Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Is There a Conflict of Interest When a CD Defense Attorney Becomes Coverage Counsel Post-Litigation?

September 01, 2011 — Chad Johnson of Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC

In Weitz Co., LLC v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado was asked to rule on a motion to disqualify counsel in an insurance coverage action. 11-CV-00694-REB-BNB, 2011 WL 2535040 (D. Colo. June 27, 2011). Motions to disqualify counsel are viewed with suspicion, as courts “must guard against the possibility that disqualification is sought to ‘secure a tactical advantage in the proceedings.’” Id. at *2 (citing Religious Technology Center v. F.A.C.T. Net, Inc., 945 F. Supp. 1470, 1473 (D. Colo. 1996).

Weitz Company, LLC (“Weitz”) is a general contractor and defendant in an underlying construction defect suit which had concluded before the action bringing rise to this order. In the underlying action, Weitz made third-party claims against subcontractors, including NPW Contracting (“NPW”). Weitz was listed as an additional insured under NPW’s policies with both Ohio Casualty Insurance Company and Mountain States Mutual Casualty Company (collectively “the Carriers”). The Carriers accepted Weitz’s tender of defense under a reservation of rights. However, neither insurance carrier actually contributed to Weitz’s defense costs in the underlying action. At the conclusion of the construction defect action, the parties unsuccessfully attempted to apportion the attorney’s fees and costs. Eventually, Weitz brought suit against the recalcitrant carriers. The Lottner firm, which had previously represented Weitz in the underlying construction defect action, continued to represent Weitz in this coverage action.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC. Mr. Johnson can be contacted at johnson@hhmrlaw.com

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

United States Supreme Court Upholds Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements

May 24, 2018 — Amy R. Patton, Jason I. Bluver, & Jeffrey K. Brown - Payne & Fears LLP
On May 21, 2018, the United States Supreme Court held, in a 5-4 decision, that arbitration agreements which mandate individualized resolution of claims (as opposed to class or collective resolution) are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"). In doing so, the Court rejected the argument that such "class action waivers" violate Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"), which generally protects employees' rights to act "in concert" with one another. The Court addressed a split created by decisions from three Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal: Epic Systems Corp v. Lewis (7th Circuit), Ernst & Young v. Morris (9th Circuit) and National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA (5th Circuit). All three cases involved employees who sought to bring collective or class actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"), and their respective employers who sought to enforce pre-dispute arbitration agreements which waived such collective actions and mandated "one-on-one" arbitration of wage disputes. In support of their position, the employees argued that the class and collective action waivers were illegal because they violated the NLRA's prohibition on barring employees from engaging in "concerted activities." Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears LLP attorneys Amy R. Patton, Jason I. Bluver and Jeffrey K. Brown Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com Mr. Bluver may be contacted at jib@paynefears.com Mr. Brown may be contacted at jkb@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

No Coverage for Additional Insured After Completion of Operations

March 26, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Fifth Circuit held there was no duty to defend an additional insured for alleged negligence after completion of the project. Woodward v. Acceptance Indemn. Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2569 (5th Cir. Feb. 11, 2014). Pass Marianne, L.L.C. contracted for the construction of condominiums. The general contractor was Woodward. DCM Corporation, L.L.C. was a subcontractor for the concrete work. DCM worked on the project from January to October 2006. The entire project was completed in August 2007. Pass Marianne sold the condominiums to Lemon Drop Properties in October 2007. Lemon Drop sued Pass Marianne and Woodward a year after purchasing the condominium. Pass Marianne filed a cross-claim against Woodward alleging faulty construction and damage arising out of the construction. The claims were arbitrated. A significant issue in the arbitration was the fault of the concrete subcontractor, DCM. 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

Louisiana 13th in List of Defective Bridges

November 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
About 1,800 bridges in the state of Louisiana have been rendered structurally deficient. According to a report by WAFB, that means “at least one of the three key parts of a bridge has a major defect.” Although the bridges need repair, they are not yet classified as unsafe, which would lead to the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development closing the bridges. Over the last five years, the state has spent a billion dollars on repairing, maintaining, and replacing bridges, but the number keeps growing. The DOTD would not release a list of compromised bridges in the state, citing legal concerns. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Final Furnishing Date is a Question of Fact

November 10, 2016 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
Construction liens need to be recorded within 90 days from the lienor’s final furnishing date on the project. This date is exclusive of punchlist or warranty work. The final furnishing date needs to be proven at trial to establish that the construction lien was timely recorded. If there is an evidentiary dispute as the final furnishing date (the contractor claims the date was “x” to establish the lien was timely and the owner claims the date was “y” to establish the lien was untimely), then the date is a question of fact to be determined by the jury. For instance, in Best Drywall Services, Inc. v. Blasczyk, 2016 WL 6246701 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016), a contractor and owner entered into an oral agreement for a residential renovation project. The contractor recorded a construction lien after its final two invoices went unpaid. During trial, the contractor offered conflicting evidence as to when its final furnishing date on the project was. Numerous dates were offered in the record including dates that were more than 90 days prior to the date the contractor recorded its lien, meaning the lien was arguably untimely. As a result, the trial judge entered a directed verdict in favor of the owner and against the contractor on the contractor’s lien claim finding the lien was untimely recorded. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Katz, Barron, Squitero, Faust, Friedberg, English & Allen, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@katzbarron.com

Millennials Want Houses, Just Like Everybody Else

September 17, 2014 — Peter Coy – Bloomberg
The proportion of homeownership among young adults has fallen from a third to a quarter over the past half-century. But the idea that today’s millennials are allergic to deeds and mortgages is a myth, says a report based on a survey of more than 1,000 Americans aged 18-29 by the Demand Institute, a nonprofit jointly operated by the Conference Board and Nielsen (NLSN). “Like most myths, there is some truth here—but only some,” says the report’s introduction. The true part is that millennials are financially squeezed because of “graduating into a weak job market with growing student loan debt,” Jeremy Burbank, a Demand Institute vice president, said in a statement. The false part, the report says, is that millennials don’t want to own their homes. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Peter Coy, Bloomberg
Mr. Coy may be contacted at pcoy3@bloomberg.net

The Colorado Supreme Court holds that loans made to a construction company are not subject to the Mechanic’s Lien Trust Fund Statute

February 21, 2013 — W. Berkeley Mann, Jr. — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
In a prior blog post, we summarized the Court of Appeals decision in the case of AC Excavating, Inc. v. Yale, ___ P. 3d. ___, 2010 WL 3432219 (Colo. App. Sept. 2, 2010) which provided an interpretation of the Colorado Mechanic’s Lien Trust Fund Statute, C.R.S. § 38-22-127 (hereafter “the Trust Fund Statute”). A divided Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, and held that capital loans infused into a limited liability company which performed construction could be subject to the provisions of the Trust Fund Statute. The Court of Appeals reasoned that this determination was necessary because the statute was considered applicable to “all funds disbursed on a construction project.” Additionally, the Court of Appeals held that the intent of the provider of funds was not relevant, and that the statute applied “irrespective of the [originator of the funds]’s intended use of the funds.” This decision was reviewed by the Colorado Supreme Court in an opinion released on February 4, 2013, and it reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision. See, Yale v. AC Excavating, Inc., ___ P. 3d. ___, 2013 WL 441895 (Colo. Feb. 4, 2013). The Supreme Court strongly disagreed that loaned or infused capital funds which were obtained by the general contractor entity were “funds disbursed on a construction project,” simply because some of the infused monies were used for operational purposes to pay down specific project obligations. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of W. Berkeley Mann, Jr.
mann@hlmrlaw.com

Bad Welds Doom Art Installation at Central Park

October 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Last year, the sculpture “How I Roll” was supposed to be doing its rolling at Central Park from June through August of last year, but the exhibit was taken down a month early, over concerns that the welding had rendered the moving piece “structurally unsound and unsafe.” Now the Public Art Fund is suing the company hired to do the welding. Titon Builders of Lake Park, Florida was supposed to do the welding, but they subcontracted the work to Tru-Steel Corp. of Fort Pierce, Florida. The Public Art Fund is claiming that Titon’s contract obligated them to do the fabrication, not subcontract it. Jeffrey Klein, a lawyer for the Public Art Fund, said, “it’s sad that it had to be taken down because of shoddy workmanship.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES