Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Quick Note: Attorney’s Fees on Attorney’s Fees

June 13, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In a recent case, the appellate court held that the attorney’s fees provision in the contract was NOT broad enough to entitle the prevailing party to recover attorney’s fees for litigating the amount of attorney’s fees. This is known as “fees on fees” which is when you can recover your prevailing party attorney’s fees when you are fighting over the quantum that should be awarded to you as the prevailing party. The attorney’s fees provision at-issue stated: “In any lawsuit to enforce the Lease or under applicable law, the party in whose favor a judgment or decree has been rendered may recover its reasonable court costs including attorney’s fees from the non-prevailing party.” Language similar to this language can be found in many contracts as a prevailing party attorney’s fees provision. However, this provision was NOT broad enough to recover “fees on fees.” As explained in this article, if this is a consideration, you can negotiate or include this provision into your construction contract by expanding the scope of the prevailing party attorney’s fees provision to clarify that it entitles the prevailing party to recover attorney’s fees in litigating the amount of attorney’s fees. 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

Presidential Executive Order 14008: The Climate Crisis Order

August 16, 2021 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
Presidential Executive Order 14008, “Tackling the Climate Crisis,” a long and unusually detailed Executive Order published in the Federal Register on February 1, 2021 (see 86 FR 7619), has generated considerable discussion and commentary. Below, I briefly outline its provisions. This EO describes the “climate crisis” in existential terms:

“There is little time left to avoid setting the world on a dangerous, potentially catastrophic climate trajectory.” Confronting and combating climate change will be an important component of American foreign policy and national security, and domestically, the federal government’s resources will be mobilized to deploy a “govern-wide approach to the climate crisis.”

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

DC Circuit Upholds EPA’s Latest RCRA Recycling Rule

September 23, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
On July 2, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided the case of California Communities Against Toxics, et al. v. EPA. In this decision, the court rejected the latest petition to strike or vacate EPA’s 2018 revisions to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste recycling rules. In 1985, EPA promulgated a new regulatory definition of “solid waste,” which is the linchpin of the agency’s very stringent hazardous waste management rules. (See the rules located at 40 CFR Sections 260-268.) Unless a material is a “solid waste” as defined by the rules, it cannot also be a hazardous waste. The 1985 rules grappled with the challenges posed by recycling practices, and attempted to distinguish between legitimate recycling which is not subject to hazardous waste regulation, and other more suspect forms of recycling. The rules are complex and replete with nuance. In doing so, EPA was adhering to RCRA’s statutory mandate that it develop appropriate rules to govern the treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste, while also promoting “properly conducted recycling and reuse.” The DC Circuit reviewed the 1985 rules in the seminal case of American Mining Congress v EPA, 824 F.2d 1177 (1987), (AMC) and stressed that only those materials that were truly discarded could be regulated as solid waste; for instance, those materials that were destined for immediate recycling or recovery in an ongoing production process were not discarded and hence were not solid waste. Over the years, the court has struggled to clarify the basic holding of AMC in numerous cases while EPA has frequently revised and amended the RCRA rules, and in particular the definition of solid waste, in an attempt to balance the policies mandated by the statute. 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

Demand for New Homes Good News for Home Builders

October 01, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Stock prices are up for both KB Homes and Lennar, with shares of KB Homes up 7 % and Lennar up 5.5%. Both home builders are profiting from increased demand for new homes while supplies were scarce. Both firms have seen a strong increase in orders during the last quarter. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Overruling Henkel, California Supreme Court Validates Assignment of Policies

October 02, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
In a major ruling, the California Supreme Court applied a statutory provision to overrule its prior decision in Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemn. Co., 29 Cal. 4th 934 (2003) and ruled that liability policies can be assigned despite non-assignment provisions. See Fluor Corp. v. Superior Court, 2015 Cal. LEXIS 5631 (Cal. Aug. 20, 2015). The Hawaii Supreme Court relied on Henkel when it also found anti-consent provisions valid. See Del Monte Fresh Fresh Produce (Hawaii), Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 117 Haw. 357, 183 P.3d 734 (2007) [see posts here and here]. For decades, Fluor Corporation performed engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) operations through various corporate entities and subsidiaries. Beginning in 1971, Hartford issued up to 11 CGL policies to Fluor from 1971 to 1986. Each policy contained a consent-to-assignment clause reading: "Assignment of interest under the policy shall not bind the Company until its consent is endorsed hereon." Beginning in the mid-1980s, Fluor Corporation was sued in numerous lawsuits claiming personal injury from asbestos exposure. Fluor Corporation tendered the early lawsuits to Hartford, which accepted the defense. Fluor Corporation subsequently went through a reverse spinoff under which a newly formed subsidiary, Fluor 2, took over the continuation of the company's EPC businesses. The original Fluor transferred all of its EPC-related assets and liabilities to Fluor-2, making Fluor-2 the parent of the EPC subsidiaries. The transaction did not except any insurance rights from the transfer of "any and all" assets. 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

Hirer Liable for Injury to Subcontractor’s Employee Due to Failure to Act, Not Just Affirmative Acts, Holds Court of Appeal

December 11, 2018 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
The Privette doctrine, named after the court case Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, provides that a higher-tiered party such as an owner or general contractor is not liable for injuries sustained by employees of a lower-tiered party such as a subcontractor on a construction project. There are, however, exceptions to the Privette doctrine. One of these exceptions is known as the “retained control doctrine.” Under the retained control doctrine, a higher-tiered party cannot avoid liability under the Privette doctrine if the higher-tiered party: (1) retains control over the conditions of the work; (2) negligently exercises control over such conditions; and (3) its negligent exercise of control contributes to the injuries sustained by the employee of the lower-tiered party. 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

New Window Insulation Introduced to U.S. Market

February 04, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Construction Digital, Nitto has introduced PENJEREX, “a new transparent energy-saving window insulation film to the US Market” that may “satisfy the requirement for enhanced energy efficiency and CO2 reduction in the housing industry.” The film is transparent, while still providing insulation, which helps maintain “the natural look of the home,” reported Construction Digital. The product “is said to improve insulation by reducing heat transfer by 35 percent.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Court Concludes That COVID-19 Losses Can Qualify as “Direct Physical Loss”

September 28, 2020 — Lorelie S. Masters & Jorge R. Aviles - Hunton Andrews Kurth
In a victory for policyholders, a federal district court found that COVID-19 can cause physical loss under business-interruption policies. In Studio 417, Inc., et al. v. The Cincinnati Insurance Co., No. 20-cv-03127-SRB (W.D. Mo. Aug. 12, 2020), the court rejected the argument often advanced by insurers that “all-risks” property insurance policies require a physical, structural alteration to trigger coverage. This decision shows that, with correct application of policy-interpretation principles and strategic use of pleading and evidence, policyholders can defeat the insurance industry’s “party line” arguments that business-interruption insurance somehow cannot apply to pay for the unprecedented losses businesses are experiencing from COVID-19, public-safety orders, loss of use of business assets, and other governmental edicts. The policyholders in Studio 417 operate hair salons and restaurants asserting claims for business interruption. In suing to enforce their coverage, the policyholders allege that, over the last several months, it is likely that customers, employees, and/or other visitors to the insured properties were infected with COVID-19 and thereby infected the insured properties with the virus. Their complaint asserts that the presence of COVID-19 “renders physical property in their vicinity unsafe and unusable.” Unlike some other complaints seeking to enforce such coverage, it also alleges that the presence of COVID-19 and government “Closure Orders” “caused a direct physical loss or direct physical damage” to their premises “by denying use of and damaging the covered property, and by causing a necessary suspension of operations during a period of restoration.” Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Jorge R. Aviles, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. Aviles may be contacted at javiles@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES