Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Quick Note: Aim to Avoid a Stay to your Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

February 23, 2017 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
Strategy is important. This is especially true if you are trying to avoid arbitration. In a recent federal district court case, a subcontractor sued the prime contractor and the Miller Act payment bond surety. The subcontractor, however, had an arbitration provision in its subcontract with the prime contractor. The prime contractor moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the subcontract and moved to stay the subcontractor’s Miller Act payment bond claim. The last thing, and I mean the last thing, the subcontractor wanted to do was to stay its claim against the Miller Act payment bond. However, the district court compelled the subcontractor’s claim against the prime contractor to arbitration and stayed the subcontractor’s Miller Act payment bond claim pending the outcome of the arbitration. See U.S. v. International Fidelity Ins. Co., 2017 WL 495614 (S.D.Al. 2017). This is not what the subcontractor wanted. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

Appraisal Panel Can Determine Causation of Loss under Ohio Law

February 19, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court granted the insured's motion to compel an appraisal that would include a determination of causation of the loss. Eagle Highland Owners Association v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220937 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 12, 2023). Plaintiff argued its property suffered wind and hail damage from a storm on June 18, 2021. A claim was submitted to State Farm. State Farm's investigation determined the loss to be $0.00. Plaintiff's investigator determined the loss to be $586,647.08 in repair costs. State Farm opposed appraisal because, in its view, the damage arose from a loss in 2019, not from the June 18, 2021 storm. Plaintiff submitted a loss claim in 2019 for damage that State Farm alleged was exactly the same as the damage alleged in the loss claim for the June 18, 2021 storm. Therefore, State Farm did not view the matter as a dispute over an amount of loss, but rather over whether a loss even occurred on June 18, 2021. 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

Business Interruption, Food Spoilage Claims Resulting from Off Premise Power Failure Denied

June 02, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer denied the insured restaurant's claim for food spoilage and loss of business income when a flood elsewhere caused a power outage. N. Spy Food Co., LLC v. Tower Nat'l. Ins., 2016 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1033 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. March 22, 2016). Tower denied the claim based on an investigation which revealed that the claims resulted from an off premises power failure. The utility company verified that the cause of the power failure was due to flood, a cause excluded under the policy. The food loss and business interruption, therefore, did not result from direct physical loss or damage by a covered cause, justifying the denial of the claim. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

A Few Green Building Notes

December 02, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
This past week, the blogosphere (if that’s even the word these days) has been abuzz about green building and the value that green can add to a project. Three items in particular (among many) got my attention. The first of these was the fact that a new private sustainability rating system is ready for launch. The Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure (or ISI) is seeking public comment on its proposed envISIon. This new system (aptly dubbed Version 1.0) will go “live” in July for comment. Why mention this new system? First of all, ISI’s founding members are the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), the American Public Works Association (APWA) and the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC). This trio gives the new program some fairly heavy weight backing. Second, while there are rating systems aside from the ever present LEED, none have taken hold in any real way to compete with LEED. I am curious to see if the envISIon system has any better luck. Finally, this shows that sustainable building is of interest to more than the USGBC and those of us that discuss LEED on a daily basis. I find this to be a great thing that could lead to more societal acceptance of sustainable practices as a standard practice rather than a goal. Hopefully such efforts will offset the other two notes that caught my eye recently. The first of these is the foreclosure of the Chapel Hill, North Carolina Greenbridge project. This project is well documented at my friend Doug Reiser’s (@douglasreiser) Builders Counsel blog so I won’t further discuss the details here. However, the question that Doug asks is a good one, i. e. were the “green” elements of the project to blame? Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Court Upholds Plan to Eliminate Vehicles from Balboa Park Complex

June 10, 2015 — Kristen Lee Price and Lawrence S. Zucker II – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Save Our Heritage Organisation v. City of San Diego, et al. (No. D063992, filed 5/28/15), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District upheld a controversial plan to eliminate vehicles from various plazas in historic Balboa Park. In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal considered a question of first impression involving the interpretation of San Diego Municipal Code section 126.0504. Balboa Park, designated a National Historic Landmark in 1940, is a large urban park in the center of San Diego. The City of San Diego (“City”) recently approved a proposed plan (“Project”) to eliminate vehicles from the plazas within the Balboa Park complex and to return the plazas to purely pedestrian zones. Subsequently, a community group named Save Our Heritage Organisation (“SOHO”) filed a petition for a writ of mandate alleging, among other things, the City erroneously approved the Project. SOHO contended Municipal Code section 126.0504 mandated two key findings be made before the Project could be approved: (1) that the intended purpose of the property would not be adversely affected; and (2) without the proposed project, the property would not be put to a “reasonable beneficial use.” SOHO argued that although the City made the requisite findings, those findings lacked substantial evidentiary support. The trial court agreed with SOHO and directed the City to rescind the site development permit. The City argued on appeal that Municipal Code section 126.0504 vested it with “discretion to make a qualitative determination of whether an existing use of the property, even if deemed beneficial, is also a reasonable use of that property under all of the facts and circumstances applicable to the particular property in question.” The Court of Appeal agreed and reversed. Reprinted courtesy of Kristen Lee Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, 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

Update Regarding McMillin Albany LLC v. Super Ct.

April 28, 2016 — Richard H. Glucksman and David A. Napper – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger In Focus
The construction industry continues to await the California Supreme Court's highly anticipated decision regarding McMillin Albany LLC v. Super Ct. 2015 F069370 (Cal.App.5 Dist.). The Supreme Court will attempt to resolve the conflict presented by the Fourth Appellate District Court's holding in Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98 and rejection of the same by the Fifth Appellate District Court in McMillin Albany. The issue is whether the Right to Repair Act (SB800) is the exclusive remedy for all defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2013. CGDRB has been closely monitoring the progress of the case and understands that the real parties in interest have submitted their opening brief on the merits. The Court granted Petitioners a further and final extension to file the answer brief on the merits. The answer deadline is Monday April 25, 2016. Stay tuned. Reprinted courtesy of Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and David A. Napper, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

“Details Matter” is the Foundation in a Texas Construction Defect Suit

March 01, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The Court of Appeals of Texas has ruled in the case of Barzoukas v. Foundation Design. Mr. Barzoukas contracted with Heights Development to build a house. He subsequently sued Heights Developments and “numerous other defendants who participated in the construction of his house.” Barzoukas eventually settled with all but two defendants, one who went bankrupt and Foundation Design, the defendant in this case. In the earlier phase, Barzoukas made claims of “negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, fraudulent inducement, conspiracy, and exemplary damages in connection with the foundation.”

Foundation Design had been hired to install 15-foot piers to support the foundation. The engineer of record, Larry Smith, sent a letter to Heights Development noting that they had encountered hard clay stone when drilling. Smith changed the specifications to 12-foot piers. Initially, the City of Houston called a halt to work on the home when an inspector concluded that the piers were too shallow. Heights Development later convinced the city to allow work to continue. Subsequently, experts concluded that the piers were too shallow.

Foundation Design filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted this, “without specifying the basis for its ruling.” Barzoukas contends the court was in error. Foundation Design contends that “Barzoukas failed to proffer competent evidence establishing that their conduct proximately caused damages.” Further, they did not feel that Smith’s letter gave “rise to viable claims for fraud and fraudulent inducement.”

One problem the court had was a lack of evidence. The court noted that “the purported subcontract is entirely missing” in the pleadings. The court has no contract between Bazourkas and Heights Development, nor one between Heights Development and either Foundation Design or Smith. The court underscored the importance of this, writing, “details matter.” They found that “the details are largely missing here.” Without the contract, the court found it impossible to determine if “Smith or an entity related to him agreed to indemnify Heights Development for damages arising from Smith’s negligent performance.”

As the material facts are in dispute, the appeals court found that there were no grounds for a summary judgment in the case. “Pointing to the existence of a contract between Heights Development and Barzoukas, or to the existence of a subcontract, is the beginning of the analysis ? not the end.”

Foundation Design and Smith also claimed that Barzoukas’s expert did not proffer competent evidence and that the expert’s opinions were conclusory. The trial court did not rule on these claims and the appeals court has rejected them.

Finally, Barzoukas made a claim that the trial court should not have rejected his argument of fraud and fraudulent inducement. Here, however, the appeals court upheld the decision of the lower court. “Barzoukas did not present evidence supporting an inference that Smith or Foundation Design made a purposeful misrepresentation.

The court remanded the case to the trial court for reconsideration. One member of the panel, Judge Charles Seymore, upheld the entire decision of the trial court. He dissented with the majority, finding that the economic loss rule foreclosed the claim of negligence.

Read the court’s decision…

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

White and Williams Selected in the 2024 Best Law Firms ranked by Best Lawyers®

December 04, 2023 — White and Williams LLP
White and Williams LLP is proud to be selected in the 2024 Best Law Firms ranked by Best Lawyers®. The firm was recognized in the National Rankings in four practice areas including both Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law and Insurance Law (Tier 1). In addition, the firm’s office locations in Philadelphia, New York City, Boston, Baltimore, Delaware and New Jersey were recognized for 30 practice areas in the Metropolitan rankings. Achieving a tiered ranking in Best Law Firms signals a unique combination of quality law practice and breadth of legal expertise. The Best Law Firms research methodology includes the collection of client and lawyer evaluations, peer review from leading attorneys in their field and review of additional information provided by law firms as part of the formal submission process. The 2024 Best Law Firms rankings can be accessed at www.bestlawfirms.com. 2024 Best Law Firms

Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law
Insurance Law

Construction Law
Litigation – Construction

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES