Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Colorado’s Need for Condos May Spark Construction Defect Law Reform

January 29, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
On January 6th, Ed Sealover of the Denver Business Journal reported that Denver Mayor Michael Hancock has asked Colorado legislators “to pass a reform law that will make it easier to build condos without fear of getting sued.” Hancock is one of several mayors “to advocate for a construction defects reform proposal that was killed by Democrats in a committee last year.” The problem, Sealover notes, is that only “2 percent of new housing in the state is multifamily units made for ownership—far lower than the 20 to 25 percent of such housing stock in other states represented by condos.” There is some dissent as to whether reforming construction defect laws is the solution to the housing problem: “Taking away rights of homeowners to get shoddy construction fixed in what is likely the most expensive purchase in their life is not the way to fix the lack of affordable housing,” Lynea Hansen, spokeswoman for a group of construction defect homeowners told Sealover. Furthermore, on January 7th, Sealover reported that Democrats “expressed skepticism” about a need to reform the laws, saying “they need more data on what is causing owner-occupied multifamily housing to be such a small part of the new housing market.” Moreover, Senate President-elect Morgan Carroll stated that she “wants to look into issues like why it is so hard to get insurance for building condominiums or examine why some areas of Colorado are seeing condo development and others aren’t.” Read the full story, January 6th article... Read the full story, January 7th article... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Court Rules in Favor of Treasure Island Developers in Environmental Case

July 09, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
A California court ruled that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that had been approved by the city of San Francisco was adequate for the proposed 8,000-home development on Treasure Island, according to the San Francisco Business Times. The suit had been brought by Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island back in 2011. However, in December of 2012, “a lower court affirmed the EIR and the citizens’ group appealed that decision.” The project was proposed by partners Lennar Corp. and Wilson Meany. The development would “add thousands of new housing units along with retail, hotel and office space in addition to renovating historic buildings and creating 300 acres of open space.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

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

Carrier Has Duty to Defend Claim for Active Malfunction of Product

October 19, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Rejecting that the underlying claim was based solely on faulty workmanship, the Third Circuit held the insurer had a duty to defend allegations of a malfunctioning product. Nautilus Ins. Co. v. 200 Christina Street Partners LLC, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 22118 (3d Cir. July 16, 2020). The insureds were sued by homeowners in two separate suits alleging defects in the construction of their homes. Nautilus defended under a reservation of rights. Nautilus filed suit in District Court and moved for judgment on the pleadings. The District Court denied the motion, finding Nautilus had a duty to defend because the underlying claims sufficiently alleged product--related tort clams that could fall within the scope of coverage under the relevant policies. The Third Circuit affirmed. There was a distinction between a claim of faulty workmanship, for which the insurer did not have a duty to defend, and a claim of "active malfunction" of a product, for which an insurer did have such a duty. An active malfunction was sufficiently fortuitous as to constitute an "occurrence." 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

Key Takeaways For Employers in the Aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Halt to OSHA’s Vax/Testing Mandate

January 24, 2022 — Laura H. Corvo - White and Williams LLP
Political pundits and legal scholars have been engaged in frenzied debate trying to decipher the fallout of the United States Supreme Court’s decision that stopped stopped the Occupational Safety and Hazard Administration (OSHA) from enforcing its Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) which mandated that employers with 100 or more employees require workers to show proof of vaccination against COVID-19 or submit to weekly testing. The Court’s decision prevents OSHA from enforcing its ETS until all legal challenges have been heard. Because the Court concluded that those legal challenges are “likely to succeed on the merits” of their argument that OSHA does not have the statutory authority to issue its vaccine and testing mandates, there is significant doubt that they will ever come to fruition. While the pundits and scholars have now had their say, employers, who are struggling to manage a highly contagious variant, a tight labor market, and employees with divergent and staunch views on vaccination, are also left wondering what the Court’s decision means for them and what they should be doing. Here are some key takeaways for employers in the aftermath of the Court’s decision. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Laura H. Corvo, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Corvo may be contacted at corvol@whiteandwilliams.com

One Insurer's Settlement with Insured Does Not Bar Contribution Claim by Other Insurers

October 30, 2013 — Tred Eyerly — Insurance Law Hawaii
The New Jersey Supreme Court held that one insurer could seek contribution from another insurer who settled with and secured a release from the insured. Potomac Ins. Co. v. Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Ass'n Ins. Co., 2013 N.J. LEXIS 847 (N.J. Sept. 16, 2013) The township of Evesham retained Roland Aristone, Inc. to be its general contractor for construction of a new middle school. After completion of the school, the roof leaked. Evesham sued Aristone for the construction defects. Aristone tendered to its various CGL carriers. Two insurers, Selective Way Insurance Company and OneBeacon Insurance Company, defended. Two others, Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Insurance Company (PMA) and Royal Insurance Company, denied coverage. Aristone sued PMA and Royal, and ultimately settled with PMA for $150,000 in exchange for Aristone's release from all claims, including claims for defense fees and costs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Addenda to Construction Contracts Can Be an Issue

March 30, 2016 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
We’ve all been there. Your client either has a well drafted standard subcontract (with any luck in consultation with an experienced construction attorney) that it presents to its subcontractors and suppliers or your client is presented with a construction contract that has some provisions that it would prefer were either different or gone altogether. In the first of these scenarios, your client often gets push back from a subcontractor to change certain provisions. Such a response is not necessarily a bad thing depending on the provisions that the potential subcontractor may have. The construction contract documents will govern the way that the project moves forward and will be strictly enforced in Virginia and elsewhere so some early give and take is not unusual or unwanted. In the second scenario, your client is likely to be reading a fairly one sided document. The General Contractor has drafted the contract and is “north” of your client in the payment chain. Like it or not, they will in most instances leave it to you and your attorney to root out the particularly egregious on sided terms and seek to negotiate them to some sort of equality. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Responding to Ransomware Learning from Colonial Pipeline

June 07, 2021 — J. Kyle Janecek - Newmeyer Dillion
Recently, ransomware has taken to the forefront in national news. The most prevalent ransomware attack, the one perpetrated against Colonial Pipeline by the now-defunct "Dark Side" hackers, has served to remind businesses about the risks of ransomware. What happened to Colonial Pipeline? What should businesses do to learn from Colonial Pipeline's response? What should a business avoid? What happened to Colonial Pipeline? Colonial Pipeline, a Georgia based operator of fuel pipelines, had its billing software compromised by Dark Side's ransomware attack.1 Following this, Colonial Pipeline took proactive measures to (1) shut down their systems; (2) evaluate the issue; and (3) safely brought systems back on line after ensuring that they were not compromised. Following this, Colonial Pipeline did eventually pay the 4.4 million dollar ransom demand from Dark Side. What it got in return was a decryption key, as promised, which ended up being slower than Colonial Pipeline's own backups.2 The ultimate result of this event being an initial cost of $4.4 million, in addition to lost profits, additional security costs, reputational costs, and litigation costs as consumers had filed a class-action lawsuit to hold Colonial Pipeline accountable for their perceived lapse in security.3 Further, the fall-out from Colonial Pipeline had prompted additional cybersecurity efforts and changes by the Biden administration, including proposed regulations requiring pipeline companies to inform the Department of Homeland Security of cybersecurity incidents within 12 hours, in addition to keeping a cybersecurity coordinator on staff at all times, and reviews of current security measures. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of J. Kyle Janecek, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Janecek may be contacted at kyle.janecek@ndlf.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES