SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Dangerous Condition, Dangerous Precedent: California Supreme Court Expands Scope of Dangerous Condition Liability Involving Third Party Negligent/Criminal Conduct

August 19, 2015 — R. Bryan Martin, Laura C. Williams, & Lawrence S. Zucker II – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Cordova v. City of Los Angeles (filed 8/13/15, Case No. S208130), the California Supreme Court held a government entity is not categorically immune from liability where the plaintiff alleges a dangerous condition of public property caused the plaintiff’s injury, but did not cause the third party conduct which precipitated the accident. The case arises out of a traffic collision by which the negligent driving of a third party motorist caused another car to careen into a tree planted in the center median owned and maintained by the City of Los Angeles (“City”). Of the four occupants in the car that collided with the tree, three died and the fourth was badly injured. The parents of two of the occupants sued the City for a dangerous condition of public property under Government Code Section 835. The plaintiffs alleged the roadway was in a dangerous condition because the trees in the median were too close to the traveling portion of the road, posing an unreasonable risk of harm to motorists who might lose control of their vehicles. The City successfully moved for summary judgment, which plaintiffs appealed. On review, the Court of Appeal affirmed holding the tree was not a dangerous condition as a matter of law because there was no evidence that the tree had contributed to the criminally negligent driving of the third party motorist. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys R. Bryan Martin, Laura C. Williams and Lawrence S. Zucker II Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Ms. Williams may be contacted at lwilliams@hbblaw.com And Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Genuine Dispute Over Cause of Damage and Insureds’ Demolition Before Inspection Negate Bad Faith and Elder Abuse Claims

June 30, 2016 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Paslay v. State Farm General Ins. Co. (No. B265348, filed 6/27/16), a California appeals court found triable issues of fact regarding whether State Farm breached its contract in paying a water loss, but affirmed summary adjudication for the insurer on bad faith and elder abuse claims based on the genuine dispute doctrine. 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

---

Collapse Claim Dismissed

December 04, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The complaint alleged collapse, but the claimed cause of the collapse was not a covered cause under the insured's policy, mandating a dismissal of the complaint. Coonce v. CSSA Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 25010 (10th Cir. Sept. 4, 2018). The ceiling in the insured's living and dining areas caved in. An engineering survey determined that the nails used in the construction had failed to hold. The insured made a claim on her policy issued by CSAA. Coverage was denied and the insured sued. The insured was given two opportunities to amend her complaint by the district court, but the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was eventually granted. 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

---

Burden Supporting Termination for Default

January 11, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Terminating a contractor for default is a “‘drastic sanction’ and ‘should be imposed (or sustained) only for good grounds and on solid evidence.’” Cherokee General Corp. v. U.S., 150 Fed.Cl. 270, 278 (Fed.Cl. 2020) (citation omitted). This is true with any termination for default because terminating a contract for default is the harshest recourse that can be taken under a contract. It is a caused-based termination. For this reason, the party terminating a contract for default needs to be in a position to carry its burden supporting the evidentiary basis in exercising the default-based (or caused-based) termination. Stated differently, the party terminating a contract for default needs to justify the reasonableness in terminating the contract for default. A party looking to terminate a contract for default should smartly work with counsel to best position its justification in exercising the termination for default. Likewise, a contractor terminated for default should immediately work with counsel to best position the unreasonableness or the lack of justification for the default-based termination. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Third Circuit Affirms Use of Eminent Domain by Natural Gas Pipeline

November 28, 2018 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
On October 30, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decided the case of Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co., LLC v. Permanent Easements for 2.14 Acres, et al. , affirming the District Court’s grant of a preliminary injunction to Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transcontinental). This case involves the construction of the “Atlantic Sunrise Expansion Project,” a natural gas pipeline that runs through Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina. Under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), pipeline companies can exercise powers of eminent domain when they are acting in the public interest. The Third Circuit cautions that this is a “standard” eminent domain power, and not a “quick take” that is permitted under another statute. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

---

Chinese Telecommunications Ban to Expand to Federally Funded Contracts Effective November 12, 2020

September 21, 2020 — Lori Ann Lange & Sabah Petrov - Peckar & Abramson
In our previous alert, we discussed the Federal Government’s Ban (the “Ban”) on certain Chinese covered telecommunications and video surveillance equipment and services in federal government contracts. The ban prohibits government contractors and subcontractors from supplying to the Federal Government or using in their own internal operations certain telecommunications or video surveillance equipment or services produced by Huawei Technologies Company, ZTE Corporation, Hytera Communications Corporation, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Company, and Dahua Technology Company, as well as their subsidiaries and affiliates. The Ban currently applies to companies contracting directly with the Federal Government. Soon, however, the Ban – at least in part – will expand to contractors and subcontractors who are awarded certain federally assisted contracts and subcontracts. On August 13, 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) published Final Guidance revising its grants and agreements regulations (2 CFR Part 200) to prohibit recipients and subrecipients from using loan or grant funds to purchase or obtain covered telecommunications and video surveillance equipment or services. Effective November 12, 2020, recipients and subrecipients are prohibited from obligating or expending loan or grant funds to:

1. Procure or obtain;
2. Extend or renew a contract to procure or obtain; or
3. Enter into a contract (or extend or renew a contract) to procure or obtain equipment, services, or systems that use covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system, or as critical technology as part of any system.

Reprinted courtesy of Lori Ann Lange, Peckar & Abramson and Sabah Petrov, Peckar & Abramson Ms. Lange may be contacted at llange@pecklaw.com Ms. Petrov may be contacted at spetrov@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Administrative and Environmental Law Cases Decided During the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2017-2018 Term

July 28, 2018 — Anthony B. Cavender & Amy L. Pierce - Gravel2Gavel
Unlike other Terms, only a handful of cases addressed administrative and environmental law issues in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2017-2018 Term. However, the next Term of the Court promises to be more active in these areas.

• On January 22, 2018, the Court issued a unanimous opinion in the Clean Water Act (CWA) case, Nat’l Assoc. of Mfrs. v. Dep’t of Defense, holding that the plain language of the CWA requires the appeal of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) redefinition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS Rule) must be heard first in the federal district courts. Whereas all appeals of most EPA CWA effluent limitation rules must be heard in the federal Courts of Appeals, Congress chose not to do this with respect to this definitional rule. The Court points out that reviews in the Courts of Appeals must take place within 120 days of the rule’s promulgation, but any review of a rule in the federal district court must take place within 6 years of the date the claim accrues.

Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman and Amy L. Pierce, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Pierce may be contacted at amy.pierce@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Employee Handbooks—Your First Line of Defense

April 15, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
This spring has been busy with questions about employee handbooks. Perhaps it is because the NLRB just issued a directive on the legality of various clauses usually contained in handbooks. Or perhaps it’s because employers, including construction companies, are realizing the importance that handbooks play in defending against claims of harassment. Employee Handbooks Are Important Employee handbooks are an employer’s first line of defense in claims of harassment. A key provision to any employee handbook is an anti-harassment provision that includes:

• A definition of harassment;
• The process to complain about harassment;
• A commitment to investigate all claims of harassment; and
• An assurance that no one will be retaliated against for reporting harassment.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

---