Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Housing Agency Claims It Is Not a Party in Construction Defect Case

February 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) is seeking to be removed from a construction defect suit filed by Aspen homeowners. APCHA claims that it should not be a party to the suit, since it had nothing to do with the development of the Burlingame Ranch community. Responsibility should instead, according to the agency, rest with the City of Aspen. APCHA’s role was to sell the homes to individuals whom it had verified were eligible to purchase affordable housing. Tom McCabe, the director of APCHA said that “APCHA has no part in the building of housing anymore, and we haven’t for a long time.” Chris Rhody, who represents the Burlingame homeowners, feels that APCHA should be involved. The homeowners are alleging that construction defects, including cracked exterior siding, are the result of faulty materials and improper installation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa Rolle Wins Summary Judgment on Behalf of Contract Utility Company in Personal Injury Action

April 25, 2023 — Lisa M. Rolle - Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa Rolle obtained summary judgment on behalf of a contract utility company (“Utility Company”) in a matter brought before the New York Supreme Court, Queens County. In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that she sustained injuries as a result of a trip and fall accident where the Plaintiff’s foot allegedly went into a hole in the grass strip abutting the sidewalk adjacent to a premises located in Queens, NY. The Plaintiff claimed that the defect in the sidewalk was caused by the removal of a utility pole at the curb strip that was not correctly backfilled. The Defendant Utility Company is in the business of inspecting, treating, and repairing utility and telecommunication structures, including wooden utility poles. TLSS was successfully able to establish that, three years prior to the accident, the Utility Company was retained to conduct a visual inspection of the subject pole. However, the Utility Company does not and has not owned, installed, removed or replaced in-service utility poles in New York or at the location of the alleged accident. Further, TLSS established that the Utility Company did not service or remove the subject pole at the accident site or backfill the curb strip. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman
Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com

Emotional Distress Damages Not Distinct from “Annoyance and Discomfort” Damages in Case Arising from 2007 California Wildfires

November 21, 2017 — Kirsten Lee Price & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Originally published by CDJ on February 16, 2017 In Hensley v. San Diego Gas & Elec. Co., (No. D070259, filed 1/31/17), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held that emotional distress damages are available on claims for trespass and nuisance as part of “annoyance and discomfort” damages. In Hensley, plaintiffs sustained fire damage to their home and property during the 2007 California wildfires. The Hensleys were forced to evacuate as the fires advanced. Although their home was not completely destroyed, it sustained significant damage and they were not able to return home permanently for nearly two months. Thereafter, the Hensleys filed suit against San Diego Gas and Electric Company (“SDG&E”) asserting causes of action for trespass and nuisance, among others. Mr. Hensley, who had suffered from Crohn’s disease since 1991, further claimed that as a result of the stress from the fire, he experienced a substantial increase in his symptoms and his treating physician opined that “beyond a measure of reasonable medical certainty... the stress created by the 2007 San Diego fires caused an increase of [Mr. Hensley’s] disease activity, necessitating frequent visits, numerous therapies, and at least two surgeries since the incident.” SDGE moved, in limine, to exclude evidence of Mr. Hensley’s asserted emotional distress damages arguing he was not legally entitled to recover them under theories of trespass and nuisance. The trial court agreed and excluded all evidence of such damages. Reprinted courtesy of Kirsten Lee Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Price may be contacted at kprice@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

That Boilerplate Language May Just Land You in Hot Water

December 17, 2015 — Kevin Brodehl – California Construction Law Blog
The following post originally appeared in my partnerKevin Brodehl‘s informative blog, Money and Dirt. If you’re involved in real estate investment, development and/or secured lending in California, it’s a must read. While Kevin’s post below discusses a case involving a real estate purchase agreement, it applies equally to construction contracts, perhaps even more so, since I can’t think of any other type of contract in which indemnity and integration clauses are as common, or as integral. Almost all real estate purchase and sale agreements contain provisions relating to integration and indemnity. In the “boilerplate” worldview, these provisions are standard, generic, and basically all the same — integration clauses prohibit extrinsic evidence that would contradict the terms of the agreement, and indemnity clauses force the seller to protect the buyer from third party claims arising after closing. But a recently published opinion by the California Court of Appeal (Fourth District, Division Three in Santa Ana) — Hot Rods, LLC v. Northrop Grunman Systems Corp. — clarifies that integration and indemnity clauses can have vastly different effects depending on how they are drafted. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin Brodehl, California Construction Law Blog
Mr. Brodehl may be contacted at kbrodehl@wendel.com

$24 Million Verdict Against Material Supplier Overturned Where Plaintiff Failed To Prove Supplier’s Negligence Or Breach Of Contract Caused A SB800 Violation

June 05, 2017 — Jon A. Turigliatto & Chelsea L. Zwart - CGDRB News & Publications
The Fourth District California Court of Appeal published its decision, Acqua Vista Homeowners Assoc. v. MWI, Inc. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 1129, holding that claims against a material supplier under SB800 (Civil Code §895, et. seq.) require proof that the SB800 violation was caused by the supplier’s negligence or breach of contract. In this case, Acqua Vista Homeowners Association (“the HOA”) sued MWI, a supplier of Chinese pipe used in the construction of the Acqua Vista condominium development. The HOA’s complaint asserted a single cause of action for violation of SB800 standards, and alleged that defective cast iron pipe was used throughout the building. At trial, the HOA presented evidence that the pipes supplied by MWI contained manufacturing defects, that they leaked, and that the leaks had caused damage to various parts of the condominium development. The jury returned a special verdict against MWI, and the trial court entered a judgment against MWI in the amount of $23,955,796.28, reflecting the jury’s finding that MWI was 92% responsible for the HOA’s damages. MWI filed a motion for a directed verdict prior to the jury’s verdict and motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict following the entry of judgment, both on the grounds that the HOA had failed to present any evidence that MWI had caused a SB800 violation as a result of its negligence or breach of contract, and had therefore failed to prove negligence and causation as required by SB800. MWI relied on the Fourth District’s prior decision in Greystone Homes, Inc. v. Midtec, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1194, and its interpretation therein of Civil Code §936, which states, in relevant part, that the statute applies “to general contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, individual product manufacturers, and design professionals to the extent that the general contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, individual product manufacturers, and design professionals caused, in whole or in part, a violation of a particular standard as the result of a negligent act or omission or a breach of contract….” (emphasis added.) However, the trial court denied both motions, relying on the last sentence of Civil Code §936, which states in part, “[T]he negligence standard in this section does not apply to any…material supplier…with respect to claims for which strict liability would apply.” Reprinted courtesy of Jon A. Turigliatto, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and Chelsea L. Zwart, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Mr. Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California Makes Big Changes to the Discovery Act

March 04, 2024 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Beginning January of 2024, California amended the Civil Discovery Act to mirror the Federal Rules and require that any party appearing in a civil action to provide initial disclosures to any other party demanding the same. In January of 2024, California amended the Civil Discovery Act, specifically C.C.P. section 2016.090, to affirmatively require that any party appearing in a civil action to provide initial disclosures to any other party demanding the same. In an effort to reflect the Federal Rule 26 disclosure requirements, as many other States have adopted, California will now also mandate (upon demand) that a party produce evidence without an arduous and possibly duplicative effort. In other words, this initial disclosure will require a party making initial disclosures of persons or records to additionally disclose persons or records that are relevant to the subject matter of the action and to disclose information and records regarding insurance policies or contracts that would make a person or insurance company liable to satisfy a judgment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Meet the Forum's In-House Counsel: KATE GOLDEN

February 19, 2024 — Jessica Knox - The Dispute Resolver
Company: Mortenson Email: kate.golden@mortenson.com Website: www.mortenson.com College: University of Iowa (Bachelor of Science in Engineering, 1991) Graduate School: University of Minnesota (Master of Science in Civil Engineering, 1994) Law School: William Mitchell College of Law (now Mitchell | Hamline School of Law) (JD 1999) States Where Company Operates/Does Business: Mortenson is a national builder and developer with 13 regional office locations. Q: Describe your background and the path you took to becoming in-house counsel. A: In high school, I loved math and science, so I attended the University of Iowa College of Engineering and studied civil engineering, with a focus on environmental engineering. To practice environmental engineering at that time, you generally needed a master’s degree, so I attended the University of Minnesota, where my thesis for my degree program was “Organochlorines in Lake Michigan.” I then worked as an environmental engineer for a consulting firm called Montgomery Watson (now MWH) assisting clients with various environmental issues from air permitting to watershed reports to risk assessments of contaminated sites. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jessica Knox, Stinson LLP
Ms. Knox may be contacted at jessica.knox@stinson.com

Judgment Proof: Reducing Litigation Exposure with Litigation Risk Insurance

March 04, 2024 — Latosha M. Ellis & Charlotte Leszinske - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
It is not just your imagination: verdicts are getting bigger. So-called “nuclear verdicts” have increased in size and frequency over the past decade, particularly after the COVID-19 pandemic. Litigation risk insurance is a little known, but highly effective, option meant to compliment traditional insurance products and provide additional protection for policyholders nervous about litigation exposure. Unfortunately, it is difficult to predict the exposure presented by any particular case. Between 2020 and 2022, the median verdict increased 95%—from $21.5 million to $41.1 million. In 2022, a jury handed down a verdict worth $7.3 billion for injury to a single plaintiff. Even if an injury or loss is minor, juries have shown that they are willing to penalize corporate defendants with punitive damages that significantly exceed the award of compensatory damages. With such uncertainty and millions (if not billions) at stake, companies can reduce risk with litigation risk insurance. Three key types of litigation risk insurance include: (1) punitive wrap insurance, (2) adverse judgment insurance, and (3) judgment preservation insurance. Reprinted courtesy of Latosha M. Ellis, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Charlotte Leszinske, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Ellis may be contacted at lellis@HuntonAK.com Ms. Leszinske may be contacted at cleszinske@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES