Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Builder Survey Focuses on Green Practices of Top 200 Builders

October 01, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Builder magazine reported that the 2013 Builder 100/Next 100 survey provided data on how many builders constructed homes using a certified third-party green rating system. They discovered that nearly half of the 200 top U.S. builders constructed 100% of its homes to a third-party standard, while 38.5% reported that some of the homes were constructed using a third-party standard, while 12.5% stated that none of their homes were built to a third-party standard. “The decision to offer homes that are high-performance, energy-efficient, non-toxic, sustainable--whatever the preferred term--involves many considerations and builders must weigh expenses and impediments against potential benefits,” according to Builder magazine. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Surety Bond Producers Keep Eye Out For Illegal Waivers

July 01, 2019 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
The surety bond industry regularly reminds state and local governments, politely, that public works in all states must involve surety bonds. That’s the law. And the National Association of Surety Bond Producers, the bond brokers and agents trade group, has been letting state and local officials know, in writing. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, ENR
Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com

Trial Court’s Grant of Summary Judgment On Ground Not Asserted By Moving Party Upheld

December 17, 2015 — Laura C. Williams & R. Bryan Martin – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Marlton Recovery Partners, LLC v. County of Los Angeles, et al. (filed 11/20/15), the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants County of Los Angeles, the County Treasurer-Tax Collector and Board of Supervisors (collectively the “County”) despite the fact summary judgment was granted on grounds not raised by the County. The Court of Appeal determined that because the plaintiff could not have shown a triable issue of material fact on the ground of law relied upon by the trial court, summary judgment was proper. In the underlying case, plaintiff sought cancellation of penalties on delinquent property taxes for 26 parcels under Revenue and Taxation Code §4985.2, which allows the tax collector to cancel such penalties under certain circumstances. The County denied the request prompting plaintiff to challenge the denial on a petition for peremptory writ of mandate to the trial court. Reprinted courtesy of Laura C. Williams, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Williams may be contacted at lwilliams@hbblaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

No Retrofit without Repurposing in Los Angeles

October 21, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Los Angeles Times has continued its series on the seismic safety of buildings in downtown Los Angeles. According to the article, Los Angeles only requires seismic retrofits of buildings if their purpose is being changed. One investor, Izak Shomof, bought a residential hotel and kept it as one to avoid retrofitting the building. He converted an office building to upscale residences and so the building was strengthened. His son, Eric Shomof, keeps an office in the unreinforced building. He said if more retrofitting were required, “you’d see a lot more vacant buildings down here,” describing the process as “not cheap.” Depending on whether or when a building has changed its use, the concrete buildings of downtown Los Angeles may or may not be protected against failure in an earthquake. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine Addresses Earth Movement Exclusion

March 01, 2021 — James M. Eastham - Traub Lieberman
In Bibeau v. Concord Gen. Mut. Ins. Co., 2021 WL 243867, 2021 ME 4, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine addressed an earth movement exclusion contained in a residential homeowners policy. In 2017, the insured submitted a claim to Concord for damage to the insured’s home which included foundation cracks and settlement resulting in interior damage to the home. The insured contended that the damage was the result of a 2006 water line leak. Concord denied the claim based on the Earth Movement exclusion contained in it’s policy which precluded coverage for losses caused by earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, mudflow, subsidence, sinkholes or “[a]ny other earth movement including earth sinking, rising or shifting; caused by or resulting from human or animal forces or any act of nature”. The insured filed suit asserting a breach of the policy and unfair claims settlement practices. According to the insured’s expert, the damage was caused by a 2006 water line leak -- which in turn caused the foundation to settle. Concord's expert, however, concluded that the settling was caused by the house being built on “unprepared or uncontrolled fill” which allowed the house to settle at different rates. Despite the disagreement regarding the cause of the settling, the parties ultimately agreed that the damage was the result of earth moving under the house's foundation. Concord moved for summary judgment and the trial court entered summary judgment for Concord, reasoning that because there was no genuine dispute that the losses were caused by “subsurface soils being undermined and earth movement,” the Earth Movement exclusion precluded coverage. The trial court further concluded that the disagreement over the cause of the settlement was not material because regardless of the cause of the earth movement, the losses were clearly excluded by the policy's Earth Movement exclusion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Eastham may be contacted at jeastham@tlsslaw.com

Be Careful When Walking Off of a Construction Project

November 24, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I am truly grateful that my buddy Craig Martin (@craigmartin_jd) continues his great posts over at The Construction Contractor Advisor blog. He is always a good cure for writer’s block and once again this week he gave me some inspiration. In his most recent post, Craig discusses a recent Indiana case relating to the ever present issue of termination by a subcontractor for non-payment. In the Indiana case, the court looked at the payment terms and determined that the subcontractor was justified in walking from the project when it was not paid after 60 days per the contract. This result was the correct, if surprising. Why do I say surprising? Because I am always reluctant to recommend that a subcontractor walk from a job for non payment if it is possible to continue. This is not so much for legal reasons (not paying a sub is a clear breach of contract by a general contractor) but practical ones. The practical effect of walking from the job is that the subcontractor is put on the defensive. Instead of arguing later that it performed but was not paid, that subcontractor is put in the position of arguing that the general contractor cannot collect its completion related and other damages because it breached first. This is a more intuitively difficult argument and one that is not as strong as the first. Of course, all of this is contingent on the language in your contract (is there a “pay if paid” or language like that in the Indiana case?). 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

Exculpatory Provisions in Business Contracts

May 30, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
An exculpatory provision in a contract is a provision that relieves one party from liability for damages. It shifts the risk of an issue entirely to the other party. Such a provision is generally drafted by the party preparing the contract that is looking to eliminate or disclaim liability associated with a particular risk, oftentimes a risk within their control. These provisions are also known as limitation of liability provisions because they do exactly that — limit liability as to a risk. For this reason, they can be useful provisions based on the context of certain risks, and are provisions that are included in business contracts (such as construction contracts). While such clauses are disfavored, they are enforceable if they are drafted clearly, unambiguously, and unequivocally. If they are unclear, ambiguous, or equivocal, they will construed against enforcement. See Obsessions In Time, Inc. v. Jewelry Exchange Venture, LLP, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D1033a (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (finding exculpatory clause in lease ambiguous and, therefore, unenforceable as to lessor looking to benefit from the exculpatory clause). 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

Inability to Confirm Coverage Supports Setting Aside Insured’s Default Judgment on Grounds of Extrinsic Mistake

January 21, 2019 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Mechling v. Asbestos Defendants (No. A150132, filed 12/11/18), a California appeals court affirmed the trial court’s grant of an insurer’s motion to set aside default judgments entered against its defunct insured pursuant to the trial court’s inherent, equitable power to set aside defaults on the ground of extrinsic mistake, thereby allowing the insurer to intervene and defend its own interests in the case. In Mechling, Fireman’s Fund insured Associated Insulation of California, which was named as a defendant in asbestos litigation filed in 2009. Associated had ceased operating in 1974, but was somehow successfully served with the complaint and defaulted, leading to default judgments of several million dollars. Notice of the judgments was served on Associated but not Fireman’s Fund. 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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES