SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Construction Defects Checklist

July 18, 2018 — Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara
Construction defects have existed since humans first began building structures, and will continue to be an occurrence into the future. For builder developers, contractors, and subcontractors, the specter of construction defects is a constant worry. Construction defect litigation is commonplace and can occur years after the construction project has been completed. This opens up an ongoing channel of risk and liability for construction contractors and project managers that are at risk of litigation far after they have completed a project. In this article, we’ll provide a helpful construction defects checklist that outlines the key avenues of risk and areas where construction defects litigation is most often focused. This checklist can help project managers, contractors, and subcontractors anticipate areas of their projects that may need extra attention or focus in order to ensure that they adhere to relevant local and state construction ordinances. Gaining a greater understanding of what construction defects are can provide insight into how construction litigation can prove beneficial for structure owners or contractors who received substandard work. Many clients may not understand that they have an avenue to seek redress in cases where faulty workmanship may have resulted in economic damages or safety concerns in their home, building, or another construction project. Understanding the scope of what a construction defect is, and the areas that are most commonly litigated is helpful to understand when construction defect litigation is a viable option to pursue redress. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara

---

Ninth Circuit Clears the Way for Review of Oregon District Court’s Rulings in Controversial Climate Change Case

February 27, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
On December 26, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit accepted an interlocutory appeal of the presiding District Court’s pre-trial rulings in the novel climate change case that is being tried in Oregon. The case is Juliana, et al. v. United States of America. In its ruling, the Ninth Circuit held that the District Court certification of this case for interlocutory appeal satisfied the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Ninth Circuit precedents authorize such an appeal when a District Court order “involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion”—which aptly characterizes the U.S. Supreme Court’s view of this litigation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

---

Hunton Insurance Recovery Partner Michael Levine Quoted on Why Courts Must Consider the Science of COVID-19

March 15, 2021 — Latosha M. Ellis & Matt Revis - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
One year into the COVID-19 pandemic, courts have issued hundreds of rulings in COVID-19 business interruption lawsuits, many favoring insurers. Yet those pro-insurer rulings are not based on evidence, much less expert opinion evidence. For insurers, ignorance is bliss. Despite early numbers in federal courts favoring insurers (state court decisions actually favor policyholders), the year ahead holds promise for policyholders. Fundamental science is the key. Indeed, as researchers continue to broaden their knowledge about COVID-19, it has become increasingly clear that scientific evidence supports coverage for policyholders’ claims. Reprinted courtesy of Latosha M. Ellis, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Matt Revis, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Ellis may be contacted at lellis@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Defense Victory in Breach of Fiduciary Action

February 26, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Earlier this month, Scott Calkins and Anthony Gaeta of Collinsworth, Specht, Calkins & Giampaoli, LLP obtained a defense verdict in a breach of fiduciary duty action involving a high-rise condominium in downtown San Diego, California. The Association asked for excess of over $3 million, however, the jury returned with a 10-2 defense verdict in favor of K. Hovnanian. Cortez Blu Community Association, Inc. v. K. Hovnanian at Cortez Hill, LLC, et al. initially involved construction defect claims against the developer, K. Hovnanian, and the general contractor, Turner Construction, as well as a claim of breach of fiduciary duty. However, the construction defect claims settled prior to trial leaving only the breach of fiduciary claim. “While it is now becoming ever more common for attorneys representing homeowners associations to allege a breach of fiduciary duty by the developer, there has been little actual litigation of the issues surrounding those claims which test the viability of the allegations or the defenses to them,” defense attorney Anthony Gaeta stated. “A breach of a fiduciary duty by a developer, which is demonstrated to damage the viability of an HOA either to perform regularly scheduled maintenance, or replace building components from its reserves, has the potential in economic terms to surpass the damages from purported construction defects. The Plaintiff argued that K. Hovnanian breached its fiduciary duty to the Association by failing to set adequate reserves within the initial Department of Real Estate budget (“DRE”) for painting, caulking, and power washing the exterior of the building, referencing Raven’s Cove Townhomes, Inc. v. Knuppe Development Co., Inc. (1981) 114 Cal. App. 3d 783. In response, K. Hovnanian stated that in part, the initial reserves as set forth in the DRE budget were adequate, good faith estimates and, therefore, there was no liability for breach of fiduciary duty. “Our case was exclusively concerned with the duties of the developer when forming the initial HOA, preliminary budgets, and reserves,” Gaeta said. “We litigated the duties and responsibilities of the initial board and whether a developer may rely on reports prepared by third-parties during the formation of a common interest development. The jury found our client’s actions and reliance on third-parties was reasonable and, thus, no breach of fiduciary duty occurred.” Collinsworth, Specht, Calkins & Giampaoli is a general civil litigation firm representing clients throughout California and Arizona. You may learn more about the firm at www.cslawoffices.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Structural Health Check-Ups Needed but Are Too Infrequent

August 16, 2021 — Jeff Rubenstone - Engineering News-Record
Knowing when a building is structurally deteriorating, and actually doing something about it can be very different things, as the collapse in Surfside, Fla., has shown this month. And while onsite visual inspections are still the common kind of structural assessment, other methods can assess the health of a building or piece of infrastructure and determine its soundness (see p. 69). Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Rubenstone, Engineering News-Record Mr. Rubenstone may be contacted at rubenstonej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Delays in Filing Lead to Dismissal in Moisture Intrusion Lawsuit

September 09, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals has upheld a summary judgment in the case of Franklin v. Mitchell. Walter Mitchell, doing business as Southern Classic Construction built a new home for the Franklins. The Franklins moved into the home in October 2001. In April 2006 they discovered sagging floors in both the bathroom and kitchen. They contacted Mitchell who suggested the flooring might be defective. The Franklins spent eight months attempting to contact the flooring manufacturer.

In March 2007, the Franklins had the home inspected. The sagging was determined to be due to a loss of strength in the decking because of condensation from the air conditioning system. Air returns were not properly sealed and drawing moisture into the structure. There was mold on the decking and floor joints.

When Mitchell was contacted by the Franklins, he told them his one-year warranty had expired but had the HVAC subcontractor, Southern Mechanical Heating & Air (owned by Mitchell’s father, Jim Mitchell), look at the situation. SMHA replaced and braced subfloors. Later, they entered the crawl space to tape ducts, seal the air return, and insulate the air vent housing. The Franklins were not satisfied with the repairs, as not all the ducts were taped, nor were the air vent housings insulated.

Franklin complained to Walter Mitchell who again cited his one-year warranty. Jim Mitchell said he would not report complaints to his insurer, stating that the repairs were unnecessary, that the work had been done correctly in the first place, and it was only done at the request of Walter Mitchell.

In February 2009, the Franklins sued Walker Mitchell. Mitchell denied the claims, citing in part the statute of limitations. Mitchell also filed complaints against three subcontractors, including his father’s firm. Mitchell received a summary judgment as the case started after Alabama’s six-year statute of limitations.

The appeals court rejected the Franklin’s argument that the claim of damage did not start until they were aware it was due to a construction defect. The court noted that as Walter Mitchell was licensed as a “residential home builder, the statute the Franklins cite did not apply, as it concerns architects, engineers, and licensed general contactors.”

Nor did they feel that Mitchells’ claim that his warranty had expired were sufficient to override the statute of limitations, quoting an earlier case, “Vague assurances do not amount to an affirmative inducement to delay filing suit.” Their claim of subsequent negligent repairs was rejected because Mitchell did not direct the specific actions taken by his father’s firm.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Balancing Cybersecurity Threats in Smart Cities: Is the Potential Convenience of “Smart” Intersections Worth the Risk?

September 02, 2024 — James P. Bobotek & Brian E. Finch - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
The term “smart cities” has become popular parlance for municipalities’ attempts to enhance delivery of urban services and infrastructure through information and communications technology. While they may conjure images of neon-lit high rises or streetscapes populated by sleek, hovering vehicles, a bit like the 1960s-era The Jetsons cartoon envisioned our high-tech future, the reality of smart cities has begun to emerge in more subtle, less glamourous forms. Cities tend to focus on wastewater monitoring, traffic control and energy distribution technologies in their efforts to become incrementally “smarter.” Smart cities lean heavily on automation, internet connectivity and the Internet of Things (IoT)—including smartphones, connected cars and a host of web-based appliances and utilities—to boost the delivery and quality of essential urban services and infrastructure like transit, sanitation, water, energy, emergency response and more. Successful smart cities need infrastructure that supports such connectivity, and they pull data from hundreds, or even thousands, of sensors that can be used to analyze and shepherd the direction of resources. Reprinted courtesy of James P. Bobotek, Pillsbury and Brian E. Finch, Pillsbury Mr. Bobotek may be contacted at james.bobotek@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Finch may be contacted at brian.finch@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Indiana Appellate Court Allows Third-Party Spoliation Claim to Proceed

August 01, 2023 — Ryan Bennett - The Subrogation Strategist
In Safeco Insurance Company of Indiana as Subrogee of Ramona Smith v. Blue Sky Innovation Group, Inc., et al, No. 22A-CT-1924, 2023 Ind. App. LEXIS 157, the Court of Appeals of Indiana (Appellate Court) reversed a trial court ruling that granted the motion to dismiss filed by Michaelis Corporation (Michaelis), a restoration company. The Appellate Court ruled that the trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiff’s spoliation and negligence claims against Michaelis, who discarded evidence relating to the cause of the fire at issue. The plaintiff’s insured owned a home in Indianapolis, Indiana. On Halloween night in 2019, a fire occurred at the property. The plaintiff’s representatives preliminarily determined that the fire may have been caused by a digital dehydrator within the kitchen. Michaelis had a representative present at the site inspection and was allegedly told to preserve the kitchen area. That area was taped off with “caution” tape. Michaelis also placed a tarp over the kitchen to prevent weather damage. Despite the instructions and precautions, Michaelis demolished the kitchen and discarded the dehydrator along with other fire debris. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ryan Bennett, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Bennett may be contacted at bennettr@whiteandwilliams.com

---