Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Measure of Damages for a Chattel Including Loss of Use

November 16, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In a non-construction case, but an interesting case nonetheless, the Second District Court of Appeals talks about the measure of damages when dealing with chattel (property) including loss of use damages. Chattel, you say? While certainly not a word used in everyday language, a chattel is “an item of tangible movable or immovable property except real estate and things (such as buildings) connected with real property.” Equipment, machinery, personal items, furniture, etc. can be considered chattel. With respect to the measure of damages for a chattel:

“Where a person is entitled to a judgment for harm to chattels not amounting to a total destruction in value,” the plaintiff may make an election out of two theories of recovery in addition to compensation for the loss of use. Badillo v. Hill, 570 So. 2d 1067, 1068 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (quoting Restatement of Torts § 928 (Am. Law Inst. 1939)). In addition to compensation for the loss of use, the plaintiff may elect either “the difference between the value of the chattel before the harm and the value after the harm” or “the reasonable cost of repairs or restoration where feasible, with due allowance for any difference between the original value and the value after repairs.” Id. (quoting Restatement of Torts § 928).

Sack v. WSW Rental of Sarasota, LLC, 45 Fla.L.Weekly D2306a (Fla. 2d DCA 2020). Sack is a good example of a case dealing with the measure of damages with a chattel, here, an aircraft, including loss of use damages. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Recent Supreme Court Decision Could Have Substantial Impact on Builders

January 23, 2023 — Cassidy Ingram - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
On October 27, 2022, the Washington State Supreme Court issued a decision which could have a substantial impact on the enforceability of contract clauses that require litigation to be commenced within a stated period of time from project completion. In Tadych v. Noble Ridge Construction, Inc.,the Supreme Court held that the contractual one-year statute of limitations for bringing claims against the contractor was substantively unconscionable and reversed the Court of Appeals. In Tadych, plaintiff owners (the Tadychs) contracted with defendant contractor (Noble Ridge Construction, Inc., or NRC) for the construction of a custom home in 2012. The contract included a one-year claim limitations clause that required claims to be raised within a one year period from project completion and that any claims not raised during the one-year period would be waived. In December 2013, as the project neared completion, the Tadychs met with NRC to identify any outstanding project issues. The Tadychs noted several, including rainwater pools at the landing at the bottom of the stairs and several nicks and cracks on the stucco exterior walls. The Tadychs moved into the home on April 8, 2014, and the City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development conducted its final site inspection on April 15 and approved the residence for occupancy on April 23. In January or February of 2015, the Tadychs began to notice a shift in their home. In February of 2015, the Tadychs engaged the Construction Dispute Resolution (CDR) to review NRC’s work. CDR raised concerns about the adequacy of the home’s construction and prepared a written report in March 2015 indicating several deviations from the architectural plans and building codes. The Tadychs sent this report to NRC, who assured the Tadychs that NRC’s work followed all requirements and rejected any claims that there were deviations from the plans. The Tadychs continued to notice issues with the home through October 2016. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Cassidy Ingram, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
Ms. Ingram may be contacted at cassidy.ingram@acslawyers.com

New Mandatory Bond Notice Forms in Florida

December 16, 2019 — Brian A. Wolf & Miles D. Jolley - Smith Currie
Subcontractors and suppliers must now use new, statutory notice of nonpayment forms to preserve payment bond claims, and sign each notice of nonpayment under oath. The State of Florida instituted changes to the statutes governing public-project payment bonds (section 255.05, Florida Statutes) and private-project payment bonds (section 713.23, Florida Statutes). The changes went into effect on October 1, 2019. Previously, notices of nonpayment were not required to be signed under oath. Now, the law requires the use of specific statutory notice forms that claimants must sign under oath. Previously, there were no statutory penalties for claimants who exaggerated the amount claimed against a payment bond. Now there are specific statutory penalties against a claimant who willfully or negligently signs a notice of nonpayment that includes a claim for work not performed or materials not furnished, or who is guilty of signing a notice prepared with willful or gross negligence. Public construction payment bonds are governed by section 255.05, Florida Statues, also known as Florida’s Little Miller Act. This statute requires all payment bond claimants who don’t have a direct contract with the general contractor to serve both the bonding company and the general contractor with a notice of nonpayment no later than 90 days after their last date of work or last delivery of materials. The amended statute now requires that the claimant use the statutory notice form and sign the form under oath. If the claimant includes exaggerated claims, or intentionally makes a claim for work or materials not provided, or otherwise prepares a notice with gross negligence, then the bonding company and the general contractor will be able to use such as a complete defense to an otherwise valid bond claim. Reprinted courtesy of Brian A. Wolf, Smith Currie and Miles D. Jolley, Smith Currie Mr. Wolf may be contacted at bawolf@smithcurrie.com Mr. Jolley may be contacted at mdjolley@smithcurrie.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Singer Ordered to Deposition in Construction Defect Case

December 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The pop singer Rihanna has sued the former owners of her Los Angeles home and the firm that inspected it before her purchase alleging water intrusion problems that were supposed to be fixed before close of escrow. The lawsuit was filed under the singer’s legal name, Robyn Fenty. According to Gregory Pyfrom, the attorney for LaRocca Inspection Associates, he has tried to depose her over the last two years, without success. He is seeking $7,500 in compensation to his clients for the singer’s failure to schedule a deposition. Rihanna’s attorney, Miles Cooley, described this as “a smear campaign,” and claims that the parties had agreed not to depose her “until after the matter was mediated.” Mr. Cooley says that mediation has been delayed by Mr. Pyfrom’s vacation plans. LaRocca Inspection Associates has countersued Rihanna, claiming that if she had alerted them earlier to problems they would have performed an additional inspection. The judge in the case has now ordered that the parties agree to a date on which to depose Ms. Fenty. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New Standard Addresses Wind Turbine Construction Safety Requirements and Identifies Hazards

October 09, 2018 — Christopher Daniels - Construction Executive
American Society of Safety Professionals’ industry consensus standard, ANSI/ASSP A10.21 – 2018 Safety Requirements for Safe Construction and Demolition of Wind Generation/Turbine Facilities, is the first standard to identify and address hazards specific to wind turbine construction. It includes nearly a dozen appendices that provide additional consideration and guidance for hazards that vary between projects, turbines and geographical areas. The new A10.21 standard starts by requiring a site hazard identification prior to construction commencing. It establishes the general contractor as the responsible party for site hazard identification assessment. This is because the general contractor is usually one of the first entities on site able to assess the various challenges/concerns such as: geography, utilities, environmental, etc. This assessment is usually done by driving the project site and identifying GPS coordinates of specific challenges. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Daniels, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Daniels may be contacted at chris.daniels@mortenson.com

Supreme Court Finds Insurance Coverage for Intentional (and Despicable) Act of Contractor’s Employee

July 21, 2018 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Not to cast shade on your fun in the sun, but here’s an unusual, albeit sad and creepy, one for you. I’m bummed even writing about this one. In Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction Company, Inc., Case No. S236765 (June 4, 2018), the California Supreme Court addressed whether a general contractor’s commercial general liability carrier was obligated to defend and whether the carrier was liable for damages sustained by a young girl who was molested by an employee of the general contractor during construction at a school. At issue was whether the policy’s definition of an “occurrence,” which was defined, like most policies, as “an accident,” was triggered by the “intentional” and clearly not accidental act of the general contractor’s employee. 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

Appeals Court Rules that Vertical and Not Horizontal Exhaustion Applies to Primary and First-Layer Excess Insurance

August 31, 2020 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Santa Fe Braun v. Ins. Co. of North America (No. A151428, filed 7/13/20), a California appeals court relied on Montrose Chemical Corp. of California v. Superior Court (2020) 9 Cal.5th 215 (Montrose III), to hold that absent express policy wording to the contrary, horizontal exhaustion of all primary insurance is not required in order to trigger first-layer excess coverage. Beginning in 1992, Braun was sued for asbestos injuries from refineries it constructed and maintained. Braun had primary coverage and multiple layers of excess coverage for the relevant time period. After defending for years, the primary insurers reached a settlement under which they paid their limits into a trust which would fund the ongoing defense and settlements. Certain of the excess insurers settled and also contributed to the trust. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Georgia Supreme Court Rules Construction Defects Can Constitute an Occurrence in CGL Policies

April 05, 2011 — Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFF

Recently, the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the decision in American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company v Hathaway Development Company, Inc. stating that because Whisnant’s faulty workmanship caused damage to the surrounding properties, the construction defects constituted “occurrences” under the Commercial General Liability (CGL) policy. Unlike the South Carolina Supreme court ruling in the case of Crossman Communities v Harleysville Mutual, the Georgia Supreme Court stated that an accident can happen intentionally if the effect is not the intended result.

Interestingly, the only dissenting judge, J. Melton, disagreed with his colleagues on the basis that “although the term ‘accident’ is not specifically defined in the policy, it is axiomatic that an ‘accident’ cannot result from ‘intentional’ behavior.” It is clear that what constitutes an occurrence in CGL policies is still being hotly debated.

Read the full story...

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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES