control Laws

May 18, 2020 — Colton Addy - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Applicability of California’s Rent Control Laws: California Civil Code Sections 1946.2 and 1947.12 took effect on January 1, 2020, and implement statewide rent control in California for most residential properties. The rent control laws, however, do not apply to a rental property that was issued a certificate of occupancy in the last 15 years. (Civ. Code §§ 1947.12(d)(4), 1946.2(e)(7)). The statutes also do not apply to most single-family residences, provided that (a) the owner is not a real estate investment trust, a corporation, or a limited liability company where one of the members is a corporation, and (b) the required statutory language is included in the lease agreement for tenancies commencing or renewing on or after July 1, 2020. (Civ. Code §§ 1947.12(d)(5), 1946.2(e)(8)). Annual Increases Permitted Under California’s Rent Control Laws: Commencing on January 1, 2020, unless otherwise permitted by California law, a Landlord cannot increase the gross rental rate for a rental unit over a continuous 12-month period more than the change in the regional cost of living index where the property is located plus 5%, and gross rental rate increases are subject to a maximum cap of 10% over a continuous 12-month period regardless of the change in the cost of living index. (Civ. Code § 1947.12(a)(1)). The gross rental rate is determined using the lowest rental amount charged in any month in the immediately preceding 12 months. (Id.) Any incentives, discounts, concessions, or credits are not taken into account. (Id.) Even if a rent increase does not exceed the amount permitted under the statute, a Landlord is prohibited from increasing rent more than twice in any continuous 12-month period. (Civ. Code § 1947.12(a)(2)). Retroactive Applicability of Restrictions on Rent Increases: Although the statute took effect on January 1, 2020, the statute retroactively applies to all rent increases that occurred on or after March 15, 2019. (Civ. Code § 1947.12(h)(1)). If a landlord increased the rent amount more than the amount permitted under California Civil Code Section 1947.12(a)(1) after March 15, 2019, and prior to January 1, 2020, the rent amount on January 1, 2020, is reduced to the amount of the rent on March 15, 2019, plus the maximum permissible increase under California Civil Code Section 1947.12(a)(1). (Civ. Code § 1947.12(h)(2)). The Landlord does not have to refund the tenant any rent payments that were in excess of the permissible rent increase that the tenant made prior to January 1, 2020. (Id.) Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Colton Addy, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Addy may be contacted at caddy@swlaw.com

Court’s Ruling on SB800 “Surprising to Some”

October 16, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Describing it as “surprising to many in the residential home building industry,” Jay Drake of Reuben, Junius & Rose LLP has a piece discussing the recent California Court of Appeals decision that SB800 is not a homeowner’s only remedy for construction defects. The court found, according to Mr. Drake that “the primary purpose of the Act was to provide a property owner with remedies for repair of construction defects before the defects caused actual damages.” In the case before the court, the construction defects had already lead to further damages. Mr. Drake notes that the legislative history of SB800 puts the bill in response to an earlier California court case in which the courts determined that without actual damage to property, a homeowner could not file a construction defect lawsuit. The court concluded that SB800 was not intended to limit the homeowner’s rights after a construction defect situation has lead to damage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Avoiding Lender Liability for Credit-Related Actions in California

October 27, 2016 — Anthony J. Carucci – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Aside from general statutory prohibitions on lender discrimination, there are certain circumstances under California law in which lenders may be held liable for credit-related actions, such as negotiating or denying credit. See generally 11 Cal. Real Est. § 35:3 (explaining that the business of lending money is subject to the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51 et seq., the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov. Code § 12900 et seq., the Federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691, et seq.). Specifically, lenders have been held liable for credit-related actions where, among other things, the lender (1) breached a loan commitment; (2) committed fraud; or (3) breached a fiduciary duty owed to the borrower. The Lender-Borrower Relationship As a general rule, a lender does not owe a duty of care to a borrower when the lender’s involvement in a transaction does not exceed the scope of its conventional role as a lender of money. Oaks Management Corp. v. Superior Court (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 453, 466 (“[I]t is established that absent special circumstances . . . a loan transaction is at arms-length and there is no fiduciary relationship between the borrower and lender.”); Nymark v. Heart Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1089, 1096 (holding lender owed no duty of care to a borrower in preparing an appraisal of the real property that was security for the loan when the purpose of the appraisal is to protect the lender by satisfying it that the collateral provided adequate security for the loan, and noting that “as a general rule, a financial institution owes no duty of care to a borrower when the institution’s involvement in the loan transaction does not exceed the scope of its conventional role as a mere lender of money”). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony J. Carucci, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Carucci may be contacted at acarucci@swlaw.com

Kiewit and Two Ex-Managers Face Canada Jobsite Fatality Criminal Trial

October 12, 2020 — Scott Van Voorhis - Engineering News-Record
Canada appears set to try a rare criminal case against a major company—U.S. contractor Kiewit Corp.—for a workplace fatality stemming from a more than decade-old accident on a remote British Columbia hydroelectric project that killed a 24-year-old field employee. Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

State Supreme Court Cases Highlight Importance of Wording in Earth Movement Exclusions

June 21, 2017 — Hannah E. Austin - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In Erie Insurance Property and Casualty Company v. Chaber, the West Virginia Supreme Court recently held that an insurance policy’s earth movement exclusion was unambiguous and applied to both manmade and natural earth movement. The Court also found that a narrow “ensuing loss” exception to the exclusion that provided coverage for glass breakage resulting from earth movement could not be extended to cover the entire loss. The Erie Insurance Property and Casualty Company (Erie) insured five commercial buildings owned by Dmitri and Mary Chaber. One of the properties was damaged by a landslide, and the Chabers filed a claim with Erie. Erie asserted that the loss was excluded from coverage because the policy excluded coverage for losses caused by earth movement, which was defined to include earthquakes, landslides, subsidence of manmade mines, and earth sinking (aside from sinkhole collapse), rising or shifting. The exclusion stated that it applied “regardless of whether any of the above . . . is caused by an act of nature or is otherwise caused,” and also contained an anti-concurrent causation clause. However, there was an exception for glass breakage caused by earth movement. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Hannah E. Austin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Austin may be contacted at hea@sdvlaw.com

Prevailing Parties Entitled to Contractual Attorneys’ Fees Under California CCP §1717 Notwithstanding Declaration That Contract is Void Under California Government Code §1090

December 20, 2017 — Zachary Price & Lawrence Zucker
In California-American Water Co. v. Marina Coast Water District (Nos. A146166, 146405, filed 12/15/17), the First District Court of Appeal held that a prevailing party was entitled to an award of contractual attorneys’ fees under Code of Civil Procedure §1717 even though the underlying contracts were declared void under Government Code §1090. Appellant Marina Coast Water District (“Marina”) and Respondent Monterey County Water Resources Agency (“Monterey”), both public water agencies, and Respondent California-American Water Company (“California-American”), a water utility, entered into several contracts to collaborate on a water desalination project. The parties agreed that the prevailing party of any action in any way arising from their agreements would be entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees. Reprinted courtesy of Zachary Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence Zucker, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Price may be contacted at zprice@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES