Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Appellate Attorney’s Fees and the Significant Issues Test

June 29, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The significant issues test to determine the prevailing party in construction lien actions (which, by the way, also applies to breach of contract actions) applies to appellate attorney’s fees too! Under this test, the trial court has discretion to determine which party prevailed on the significant issues of the case for purposes of attorney’s fees. The trial court also has discretion to determine that neither party was the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees. In a recent decision, Bauer v. Ready Windows Sales & Service Corp., 42 Fla. L. Weekly D1417a (Fla. 3d DCA 2017), there were competing motions for appellate attorney’s fees. Both parties believed they should be deemed the prevailing party under Florida Statute s. 713.29 (statute that authorizes prevailing party attorney’s fees under Florida’s Construction Lien Law). The appellate court held that neither party was the prevailing party under the significant issues test: “[W]e conclude that each party lost on their appeal, while each party successfully defended that part of the judgment in their favor on the other party’s cross-appeal. Because both parties prevailed on significant issues, this Court finds that appellate fees are not warranted for either party.” Bauer, supra. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com

CA Supreme Court Rejects Proposed Exceptions to Interim Adverse Judgment Rule Defense to Malicious Prosecution Action

August 24, 2017 — David W. Evans & Stephen J. Squillario – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Parrish v. Latham & Watkins (No. S228277 - August 10, 2017) (“Parrish”), the California Supreme Court examined the “interim adverse judgment rule” in a different context than previous decisions on the subject. The rule provides that if an earlier action succeeds after a hearing on the merits, this success establishes the existence of probable cause and precludes a subsequent malicious prosecution action. In a typical case applying the rule, a plaintiff in the underlying action defeats the defendant’s motion for summary judgment but then loses the case at trial leading to a subsequent malicious prosecution claim. In Parrish, the Court addressed whether the rule applies when the trial court had denied the defendant’s summary judgment motion but concluded after the defense prevailed at a bench trial that the suit had been brought in “bad faith” due to a lack of evidentiary support. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa Rolle Wins Summary Judgment on Behalf of Contract Utility Company in Personal Injury Action

April 25, 2023 — Lisa M. Rolle - Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa Rolle obtained summary judgment on behalf of a contract utility company (“Utility Company”) in a matter brought before the New York Supreme Court, Queens County. In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that she sustained injuries as a result of a trip and fall accident where the Plaintiff’s foot allegedly went into a hole in the grass strip abutting the sidewalk adjacent to a premises located in Queens, NY. The Plaintiff claimed that the defect in the sidewalk was caused by the removal of a utility pole at the curb strip that was not correctly backfilled. The Defendant Utility Company is in the business of inspecting, treating, and repairing utility and telecommunication structures, including wooden utility poles. TLSS was successfully able to establish that, three years prior to the accident, the Utility Company was retained to conduct a visual inspection of the subject pole. However, the Utility Company does not and has not owned, installed, removed or replaced in-service utility poles in New York or at the location of the alleged accident. Further, TLSS established that the Utility Company did not service or remove the subject pole at the accident site or backfill the curb strip. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman
Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com

Miller Act Bond Claims Subject to “Pay If Paid”. . . Sometimes

November 04, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
The Federal Miller Act is a great tool that subcontractors and suppliers on Federal projects can use for collection of wrongfully withheld amounts due. However, as a recent federal case from the Eastern District of Virginia points out, the construction contract’s terms affect when a subcontractor or supplier can use this great collection tool and how much it can recover. In Aarow v Travelers the Court looked at the interaction between a typical termination clause, a “pay when paid” clause, and the Miller Act. The key facts are these. The general contractor on the project at issue, Syska, did not get paid some disputed amounts by the owner and subsequently did not pay Aarow, the plaintiff and a subcontractor on the project. Aarow then refused to continue work and was terminated by Syska who then took over the completion of the work. Aarow sued, seeking damages for the value of its work prior to the termination. Travellers, the surety defended stating that, if Aarow was properly terminated for cause by Syska, then Aarow was not entitled to payment under the contract until such time as the work was completed and accepted by the owner. The termination clauses are set out in the linked opinion. The Court agreed with Travelers, stating that the pay when paid clause created a situation whereby Aarow could not stop work merely because of a non-payment by Syska attributed to non-payment by the owner. The Court was clear in stating that the Miller Act trumps “pay when paid” in instances where the only cause for non-payment is non-payment by an owner. The Court then reasoned that it is the interaction between the termination and “pay when paid” provisions, and not the “pay when paid” clause itself, that exonerated Travelers because it created the default by Aarow due to its refusal to continue work. In short, Aarow was properly terminated for cause because it left the job without justification and therefore Travelers was not liable. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Subcontractors Found Liable to Reimburse Insurer Defense Costs in Equitable Subrogation Action

August 03, 2020 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Pulte Home Corp. v. CBR Electric, Inc. (No. E068353, filed 6/10/20), a California appeals court reversed the denial of an equitable subrogation claim for reimbursement of defense costs from contractually obligated subcontractors to a defending insurer, finding that all of the elements for equitable subrogation were met, and the equities tipped in favor of the insurer. After defending the general contractor, Pulte, in two construction defect actions as an additional insured on a subcontractor’s policy, St. Paul sought reimbursement of defense costs solely on an equitable subrogation theory against six subcontractors that had worked on the underlying construction projects, and whose subcontracts required them to defend Pulte in suits related to their work. After a bench trial, the trial court denied St. Paul’s claim, concluding that St. Paul had not demonstrated that it was fair to shift all of the defense costs to the subcontractors because their failure to defend Pulte had not caused the homeowners to bring the construction defect actions. The appeals court reversed, holding that the trial court misconstrued the law governing equitable subrogation. Because the relevant facts were not in dispute, the appeals court reviewed the case de novo and found that the trial court committed error in its denial of reimbursement for the defense fees. The appeals court found two errors: First, the trial court incorrectly concluded that equitable subrogation requires shifting of the entire loss. Second, the trial court applied a faulty causation analysis – that because the non-defending subcontractors had not caused the homeowners to sue Pulte, thereby necessitating a defense, St. Paul could not meet the elements of equitable subrogation. 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

Illinois Law Bars Coverage for Construction Defects in Insured's Work

September 24, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Applying Illinois law, the Seventh Circuit determined there was no coverage for faulty workmanship causing property damage to the insured's project. Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Board of Directors of Regal Lofts Condominium Ass'n, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 16250 (7th Cir. Aug. 21, 2014). The developer converted a vacant building into a condominium. The construction was completed in 2000. The Condominium Board took control of the condo association on July 27, 2000. As early as May 2000, one homeowner was aware of water damage problems in the building. Other complaints surfaced. An investigation found that the exterior brick masonry walls were not fully waterproofed, which caused leaks. The investigation further showed that deteriorated conditions had likely developed over many years, even prior to the condominium conversion, but the present water penetration was caused by the inadequate restoration of the walls to a water-tight condition. The underlying action was filed against the developer for failure to properly construct the exterior walls. The developer's carrier, Nautilus, denied coverage. In an amended complaint, the Board added a count of negligence. Again, Nautilus denied coverage. The Board's second amended complaint alleged that the developer's negligence had caused damage to personal property within the building, in addition to the interior of the building and the building itself. For the third time, Nautilus denied coverage and filed for declaratory relief. 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

Construction Defect Lawsuits May Follow Hawaii Condo Boom

January 23, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Hawaii is having a bit of a building boom and with this, as Honolulu Civil Beat points out, comes a boom in construction defect litigation, noting that “if past experience is any indicator, the wave of construction will likely be followed by a surge in complex and, for attorneys at least, profitable litigation.” The article provides plenty of evidence to back up that assertion. Defect claims are already resulted in a settlement at Pinnacle Honolulu, a 37-unit luxury condominium project. The owners received a $2.4 million settlement after building code violations were discovered, including fire partitions that either were not fully extended or were breached in some fashion. Meanwhile, the owners of the Koolani Condominiums are still trying to collect on their $12 million arbitration award related to problems in the water system. Another luxury condominium project, the Hokua Condominiums, also has had problems with flooding from water pipes. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Manufacturer of Asbestos-Free Product May Still Be Liable for Asbestos Related Injuries

July 30, 2015 — Kristian B. Moriarty, R. Bryan Martin and Lee Marshall – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Sherman v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (No. B252566, filed June 18, 2015), the Court of Appeal, Second District, reversed a trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a manufacturer of a brake grinding machine. The Court cited an exception to the general rule that manufacturers may not be held liable, under a strict products liability theory, where the plaintiff’s injuries arise from other products that are used in conjunction with the defendant’s product. Plaintiff and appellant, Michael Sherman, was an automobile mechanic from 1962 to 1977. Mr. Sherman alleged that during this period he used an arcing machine, which abraded brake linings by means of sand paper moving at high speeds. Sherman alleged the machine released asbestos dust, which he then brought home, exposing his wife Debra Sherman to asbestos. Ms. Sherman developed mesothelioma and passed away from exposure to the asbestos dust carried home by her husband. Reprinted courtesy of Kristian B. Moriarty, R. Bryan Martin and Lee Marshall of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Mr. Marshall may be contacted at lmarshall@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES