Winners Announced in Seattle’s Office-to-Residential Call for Ideas Contest
July 10, 2023 —
Ryanne Mathisen - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCOn June 7, 2023, the City of Seattle announced three winners of its Office to Residential: Call for Ideas contest for which it received a total of 13 submissions. Hybrid Architecture, LLC, took first place; Gensler, Seattle Office Project Team took second; and the Miller Hull Partnership took third. Seattle’s Department of Construction and Inspections will study the submissions and determine what legislative and regulatory modifications would be necessary to support and further these proposals and other future office-to-residential conversion projects.
Seattle will also be holding a series of exhibitions over the coming weeks where project submissions will be available to the public. On June 14, 2023, from 5:30 PM to 7:30 PM, a reception will be hosted by the Seattle Architecture Foundation and the City at the American Institute of Architects. The gallery will also be open to the public from 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM on June 21, 28, and July 5. After June 14, 2023, those interested can access contest submissions at the
project website.
Seattle’s primary goal with this contest was to provide a vision for the future of downtown and begin charting a concrete path to getting there. Since working from home has become more common following the COVID-19 pandemic, vacancy rates in many office buildings have risen sharply, while housing availability and affordability remain ongoing issues. If Seattle can show a realistic—and profitable—path to converting commercial office spaces into residences, it would be addressing both problems, killing two birds with one stone.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ryanne Mathisen, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMs. Mathisen may be contacted at
ryanne.mathisen@acslawyers.com
Insurer’s Duty to Defend: When is it Triggered? When is it Not?
February 18, 2015 —
Zach McLeroy – Colorado Construction LitigationIn Colorado it is well recognized that an insurer has a broad duty to defend its policyholder against pending claims. An insurer’s duty to defend is triggered when the underlying complaint against the insured alleges any set of facts that might fall within the coverage policy. Greystone Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance, Co., 661 F.3d 1272, 1284 (10th Cir. 2011). Even if the insurer’s duty to defend is not clear from the pleadings filed against the insured, the insurer’s duty to defend is triggered if the claim is potentially or arguably within the policy coverage. Id. If there is any doubt as to whether a theory of recovery falls within the policy coverage, such doubt is decided in favor of the insured and the insurer’s duty to defend is triggered. Id. In order to avoid this duty to defend, an insurer must show that an exemption to the policy applies and that no other basis exists for coverage under the policy.
In Cornella Brothers, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 2014 WL 321335 (D. Colo. Jan. 29, 2015), the Court was to determine whether Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company (“Liberty Mutual”) had a duty to defend a lawsuit filed against its insured, Cornella Brothers, Inc. (“Cornella”). The underlying lawsuit alleged construction defects at a recharging facility. Upon being named a party to the underlying litigation, Cornella provided notice to Liberty Mutual and demanded that Liberty Mutual defend Cornella.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Zach McLeroy, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McLeroy may be contacted at
mcleroy@hhmrlaw.com
Haight has been named a Metropolitan Tier 1 and Tier 2 “Best Law Firm” by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” in 2025
November 11, 2024 —
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPHaight Brown & Bonesteel LLP is listed in the U.S. News – Best Lawyers® (2025 Edition) “Best Law Firms” list with metro rankings in the following areas:
Los Angeles
- Metropolitan Tier 1
- Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
Orange County
- Metropolitan Tier 1
- Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Never, Ever, Ever Assume! (Or, How a Stuck Shoe is Like a Construction Project Assumption)
October 21, 2019 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North CarolinaThis summer, I had the fortune of taking a trip to Europe. The first place I visited was Amsterdam. A lovely town with a lot of culture and more canals than you can shake a stick at. I was meeting family there, but had hours to kill ahead of time. So, I decided to take the train from the airport into the City Centre, leave my bags at the train station luggage locker, and begin exploring.
My plan took its first misstep when I attempted to board the train. Not being in a hurry, I let the other passengers get on first. Sure, I noticed the train conductor blowing his whistle while I stepped onto the train, but figured I was fine since I was already on the steps up. Until, that is, the door began to close, with me in the doorway, suitcase in the train, one foot inside, and one foot mid step up to the cabin. The door closed on my backpack (which was still on my back), but I managed to force it into the train compartment. My shoe, however, was not quite as lucky. Part of my shoe made it inside, and part was outside the door.
No worry– just look for the door release mechanism, right? Wrong! There was none. The train started up, with my shoe still halfway in and halfway out of the train. (Luckily my foot itself made it inside all in one piece). The conductor came along to scold me, and told me that he could *probably* rescue my shoe once we got to Central Station. In the meantime, I sat on a nearby jump seat, keeping tabs on my shoe and fuming that this was *not* the way I planned to start my vacation. Long story short– the train conductor was able to salvage my shoe, but not without a lot of commentary on how I should never have boarded the train after the whistle blew. Lesson learned.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLCMs. Brumback may be contacted at
mbrumback@rl-law.com
Taylor Morrison v. Terracon and the Homeowner Protection Act of 2007
June 11, 2014 —
Buck Mann – Colorado Construction LitigationOn January 30, 2014, the Colorado Court of Appeals decided the case of Taylor Morrison of Colorado, Inc. v. Bemas Construction, Inc. and Terracon Consultants, Inc. 2014WL323490. The case addressed a substantial issue of Colorado constitutional law, as well as a variety of procedural issues of potential importance to construction litigation attorneys. Of particular interest is the question of whether the provisions of the 2007 Homeowner Protection Act (“HPA”) are limited in application to contracts between residential homeowners and construction professionals, or whether they have broader application between commercial construction professional parties as well. As discussed below, the Court of Appeals stated that it would not answer the question, and then, separately, implied that the statute might only apply to homeowner transactions – with the resulting exclusion of commercial transactions. However, after its analysis, it left the actual decision of that issue to a future court in a later case.
The factual background for the case involved claims of breach of a contract for soils engineering by Terracon Consultants, Inc. (“Terracon”) and negligent excavation work by Bemas Construction, Inc. (“Bemas”). Plaintiff was Taylor Morrison of Colorado (“Taylor Morrison”), the developer and general contractor for a residential subdivision called Homestead Hills. After it constructed many homes, Taylor Morrison began to receive complaints of cracking drywall resulting from foundation movement and it made repairs at significant expense. Taylor Morrison then filed suit against Terracon and Bemas in connection with their respective roles in the original construction.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Buck Mann, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. Mann may be contacted at
mann@hhmrlaw.com
Texas Court Construes Breach of Contract Exclusion Narrowly in Duty-to-Defend Case
September 10, 2018 —
Lorelie S. Masters & Tae Andrews - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogIn a victory for policyholders, a recent decision from the Western District of Texas narrowly construed a common breach-of-contract exclusion and held that the insurer had a duty to defend its insured against an underlying lawsuit over construction defects. The allegations potentially supported a covered claim, as the conduct of the insured’s subcontractor could have been an independent, “but for” cause of the property damage at issue, thereby triggering the insurer’s duty to defend.
In Slay, the insured – a construction company – was hired by a city to design and construct a municipal sports complex, including Little League baseball fields, a softball field, parking lots, and a swimming pool. The construction company hired a subcontractor to perform various services on the project, including paving parking lots and laying the cement for the pool. After completing the project, one of the construction company’s employees noticed cracking in the parking lot and the pool. The construction company notified the city and tried to work out a repair plan, but the city refused and eventually sued, alleging construction defects and asserting claims for breach of contract and negligence.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Tae Andrews, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Andrews may be contacted at tandrews@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
What to do about California’s Defect-Ridden Board of Equalization Building
October 01, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFJerry Brown recently signed into law a bill requiring the state of California “to assess its properties in the Sacramento area and develop long-term plans for renovating, replacing or selling the most troublesome buildings,” according to SF Gate. Some say the Board of Equalization building, which was built for $80 million and then repaired for $60 million has construction defects, is “jeopardizing the health and safety of public employees.”
Current problems include “[f]looding, mold, falling windows and free-falling elevators,” reported SF Gate. Furthermore, recently, “three employees filed a $75 million lawsuit against the state, alleging toxic mold in the building is causing extreme fatigue, skin rashes, persistent flu-like symptoms, respiratory illnesses, frequent headaches, memory lapses and fears of cancer.”
“This is a disaster,” Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, D-Sacramento, who authored the bill regarding assessing state capitol buildings, told SF Gate. “It endangers the health and safety of employees and the public alike. And it is costing state taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment to Reject Collapse Coverage Denied
November 24, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe insurer unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment seeking to reject the insured's collapse claim. Gnannn v. United Servs. Auto, Ass'n, 2019 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1955 (Conn. Super Ct. July 11, 2019).
The insureds' home was built in 1985 and they purchased their home in 1993. A home inspection reported that some settlement and curing related cracks existed in the slab floor, but no signs of abnormal settlement were noticed. The concrete walls were in overall good condition.
In 2015, the insureds became aware of abnormal cracking in the basement. USAA was informed of the claim but denied coverage in October 2015. The insureds sued USAA. After suit was filed, the insureds hired an engineer, David Grandpre, to inspect their home. He observed severe cracking in the basement walls caused by an expansive chemical reaction within the concrete. The structure was not in imminent peril of falling down, and it continued as insureds' residence. But Mr. Grandpre noticed bulging and bowing, evidence that the concrete basement walls had failed and had begun to move inward due to the lateral pressure of the soil outside the home.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
