Photo of Tamara Boeck

Tamara Boeck

Subscribe to Tamara Boeck's Posts

Tamara Boeck routinely advises owners, developers and general contractors primarily in California, Idaho and Nevada.  Tami works with clients on a wide range of projects including commercial, residential and mixed-use projects, as well as construction-related aspects of oil and gas, mining, food processing, solar, wind, geothermal, biofuel, wastewater treatment and other industrial facilities.

In addition to counseling her clients on ways to avoid protracted litigation through thoughtful negotiations and effective contracts, she handles construction disputes from mediation through litigation or  arbitration, which often encompass significant business conflicts, project delay, workmanship and performance deficiency claims, as well as those matters involving lien laws, insurance coverage disagreements with insurers, claims involving toxic tort, product liability and catastrophic injuries. With  her depth of experience, she is able to assist and protect her clients in arbitration or trial when a pragmatic business resolution is not available. Tami has been listed in Best Lawyers in America© for Construction Law since 2010. She is immediate past chair of the firm’s Real Estate, Development & Construction group.

Click here for Tamara Boeck's full bio.

Follow:Read more about Tamara BoeckTamara's Linkedin Profile

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:

  • The total cost for the solar system, including financing and energy/power costs (if applicable);
  • The statutory License Board Disclosure statement for contractors and / or the home improvement salesperson who sold the system information regarding with whom to file if there are complaints; and
  • The statutory Three-Day Right to Cancel Disclosure if the contract is not negotiated at the contractor’s place of business.

After decades of dealing with a hodgepodge of local adoption (or not) of administrative codes relating to building permit extensions, California Governor Brown’s September 21, 2018 signature on AB 2913 is a welcome addition of at least six months to the existing statutory commencement of work period. AB 2913 allows a uniform 12-month period across…

There is no doubt that our national economy relies heavily on e-commerce.  This is true with regard to contractors in California as well. As individuals and businesses look for quality builders, trades and services in the construction field, they look for sources of on-line information to evaluate whom to hire.  Would you think that an…

In the recently issued but unpublished decision Reed v. SunRun, Inc. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC498002, Feb. 2, 2018), the Second District Court of Appeal ruled that a solar power purchase agreement (“PPA”) provider that only sells solar energy to homeowners is not required to be a licensed California contractor under certain…

Recently, in RSB Vineyards LLC v. Orsi, the First Appellate District Court of Appeal confirmed the long-standing rule in California: sellers must disclose all known material matters.  While this affirmed rule was not surprising, the court was very helpful  in providing the first detailed framework for what it means for a seller to have…

The inclusion of an “as-is” clause in a contract for a real estate transaction has led courts in Oregon to allow parties to a deal to allocate the risk as to the property differently than through the historic concept of “caveat emptor” (let the buyer beware), which permitted a seller to shift the obligation to…

So, what’s the big deal if you’re a little “late” in giving your insurer notice of the claim or lawsuit against your company?  That’s the question, albeit in essence, that the Ninth Circuit has posed to the California Supreme Court recently in an Order Certifying Questions, Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Co.

Specifically, the Ninth Circuit is asking for legal insight as to the following:Policy

1. Is California’s common law notice-prejudice rule a fundamental public policy for the purpose of choice-of-law analysis? May common law rules, other than unconscionability not enshrined in statute, regulation, or the constitution, be fundamental public policies for the purpose of choice-of-law analysis?

2. If the notice-prejudice rule is a fundamental public policy for the purpose of choice-of-law analysis, can a consent provision in a first-party claim insurance policy be interpreted as a notice provision such that the notice-prejudice rule applies?

In a ruling supporting common sense, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled that a county could not avoid the application of a broad force majeure clause in its development agreement with a developer based on the county’s denial of the rezoning required for the very development.

The key facts in Burns Concrete, Inc. v. Teton County…