Auburn Valley Industrial Capital Llc v. Ross B. Hansen ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •       IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
    AUBURN VALLEY INDUSTRIAL
    CAPITAL LLC, a Delaware limited                 NO. 69568-1-
    liability company,
    DIVISION ONE
    Respondent,
    UNPUBLISHED OPINION
    —     He
    ROSS B. HANSEN and JANE DOE
    HANSEN, individually and their
    marital community, d/b/a
    NORTHWEST TERRITORIAL MINT;                                                       ;'-'~o;:
    NORTHWEST TERRITORIAL MINT,                                                 X2»   com.
    LLC, a Washington limited liability
    company,
    en
    FILED: July 14, 2014
    Appellants.
    Leach, J. — Ross Hansen, d/b/a/ Northwest Territorial Mint, and
    Northwest Territorial Mint LLC (collectively NW Mint) appeal the trial court's
    findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment holding NW Mint liable for
    Auburn Valley Industrial Capital LLC's remedial action costs under the Model
    Toxics Control Act (MTCA), chapter 70.105D RCW, and for damages for
    breaching its commercial lease with Auburn. NW Mint also appeals the court's
    supplemental judgment and order awarding attorney fees and costs to Auburn.
    Substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings of fact, which support its
    conclusions that NW Mint breached the lease.      Because NW Mint identifies no
    NO. 69568-1-1/2
    costs recoverable under the MTCA that are not recoverable under the lease, we
    do not decide if the MTCA applies to this case. NW Mint fails to show that the
    trial court abused its discretion when it awarded costs and fees to Auburn. We
    affirm.
    FACTS
    NW Mint is a full service mint that fabricates coins and other metallic
    items. In May 2002, Ross Hansen, d/b/a/ Northwest Territorial Mint, signed a six-
    year agreement with MegaWest LLC to lease suite 101 of a commercial-
    industrial property.1 The building was new when this lease began, and Ross
    Hansen, d/b/a/ Northwest Territorial Mint, was the first tenant in suite 101. In
    July 2007, MegaWest sold the building and assigned its interest in the lease to
    Auburn. NW Mint occupied the premises and was a tenant under the lease from
    December 31, 2002, until April 30, 2010, when the lease ended.
    Section 11 of the lease stated,
    1 In December 2002, Hansen formed Northwest Territorial Mint LLC, which
    was not a party to this lease agreement. The trial court concluded,
    Northwest Territorial Mint, LLC was acting as a Tenant under the
    Lease and as an operator of the mint business at the Auburn
    property from December 31, 2001 through the end of NW Mint's
    lease in April of 2010. NW Mint's operations at the Auburn property
    were held out to the public as operations of Northwest Territorial
    Mint, LLC. Northwest Territorial Mint, LLC succeeded to enough of
    Hansen's rights and obligations under the Lease to be considered a
    Tenant under the Lease. At a minimum, Northwest Territorial Mint,
    LLC occupied the leased premises as its principal place of business
    and made all of the monthly Lease payments to Auburn from 2007
    until the end of the Lease.
    The premises leased is located in an area zoned as M-1, which permits uses
    including "residential, daycare, preschools, nursery schools, health and fitness
    clubs, restaurants, and other uses."
    -2-
    NO. 69568-1-1/3
    HAZARDOUS WASTE. Tenant shall not store, generate, dispose
    of or otherwise allow the release of any hazardous waste or
    materials in, on or under the Premises, Property or Project or any
    adjacent property, or in any improvements placed on the Premises.
    Except as otherwise provided, Tenant represents and warrants to
    Landlord that Tenant's intended use of the Premises does not
    involve the use, production, disposal or bringing on to the Premises
    of any Hazardous Waste. As used herein, the term "Hazardous
    Waste" includes any substance, waste or material defined or
    designated as hazardous, toxic or dangerous (or any similar term)
    by any federal, state or local statute, regulation, rule or ordinance
    now or hereafter in effect, including, but not limited to, the
    Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
    Liability Act, 
    42 U.S.C. § 9601
    , or the Washington Model Toxics
    Control Act ("MTCA"), RCW 70.105D.010 et seq. Tenant shall
    promptly comply with all statutes, regulations and ordinances, and
    with all orders, decrees or judgments of governmental authorities or
    courts having jurisdiction, relating to the use, collection, treatment,
    disposal, storage, control, removal or cleanup of Hazardous Waste
    in, on or under the Premises or any adjacent property, or
    incorporated in any improvements, at Tenant's expense.            After
    notice to Tenant and a reasonable opportunity for Tenant to effect
    such, Landlord may, but is not obligated to, enter upon the
    Premises and take such actions and incur such costs and
    expenses to effect such compliance as it deems advisable to
    protect its interest in the Premises; provided, however, that
    Landlord shall not be obligated to give Tenant notice and an
    opportunity to effect such compliance if (i) such delay might result
    in material adverse damage to Landlord or the Property, (ii) Tenant
    has already had actual knowledge of the situation and a reasonable
    opportunity to effect such compliance, or (iii) an emergency exists.
    Whether or not Tenant has actual knowledge of the release of
    Hazardous Waste on the Premises or Property or any adjacent
    property as the result of Tenant's use ofthe Premises, Tenant shall
    reimburse Landlord for all costs and expenses incurred by Landlord
    in connection with such compliance activities. Tenant shall notify
    Landlord immediately of any release of any Hazardous Waste in,
    on, under or from the Premises, Property or Project. Tenant shall
    indemnify, defend and hold harmless Landlord against any and all
    losses, liabilities, suits, obligations, fines, damages, judgments,
    penalties, claims, charges, cleanup costs, remedial actions, costs
    and expenses (including, without limitation, consultant fees,
    attorneys' fees and disbursements) which may be imposed on,
    incurred or paid by, or asserted against Landlord or the Premises,
    Property or Project by reason of, or in connection with (i) any
    -3-
    NO. 69568-1-1/4
    misrepresentation, breach of warranty or other default by Tenant
    under this Lease, or (ii) the acts or omissions by Tenant under this
    Lease, or (iii) the acts or omissions of Tenant, or any sublessee or
    other person for whom Tenant would otherwise be liable, resulting
    in the release of any Hazardous Waste. This indemnity and
    Tenant's other duties under this paragraph 11 shall survive the
    termination of this Lease.
    Section 13 of the lease stated,
    Tenant will at all times during the Term keep the Premises and all
    systems therein and the doors and windows thereof neat, clean and
    in good order, repair and in a sanitary condition. . . . Except for
    reasonable wear and tear and damage by fire or unavoidable
    casualty, Tenant will at all times preserve the Premises in as good
    repair as they are now or may hereafter be put to. All repairs shall
    be at Tenant's sole cost and expense, except for repairs required
    for the outside roof, exterior walls and foundation which shall be
    Landlord's responsibility. Tenant will, at all times, cause the
    Premises to comply with all ordinances, regulations, rules or orders
    of every governmental entity undertaking jurisdiction over the
    Premises.
    This provision also stated, "Tenant agrees that at the expiration or sooner
    termination of this Lease, Tenant will quit and surrender the Premises without
    notice, and in a neat and broom clean condition." The lease also contained the
    following attorney fee and cost provision:
    If Landlord employs an attorney or if Landlord brings suit to recover
    any rent due hereunder, or for breach of any other provision of this
    Lease . . . , Landlord shall be awarded its attorney's fees, statutory
    court costs, and all other litigation costs and expenses expended or
    incurred in connection with such action and in any appellate or
    collection proceedings. All sums due from Tenant to Landlord shall
    bear interest at the Default Interest rate.
    In June 2007, before purchasing the property, Auburn hired EBI
    Consulting to perform a phase Ienvironmental site assessment ofthe building. A
    phase I environmental site assessment report informs a potential purchaser or
    lender if the property contains or likely contains any recognized environmental
    NO. 69568-1-1/5
    conditions—any hazardous substances on a property under conditions that
    indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of
    any hazardous substances into structures on the property or into the ground,
    groundwater, or surface water of the property.            Recognized environmental
    conditions include hazardous substances under conditions in compliance with
    laws but do not include de minimis conditions. Because a phase I environmental
    site assessment is a screening tool to determine if any recognized environmental
    conditions warrant additional investigation, it does not include any actual
    sampling.    A phase I environmental site assessment also affords its user the
    ability to satisfy one of the requirements to qualify for the innocent landowner,
    contiguous property owner, or bona fide prospective purchaser limitations on
    liability   under    the   federal    Comprehensive      Environmental      Response,
    Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 
    42 U.S.C. § 9601
    , as well as the
    MTCA. Federal standards govern these assessments.
    EBI's phase I environmental site assessment report noted that NW Mint
    used the property to produce commemorative coins. NW Mint used machinery
    and equipment including presses, stamps, and saws, and it used a commercial-
    grade soap to polish the coins. EBI's report identified no evidence of recognized
    environmental       conditions   or   evidence   of   leaks,   staining,   or   obvious
    accumulations of metal dust.2 EBI's assessment did not include interviews with
    2 At trial, a representative from EBI testified, "And in the context of those
    concentrations being relatively high concentrations in our sampling, for example,
    we would be—that amount would be spread out over a square foot. So the
    NO. 69568-1-1/6
    any individuals from NW Mint. It also did not include inspections of HV/AC,
    heating, ventilation, or air conditioning systems, or of roof areas. Auburn relied
    on EBI's phase Ienvironmental site assessment when it purchased the property.3
    In May 2010, after the lease ended, Auburn hired EBI to survey the entire
    condition of the premises.        This survey included an industrial hygiene
    assessment to allow Auburn "to be sure that the property was safe for lease in an
    unrestricted manner to any particular type of tenant that they could attract to the
    property." EBI's survey did not include a human health risk assessment. If
    contamination levels in collected samples were below EBI's own surface
    contamination limits, EBI would certify the facility as clean and certify that a
    tenant could occupy the premises without restrictions or limitations.
    In its "Site Cleanliness Investigation Report," EBI determined that based
    on its own surface contamination limits, the premises was "grossly contaminated
    with toxic metal dusts, fines, and process residuals."4            EBI found, "All
    ability to observe that is very limited." He also testified that EBI only later
    became aware that NW Mint conducted industrial processes on the premises,
    such as furnaces for melting metal, locations for pouring melted metal into molds,
    blasting operations, and electroplating.
    3 The trial court concluded that Auburn undertook all appropriate inquiry
    into the previous ownership and uses of the premises consistent with good
    commercial practice.
    4 In this report, EBI stated,
    There are currently no regulatory limits addressing surface
    contamination for industrial type settings, so EBI has developed
    surface contamination limits based on regulatory daily intake and
    exposure limits. If the contaminant concentration is less than these
    developed surface limits, EBI is willing to confirm that the surfaces
    are clean and that the facility is clean/free of hazardous toxic
    contamination. However, all of the five (5) composite samples had
    sufficient contamination to indicate that the facility is contaminated
    NO. 69568-1-1/7
    manufacturing areas greatly exceed the limits for silver, selenium, and copper.
    Additionally, at least one area exceeds the limit for each of the following toxic
    metals: Arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, cobalt, manganese, nickel and zinc."
    EBI concluded, "Inhalation of the toxic metal dusts or skin contact of settled dust
    could have significant harmful health effects." Further, "[a]ny settled dusts or
    metal fines would likely be listed or characterized as a regulated hazardous
    waste."      EBI recommended that workers properly trained in exposure to
    hazardous substances clean the facility.
    Before receiving EBI's report, Auburn did not believe that NW Mint
    released hazardous substances at the premises. Auburn shared the report with
    NW Mint and included a letter stating,
    Pursuant to, among others Sections ... 11 ("Hazardous
    Waste"), 13 ("Maintenance and Repairs; Redelivery")... of the
    Lease, we are affording your client the opportunity under the Lease
    to take steps to remediate the contamination of the premises.
    Action needs to be taken to bring contaminant levels down to safe
    levels within the parameters of the specifications in the enclosed
    report.
    EBI issued a "Lease Space Move Out Survey" in June 2010 after
    inspecting the physical condition of the premises. In its report, EBI noted that
    Hansen would not allow photographs of the building's interior and would not
    provide answers about his business or manufacturing processes.            EBI was
    with a number of toxic metals and should not be leased or occupied
    without further cleaning and decontamination.
    At trial, a representative from EBI testified, "We used our approach, and if
    somebody had offered a scientifically based actual alternative to cleaning up the
    property, that we could have ... had a dialogue on, we were more than happy to
    do that. That never happened."
    NO. 69568-1-1/8
    unable to access the roof. EBI shared this survey with NW Mint and enclosed a
    letter stating, "EBI Consulting has concluded that Ross Hansen did not properly
    maintain the premises nor return the premises in good working condition as
    required under the terms of the Lease."
    Auburn established a deadline of June 1, 2010, for NW Mint "to agree to
    assume full responsibility for clean-up of the premises to a condition meeting the
    terms of the lease and satisfactory to EBI Consulting, such that the landlord is in
    a position to safely market this space and to have that clean-up done
    immediately." NW Mint hired AMEC, an environmental consultant, to review
    EBI's report. Before allowing AMEC to inspect the property, Auburn initially
    insisted that NW Mint agree to responsibility for "whatever clean-up that is
    determined by the experts needs to be done." NW Mint declined. In response to
    NW Mint's renewed request to access the premises, Auburn wrote a letter
    stating,
    Because [Hansen] had been equivocal in prior communications
    regarding your client as liable for this contamination, we believed it
    would be an act of good faith on your client's part to acknowledge
    his responsibility for such contamination, and that doing so would
    facilitate better cooperation between the parties and a common
    purpose to addressing and remediating the contamination,
    especially given your client's lack of cooperation with the owner in
    the past.[5]
    AMEC completed its review of EBI's report in June 2010.                  AMEC
    concluded, "It is the opinion of AMEC that the EBI's methodology and approach
    5Auburn ultimately permitted industrial hygienist Elisabeth Black to access
    the premises and conduct sampling.
    -8-
    NO. 69568-1-1/9
    are flawed and cannot be relied upon to determine whether there is a potential
    health risk to occupants of the building." It noted, "AMEC has not established
    clean-up criteria for this facility at this time, but we would certainly use different
    methodology to do so." It also stated, "Further investigation is needed, and they
    may conclude that there are areas that need to be cleaned up."
    In June 2010, industrial hygienist Elisabeth Black developed a proposal for
    NW Mint "to facilitate the removal of settled dust and metals." She expressed "no
    reason to believe that the EBI results weren't accurate." Black "took issue with,
    perhaps, their sampling method and clean-up criteria they established, but from
    my perspective, in counseling my client, it seemed like going to clean-up was
    likely the simplest option." NW Mint rejected Black's proposal.
    In August 2010, Black presented NW Mint with a proposal to identify the
    levels of metals and surface dust on the premises. Auburn's expert, Stephen
    Frost, accompanied Black as she sampled the premises and took side-by-side
    samples.
    In November 2010, Black issued a report concluding, based on a limited
    amount of information, that the premises posed a potential hazard. Black also
    stated in her report, "Whether or not this condition creates an adverse health
    impact to a future tenant of the building cannot be determined based on available
    information."   She noted that the elevated samples were not attributable to
    background contamination from natural and human sources—these samples
    exceeded background levels. And she found that the metal concentrations and
    -9-
    NO. 69568-1-1/10
    types of metals were unusual.6        Black recommended that an "experienced
    abatement firm with training in hazardous waste operations" conduct a "thorough
    cleaning" "according to a protocol prepared by a certified industrial hygienist."
    Auburn hired Clean Harbors to clean the premises. EBI oversaw Clean
    Harbors' remediation, which took place from January through October 2011.
    Clean Harbors cleaned the premises according to EBI's contamination limits.
    In October 2011, EBI issued to Auburn a certification letter confirming that
    future tenants could use suite 101 without restrictions or limitations attributable to
    hazardous metals.           In March 2012, EBI issued a "Facility Cleaning &
    Decontamination Certification and        Environmental Closure Report," which
    documented the investigation and remediation work in suite 101.
    In 2009, Auburn sued Hansen for breach of contract, seeking injunctive
    relief and damages arising out of a dispute about access to an electrical room,
    phone room, and common areas of the premises. In 2010, Auburn sued NW
    Mint, asserting breach of contract claims arising under the lease and a claim to
    recover "remedial action costs" under RCW 70.105D.080. Auburn claimed that
    NW Mint breached the lease by contaminating the building with hazardous
    6 Black testified,
    [T]his is not a condition you would typically encounter, either in
    types of metals or concentrations of metals. It is unusual because
    we rarely ever get metals and surface dust values for an industrial
    facility, it is type sampling that's fairly rare, unless it is directed at
    lead, for which there are standards; it is not typically done.
    Unusual, because I think, as I have said before, it puts the land
    owner or properties owner in a condition that was going to require
    some action to move forward and make that space leasable for
    unrestricted use.
    -10-
    NO. 69568-1-1/11
    substances, as defined by federal and state law, by damaging the building in
    excess of normal wear and tear, and by failing to remove tenant improvements.
    Auburn alleged over $1.3 million in damages. On February 11, 2011, the trial
    court consolidated these cases.
    In January 2012, Auburn hired toxicology expert John Schell to conduct a
    human health risk assessment of the leased premises—a quantitative evaluation
    of risk.7   Schell testified at trial that a "cleanup level" under the MTCA is a
    protective level that is safe for human health. He concluded that the levels of
    arsenic, chromium-VI, copper, and selenium exceeded the MTCA cleanup
    standards.8    Schell testified that before Clean Harbors cleaned the premises,
    "Based on my calculations of a risk based cleanup level, some of those metals,
    the concentrations in the dust, posed a potential health threat."
    In June 2012, NW Mint applied to the Washington State Department of
    Ecology's Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP).9             The Department of Ecology
    (Ecology) rejected NW Mint's application, reasoning,
    We did not accept your application because the release you
    reported does not constitute a hazardous waste site requiring
    remedial action under the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA),
    7 Schell testified that "risk is a function of both the toxicity of the material
    and the dose that is received."
    8 Schell relied upon a bulk dust sample analysis that Stephen Frost
    conducted, which determined the concentrations of constituent metals. Schell
    noted that using the United States Environmental Protection Agency's calculation
    method, the levels of silver also exceeded the cleanup standard.
    9 The VCP supports independent cleanup actions. It allows owners and
    operators of contaminated sites to enter into an agreement with the Department
    of Ecology to review cleanup-related documents and to issue opinions about
    compliance with the MTCA.
    -11-
    NO. 69568-1-1/12
    Chapter 70.105D RCW. This opinion is based on an analysis of
    whether there has been a "release" into the "environment" of a
    "hazardous substance" as defined by MTCA, Chapter 70.105D
    RCW, and its implementing regulations, Chapter 173-340 WAC.
    Documents provided to Ecology state that areas within the building
    contain dust composed of silver, selenium, copper, arsenic,
    cadmium, chromium, lead, cobalt, manganese, nickel and zinc.
    From the documents provided, metal dust did not enter the
    "environment". Rather, the dust was contained within the building.
    This opinion is regarding the administrative and technical
    requirements of MTCA, and is not an opinion regarding whether
    other local, state or federal requirements may apply to the facility.
    In July 2012, NW Mint filed a second application to the VCP.           This
    application was not different materially from NW Mint's first application. Ecology
    rejected this application, reasoning,
    We did not accept your application because the data provided to
    Ecology is insufficient to show a release into the environment of a
    hazardous substance.      This decision is based on an analysis of
    whether there has been a "release" into the "environment" of a
    "hazardous substance" as defined by MTCA, Chapter 70.105D
    RCW, and its implementing regulations, Chapter 173-340
    WAC. . . . Ecology makes no determination as to whether there is a
    threatened release of a hazardous substance.         The VCP is not
    designed for review of remedial actions related solely to a
    threatened release.
    Documents provided to Ecology state that areas within the building
    contain dust composed of silver, selenium, copper, arsenic,
    cadmium, chromium, lead, cobalt, manganese, nickel and zinc
    (collectively "metals dust"). Ecology received no sampling data of
    surface water, ground water, drinking water supply, land surface or
    subsurface strata, or ambient air. If such data is provided, you may
    reapply to enter the VCP.
    -12-
    NO. 69568-1-1/13
    This decision is regarding whether Ecology will accept your
    application to enter the VCP. This decision is not an opinion
    regarding whether other local, state or federal requirements may
    apply to the facility. This decision does not determine whether any
    independent remedial action performed at the facility is the
    substantial equivalent of an Ecology-conducted or Ecology-
    supervised remedial action. Such determinations are made by a
    court. See RCW 70.105D.080. The state, Ecology and its officers
    and employees are immune from all liability, and no cause of action
    of any nature may arise from any act or omission in providing this
    informal advice and assistance. See RCW 70.105D.030(1)(i).
    On October 15, 2012, the trial court entered 155 findings of fact, 31
    conclusions of law. The court concluded that Hansen and Northwest Territorial
    Mint LLC were "strictly liable, jointly and severally, for all remedial action costs
    incurred by Auburn at the Auburn property." On November 14, 2012, the trial
    court entered an order granting in part and denying in part Auburn's motion to
    amend these findings of fact and conclusions of law and entered a judgment in
    favor of Auiburn.10 In the judgment, the court awarded to Auburn $869,746.53 in
    remedial action costs under the MTCA and damages for NW Mint's breach of the
    lease. The court also awarded attorney fees and costs to Auburn under the
    MTCA and the lease.
    On June 4, 2013, the trial court entered a supplemental judgment and
    order awarding $1,582,046.61 in costs and attorney fees to Auburn.
    NW Mint appeals.
    10   The court removed legal fees from Auburn's remedial action costs,
    reducing the calculation from $657,818.68 to $391,573.23. NW Mint does not
    appeal this order.
    -13-
    NO. 69568-1-1/14
    STANDARD OF REVIEW
    We review challenged findings of fact by examining if substantial evidence
    supports the findings and if the findings in turn support the conclusions of law.11
    Substantial evidence exists if it is sufficient to persuade a fair-minded, rational
    person of the truth of the matter asserted.12 Unchallenged findings of fact are
    verities on appeal.13 A trial court's interpretation of contract language presents
    an issue of law that we review de novo.14
    We review the legal basis for an attorney fee award de novo but review
    the reasonableness of the award amount for abuse of discretion.15 A trial court
    abuses its discretion if its decision is manifestly unreasonable or based on
    untenable grounds.16
    ANALYSIS
    NW Mint raises three issues.     First, it claims that it did not breach the
    parties' lease. Second, NW Mint contends that the MTCA does not apply to the
    premises at issue and that it did not violate this statute. Third, NW Mint asserts
    11 State v. Ross, 
    106 Wn. App. 876
    , 880, 
    26 P.3d 298
     (2001) (citing State
    v. Dempsev, 
    88 Wn. App. 918
    , 921, 
    947 P.2d 265
     (1997); State v. Hill. 
    123 Wn.2d 641
    , 647, 
    870 P.2d 313
     (1994)).
    12 State v. Lew, 
    156 Wn.2d 709
    , 733, 
    132 P.3d 1076
     (2006) (citing State
    v. Mendez, 
    137 Wn.2d 208
    , 214, 
    970 P.2d 722
     (1999)).
    13 Hill, 123Wn.2dat644.
    14 224 Westlake. LLC v. Enqstrom Props., LLC, 
    169 Wn. App. 700
    , 716,
    
    281 P.3d 693
     (2012) (citing Knipschield v. C-J Recreation, Inc., 
    74 Wn. App. 212
    ,
    215, 872P.2d 1102(1994)).
    15 W. Consultants. Inc. v. Davis, 
    177 Wn. App. 33
    , 38, 
    310 P.3d 824
    (2013) (citing Hulbert v. Port of Everett, 
    159 Wn. App. 389
    , 407, 
    245 P.3d 779
    (2011)).
    16 State v. Emery, 
    161 Wn. App. 172
    , 190, 
    253 P.3d 413
     (2011) (quoting
    State v.Allen. 159 Wn.2d1, 10, 
    147 P.3d 581
     (2006)).
    -14-
    NO. 69568-1-1/15
    that the trial court abused its discretion when it awarded fees and costs to
    Auburn. We affirm NW Mint's liability under the lease and the court's attorney
    fee and cost award.   As a result, we do not need to reach NW Mint's MTCA
    claim.17
    NW Mint makes three challenges to its liability under the lease. First, NW
    Mint claims that "the residual metals NW Mint left at the Premises did not present
    a risk of actual harm to human health or the environment." Second, it alleges,
    "NW Mint complied with all statutes, regulations and orders concerning
    hazardous wastes."    Third, NW Mint asserts, "NW Mint left the Premises in a
    'broom clean' condition, which is the Lease's only cleanup standard." We reject
    these contentions.
    The trial court found, "Section 13 of the Lease applies to the physical
    condition of Suite 101, and the 'broom clean' specification in Section 13 does not
    modify or supersede the requirements of Section 11 of the Lease regarding
    hazardous substances." It also found, "NW Mint did not cooperate with Auburn's
    investigation and cleanup of the contamination in 2010 and 2011." The court
    concluded, "NW Mint stored, generated, disposed, or otherwise released
    hazardous materials on the premises, in breach of Section 11 [of] the Lease." It
    also concluded, "NW Mint failed to notify Auburn of the release of hazardous
    17 Auburn contends that NW Mint's brief fails to comply with RAP 10.3.
    Because the nature of Auburn's challenges are clear, Auburn shows no prejudice
    from any alleged violation, and RAP 1.2 requires us to interpret these rules
    liberally to promote justice and facilitate the decision of cases on the merits, we
    waive any technical violations of RAP 10.3.
    -15-
    NO. 69568-1-1/16
    waste at the Auburn Property in breach of Section 11 of the Lease." Additionally,
    it concluded, "Auburn provided NW Mint notice and a reasonable opportunity to
    comply with measures that Auburn deemed advisable to protect its interest in the
    Auburn Property. NW Mint failed to undertake any appropriate or meaningful
    remedial action."   NW Mint breached section 13 "by failing to maintain the
    premises in good order and repair at the time ofsurrender on April 30, 2010."
    NW Mint claims, "Before the Lease terminated in 2010, Auburn never
    objected to NW Mint's use of metals such as silver, copper and nickel in its
    manufacturing processes. Auburn never claimed that NW Mint's operations
    breached Section 11 of the Lease."       It asserts that the trial court "erred in
    concluding that the mere presence of metallic dust in the Premises constituted a
    breach of Section 11 of the Lease" because "Auburn did not introduce any
    evidence that the residual metallic dust, which was in the Premises at lawful, de
    minimus [sic] levels, presented a threat to human health or the environment."
    The record shows that NW Mint "store[d], generate^], dispose[d] of or
    otherwise allow[ed] the release of any hazardous waste released hazardous
    materials" on the premises and did not notify Auburn of these releases. The trial
    court found, "Hazardous substance metal fumes, dust and residues were
    dispersed throughout the facility and were also released to the 'environment,' as
    evidenced by high levels of hazardous substance metal dust/residue found
    outside of the building, both on the roof and on the loading dock area outside of
    the building."
    -16-
    NO. 69568-1-1/17
    Although NW Mint assigns error to the court's conclusion that "[t]he metal
    dust/residue, including arsenic, chromium, lead, selenium, silver, copper, nickel,
    and zinc, at the Auburn Property are hazardous substances as defined by
    MTCA/CERCLA," it does not support this assignment of error with any argument.
    If a party fails to support an assignment of error with legal arguments, we do not
    consider them on appeal.18         The lease prohibited any storage, generation,
    disposal, or other releases of hazardous materials, regardless of whether the
    releases posed a risk to human health or the environment. NW Mint fails to
    establish its compliance with section 11 of the lease.
    NW Mint also breached the lease because it did not maintain the premises
    in "neat, clean and in good order, repair and in a sanitary condition," as section
    13 required.      NW Mint rejected Auburn's requests to clean the premises to
    enable Auburn to relet it to a new tenant.              Even if NW Mint "quit and
    surrendered] the Premises ... in a neat and broom clean condition," these
    violations were sufficient to constitute a breach of both section 11 and section 13.
    NW Mint also challenges its liability under the MTCA. RCW 70.105D.080
    states,
    Except as provided in RCW 70.105D.040(4)(d) and (f), a person
    may bring a private right of action, including a claim for contribution
    or for declaratory relief, against any other person liable under RCW
    70.105D.040 for the recovery of remedial action costs.          In the
    action, natural resource damages paid to the state under this
    is Howell v. Spokane & Inland Empire Blood Bank, 
    117 Wn.2d 619
    , 624,
    
    818 P.2d 1056
     (1991) (citing Schmidt v. Cornerstone Invs.. Inc.. 
    115 Wn.2d 148
    ,
    
    795 P.2d 1143
     (1990); Howell v. Spokane & Inland Empire Blood Bank. 
    114 Wn.2d 42
    , 46, 
    785 P.2d 815
     (1990)).
    -17-
    NO. 69568-1-1/18
    chapter may also be recovered. Recovery shall be based on such
    equitable factors as the court determines are appropriate.
    Remedial action costs shall include reasonable attorneys' fees and
    expenses. Recovery of remedial action costs shall be limited to
    those remedial actions that, when evaluated as a whole, are the
    substantial equivalent of a department-conducted or department-
    supervised remedial action. Substantial equivalence shall be
    determined by the court with reference to the rules adopted by the
    department under this chapter. . . . The prevailing party in such an
    action shall recover its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. This
    section applies to all causes of action regardless of when the cause
    of action may have arisen.
    A "remedial action" is
    any action or expenditure consistent with the purposes of this
    chapter to identify, eliminate, or minimize any threat or potential
    threat posed by hazardous substances to human health or the
    environment including any investigative and monitoring activities
    with respect to any release or threatened release of a hazardous
    substance and any health assessments or health effects studies
    conducted in order to determine the risk or potential risk to human
    health.'19]
    RCW 70.105D.040 states,
    (1) [T]he following persons are liable with respect to a facility:
    (a) The owner or operator of the facility;
    (b) Any person who owned or operated the facility at the time of
    disposal or release of the hazardous substances;
    (2) Each person who is liable under this section is strictly liable,
    jointly and severally, for all remedial action costs and for all natural
    resource damages resulting from the releases or threatened
    releases of hazardous substances.
    An "owner or operator" is "[a]ny person with any ownership interest in the facility
    or who exercises any control over the facility."20         A "facility" includes "any
    building" or "any site or area where a hazardous substance, other than a
    19 Former RCW 70.105D.020(26) (2007).
    20 Former RCW 70.105D.020(17)(a).
    -18-
    NO. 69568-1-1/19
    consumer product in consumer use, has been deposited, stored, disposed of, or
    placed, or otherwise come to be located."21
    Auburn argues that it is entitled to recover the same amount of fees and
    costs under the lease and the MTCA. NW Mint identifies no costs recoverable
    under the MTCA that are not recoverable under the lease.       Because we affirm
    NW Mint's liability under the lease, we do not address MTCA's applicability to this
    case.
    Finally, NW Mint makes four challenges to the trial court's supplemental
    judgment and order awarding attorney fees and costs. First, NW Mint claims that
    the court "abused its discretion by accepting Auburn's billing statements without
    question and failing to deduct for wasteful and duplicative work." Second, NW
    Mint contends, "The trial court abused its discretion by failing to segregate the
    time related to Auburn's unsuccessful tenant improvement claim."          Third, it
    alleges, "Auburn's attorneys spent unnecessary time on post-judgment matters,
    including the Fee Motion." Fourth, NW Mint asserts, "The trial court abused its
    discretion by awarding Auburn every penny of its claimed $425,767.28 in costs."
    The trial court awarded $425,767.28 in litigation expenses, $1,116,279.33
    in attorney fees, and $50,000.00 in "[f]ees/costs for December 2012 through
    entry of supplemental judgment." Its award also included a $10,000.00 credit for
    a security deposit. The court concluded, "The evidence supports a full award of
    all of Auburn's 'remedial action' legal expenses under MTCA and its attorneys'
    21 Former RCW 70.105D.020(5).
    -19-
    NO. 69568-1-1/20
    fees and costs under the 2002 Lease based on both the traditional 'lodestar'
    analysis and an 'equitable factors' analysis."
    Generally, Washington courts apply the lodestar method to calculate
    attorney fees.22   The court awarding attorney fees makes an independent
    determination about the reasonableness of the fees requested.23          The fee
    applicant bears the burden of establishing that a fee is reasonable.24
    To apply the lodestar method, the court considers first the number of
    hours reasonably expended on the matter.25 "'[T]he attorneys must provide
    reasonable documentation of the work performed.'"26 This documentation must
    include at least (1) the number of hours worked, (2) the type of work performed,
    and (3) the category of attorney who performed the work.27 The court does not
    need to conduct an hour-by-hour analysis of each lawyer's time sheets, so long
    as the court provides a consideration of the relevant factors and reasons
    22 Mahler v. Szucs, 
    135 Wn.2d 398
    , 433, 
    957 P.2d 632
     (1998), overruled
    on other grounds by Matsvuk v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.. 
    173 Wn.2d 643
    , 
    272 P.3d 802
     (2012).
    23 McGreevv v. Or. Mut. Ins. Co.. 
    90 Wn. App. 283
    , 291, 
    951 P.2d 798
    (1998) (quoting Absher Constr. Co. v. Kent Sch. Dist. No. 415, 
    79 Wn. App. 841
    ,
    847, 
    917 P.2d 1086
     (1995)), overruled on other grounds by Panorama Vill.
    Con'do. Owners Ass'n Bd. of Dirs. v. Allstate Ins. Co.. 
    144 Wn.2d 130
    , 
    26 P.3d 910
    (2001).
    24 Absher Constr. Co.. 79 Wn. App. at 847 (citing Blum v. Stenson. 
    465 US 886
    , 897, 
    104 S. Ct. 1541
    , 
    79 L. Ed. 2d 891
     (1984); Scott Fetzer Co. v.
    Weeks, 
    122 Wn.2d 141
    , 151, 
    859 P.2d 1210
     (1993)).
    25 McGreevv, 90 Wn. App. at 291.
    26 McGreevv. 90 Wn. App. at 292 (quoting Bowers v. Transamerica Title
    Ins. Co.. 
    100 Wn.2d 581
    , 597, 
    675 P.2d 193
     (1983)).
    27 McGreevv, 90 Wn. App. at 292 (citing Bowers. 
    100 Wn.2d at 597
    ).
    -20-
    NO. 69568-1-1/21
    sufficient to review the amount of the fee award.28 "The awarding court should
    take into account the hours spent on unsuccessful claims, duplicated effort, or
    otherwise unproductive time."29
    The second step in the lodestar method requires the court to determine if
    the hourly fee charged was reasonable.30 As a third step, the court multiplies the
    numbers from the first two steps to produce the lodestar fee.31
    Finally, the court may adjust the lodestar amount up or down to reflect
    factors not already considered.32     The party proposing a deviation from the
    lodestar amount bears the burden of justifying it.33
    When a contract specifies that a party may recover costs beyond statutory
    costs, the prevailing party is not limited to statutory costs, and the court will
    enforce the parties' intended meaning.34
    The trial court found, "Auburn has provided contemporaneous records
    documenting the number of hours worked by its counsel as part of the remedial
    action and in the course of the litigation. These records adequately informed the
    court of the type of work performed and the category of attorney who performed
    the work." It also found, "The hourly rates charged by Auburn's counsel were
    28 McGreevv. 90 Wn. App. at 292 (quoting Absher Constr. Co.. 79 Wn.
    App. at 848).
    29 McGreevv. 90 Wn. App. at 292 (citing Bowers. 
    100 Wn.2d at 597
    ).
    30 McGreevv. 90 Wn. App. at 291.
    31 McGreevv. 90 Wn. App. at 291.
    32 Bowers. 
    100 Wn.2d at 598-99
    .
    33 Bowers. 
    100 Wn.2d at 598
     (quoting Copeland v. Marshall. 
    641 F.2d 880
    , 892 (D.C. Cir. 1980)).
    34 Ethridqe v. Hwang, 
    105 Wn. App. 447
    , 462, 
    20 P.3d 958
     (2001).
    -21-
    NO. 69568-1-1/22
    reasonable at the time the client was billed for services.            The attorneys
    representing all parties were very experienced and produced exceptional work."35
    The court concluded, "The hours expended and hourly rates charged by
    Auburn's counsel as 'remedial action' attorneys' fees in this case were
    reasonable."
    NW Mint claims that the trial court awarded fees for duplicative work,
    including "[e]xcessive contacts between Auburn's counsel," "[duplication of effort
    in reviewing pleadings and documents," and "[duplication of effort in conducting
    depositions or attending hearings." The court entered the following findings of
    fact:
    9.      The court also has made a reduction for duplicative
    efforts at trial.   It was not necessary to have four partner level
    lawyers present at the entire trial, particularly due to the fact that
    one lawyer never made any oral representation to the court and the
    other lawyer's participation was limited to questioning two
    witnesses on the first day of trial. The presence of these attorneys
    was unnecessarily duplicative.          Given that there were two
    experienced lawyers already representing Auburn at trial, the court
    does not find it necessary that Mr. Johnson was present for trial or
    that Mr. Hamell remained after his witnesses testified on the first
    day of trial. The court will reduce the award for their trial time. Mr.
    Johnson billed approximately 104 hours at $33,800, and Mr. Hamell
    billed 104 hours at $30,680.
    10.    Defendants argued that other time was duplicative as
    well. The court does not find this defense argument convincing.
    This case was aggressively litigated by the Defendants and Auburn
    had the right to respond in kind. The communication between
    plaintiff's counsels was reasonable and not excessive. The court
    finds that plaintiff's counsels reasonably allocated their resources
    for their motions practice and depositions. Finally, the court finds
    that the costs requested are appropriate given the broad definition
    of costs in MTCA claims.
    35 NW Mint does not challenge the hourly fees of Auburn's attorneys.
    -22-
    NO. 69568-1-1/23
    11.    Aside from the specific reductions discussed above,
    the evidence established that Auburn's counsel expended a
    reasonable number of hours in representing Auburn with respect to
    Auburn's "remedial action" responses to the contamination caused
    by Defendants, and in achieving a successful litigation result to
    resolve Auburn's claims under MTCA and under the 2002 Lease.
    12.    As evidenced by the detailed documentation provided
    by Auburn, the hours billed by Auburn's counsel as part of the
    remedial action and in the course of the litigation of the MTCA and
    the 2002 Lease claims were not wasteful or duplicative.
    NW Mint fails to cite any controlling authority in challenging the amount of
    communications among Auburn's attorneys or any authority showing that the
    entries were improperly vague. NW Mint also cites no authority establishing that
    having multiple attorneys review pleadings and documents is improper. Further,
    although NW Mint claims that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding
    more than $27,000 in fees when only one of the two attorneys who attended
    depositions and hearings for Auburn actually represented Auburn, it fails to
    indicate which specific entries that it is challenging.36 Therefore, NW Mint fails to
    show that the trial court awarded fees for duplicative work.
    NW Mint also alleges that the trial court failed to exclude the requested
    fees and costs related to Auburn's unsuccessful tenant improvement claim.37 It
    argues that because the fact pattern for this claim was unrelated to the fact
    pattern for the contamination claim, the court "abused its discretion by
    36 NW Mint cites a declaration offering expert opinion on Auburn's cost
    and fee application, but the entries included in that document do not total
    $27,000.
    37 Section 14 of the lease required NW Mint to remove all of its
    improvements that Auburn requested itto remove.
    -23-
    NO. 69568-1-1/24
    unquestioningly accepting Auburn's unsupported estimate of the time its
    attorneys spent on the unsuccessful tenant improvement claim."
    A trial court need not segregate attorney fees when it finds that claims are
    "so related that no reasonable segregation of successful and unsuccessful claims
    can be made."38 The trial court found,
    Auburn was unsuccessful in its tenant improvement claim and the
    award should be reduced for the hours expended on that claim.
    The tenant improvement claim constituted a minimal amount of
    work however, and there are limited invoices that are applicable to
    it. . . . The court finds that the invoices were sufficient to determine
    the work performed in this lawsuit. Much of the testimony provided
    and the work performed regarding the tenant improvement claim
    related to Auburn's other property damage and contamination
    claims; hence, the claims were inextricably intertwined. The tenant
    improvement claim itself was simply a very minor part of the
    litigation. Nevertheless, a reduction is necessary and the court
    accepts the 100 hour estimate proffered by the Plaintiff totaling
    approximately $37,000 in reduction as reasonable and frankly,
    perhaps generous.
    The court rejected NW Mint's argument that it was impossible to
    determine the number of hours expended on the tenant improvement claim. NW
    Mint cites no evidence indicating that the tenant improvement claim rested on a
    different common core of facts than the contamination claim. The trial court did
    not abuse its discretion.
    NW Mint also contests the fees awarded for "post-judgment matters,
    including the Fee Motion." It challenges the court's order denying NW Mint's
    motion to strike declarations and exhibits supporting Auburn's motion for attorney
    fees and costs or to continue the fee hearing. In its motion, NW Mint claimed
    38 Hume v.Am. Disposal Co., 
    124 Wn.2d 656
    , 673, 
    880 P.2d 988
     (1994).
    -24-
    NO. 69568-1-1/25
    that declarations and attached documents filed with Auburn's reply in support of
    its motion for attorney fees and costs constituted "new evidence" that NW Mint
    did not have adequate time to analyze.           The trial court relied upon this
    challenged evidence when it determined that Auburn's fee request was
    reasonable.
    We will reverse a trial court's denial of a continuance only upon a showing
    of both an abuse of discretion and resulting prejudice.39        NW Mint cites no
    specific billing record to support its contention. The evidence submitted with
    Auburn's reply raised no new issues; it simply rebutted the arguments made in
    NW Mint's response to Auburn's motion for attorney fees and costs.40
    Additionally, Auburn provided many of the documents to NW Mint previously.
    We reject NW Mint's arguments.
    Finally, NW Mint claims that Auburn was not entitled to recover deposition
    expenses, daily transcription charges, travel costs for parties, lay witness travel
    costs, support staff overtime, computer management software, copying charges,
    and meal expenses during trial. The lease's attorney fee and cost provision
    entitles Auburn to recover "its attorney's fees, statutory court costs, and all other
    litigation costs and expenses expended or incurred in connection with [an action
    39 State v. Herzog, 
    69 Wn. App. 521
    , 524, 
    849 P.2d 1235
     (1993).
    40 See Colwell v. Holy Family Hosp., 
    104 Wn. App. 606
    , 616, 
    15 P.3d 210
    (2001) ("The party moving for summary judgment must raise all of the issues on
    which it believes it is entitled to summary judgment in its initial motion. A trial
    court may not grant summary judgment to the moving party on issues that are
    first raised in rebuttal." (citing White v. Kent Med. Ctr.. Inc.. 
    61 Wn. App. 163
    ,
    168, 
    810 P.2d 4
     (1991); Mollov v. City of Bellevue. 
    71 Wn. App. 382
    , 385, 
    859 P.2d 613
     (1993))).
    -25-
    NO. 69568-1-1/26
    for breach of the lease] and in any appellate or collection proceedings. All sums
    due from Tenant to Landlord shall bear interest at the Default Interest rate."
    The trial court concluded, "The legal services provided by Auburn's
    counsel were necessary and appropriate to guide and assist Auburn in the
    investigation and remediation of the former NW Mint Facility and to achieve a
    successful litigation result to resolve Auburn's claims under MTCA and under the
    2002 Lease." NW Mint fails to show that the broad lease provision precludes
    Auburn from recovering the cited costs and expenses.
    Both parties request fees and costs incurred on appeal under RAP 18.1,
    RCW 70.105D.080, RCW 4.84.330, and the lease. Because Auburn prevails in
    this appeal, it is entitled to recover attorney fees and costs under RAP 18.1,
    RCW 4.84.330, and the lease.
    CONCLUSION
    Substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings, which support its
    conclusions that NW Mint breached its lease with Auburn. NW Mint fails to show
    that the trial court abused its discretion when it awarded Auburn all of its fees and
    costs under the lease. We do not reach the applicability of the MTCA to this
    -26-
    NO. 69568-1-1/27
    case. We affirm the trial court and award fees and costs to Auburn incurred on
    appeal upon its compliance with RAP 14.4.
    WE CONCUR:
    ^J     /*
    (bxj-
    -27-