SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

A Recession Is Coming, But the Housing Market Won't Trigger It

June 12, 2023 — Edward Harrison - Bloomberg
One big reason to continue to believe this is no 2008-style financial crisis in the making is the housing market, which has held up well. That means, we’re more likely to experience a garden-variety recession, and I think it will happen sometime later this year. Why this isn’t another 2008-style crisis Residential property was famously the trigger for a cataclysmic global financial crisis a decade and a half ago. That’s because residential property is one of the principal assets of the middle classes across the globe. And it’s a leveraged investment to boot because of the money borrowed through mortgages. That makes large and pervasive house-price declines toxic for the economy. But not that many people are worrying about house prices today. So I thought I’d take a breather from the doom and gloom surrounding commercial real estate, banks and the debt ceiling to focus on house prices and why they aren’t worrying us this go round. And I’ll use one of the pricier markets, the UK, as a first example. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Edward Harrison, Bloomberg

---

The One New Year’s Resolution You’ll Want to Keep if You’re Involved in Public Works Projects

January 07, 2015 — Garret Murai- California Construction Law Blog
New Year’s resolutions are hard to keep. In fact, studies (which I have a sneaking suspicion may have been paid for by the tobacco, donut and vacation timeshare lobbies) have found that only 8% of New Year’s resolutions are kept. But, here’s one you’ll want to make sure you keep. Mandatory Registration and Notice Requirements If you’re a public works contractor or subcontractor you only have until March 1, 2015 to register through the California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) to bid and enter into public works contracts on state and local public works projects. And if you’re a state or local public agency you must provide notice of the DIR’s new registration requirements in all call for bids and contract documents beginning January 1, 2015. 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

---

Connecticutt Class Action on Collapse Claims Faces Motion to Dismiss

January 02, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court dismissed some insurers from a class action suit alleging failure to provide coverage for collapse claims. Halloran v. Harleysville Preferred Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179807 (D. Conn. Oct. 19, 2018). A class of homeowners brought suit in 2016 against their homeowners insurance companies ("defendants") for failure to cover collapse claims. Plaintiffs alleged they bought their homes between 1984 and 2015. Each of the homes had basement walls that were "crumbling and cracking due to the oxidation of certain minerals contained in the concrete." As a result of the deteriorating concrete, plaintiffs claimed that their basement walls were in a state of collapse. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

New York’s Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act Imposes Increased Disclosure Requirements On Defendants at the Beginning of Lawsuits

February 07, 2022 — Craig Rokuson & Lisa M. Rolle - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
On December 31, 2021, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law the Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act, which amends Section 3101(f) of the Civil Practice Law & Rules (CPLR) to require the automatic disclosure of insurance-related items within sixty days of the filing of an answer in a civil suit. For lawsuits pending as of the effective date of the Act, the disclosures required by Section 3101(f) must be provided by March 1, 2022. Pursuant to amended Section 3101(f), defendants (including third-party defendants, cross-claim defendants, and counterclaim defendants) must provide the following information to plaintiffs within sixty days of answering the affirmative pleading, accompanied with a certification from both the defendant and his/her/their/its defense counsel that the disclosures are accurate and complete:

• Copies of all insurance policies that may be liable to satisfy a judgment in the lawsuit, including the insurance application.
• The contact information of any individuals responsible for adjusting the claim on each policy, including his/her/their phone number and email address. If a TPA is involved, his/her/their contact information must also be disclosed.

Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman and Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Settlement Reached in Bridge Failure Lawsuit

December 11, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Officials claimed the failure of a bridge in Afton Township, Illinois was because trucks owned by Welded Construction used the bridge despite exceeding the bridge’s weight limit of 36.5 tons. The firm argued that they should be responsible for the depreciated cost of the bridge, not its replacement cost. Welded Construction had been using the bridge to get to the site of an oil pipeline construction project for Enbridge Energy. Replacement of the bridge was initially estimated at $933,000, but that was in advance of any design work. Enbridge Energy settled the case at $900,000, which should cover most or all of the cost of repair or replacement. Some federal funds may also be available for repairing or constructing a new bridge. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

When Does a Claim Against an Insurance Carrier for Failing to Defend Accrue?

November 07, 2012 — David McLain, Colorado Construction Litigation
The following is an update on our December 20, 2010 article regarding United States Fire Insurance Company v. Pinkard Construction Company, Civil Action No. 09-CV-01854-MSK-MJW, and its underlying dispute, Legacy Apartments v. Pinkard Construction Company, Case No. 2003 CV 703, Boulder County Dist. Ct. That article can be found here. The present action, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., et al. v. The North River Insurance Co., et al., Civil Action No. 10-CV-02936-MSK-CBS, encompasses the coverage battle that ensued between Pinkard’s insurers, Travelers Indemnity Company of America (“Travelers”) and United States Fire Insurance Company (“USFI”), following the settlement of Legacy’s construction defect claims against Pinkard. A short history of the underlying facts is as follows: In 1995, Pinkard constructed the Legacy Apartments housing complex in Longmont, Colorado. Following construction, Legacy notified Pinkard of water leaks associated with various elements of construction. Legacy ultimately filed suit against Pinkard in 2003, and would go on to clarify and amend its defect claims in 2004, 2006, and again in 2008. Following Pinkard’s notification of Legacy’s claims, USFI provided a defense to Pinkard, but Travelers refused to do so, on the purported basis that Legacy’s allegations did not implicate property damage under the terms of Travelers’ policy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain can be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

---

Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment in Landis v. Fannin Builders

April 20, 2011 — Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFF

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in Landis v. William Fannin Builders. Landis contracted Fannin Builders to build their home. The case involved staining problems on the T1-11 siding chosen by the plaintiffs.



After a year and a half of discussion on how to resolve the problem of uneven staining on the siding, Landis filed suit “against Fannin Builders, alleging claims for breach of contract, breach of the express limited warranty, and violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (“OCSPA”). Fannin Builders, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against 84 Lumber, alleging claims for breach of contract and indemnification. With the trial court’s leave, Fannin Builders also later amended its answer to add a counterclaim against appellees for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. In the counterclaim, Fannin Builders alleged that appellees still owed it $3,908.98 for the construction of appellees’ home.”



“In its decision, the trial court found in appellees’ favor on their breach of contract claim and against appellees on their claims for breach of the express limited warranty and violation of the OCSPA. Additionally, the trial court found in Fannin Builders’ favor on its counterclaim for breach of contract and against Fannin Builders on its third-party claims for breach of contract and indemnity. The trial court determined that appellees’ damages amounted to $66,906.24, and after setting off the $3,908.98 that appellees owed Fannin Builders under the construction contract, the trial court awarded appellees $62,997.26. The trial court reduced its decision to judgment on May 18, 2010.”



Fannin Builders appealed this judgment and assigned the following errors:



[1.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant Breached its Contract with Appellees when it provided a Semi-Transparent Oil-Based Stain that Simply did not Meet their Approval.



[a.] The Contract does not Contain a Satisfaction Clause.



[b.] Even if the Court Implies a Satisfaction Clause, the Court Should Apply an Objective Standard.



[2.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Failing to Consider Appellant’s Right to Cure.



[3.] The Trial Court committed Reversible Error by not Assessing Damages Using “Diminished Value Standard,” and by Creating a Remedy that Constitutes Economic Waste.



[4.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant is Barred from Seeking Indemnification When 84 [Lumber] Never Fulfilled its Obligations Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement Entered on August 2, 2005.



In response to the first assigned error, the Court of Appeals stated: “Because the failure to provide siding of a uniform color, not appellees’ displeasure, breached the contract, we reject Fannin Builders’ contention that the trial court implied a satisfaction clause into the contract and found a breach of that clause. Accordingly, we overrule Fannin Builders’ first assignment of error.”



The Court of Appeals overruled the second assignment of error and provided the following reasoning: “Although Fannin Builders depends upon a term of the limited warranty for its right to cure, the trial court concluded that no breach of the limited warranty occurred. Fannin Builders breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIA’s Quality Standards. Consequently, the limited warranty does not apply to this case, and thus, it does not prevent appellees’ recovery of damages.”



The Appeals Court found “the trial court’s award of damages” was “both reasonable and supported by competent, credible evidence,” and therefore concluded “that the trial court did not err in setting appellees’ damages at $62,997.26.” The Fannin Builders third assignment of error was overruled.



The fourth and final assignment of error was also overruled by the Court of Appeals. “While Fannin Builders correctly asserts that 84 Lumber never installed the replacement siding, it ignores the fact that it ordered 84 Lumber to remove the replacement siding from appellees’ property. Thus, Fannin Builders precluded 84 Lumber from completely performing under the August 2, 2005 letter agreement. […] Consequently, Fannin Builders cannot now claim that the letter agreement is unenforceable or that it is entitled to indemnification from 84 Lumber. Because Fannin Builders assumed all liability for the defective siding in the letter agreement, it is responsible for appellees’ damages.”



James A. Zitesman, Columbus, Ohio Business Attorney, compared the case to Jones v. Centex (Ohio App. 2010), which had a different verdict:



“The common thread is the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the Jones case, the Court found that the buyers had in fact waived all implied warranties, including the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the contract between Jones and Centex, the builder stated that it “…would not sell the property to Purchasers without this waiver.” Probably should have been a sign to the buyers.



In the Landis case, the Court stated, “Contracts for the future construction of a residence include a duty, implied by law, that the builder must perform its work in a workmanlike manner.” The Court gave significant weight to the concept of the implied warranty of good workmanship. The builder relied upon the BIA Warranty which limits builders’ liability and exposure to legal issues. The trial court concluded there was no breach of the limited warranty, rather the builder “breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIAs Quality Standards.”



The Supreme Court of Ohio has accepted the Jones v. Centex Homes case for review.



Read the full story...

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

---

LA County Begins Arduous Cleanup, Rebuild Effort in Altadena as New Fire Flares

January 28, 2025 — Scott Blair - Engineering News-Record
During a survey of fire-damaged neighborhoods and business districts in Altadena, Calif., LA County Public Works Director Mark Pestrella highlighted to ENR the Herculean effort to come to mitigate hazards, clean up debris and rebuild entire neighborhoods lost in the Eaton and Palisades fires. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott Blair, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Blair may be contacted at blairs@enr.com

---