SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Expansion of Statutes of Limitations and Repose in K-12 and Municipal Construction Contracts

March 27, 2019 — Henry Bangert - Colorado Construction Litigation
The purpose of this whitepaper is to bring attention to a trend in K-12 and municipal construction contracts, which expands the time periods for law suits against construction professionals. Introduction and Background Under Colorado statute, the period of time within which a legal action for construction defects may be brought against a construction professional in Colorado is two years from when the claimant (or its predecessor in interest) discovers or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered the physical manifestations of a defect (the “Statute of Limitations”), but in no case may an action be brought more than six years after substantial completion of the improvement, unless the claim arises in the fifth or sixth year after substantial completion, in which event the action may be brought within two years of such date, i.e., up to eight years after substantial completion (the “Statute of Repose”). See C.R.S. § 13-80-104. While the triggering events differ for the Statute of Limitations and Statue of Repose, the periods are intended to run concurrently to limit the period of time an action may be brought against construction professionals for construction defects to, at most, eight years after substantial completion. Importantly, these limitations periods may be expanded by agreement. Prior to 1986, Colorado law provided for a 10-year Statute of Repose. However, in 1986, Colorado’s legislature shortened the Statute of Repose time limit to the current six (or up to eight) year period. In 1986, Colorado also redefined the date the claim arises from the date the defect was discovered or should have been discovered to the date the physical manifestation of a defect was discovered or should have been discovered. Therefore, after 1986, the two-year limitations period could begin to run when a claimant should have discovered the manifestation of a defect, even if the claimant did not recognize that a defect existed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

---

When is Mediation Appropriate for Your Construction Case?

May 07, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
Here at Construction Law Musings, I have often discussed mediation as a good alternative to the expense and headaches of litigation. What I have discussed less often are the circumstances in which it is most appropriate to consider or even push for mediation. The obvious and clearest time that mediation must be used is where the contract requires it. Many construction contracts, including those from the AIA (when the parties check the appropriate box) require mediation as a prerequisite to arbitration or litigation. As is almost always the case in Virginia, this clause will be enforced. In short, if your construction contract has such a clause, and despite my reservations about “mandatory mediation,” you need to at least go through the process before moving forward with your construction claim. The more interesting case is where no such clause exists and the parties reach an impasse, sometimes prior to litigation and often after the filing of a construction complaint or demand for arbitration. What questions should you as a construction attorney be asking both to and about your construction clients before attempting mediation? Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

NJ Supreme Court Declines to Review Decision that Exxon Has No Duty to Indemnify Insurers for Environmental Liability Under Prior Settlement Agreement

November 29, 2021 — Patricia B. Santelle & Laura Rossi - White and Williams
On November 1, 2021, in a single-sentence Order, the Supreme Court of New Jersey denied a request for review of a decision that ExxonMobil Corporation (Exxon) did not have to indemnify certain of its insurers over environmental liabilities as required by a previous settlement agreement. The case, entitled Home Insurance Company v. Cornell-Dubilier Electronics Incorporated, et al., has a unique and convoluted procedural history but, in short, the denial of review leaves standing a holding by the intermediate appellate court that the insurers’ “untimely notice actually prejudiced Exxon, violated the no-prejudice rule, and breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.” The court declined to consider the question framed by the insurers: whether the importance of enforcing settlement agreements outweighs New Jersey’s entire controversy doctrine. The matter dated back almost thirty years, when the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection notified the Appearing London Market Insurers (ALMI) of the potential liability of Cornell-Dublier Electronics (CDE), a former indirect subsidiary of Exxon, for pollution at a site in New Jersey. Coverage litigation followed in New Jersey, which ALMI defended under policies issued to CDE. Exxon was not named in the CDE suit nor were the policies which ALMI issued to Exxon at issue in that case; Exxon instead had its own pollution coverage case pending in New York. In June 2000, Exxon and its insurers, including ALMI, entered into a settlement agreement which (a) required Exxon to indemnify the insurers for any environmental liability claims involving its subsidiaries, and (b) provided for application of New York substantive law and litigation in New York City court for any dispute between the parties under it. Reprinted courtesy of Patricia B. Santelle, White and Williams and Laura Rossi, White and Williams Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Rossi may be contacted at rossil@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Proposed Bill Provides a New Federal Tax Credit for the Conversion of Office Buildings

September 06, 2021 — Emily K. Bias & Brittany Griffith - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
At the end of July 2021, a bill was introduced in the House and Senate, which, if enacted, would create a federal tax credit to fund the conversion of unused office buildings into residential, commercial, or mixed-use properties. The Revitalizing Downtowns Act (S. 2511), which is modeled after the federal historic rehabilitation tax credit, would provide a federal tax credit equal to 20 percent of “qualified conversion expenditures” with respect to a “qualified converted building.” A “qualified converted building” means any building that (i) was nonresidential real property for lease to office tenants, (ii) has been “substantially converted” from an office use to a residential, retail, or other commercial use, (iii) in the case of conversion to residential units, is subject to a state or local affordable housing agreement or has at least 20 percent of the units rent restricted and set aside for tenants whose income is 80 percent or less of area median gross income, (iv) was initially placed in service at least 25 years before the beginning of conversion, and (v) may be depreciated or amortized. Reprinted courtesy of Emily K. Bias, Pillsbury and Brittany Griffith, Pillsbury Ms. Bias may be contacted at emily.bias@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Griffith may be contacted at brittany.griffith@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Insurer’s Attempt to Shift Cost of Defense to Another Insurer Found Void as to Public Policy

June 09, 2016 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
While construction can sometimes be risky, construction litigation is almost always expensive. This volatile mix of risk and expense has made risk shifting, through indemnity and insurance, a primary goal and concern of project owners, contractors and suppliers alike. Construction insurers know this all too well and insurers, even between themselves, seek to shift risk. As one primary insurer found, however, risk shifting provisions in their policies – specifically, one which sought to shift the cost of defense to another insurer – is not without its limitations. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---

Baby Boomer Housing Deficit Coming?

October 29, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Builder magazine, a new study by Epcon Franchising and Metrostudy found that “10 metro areas are expected to have a significant housing gap for baby boomers.” Furthermore, “52 percent of new-home buyers will be over 55 in the next five years.” Builder listed the top 10 markets that are expected to have a baby boomer housing deficit. The top three are Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, and the District of Columbia. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Undercover Sting Nabs Eleven Illegal Contractors in California

January 27, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
A sting operation conducted in Rancho Murieta, California on January 16th by the Statewide Investigative Fraud Team, with assistance from the state Department of Consumer Affairs Division of Investigation netted “11 people accused of illegal, unlicensed home improvement contracting,” reported the Merced Sun-Star. The news source stated that “the statewide drought” provided “a new angle in approaching conservation-minded property owners, according to the Contractors State License Board.” The accusations included “illegal contracting after seeking bids for exterior painting, fencing and landscaping jobs,” according to the Merced Sun-Star. The eleven individuals received notices to appear in Sacramento Superior Court for arraignment March 27th. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Haight’s Sacramento Office Has Moved

April 17, 2019 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP has moved its Sacramento office to a new location. Effective March 18, 2019, Haight’s new Sacramento office address is: 500 Capitol Mall Suite 2150 Sacramento, CA 95814 916.702.3200 F: 916.570.1947 Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

---