Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Construction Defect Risks Shifted to Insurers in 2013

December 11, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Recent court decisions have tended to view construction defects as covered under insurance policies, “allowing construction companies to shift the costs of their faulty workmanship to their insurers, thereby reversing the previous public policy trend against coverage for such claims.” John Husmann and Adam Fleischer of Bates Carey Nicolaides review some of the 2013 decisions that reversed “the previous public policy trend against coverage for such claims.” They note that “for some time, courts have recognized that there is a public policy against allowing construction companies to get paid to perform faulty workmanship, and then force their insurers to be the financers for the repair and replacement costs.” But in 2013, the courts “strayed from those public policy considerations upon which previous decisions relied.” With reference to specific cases and decisions, they discuss three ways in which the courts have change course. The first is whether faulty workmanship is an “occurrence.” The next is if faulty workmanship is covered when it damages non-faulty work of the same project. And finally, whether exclusions for particular parts of the property extend to the work done in that area. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Congratulations to Haight’s 2021 Super Lawyers San Diego Rising Stars

May 03, 2021 — Catherine M. Asuncion, Arezoo Jamshidi & Michael C. Parme - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Haight congratulates partners Michael Parme and Arezoo Jamshidi and associate Catherine Asuncion who were selected to the 2021 San Diego Super Lawyers Rising Stars list. Reprinted courtesy of Catherine M. Asuncion, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP, Arezoo Jamshidi, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Michael C. Parme, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Asuncion may be contacted at casuncion@hbblaw.com Ms. Jamshidi may be contacted at ajamshidi@hbblaw.com Mr. Parme may be contacted at mparme@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Liquidated Damages: Too High and It’s a Penalty. Too Low and You’re Out of Luck.

November 21, 2022 — Christian Fernandez - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Liquidated damages provisions in commercial and residential real estate contracts play a vital role when a transaction goes south, and should be given careful consideration when negotiating a real estate contract. Liquidated damages may be referred to in a variety of ways, such as “earnest money,” a “good-faith deposit,” or a “non-refundable deposit,” but each typically denote a negotiated amount of money that a seller is entitled to retain should a buyer breach a purchase and sale agreement. The purpose of liquidated damages is to provide the parties with certainty when actual damages arising from a breach of contract may be difficult to calculate. Accordingly, liquidated damages provisions alleviate the need for potentially expensive litigation associated with proving damages. While parties are free to negotiate the amount of liquidated damages, the amount must approximate the loss anticipated at the time of contracting, or the loss that actually occurs as a result of a breach. Arizona courts have held that where the amount of liquidated damages is unreasonably large when compared to the anticipated loss or actual loss, the liquidated damages provision is unenforceable as a penalty. A breaching party faced with high liquidated damages will often seek to invalidate the provision as a penalty. If a court agrees, the non-breaching party may still recover damages, but must go through the process of proving such damages. Therefore, when negotiating a real estate contract, consideration should be given as to whether a liquidated damages amount is arbitrarily high when compared to an anticipated loss in the event of a breach. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christian Fernandez, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Fernandez may be contacted at cfernandez@swlaw.com

CDC Issues Moratorium on Residential Evictions Through 2020

October 05, 2020 — Steven E. Ostrow, C. Jason Kim, & Marissa Levy - White and Williams LLP
On September 1, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced that it was issuing an order (CDC Order) to temporarily halt residential evictions to prevent the further spread of COVID-19. The CDC Order became effective on September 4, 2020 and will remain in effect through December 31, 2020. The purpose of the CDC Order is to keep tenants in their residences to reduce crowding in shelters or other shared housing and to reduce the number of unsheltered homeless, as those conditions have been shown to increase the spread of COVID-19. APPLICABILITY & PROTECTIONS The CDC Order is broader than the previous eviction moratorium under the Coronavirus Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), which applied only to federally-funded housing and expired on July 24, 2020. Eligible renters include those who qualified for a stimulus check under the CARES Act and individuals who expect to make less than $99,000 this year or a joint-filing couple that expects to make less than $198,000. Reprinted courtesy of Steven E. Ostrow, White and Williams LLP, C. Jason Kim, White and Williams LLP, and Marissa Levy, White and Williams LLP Mr. Ostrow may be contacted at ostrows@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Kim may be contacted at kimcj@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Levy may be contacted at levymp@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

District of Oregon Predicts Oregon’s Place in “Plain Meaning” Pollution Camp

March 29, 2017 — William S. Bennett – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The Federal District Court for the District of Oregon recently decided that Carbon Monoxide constitutes a pollutant within the meaning of a pollution exclusion in a Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) policy. In Colony Ins. V. Victory Constr. LLC, No. 3: 16-cv-00457-HZ (Mar. 14, 2017), the District Court considered whether there was coverage for a pool company that allegedly failed to warn of the “risks of carbon monoxide poisoning associated with operating the heater in an insufficiently ventilated area,” leading to carbon monoxide sickness. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Bennett may be contacted at wsb@sdvlaw.com

DE Confirms Robust D&O Protection Despite Company Demise

February 18, 2015 — James Yoder, Michael Onufrak and Siobhan Cole – White and Williams LLP
On Feb. 5, 2015, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, per Judge Brendan L. Shannon, entered proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in favor of the former president and CEO of Ultimate Escapes Inc., James M. Tousignant, and its chairman, Richard Keith, after determining that Tousignant’s actions in negotiating and executing a controversial asset purchase agreement were protected by the business judgment rule, despite the demise of the company a short time later. The failure of a business strategy, in and of itself, does not create liability on the part of the former directors and officers of a bankrupt company. Background Ultimate Escapes was a luxury destination club that provided its members with access to high-end vacation residences around the world. Unfortunately, Ultimate Escapes’ business suffered greatly from the economic downturn that began in 2008, and on Sept. 20, 2010, Ultimate Escapes filed voluntary petitions for relief pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys James Yoder, Michael Onufrak and Siobhan Cole Mr. Yoder may be contacted at yoderj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Onufrak may be contacted at onufrakm@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Cole may be contacted at coles@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CFTC Establishes Climate-Risk Unit, Echoing Other Biden Administration Agency Themes

April 12, 2021 — Karen C. Bennett & Jane C. Luxton - Lewis Brisbois
On March 17, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC or Commission) joined other federal agencies led by Biden Administration appointees in ramping up consideration of climate-related risks in matters under the Commission’s jurisdiction. Stressing the need for a climate-resilient financial system, the CFTC’s new Climate-Risk Unit (CRU) will focus on “the role of derivatives in understanding, pricing, and addressing climate-related risk and transitioning to a low-carbon economy.” Formation of the CRU will accelerate the CFTC’s “engagement in support of industry-led and market-driven processes in the climate – and the larger ESG – space critical to ensuring that new products and markets fairly facilitate hedging, price discovery, market transparency, and capital allocation.” As with similar programs launched by the Securities and Exchange Commission (see our previous alert from March 19), businesses affected by the CFTC’s new initiative should consider active engagement to ensure informed and appropriate approaches are included in any new regulations, policies, or frameworks governing climate-related issues. Reprinted courtesy of Karen C. Bennett, Lewis Brisbois and Jane C. Luxton, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Luxton may be contacted at Jane.Luxton@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Subcontractors Have Remedies, Even if “Pay-if-Paid” Provisions are Enforced

February 19, 2019 — John P. Ahlers - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
In a recent case in Kentucky[1], a sub-tier subcontractor sued the general contractor and owner for failure to pay for extra work. At the trial, the court held the subcontractor was entitled to recover under the theories of implied contracts and unjust enrichment, even though the subcontract contained a “pay-if-paid” clause. All parties appealed. In particular, the general contractor asserted that the pay-if-paid provision in the subcontract precluded recovery by the subcontractor. The issue was petitioned to the Supreme Court of Kentucky. The question to be resolved by the Supreme Court of Kentucky was whether a pay-if-paid provision was enforceable as between a general contractor and subcontractor, and if so, whether the subcontractor could nevertheless pursue the owner directly for payment notwithstanding a lack of privity between the owner and subcontractor. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at john.ahlers@acslawyers.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES