Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Courts Are Ordering Remote Depositions as the COVID-19 Pandemic Continues

August 10, 2020 — Victor J. Zarrilli, Robert G. Devine & Douglas M. Weck - White and Williams
The COVID-19 pandemic has generally put a stop to in-person depositions nationwide. Many litigants and their attorneys have also resisted attempts to proceed with remote video depositions, some holding out for the pandemic to subside and for the return of in-person business as usual while others are resistant to using new or unfamiliar virtual video technology. However, with COVID-19 cases still increasing nationwide, courts are beginning to mandate that depositions proceed remotely regardless of these apprehensions. It looks like remote video depositions may become part of a new set of best practices and perhaps mandatory in some circumstances for the foreseeable future. The Supreme Court of New Jersey, for example, has ordered that “[t]o the extent practicable . . . depositions should continue to be conducted remotely using necessary and available video technology.” The court has not explicitly mandated remote depositions, but has certainly encouraged trial courts to do so, indicating in orders litigants are “strongly encouraged” to depose witnesses remotely. Other jurisdictions, such as Philadelphia’s First Judicial District, have given trial court’s similar authority and flexibility. Recently, a trial court in Middlesex County, New Jersey granted a motion to compel a defense deposition of the plaintiff to proceed remotely, if not in person, over the objection of plaintiff’s counsel in a slip-and-fall case. This is one of the first such rulings in this area. The plaintiff’s counsel objected to the remote deposition on the grounds that his client was elderly with a heavy accent, had no technology knowledge, and had no internet access. That would seem to be a pretty good argument that a remote deposition would be impracticable. However, the defendant bolstered their case with an offer to cover the cost of renting and delivering a remote deposition technology package to the plaintiff, complete with a tablet, phone, speaker, internet hotspot and remote training beforehand. Although the trial court acknowledged the plaintiff’s “significant hardship,” the court ordered that the deposition proceed remotely if not in person. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams attorneys Robert Devine, Douglas Weck and Victor Zarrilli Mr. Devine may be contacted at deviner@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Weck may be contacted at weckd@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Zarrilli may be contacted at zarrilliv@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Employee or Independent Contractor? New Administrator’s Interpretation Issued by Department of Labor Provides Guidance

August 04, 2015 — Tanya Salgado – White and Williams LLP
The question of whether a worker should be classified as an independent contractor or an employee is fraught with confusion and misunderstanding for many businesses. Compounding the problem is the fact that there are a number of different tests used to determine employee status, which vary by jurisdiction and by the particular law in question. For example, the Internal Revenue Service uses the common law rules which focus on the degree of control and independence exercised by the worker. In contrast, the United States Department of Labor uses the “economic realities” test which focuses on whether the worker is economically dependent on the employer. In an effort to help combat the confusion over proper worker classification, the United States Department of Labor (DOL) has issued a new Administrator’s Interpretation that provides a detailed explanation of the test used by the DOL to determine if a worker has been misclassified as an independent contractor. The DOL enforces the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which mandates that employees (but not independent contractors) be paid minimum wage and overtime. When a business misclassifies non-exempt workers as independent contractors, and those workers are not paid the minimum hourly wage for their labor, or are not paid overtime when they work more than 40 hours in a workweek, this violates the FLSA. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tanya Salgado, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Salgado may be contacted at salgadot@whiteandwilliams.com

Your Bad Faith Jury Instruction Against an Insurer is Important

March 09, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A statutory bad faith claim against an insurer is derived from Florida Statute s. 624.155. A bad faith claim against a first party insurer, such as a property insurer, must be statutory. Check out the hyperlink of the statute, but a party must first file a Civil Remedy Notice identifying the statutory violations to preserve the statutory bad faith claim giving the insurer an opportunity to cure. In a noteworthy case, Cooper v. Federated National Insurance Company, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D2961a (Fla. 5th DCA 2019), the Fifth District Court of Appeal dealt with the jury instruction for an insured’s statutory bad faith claim against their property insurer. The insured filed a bad faith claim predicated on the property insurer violating the provisions of Florida Statute s. 626.9541(1)(i)3, which involves unfair claim settlement practices. The insured had a jury trial and submitted a proposed jury instruction regarding bad faith that tracked the very essence of their bad faith claim and was modeled after s. 626.9541(1)(i)(3). The trial court, however, denied this jury instruction, instead adopting a standard jury instruction for bad faith. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the property insurer and the insured appealed arguing it was reversible error for the trial court NOT to present to the jury their bad faith jury instruction. The Fifth District agreed and ordered a new trial finding that the trial court’s failure to present the jury instruction amounted to a miscarriage of justice. 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

California Court of Appeal Provides Clarity On What Triggers Supplemental Analysis Under California Environmental Quality Act

July 20, 2020 — Kelly Alhadeff-Black & Alexander N. Knaub - Lewis Brisbois
In a recent ruling, California’s Sixth District Court of Appeal clarified the need for supplemental environmental analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Willow Glen Trestle Conservancy v. City of San Jose (6th Dist., May 18, 2020). Specifically, the court held that seeking additional discretionary approvals, such as regulatory permits, does not constitute a “new discretionary approval for the project” under the California Public Resources Code Section 21166 and the California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15162 (the CEQA Guidelines). In 2014, the City of San Jose approved a project that included the demolition and replacement of a wooden railroad bridge known as the Willow Glen Trestle (the Project). CEQA review for the Project was conducted via mitigated negative declaration (MND). The Project was quickly challenged by a local group called Friends of the Willow Glen Trestle, alleging that the City should have prepared an Environmental Impact Report based on the allegation that the Willow Glen Trestle constituted an historic resource for CEQA purposes. Ultimately, the City prevailed in that litigation (See Friends of the Willow Glen Trestle v. City of San Jose, et al. (6th Dist., 2016), which remanded the case to the trial court for further review consistent with the Court of Appeal’s verdict) with the court eventually finding that the City correctly analyzed and answered the question of historic resource classification and significance in reference to the Willow Glen Trestle. Reprinted courtesy of Kelly Alhadeff-Black, Lewis Brisbois and Alexander N. Knaub, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Alhadeff-Black may be contacted at Kelly.Black@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Knaub may be contacted at Alexander.Knaub@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California Fire Lawyers File Suit Against PG&E on Behalf of More Than 50 Wildfire Victims

November 15, 2017 — David Suggs – Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.
Digital Journal reports that the California fire lawyers are comprised of four law firms, Baron & Budd, Singleton Law Firm, Dixon Diab & Chambers LLP, and Thornes Bartolotta McGuire. These firms filed suit against PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric Company) on October 27th alleging that the brutal wildfires that swept through Northern California started when electrical infrastructure encountered vegetation. According to Digital Journal, more than 50 plaintiffs are being represented in this case who endured damages including “wrongful death, personal injuries, damage to or destruction of property, loss of cherished possessions, medical bills, evacuation expenses and lost wages.” John Fiske, an attorney at Baron & Budd stated, “through our team’s investigation to date, we believe that PG&E may have played a role in causing these fires.” Holding PG&E accountable for the 40 people killed, 8,400 structures destroyed, and 210,000 acres burned is their goal. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Dog Ate My Exclusion! – Georgia Federal Court: No Reformation to Add Pollution Exclusion

September 28, 2017 — Philip M. Brown-Wilusz - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
While schoolchildren know that the classic “the dog ate my homework” excuse doesn’t work, insurance companies are willing to try a variation of that excuse. Ace American Insurance Company (Ace), sold a property policy (the Policy) to Exide Technologies, Inc. (Exide). Exide sought coverage under the Policy for acid damage at its former battery factory. Ace denied coverage, citing to the pollution exclusion. The only problem? The Policy contained no pollution exclusion! Exide had procured policies from other insurers for several years prior to the inception of the Policy, all of which contained pollution exclusions. Exide instructed Marsh USA Inc. (Marsh), its broker, to procure insurance “on the same or better terms and conditions.” The resulting policy contained no pollution exclusion, and Exide sought coverage under the Policy for pollution-related losses. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Philip M. Brown-Wilusz, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Brown-Wilusz may be contacted at pbw@sdvlaw.com

Safety Data: Noon Presents the Hour of Greatest Danger

April 20, 2017 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
Unlike previous research into construction fatalities, a new review of three years of Labor Dept. data found that most occur between 10 am and 3 pm, with a peak at noon. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, ENR
Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com

Maine Court Allows $1B Hydropower Transmission Project to Proceed

August 31, 2020 — Mary B. Powers - Engineering News-Record
Maine’s Supreme Court cleared the way for construction to begin on the nearly $1-billion, 145-mile high voltage transmission line that will feed hydroelectric power from Quebec into the New England power grid. Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES