SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

White Collar Overtime Regulations Temporarily Blocked

November 23, 2016 — George Morrison – White and Williams LLP
On November 22, 2016, a Texas federal court issued a preliminary injunction that temporarily blocks the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) from implementing and enforcing its revised white collar overtime regulations nationwide. The regulations were to take effect on December 1, 2016. For background on the DOL's Final Rule, see our alert, DOL Issues Final Rule Amending Overtime Exemptions Under FLSA. The decision was issued in a consolidated set of cases brought by 21 states and several business organizations. The cases challenge the changes to 29 C.F.R. Part 541, which defines the standards for evaluating whether employees are exempt executive, administrative, and/or professional employees. Under the current regulations, the minimum salary requirement for these exemptions is $455 per week. Under the revised regulations, the minimum salary would more than double to $913 per week. The Texas court found that the plaintiffs’ challenge to the final regulations has a substantial likelihood of success and that the plaintiffs have shown that they would be irreparably harmed if the rule was not enjoined. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of George Morrison, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Morrison may be contacted at morrisong@whiteandwilliams.com

---

The Right to Repair Act (Civ.C §895 et seq.) Applies and is the Exclusive Remedy for a Homeowner Alleging Construction Defects

February 07, 2018 — Craig Wallace – Smith Currie
McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (01.18.18) ____ Cal.4th _____ (2018 WL 456728) The California Supreme Court confirmed that the Right to Repair Act (CA Civil Code § 895, et seq. and often referred to by its legislative nomenclature as “SB800”) applies broadly to any action by a residential owner seeking recovery of damages for construction defects, regardless of whether such defects caused property damages or only economic losses. This includes the right in the Act of the builder to attempt repairs prior to the owner filing a lawsuit. Background Homeowners sued builder for construction defects. Included in their causes of action was a cause of action for violation of the Right To Repair Act. The Act requires that before filing litigation, a homeowner must give the builder notice and engage in a nonadversarial prelitigation process which gives the builder a right to repair the defects. The builder asked the court to stay the homeowners’ action so the prelitigaiton process could be undertaken. Rather than give the builder the repair right, the homeowners dismissed the particular cause of action from their case, leaving only other so-called common law and warranty causes of action. The common law claims sought recovery for property damage caused by the defects. The builder nonetheless asked to the Court to stay the action so it could exercise its right to repair. The trial court, relying on Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98, denied builder’s request to stay the action. The Liberty Mutual Court concluded that certain common law construction defect claims fell outside the purview of the Act. Builder appealed. The Court of Appeal disagreed with Liberty Mutual, so did not follow it, granted the builder’s request for a stay, and directed that the homeowners afford the builder the right to repair the claimed defects as provided under the Act. The California Supreme Court affirmed, disapproving Liberty Mutual and the subsequent cases relying on it. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Wallace, Smith Currie
Mr. Wallace may be contacted at swwallace@smithcurrie.com

---

Colorado Rejects Bill to Shorten Statute of Repose

May 07, 2015 — Jesse Howard Witt – Acerbic Witt
The House State, Veterans, and Military Affairs committee voted today to postpone Senate Bill 15-091 indefinitely, effectively killing the bill for the 2015 session. As originally drafted, the bill would have given Colorado the shortest statute of repose in the United States. Senate amendments softened the impact of the bill somewhat, but it still would have reduced the amount of time that the owners of single-family homes would have to discover construction defects. Proponents argued that this was necessary because Colorado’s harsh weather conditions make it difficult for construction to last longer than five years. Opponents countered that construction defect laws only provide relief when a builder has violated a code or standard, which is unrelated to the expected lifespan of a product. One of the Representatives noted that states like Alaska have much harsher weather patterns yet allow homeowners to bring claims up to ten years after construction is complete. Another questioned whether the bill would do anything to encourage affordable housing, a topic that has generated substantial media attention in recent months. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, Acerbic Witt
Mr. Witt welcomes comments at www.wittlawfirm.net

---

New York Court Holds Insurer Can Recover Before Insured Is Made Whole

October 24, 2023 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Tamagawa, Index No. 510977/2021, 2023 N.Y. Misc. Lexis 5434, the Supreme Court of New York considered whether an insurance carrier can settle its property subrogation lawsuit with the defendant, and discontinue the lawsuit, while the carrier’s insured still had pending claims with the carrier and claims for uninsured losses against the defendant. The court held that the carrier’s claims for the amount paid are divisible and independent of the insured’s claims and that the carrier’s settlement did not affect the insured’s right to sue for any unreimbursed losses. The court’s decision reminds us that, in New York, a carrier can resolve its subrogation claim before the insured is made whole. In June 2018, a water loss occurred in an apartment owned by Malik Graves-Pryor (Graves-Pryor). Graves-Pryor reported a claim to his property insurance carrier, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (Carrier). Investigation into the water loss revealed that the water originated from failed plumbing pipes in another apartment unit owned by Taku Tamagawa (Tamagawa). Carrier paid its insured over $600,000 for repairs. In May 2021, Carrier filed a subrogation lawsuit against Tamagawa, alleging improper maintenance of the plumbing pipes. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

---

What You Need to Know About CARB’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel Regulations

May 20, 2024 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
In November 2022, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved amendments to . . . wait for it . . . its “In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleet” regulations – that enough hyphens for you – which took effect on January 1, 2024. The purpose of the regulations is to reduce emissions from off-road equipment, many of which are used by construction contractors, such as forklifts, bulldozers, cranes and excavators. Are these new regulations? Yes and no. CARB has regulated in-use off-road diesel-fueled vehicles since 2008 and has periodically amended these regulations. The most recent amendments take effect on January 1, 2024. What vehicles do the regulations apply to? The regulations apply to two classes of vehicles (1) self-propelled off-road diesel-fueled vehicles of 25 horsepower (hp) or more; and (2) two-engine vehicles other than on-road two-engine sweepers. The regulations apply to both owned as well as rented and leased vehicles. As used in this article, the term “vehicle(s)” refers to these two classes of vehicles. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Construction Defect Bill Removed from Committee Calendar

February 12, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Colorado State Senator Mark Scheffel has removed Senate Bill 13-052 from the Senate Judiciary Committee’s calendar because he feels an upcoming study on construction near transit centers will be important for the consideration of the bill. SB 13-052 would affect construction defect claims in communities that were within a half mile of public transportation. Critics claim it would gut construction defect protections, as even a bus stop would count as a “mass transit center.” Scheffel says he doesn’t know what the study will find, but says that whether he likes or hates it, it will be relevant. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Supreme Court of Idaho Rules That Substantial Compliance With the Notice and Opportunity to Repair Act Suffices to Bring Suit

July 31, 2018 — Lian Skaf - The Subrogation Strategist
In Davison v. Debest Plumbing, Inc., 416 P.3d 943 (Ida. 2018), the Supreme Court of Idaho addressed the issue of whether plaintiffs who provided actual notice of a defective condition, but not written notice as stated in the Notice and Opportunity to Repair Act (NORA), Idaho Code §§ 6-2501 to 6-2504, et. seq., substantially complied with the act and if the plaintiffs’ notice was sufficient to bring suit. Section 6-2503 of the NORA states that, “[p]rior to commencing an action against a construction professional for a construction defect, the claimant shall serve written notice of claim on the construction professional. The notice of claim shall state that the claimant asserts a construction defect claim against the construction professional and shall describe the claim in reasonable detail sufficient to determine the general nature of the defect.” Any action not complying with this requirement should be dismissed without prejudice. The court held that the defendant’s actual notice of the defect was sufficient to satisfy the objectives of the NORA and, thus, the plaintiffs’ action complied with the NORA. In Davison, Scott and Anne Davison hired general contractor Gould Custom Builders (Gould) to remodel a vacation home in McCall, Idaho. Gould subcontracted out the plumbing work to Debest Plumbing (Debest). This work included installing a bathtub. When the Davisons arrived at their home for the first time on July 25, 2013, they noticed a leak from the subject bathtub. The Davisons contacted Gould and, the next morning, Gil Gould arrived with a Debest employee to inspect the home. In addition to inspecting the home, the Debest employee repaired the leak and helped Gould remove some water-damaged material. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams, LLP
Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Colorado’s Federal District Court Finds Carriers Have Joint and Several Defense Duties

July 31, 2013 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
An issue that has plagued builders in Colorado construction defect litigation is the difficulty of getting additional insured carriers to fully participate in the builder’s defense, oftentimes leaving the builder to fund its own defense during the course of the litigation. Many additional insurers offer a variety of positions regarding why they will not pay for fees and costs during the course of a lawsuit. Some insurers argue that, until after trial, it is impossible to determine its proper share of the defense, and therefore cannot make any payments until the liability is determined as to all of the potentially contributing policies. (This is often referred to as the “defense follows indemnity” approach.) Others may make an opening contribution to defense fees and costs, but fall silent as fees and costs accumulate. In such an event, the builder may be forced to fund all or part of its own defense, while the uncooperative additional insured carrier waits for the end of the lawsuit or is faced with other legal action before it makes other contributions. Recent orders in two, currently ongoing, U.S. District Court cases provide clarity on the duty to defend in Colorado, holding that multiple insurers’ duty to defend is joint and several. The insured does not have to go without a defense while the various insurers argue amongst themselves as to which insurer pays what share. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---