The economic ruin caused by COVID-19 is out of control. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ report dated August 7, 2020, unemployment is at approximately 10.2%. However, the economic impact of COVID-19 does not stop at America’s unemployment rates.
In August 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued an Order that
The Daily Journal of Commerce recently reported that increased demand for mass-timber material, such as cross-laminated timber (“CLT”), has caused a shortage as suppliers struggle to expand production. Iain Macdonald, an industry executive interviewed for the article, stated that “lead times of a year have not been uncommon.” Increased demand has been fueled in part
On May 16, 2019, I will chair The Seminar Group’s Construction Defect Litigation seminar in Portland, Oregon. The seminar will include a panel of knowledgeable lawyers with broad experience litigating construction defect and related insurance disputes. Among those presenting will be two of my colleagues Lou Ferreira and Andrew Gibson. Click here to learn
Occasional visitors to Seattle may be surprised to discover that their favorite route from the airport to downtown has changed. State Highway 99 no longer links to the Alaskan Way Viaduct into downtown Seattle. The waterfront viaduct has been closed and demolition has begun. The Battery Street tunnel that connected viaduct traffic to Aurora Avenue
In 2017, the California Legislature passed a bill that resulted in Business and Professions Code (BPC) section 7169, which ultimately would require Home Improvement Contractors, which include contractors that install solar systems on residences, to issue specific disclosures to any residential consumers who may want to purchase, finance or lease, and install a solar system on their property. Recently in August, the California Public Utilities Commission “endorse[d] the solar energy systems disclosure document as being compliant with [BPC section 7169]….” The Disclosure terms include:
A contractor’s duty to provide a safe workplace includes a duty to comply with safety regulations about worksite conditions, worker equipment, and work methods. Those regulations are enforced by the Washington Department of Labor and Industries (“L&I”), which has authority to inspect worksites and to impose fines and stop work orders.
In a recent case,
In a rare opportunity to interpret Oregon’s statutory requirements for licensure of architects, the Oregon Supreme Court recently held that the development of master plans constitutes the “practice of architecture”—even if constructible drawings and specifications are not contemplated or produced.
The case, Twist Architecture & Design, Inc. v. Oregon Board of Architect Examiners, 361 Or 507, 395 P3d 574 (2017), stemmed from a determination by the Board of Architect Examiners (the “Board”) that Seattle based firm Twist Architecture & Design, Inc. and two of its principals who were not licensed in Oregon (collectively “Twist”) engaged in the unlawful practice of architecture and unlawfully represented themselves as architects in violation of ORS 671.020—Oregon’s statute containing the licensure requirement—when they prepared master plans for three proposed commercial developments in Oregon.
Practical Law, a Thomson Reuters Company and division of West Publishing Corporation that produces online resources for attorneys across myriad legal topics, recently invited members of the Construction & Design Group of Stoel Rives’ Portland and Seattle offices to provide construction lien resources for Oregon and Washington. According to Kate Kruk, Practical Law’s Content Acquisition
Following a presentation I made at a Seminar Group conference in Oregon on crane easements, one of my colleagues brought to my attention the recent NY case of Lend Lease (US) Construction LMB Inc. v. Zurich American Insurance Co. The NY Court of Appeals found that damage caused to a tower crane when
The Supreme Court of Nevada stirred a great deal of controversy in its 2014 opinion SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v. U.S. Bank, N.A.,[1] holding that a 1991 statute granting superpriority status to certain homeowner’s association (HOA) liens[2] created a true priority lien such that its foreclosure extinguishes all other liens, including a first deed of trust on the property.[3]
Prior to the SFR Investments decision, most lenders assumed the statute merely provided for a payment priority, so that upon a lender’s foreclosure of its deed of trust, the HOA would recover a portion of its overdue assessments—they certainly did not anticipate that an HOA would have the ability to wipe out a “first position” deed of trust. As one can imagine, the SFR Investments decision did not sit well with lenders and prompted a flurry of additional lawsuits, including a constitutional challenge claiming that the statute violates the Due Process and Takings Clauses of both the United States and Nevada Constitutions.