Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

No Jail Time for Disbarred Construction Defect Lawyer

May 10, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The New Mexico Supreme Court decided that a lawyer who defrauded clients will not be spending any time in jail, although they did disbar him in February. Bradley R. Sims brought a cashier’s check for $10,000 to repay his former client. Casa Bandera had hired Sims to sue over construction defects at apartment buildings it owned in Las Cruces, New Mexico. The court had found that Sims did not file the lawsuit but that created documents to convince his clients that he had. Sims initially intended to repay Casa Bandera through monies owed him by Sundland Park, New Mexico. When that did not arrive at the court, Sims borrowed the money. He has yet to comply with a court order to turn over his client lists so that the disciplinary board can determine if he owes money to any other clients. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Is There Direct Physical Loss Under A Property Policy When COVID-19 is Present?

April 06, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Most property policies provide coverage for property damage only when there is "direct physical loss" to covered property. Early indications are that COVID-19 remains on surfaces. The duration can last from a few hours to three weeks, depending on the type of surface material. If an employee is infected and the store or restaurant must closed because the virus may rest on surfaces within the building, is there direct physical loss, even though the building structure itself is unharmed? To answer this question, cases from jurisdictions outside Hawaii may provide guidance. In a case from Louisiana, the homeowner had to move out of her home when excessive levels of organic lead were discovered in the kitchen, living room, master bedroom, and attic. Widder v. La. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 82 So. 3d 294 (La. Ct. App. 2011). The insurer denied coverage because there was no direct physical loss. The trial court agreed; since the home was still intact, no direct physical loss had occurred, so there was no coverage under the policy. The appellate court reversed. It compared the presence of inorganic lead in the home to cases that found a direct physical loss from the existence of Chinese drywall, from which gaseous fumes were released, rendering the home unusable or uninhabitable. Physical damage was not necessary. What if smoke from a nearby wildfire fills an outdoor theater, forcing cancellation of performances and loss of business income? This was the situation in Oregon Shakespeare Festival Ass'n v. Great Am. Inc. Co., 2016 U.S. DIst. LEXIS 74450 (D. Ore. Jun 7, 2016). Wildfires in the area caused smoke, soot, and ash to accumulate on the surface of seats and concrete ground of the open-air theater. The air quality was poor, but no federal, state or local agency ordered cancellation of the performances. Further, the theater did not suffer any permanent or structural damage to its property. The insurer denied coverage, contending that the loss or damage must be structural to the building itself. After all, the smoke in the air at the theater did not require any repairs to the structure of the property. The court disagreed. The theater sustained "physical loss or damage to property" when the wildfire smoke infiltrated the theater and rendered it unusable for its intended purpose. The decision in Oregon Shakespeare Festival was eventually vacated by a joint stipulation of the parties. Oregon Shakespeare Festival Ass'n v. Great Am. Ins.Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33208 (D. Ore. March 6, 2017), but the reasoning is still sound. 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

Hurry Up and Wait! Cal/OSHA Hits Pause on Emergency Temporary Standards for COVID-19 Prevention

June 14, 2021 — Michael Studenka & Jasmine Shams - Newmeyer Dillion
Employers scrambling to prepare for the June 15th Reopening announced by Governor Newsom have spent the last week pouring over the revised Emergency Temporary Standards for COVID-19 Prevention (“Revised ETS”) approved by the Cal/OSHA Standards Board on June 3, 2021. After last night’s meeting of the Standards Board, however, it’s time to hit pause. Last night, the Cal OSHA Standards Board held a specialty meeting to reconsider its Revised ETS in light of the latest guidance on face coverings issued by the California Department of Public Health (“CDPH”) on June 7, 2021. Following a presentation by the CDPH and extensive public comment, the Cal OSHA Standards Board voted unanimously to withdraw the Revised ETS and to take up the issue again at its next scheduled meeting on June 17, 2021. The net result in the interim is that California employers who intend to reopen on June 15 must initially comply with all of the requirements of the Cal/OSHA Standards Board Emergency Temporary Standards for COVID-19 Prevention as originally issued on November 20, 2020, including but not limited to, its social distancing, physical partitioning and mask wearing requirements. Reprinted courtesy of Michael J. Studenka, Newmeyer Dillion and Jasmine Shams, Newmeyer Dillion Mr. Studenka may be contacted at michael.studenka@ndlf.com Ms. Shams may be contacted at jasmine.shams@ndlf.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Arguing Cardinal Change is Different than Proving Cardinal Change

April 05, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The cardinal change doctrine has become a popular doctrine for a contractor to argue under but remains an extremely difficult doctrine to support and prove. Arguing cardinal change is one thing. Proving cardinal change is entirely different. As shown below, this is a doctrine with its origins under federal government contract law with arguments extending outside of the federal government contract arena. For this reason, the cases referenced below are not federal government contract law cases, but are cases where the cardinal change doctrine has been argued (even though these cases cite to federal government contract law cases). A party argues cardinal change to demonstrate that the other party (generally, the owner) materially breached the contract based on the cardinal change. In reality, a party argues cardinal change because they have cost overruns they are looking to recover and this doctrine may give them an argument to do so. But it is important to recognize the distinction between raising it as an argument and the expectation that this (difficult doctrine to prove) will carry the day. 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

Who is a “Contractor” as Used in “Unlicensed Contractor”?

June 08, 2020 — Taylor Orgeron - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
A recent Georgia Court of Appeals case established a rule concerning the effect of an unlicensed contractor failing to disclose that he is unlicensed. In Fleetwood v. Lucas,[1] the contractor was hired by the homeowners to perform renovations on two homes. One of the projects went over budget, and the homeowners failed to pay the remaining balances on both projects. Following their failure to pay, the contractor sued the homeowners for breach of contract, and the jury delivered a verdict in his favor. The homeowners appealed on the grounds that the contractor was barred from bringing suit because the contractor did not have a license to perform the work. Generally, if a contractor does not have a residential or general contractor’s license but performs work when a license is required, the contract is unenforceable. O.C.G.A. § 43-41-17(b). However, under O.C.G.A. § 43-41-17(g), a contractor may perform repair work without a license if the contractor discloses that he does not have a license, and the work does not affect the structural integrity of the project. In this case, the contractor failed to disclose that he did not have a license. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Taylor Orgeron, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Orgeron may be contacted at orgeron@ahclaw.com

That’s What I have Insurance For, Right?

December 31, 2014 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
Ah, the age old question, What does my insurance really cover? A federal court in Georgia recently weighed in on this issue in Standard Contractors, Inc. v. National Trust Insurance Company, and ruled that a contractor’s commercial general liability insurer did not have to pay for damage caused by a subcontractor. Standard Contractors was hired to renovate the pool on an army base. Standard hired a subcontractor to for design and installation work. The subcontractor’s work was subpar in that the subcontractor omitted a number of parts, installed the wrong parts, and caused more than $400,000 in damage to the pool. Standard submitted a claim to its insurer seeking coverage for the loss under its commercial general liability policy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

Home Buyer Disclosures, What’s Required and What Isn’t

February 05, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Sandy Gadow of the Washington Post, while all states require a property disclosure statement, “the extent of what must be revealed can vary from state to state, county to county and even city to city.” Gadow stated that while, “Federal law requires certain disclosures, such as the existence of asbestos or lead-based paint in the home or other known health or safety risks. But the enforcement of other disclosures (such as reporting certain environmental conditions pertinent to the area, or the existence of Megan’s Law offenders) will be determined by local ordinance or law.” Gadow recommends home buyers go to their state’s Department of Real Estate to discover the Seller Disclosure requirements. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insured's Failure to Prove Entire Collapse of Building Leads to Dismissal

July 19, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the insured's claim for damage to her home caused by collapse. Stewart v. Metropolitan Lloyds Ins. Co. of Texas, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 14221 (5th Girl May 13, 2021). One evening, the insured was awakened by a loud bang that shook her house. The next morning, she noticed the damage to her home, cracked sheetrock and sunken floors. She cut a hole through her floor and discovered that a couple of joists below her subfloor had broken and fallen away. The insured filed a claim with Metropolitan. Metropolitan hired an expert who found broken and deteriorated floor joists, deteriorated floor decking, walls not plumb and gaps in the wall-to-ceiling interface. It was determined that the rot in the floor joists and subfloor decking were caused by a combination of termite damage and exposure to moisture over the lifespan of the structure, resulting in the broken floor joists and unlevel floors. The insured's own expert agreed that termite damage and wood rot were the cause of the foundation collapse failure. 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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES