Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

The Year 2010 In Review: Design And Construction Defects Litigation

February 25, 2011 — Candace Matson, Harold Hamersmith, and Helen Lauderdale

This article is the first in a series summarizing construction law developments for 2010

1. Centex Homes v. Financial Pacific Life Insurance Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1995 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

After settling numerous homeowners’ construction defect claims — and more than ten years after the homes were substantially completed — a home developer brought suit against one of the concrete fabrication subcontractors for the development seeking indemnity for amounts paid to the homeowners, as well as for damages for breach of the subcontractor’s duties to procure specific insurance and to defend the developer against the homeowners’ claims. The subcontractor brought a motion for summary adjudication on the ground the developer’s claims were barred by the ten year statute of repose contained in Code of Civil Procedure Section 337.15.

The District Court agreed the developer’s claim for indemnity was barred by Section 337.15. And it held that because the damages recoverable for breach of the subcontractor’s duty to purchase insurance are identical to the damages recoverable through the developer’s indemnity claim, the breach of duty to procure insurance claim also was time-barred. The District Court, however, allowed the claim for breach of the duty to defend to proceed. The categories of losses associated with such a claim (attorneys’ fees and other defense costs) are distinct from the damages recoverable through claims governed by Section 337.15 (latent deficiency in the design and construction of the homes and injury to property arising out of the latent deficiencies).

2. UDC — Universal Development v. CH2M Hill, 181 Cal. App. 4th 10 (6th Dist. Jan. 2010)

Indemnification clauses in construction agreements often state that one party to the agreement — the “indemnitor” — will defend and indemnify the other party from particular types of claims. Of course, having a contract right to a defense is not the same as actually receiving a defense. Any indemnitor attempting to avoid paying for defense costs can simply deny the tender of defense with the hope that when the underlying claim is resolved the defense obligations will be forgotten. In the past, when parties entitled to a defense — the “indemnitees” — had long memories and pressed to recover defense costs, indemnitors attempted to justify denying the tender by claiming their defense obligations coincided with their indemnity obligations and neither arose until a final determination was made that the underlying claim was one for which indemnity was owed.

Read the full story...

Reprinted courtesy of Candace Matson, Harold Hamersmith, and Helen Lauderdale, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP. Ms. Matson can be contacted at cmatson@sheppardmullin.com, Mr. Hamersmith can be contacted at hhamersmith@sheppardmullin.com, and Ms. Lauderdale can be contacted at hlauderdale@sheppardmullin.com.

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

Construction Lien Needs to Be Recorded Within 90 Days from Lienor’s Final Furnishing

March 22, 2018 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates

A lienor needs to record its construction lien within 90 days of its final furnishing date. This final furnishing date excludes punchlist, warranty, or the lienor’s own corrective work. A lien recorded outside of the 90-day window will be deemed invalid.

The opinion in In re: Jennerwein, 309 B.R. 385 (M.D. Fla. 2004) provides a good discussion of this 90-day window. This matter dealt with a debtor / owner’s bankruptcy where the owner was contesting the validity of a construction lien by its pool contractor. The owner contended that the lienor’s lien was recorded outside of this 90-day window thus rendering the lien invalid. The bankruptcy court was determining the validity of the lien.

In this matter, the owner hired a swimming pool contractor to construct a pool. On October 25, 2002, the pool contractor installed pavers around the pool. After this was performed, the pool contractor realized the owner was unable to obtain the financing to pay for the pool. As a result, the pool contractor ceased doing any more improvements. But, neither the pool contractor nor the owner terminated the contract. Then, on November 27, 2002, the pool contractor sent a supervisor to the property to inspect the pool (work-in-place), the pool equipment, the installed pavers, made a list of the unfinished work, and remove any debris. On January 27, 2003, the pool contractor recorded its lien.

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

Potential Extension of the Statutes of Limitation and Repose for Colorado Construction Defect Claims

April 27, 2020 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
On January 27th, Senator Robert Rodriguez introduced SB 20-138 into the Colorado Legislature. The bill has been assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee and has not yet been scheduled for its first hearing in that committee. In short, Senate Bill 20-138, if enacted, would:

Extend Colorado’s statute of repose for construction defects from 6+2 years to 10+2 years;
Require tolling of the statute of repose until the claimant discovers not only the physical manifestation of a construction defect, but also its cause; and
Permit statutory and equitable tolling of the statute of repose.

Colorado’s statute of repose for construction defect claims are codified at C.R.S. § 13-80-104. In 1986, the Colorado Legislature set the statute of repose period at 6+2 years. For the last 34 years, Colorado’s statute of repose for owners’ claims against construction professionals has been substantially the same, to wit:

(1) (a) Notwithstanding any statutory provision to the contrary, all actions against any architect, contractor, builder or builder vendor, engineer, or inspector performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision, inspection, construction, or observation of construction of any improvement to real property shall be brought within the time provided in section 13-80-102 after the claim for relief arises, and not thereafter, but in no case shall such an action be brought more than six years after the substantial completion of the improvement to the real property, except as provided in subsection (2) of this section.

(2) In case any such cause of action arises during the fifth or sixth year after substantial completion of the improvement to real property, said action shall be brought within two years after the date upon which said cause of action arises.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Detroit Craftsmen Sift House Rubble in Quest for Treasured Wood

March 19, 2015 — Chris Christoff and Alexandra Mondalek – Bloomberg
(Bloomberg) -- Detroit’s 70,000 abandoned homes are proving to be a trove for entrepreneurs who recycle century-old lumber, glass and brick into everything from terrariums to $4,500 guitars. “It’s like a treasure hunt,” said Craig Varterian, executive director of Reclaim Detroit, a nonprofit group that’s stripped and sold materials from almost 70 demolished homes. Floorboards and joists of early 20th century maple, walnut, hickory, fir and even chestnut are prized for their density and fine grain. As Detroit ramps up demolitions of vacant dwellings, Mayor Mike Duggan plans a reclamation center in a city-owned building to keep tons of rubble out of landfills and create jobs and merchandise. Recycling would become a centerpiece of the city’s blight-removal effort, which is struggling to maintain funding. Reprinted courtesy of Chris Christoff, Bloomberg and Alexandra Mondalek, Bloomberg Mr. Christoff may be contacted at cchristoff@bloomberg.net Ms. Mondalek may be contacted at amondalek@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

No Retrofit without Repurposing in Los Angeles

October 21, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Los Angeles Times has continued its series on the seismic safety of buildings in downtown Los Angeles. According to the article, Los Angeles only requires seismic retrofits of buildings if their purpose is being changed. One investor, Izak Shomof, bought a residential hotel and kept it as one to avoid retrofitting the building. He converted an office building to upscale residences and so the building was strengthened. His son, Eric Shomof, keeps an office in the unreinforced building. He said if more retrofitting were required, “you’d see a lot more vacant buildings down here,” describing the process as “not cheap.” Depending on whether or when a building has changed its use, the concrete buildings of downtown Los Angeles may or may not be protected against failure in an earthquake. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Georgia Court Clarifies Landlord Liability for Construction Defects

June 02, 2016 — Chadd Reynolds - AHHC Construction Law Blog
In Cowart v. Schevitz, the Georgia Court of Appeals clarified the instances in which an out-of-possession landlord can be liable in a premises liability claim. No. A15A2036, 2016 WL 563114, at *4 (Ga. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2016). In this case, the plaintiff was leaving a restaurant and injured herself stepping down off of a sidewalk near the bottom of a ramp. The plaintiff filed a premises liability claim against the owner of commercial property (the “landlord”) and the operator of the restaurant (who later settled), seeking medical expenses and costs of litigation. An expert testifying on behalf of the plaintiff stated that the ramp was required to have railings pursuant to building codes and, had the railings been installed on the ramp, the plaintiff’s fall more than likely would not have occurred. The landlord moved for summary judgment, arguing that as an out-of-possession landlord, his liability to third persons for the use of the property by his tenant was precluded under O.C.G.A. § 44-7-14. The trial court denied the motion without comment, and the owner subsequently appealed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chadd Reynolds, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Reynolds may be contacted at reynolds@ahclaw.com

Lewis Brisbois Ranked Tier 1 Nationally for Insurance Law, Mass Tort/Class Actions Defense by U.S. News/Best Lawyers

November 21, 2022 — Lewis Brisbois
(November 3, 2022) - Lewis Brisbois has once again been ranked Tier 1 nationally by U.S. News & World Report/Best Lawyers for ‘Insurance Law’ and ‘Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants,’ as well as ranking Tier 1 in 14 different practice areas across 15 metro regions. In addition to Lewis Brisbois' national ranking, the firm also ranked Tier 1 for ‘Insurance Law’ in the Philadelphia, Reno, and Tampa metro areas, and Tier 1 for ‘Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants’ in the Los Angeles area. The firm was also ranked Tier 1 in the following regional categories:

‘Commercial Litigation’ in Akron;
‘Corporate Governance Law’ in San Francisco;
‘Corporate Law’ in Akron;
‘Environmental Law’ in Washington, D.C.;
‘Litigation - Health Care’ in Portland, Ore. and Roanoke;
‘Litigation – Municipal’ in Wichita;
‘Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants’ in Chicago and Roanoke;
‘Mergers & Acquisitions Law’ in Akron;
‘Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants’ in Chicago, Inland Empire, New York City, Orange County, Roanoke, and Seattle;
‘Product Liability Litigation – Defendants’ in Philadelphia;
‘Tax Law’ in Akron; and
‘Trusts & Estates Law’ in Akron.

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

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

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES