Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Thirteen Payne & Fears Attorneys Honored by Best Lawyers

August 19, 2024 — Payne & Fears LLP
Congratulations to the 13 Payne & Fears attorneys included in the 2025 Edition of “Lawyer of the Year,” The Best Lawyers In America®, and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch®. Attorneys have been recognized in the following practice areas: 2025 Edition “Lawyer of the Year” Orange County Benjamin A. Nix

Trade Secrets Law

Daniel F. Fears

Litigation – Labor and Employment

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears LLP

Is it the End of the Lease-Leaseback Shootouts? Maybe.

September 07, 2020 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It’s the case that has turned into a modern day Hatfield versus McCoy – McGee v. Torrance Unified School District, Case No. 8298122, 2nd District Court of Appeals (May 29, 2020) – a series of cases challenging the validity of certain lease-leaseback construction contracts in California. In shootout number one, James McGee sued the Torrance Unified School District challenging the validity of lease-leaseback contracts the District had entered into with general contractor Balfour Beatty Construction, LLC. Under California’s lease-leaseback statute, a school district can lease property it owns to a developer, who in turns builds a school facility on the property and leases the facility back to the school district. The primary benefit of the lease-leaseback method of project delivery is that a school district does not need to come up with money to build the facility because the district pays for the facility over time through lease payments to the developer. In shootout number one, McGee argued that Torrance Unified School District was required to competitively bid the lease-leasebacks projects. The 2nd District Court of Appeals disagreed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

The Final Nail: Ongoing Repairs Do Not Toll the Statute of Repose

November 07, 2022 — Kyle Rice - The Subrogation Strategist
In Venema v. Moser Builders, Inc., 2022 PA Super. 171, 2022 Pa. Super. LEXIS 414, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Superior Court) upheld an award of judgment on the pleadings from the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County (Trial Court). The Superior Court found that Pennsylvania’s 12-year Statute of Repose for improvements to real property (Statute of Repose) began to run upon the issuance of the certificate of occupancy following original construction of the home in 2003—not from the completion of repairs to the home that continued through 2008. The underlying cause of action involved a home constructed by Moser Builders, Inc. (Moser) in 2003. The certificate of occupancy for the home was issued on August 13, 2003. Matthew Venema and Liza Squires (collectively, Venema) purchased the property from the original owners in 2004. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kyle Rice, White and Williams
Mr. Rice may be contacted at ricek@whiteandwilliams.com

U.S. Home Lending Set to Bounce Back in 2015 After Slump

January 21, 2015 — Kathleen M. Howley – Bloomberg
The U.S. mortgage market hit bottom in 2014. Chief economists at Fannie Mae and Moody’s Analytics Inc. as well as the Mortgage Bankers Association all predicted a turnaround this year after a record decline in 2014. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kathleen M. Howley, Bloomberg
Ms. Howley may be contacted at kmhowley@bloomberg.net

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

Court Rejects Anti-SLAPP Motion in Construction Defect Suit

September 01, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The California Court of Appeals has upheld the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion in Claredon American Insurance Company v. Bishop, Barry, Howe, Haney & Ryder. This case was triggered by a water intrusion problem at a condominium complex, the Terraces at Emerystation, built and sold by Wareham Development Corporation. The insurer, Claredon, retained Risk Enterprise Management as the third party claims administrator. REM retained the law firm Bishop, Barry, Howe, Haney & Ryder. The construction defect case was settled in 2007 and the condo owners moved back by early 2008.

Due to issues with the claims settlement, Claredon filed against REM for “professional negligence, indemnity, apportionment and contribution,” with a cross-complaint that the cross-defendants negligently defended the developer, Wareham.

In response, the cross-defendants filed a motion to strike the cross-complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court denied this motion and now this has been upheld by the appeals court.

The court noted that “The fundamental thrust of the cross-complaint is not protected litigation-related speech and petitioning activity undertaken on another’s behalf in a judicial proceeding.”

Read the court’s decision…

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

Pennsylvania Court Finds that Two Possible Causes Can Prove a Product Malfunction Theory of Liability

September 29, 2021 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Allstate Ins. Co. v. LG Elecs. USA, Inc., No. 19-3529, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127014, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania considered whether plaintiff’s expert engineer’s opinion that there were two possible causes of a fire—both related to alleged product defects within a refrigerator manufactured by the defendant—was sufficient to support the malfunction theory of products liability. The court found that because both potential causes imposed liability on the product manufacturer and the expert ruled out misuse of the product, as well as all external causes of the fire, it was not necessary for the engineer to identify a specific cause under the malfunction theory. The court also found that the expert’s investigation and opinions met the criteria set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and the Federal Rules of Evidence and, thus, were admissible. LG Electronics arose from a fire at the home of Thomas and Lisa Ellis. The public sector fire investigator identified the area of fire origin as the top of a refrigerator manufactured by LG Electronics USA, Inc. (LG). The Ellises filed a claim with their homeowner’s insurance carrier, Allstate Insurance Company (Insurer). Insurer retained a fire investigator and an electrical engineer to investigate the origin and cause of the fire. The fire investigator agreed with the public sector investigator that the fire originated at the top of the refrigerator. The engineer conducted a forensic inspection of the scene and ruled out all potential external ignition sources. He then examined the internal components of the refrigerator. He found arcing activity on a wire at the front top of the refrigerator. He opined that there were two possible causes of the fire: either the heater circuit insulation failed over time due to mechanical damage, or the heat from the internal light fixture ignited combustible components of the refrigerator. Since the engineer ruled out improper use of the refrigerator, he opined that the damage was caused by a manufacturing defect. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

Suppliers Must Also Heed “Right to Repair” Claims

October 16, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
“Right to repair” statutes don’t only affect general contractors, but everyone involved in the building of a home, down to those who supply materials, warns Paul Gary in a post on Window & Door. He notes that “if you sell your window or door products in one of the growing number of states with a ‘Notice and Opportunity to Cure’ or ‘Right to Repair’ statute, you need a plan in the event you receive a defect notice relating to your product.” A supplier that receives a statement that a defect exists should, according to Mr. Gary, carefully document not only when the notice was received, but when it was sent, according to postmark, and whether the sender complied with all the regulations. From there, the supplier should determine if there were previous, informal complaints. Finally, determine sales information. At this point, the supplier has the information its insurer will require. His next caution is that in what follows, other may “seek defense and indemnity from you.” And while you may point out problems with the notice,” he counsels that “if you confirm there is an issue with your product, don’t be afraid to make a fair proposal for repair.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES