Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

A Community Constantly on the Brink of Disaster

February 06, 2023 — Jason Daniel Feld - Kahana Feld
In the beautiful coastline region along the famous Pacific Coast Highway between Ventura and Santa Barbara rests the small cottage town of La Conchita. With unobstructed ocean views, this community is only 820 feet wide on a narrow strip of land abutting a 590 feet high cliffside bluff. The bluff has a slope of approximately 35 degrees and consists of poorly cemented marine sediments. This is the perfect recipe for constant disaster from a geological perspective and the site of several major landslides that have devastated this community. Geologic evidence indicates that landslides, which are part of the larger Rincon Mountain slides, have been occurring at and near La Conchita for many thousands of years up to the present with reported landslides beginning as early as 1865. In both 1889 and 1909, the Southern Pacific Rail Line running along the coast was inundated. In the 1909 slide, a train was buried. Since that time, other slides have occurred, covering at times cultivated land, roadways, and the community itself. The two most devastating landslides occurred in 1995 and 2005. 1995 Landslide From October 1994-March 1995, there was double the amount of seasonal rainfall for the area – in excess of 30 inches. The slide occurred on March 3, 1995, when surface cracks in the upper part of the slope opened on the hillside, and surface runoff was infiltrating into the subsurface. The heavy rains essentially saturated the slope causing a massive slide. On March 4, 1995, the hill behind La Conchita failed, moving tens of meters in minutes, and buried nine homes with no loss of life. The County of Ventura immediately declared the whole community a Geological Hazard Area, imposing building restrictions on the community to restrict new construction. On March 10, 1995, a subsequent debris flow from a canyon to the northwest damaged five additional houses in the northwestern part of La Conchita. In total, the slide measured approximately 390 feet wide, 1080 feet long and 98 feet deep. The deposit covered approximately 9.9 acres, and the volume was estimated to be approximately 1.7 million cubic yards of sediment. The devastation was immeasurable and the damage to homes, property and infrastructure was in the millions of dollars to repair. Litigation quickly arose following the 1995 slide with seventy-one homeowners suing the La Conchita Ranch Co. in Bateman v. La Conchita Ranch Co. The judge ruled that irrigation was not the major cause of the slide and that the ranch owners were not responsible. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jason Daniel Feld, Kahana Feld
Mr. Feld may be contacted at jfeld@kahanafeld.com

Most Common OSHA Violations Highlight Ongoing Risks

July 27, 2020 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
In the 12 months from October 2018 through September 2019, the most recent period reported by OSHA,[1] the workplace safety agency cited the following standards[2] more than any other in the 28 states which do not have OSHA-approved state plans, including Colorado:

1926.501 – Duty to have fall protection – included in 459 citations, resulting in $2,475,596 in penalties ($5,393/citation);
1926.451 – General requirements for scaffolds – included in 265 citations, resulting in $834,324 in penalties ($3,148/citation);
1926.1053 – Requirements for ladders including job-made ladders – included in 164 citations, resulting in $354,853 in penalties ($2,163/citation);
1926.503 – Training requirements related to fall protection - included in 114 citations, resulting in $156,076 in penalties ($1,369/citation);
1926.405 - Wiring methods, components, and equipment for general use – included in 93 citations, resulting in $150,821 in penalties ($1,621/citation);
1926.20 - General safety and health provisions – included in 85 citations, resulting in $328,491 in penalties ($3,864/citation);
1926.1052 – Requirements for stairways – included in 79 citations, resulting in $155,651 in penalties ($1,970/citation);
1926.102 – Requirements for eye and face protection - included in 67 citations, resulting in $165,595 in penalties ($2,471/citation);
1926.403 – General requirements for electrical conductors and equipment – included in 63 citations, resulting in $146,050 in penalties ($2,318/citation), and;
1926.100 – Requirements for head protection – included in 55 citations, resulting in $127,274 in penalties ($2,314/citation).

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

You Can Take This Job and Shove It!

June 10, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
That’s it. You’ve had it. They can take their job and shove it! But can you really tell an owner on a construction project to proverbially shove it where the sun don’t shine? Well, far be it for me to tread on your First Amendment Rights or stick my nose into the subsequently brought public disturbance charges against you. But can you legally tell an owner to shove it, and that you’re no longer going to perform work on their [insert expletive] project? Well, indeed you can, in limited circumstances, and it’s called a “Stop Work Notice.” Note: A stop work notice is different from a stop payment notice. What is a stop work notice? A stop work notice is a notice given by a direct contractor to a project owner that the contractor will stop work if an amount owed to the contract is not paid within 10 days after notice is given. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

U.S. Architecture Firms’ Billing Index Faster in Dec.

February 05, 2015 — Bloomberg News
(Bloomberg) -- Billings at U.S. architecture firms grew at a higher rate in December, according to the American Institute of Architects. Billings at architecture firms, tracked by the Work-on-the-Boards survey, measured 52.2 in December compared to 50.9 a month earlier. The inquiry index, which tracks a firm’s capacity to take on additional work, moved to 58.2. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg News

Traub Lieberman Attorneys Burks Smith and Katie Keller Win Daubert Motion Excluding Plaintiff’s Expert’s Testimony in the Middle District of Florida

September 20, 2021 — Burks A. Smith, III & Kathryn Keller - Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Partner, Burks Smith, and Associate, Katie Keller, represented a national property insurer in a breach of contract action brought by a homeowner in the Middle District of Florida for substantial property damage alleged to have been caused by hail and wind. Throughout the course of litigation, the homeowner disclosed his expert, which is the same individual that prepared the homeowner’s estimate of damages and causation report. The expert’s credentials list that he is a general contractor, independent adjuster, and inspector. Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller moved under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and Federal Rule of Evidence 702 to exclude testimony and introduction of any evidence prepared by the homeowner’s expert. Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller argued that the homeowner’s expert was not qualified to render expert testimony in this case, as he did not have the requisite qualifications to render an expert opinion, the methodology utilized by the expert to form his opinion was not sufficiently reliable, and his anticipated testimony was not helpful in the case, as it is imprecise and unspecific. Therefore, the expert’s opinions did not meet the standards for admission of expert testimony as set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and should not be admitted as expert testimony at trial. Reprinted courtesy of Burks A. Smith, III, Traub Lieberman and Kathryn Keller, Traub Lieberman Mr. Smith may be contacted at bsmith@tlsslaw.com Ms. Keller may be contacted at kkeller@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Rancosky Adopts Terletsky: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Sets Standard for Statutory Bad Faith Claims

September 28, 2017 — John Anooshian & Sean Mahoney - White & Williams LLP
Earlier today, in a case of first impression, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted the Terletsky two-part test for proving a statutory “bad faith” claim under 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8371, which requires that a plaintiff present “clear and convincing evidence (1) that the insurer did not have a reasonable basis for denying benefits under the policy and (2) that the insurer knew of or recklessly disregarded its lack of a reasonable basis.” Rancosky v. Washington National Insurance Company, No. 28 WAP 2016 (Pa. Sept. 28, 2017). The court further ruled that proof of an insurer’s “subjective motive of self-interest or ill-will,” while potentially probative of the second prong of the test, is not a requirement to prevail under § 8371. Evidence of an insurer’s “knowledge or reckless disregard for its lack of a reasonable basis” for denying a claim alone, according to the court, is sufficient even in cases seeking punitive damages. Reprinted courtesy of John Anooshian, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Sean Mahoney, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Anooshian may be contacted at anooshianj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Mahoney may be contacted at majoneys@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

How to Build a Coronavirus Hospital in Ten Days

April 20, 2020 — Elaine Lee - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
If the coronavirus pandemic continues to spread in the United States as it has in other countries, drastic expansions of hospital and quarantine facility capacity are likely to be necessary. In the hard-hit Seattle area, several temporary facilities are already under construction, including a 200-bed temporary quarantine and isolation center built on a soccer field. China’s response to the initial outbreak in the city of Wuhan demonstrates how rapidly authorities can add capacity in an emergency. As thousands of citizens became ill with COVID-19, China built two hospitals in Wuhan over the span of just days. Time-lapse videos such as this one show how remarkably quickly the hospitals were built. Construction on the Huoshenshan Hospital (shown in the prior linked video) began on January 23 and finished eight days later. A second hospital, Leishenshan Hospital, began construction on January 25 and finished 12 days later. Square footage information on both hospitals has been inconsistently reported, but Huoshenshan Hospital has a capacity for 1,000 beds, while Leishenshan Hospital has a capacity for 1,600 beds. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Elaine Lee, Pillsbury
Ms. Lee may be contacted at elaine.lee@pillsburylaw.com

Attorney-Client Privilege in the Age of Cyber Breaches

October 18, 2021 — Shaia Araghi - Newmeyer Dillion
Investigations and forensic reports relating to a cybersecurity breach may not always be protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product protection. Companies seeking such reports after a data breach must take caution to protect them from a possible waiver of privilege in the event of subsequent litigation relating to a data breach. The following recent cases highlight the potential waiver of privilege in light of the preparation of a forensic report.

In re Capital One Consumer Data Security Breach Litigation, 2020 WL 3470261 (E.D. Va. June 25, 2020)

After a data breach occurred, Capital One retained a law firm that later entered into an agreement with Mandiant for various cyber-related services (including incident remediation), which required that Mandiant provide deliverables to the firm, rather than to Capitol One. In re Capital One Consumer Data Security Breach Litigation, 2020 WL 2731238, at *1 (E.D. Va. June 25, 2020). Plaintiffs sought release of the report created by Mandiant (regarding the factors leading to the breach), arguing that it was prepared for business and regulatory purposes and therefore was not privileged, while Capital One argued that the report was privileged because it was prepared in anticipation of litigation. Ibid. The Court determined that Capital One did not carry its burden of establishing that the report was protected by the attorney work-product doctrine and ordered that Capital One produce the report. Id. at *7. In its reasoning, the Court stated that the fact that there is litigation does not, by itself, provide prepared materials with work-product protection. Ibid. The work-product protection applies when a party faces a claim following an event that may result in litigation, and the work product would not have been prepared in a substantially similar form but for the prospect of that litigation. Ibid.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Shaia Araghi, Newmeyer Dillion
Ms. Araghi may be contacted at shaia.araghi@ndlf.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES