Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Ruling On Certificates Of Merit And “Gist Of Action” May Make It More Difficult For An Architect Or Engineer To Seek An Early Dismissal

January 07, 2015 — Jerrold P. Anders and Michael W. Jervis - White and Williams LLP
In Bruno v. Erie Ins. Co., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clarified the gist of the action doctrine that distinguishes between tort and contract claims. In doing this, the Court also ruled that a Certificate of Merit in a professional liability claim is necessary only if the plaintiff is in a direct client relationship with the licensed professional. This clarification of the Certificate of Merit requirement may limit the ability of architects and engineers to obtain an early dismissal in lawsuits. Bruno v. Erie Ins. Co. involves a common scenario. The Brunos filed a claim with their homeowners’ insurer after discovering mold in their home during remodeling. The policy included an endorsement providing coverage for mold. As part of the claim adjustment, Erie hired an engineer to inspect the mold and to provide an opinion on its severity to determine the extent of remediation required. The engineer hired by Erie reported to Mr. Bruno that the mold was harmless, that concern over health problems due to mold was merely a “media frenzy,” and that the Brunos should continue with their renovations. Reprinted courtesy of Jerrold P. Anders, White and Williams LLP and Michael W. Jervis, White and Williams LLP Mr. Anders may be contacted at andersj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Jervis may be contacted at jervism@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Record Keeping—the Devil’s in the Details

July 30, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contract Advisor
Another court has found that poor record keeping will prevent recovery on a claim. The court in Weatherproofing Tech., Inc. v. Alacran Contracting, LLC found that a contractor’s documents were a mess and that no reasonable jury could base a verdict on the contractor’s records. The underlying project involved the construction of an army training facility. The total project cost approximated $13 million. Alacran, the general contractor, subcontracted about $3 million of the work to Weatherproofing Tech. Alacran paid Weatherproofing $700,000 for its work, even though Weatherproofing submitted invoices of more than $2 million. Alacran justified its refusal to pay Weatherproofing on the grounds that the parties had agreed to split the profit and loss on the project and the project was out of money. Not surprisingly, Weatherproofing sued Alacran for the amount owed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

UCP Buys Citizen Homes

March 31, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
UCP, a home builder and land developer based in San Jose, California, has purchased “Charlotte-based Southeast regional home building venture Citizens Homes, whose chairman is well-known home building industry veteran Tony Mon, and whose president and chief operating officer is third-generation home builder Scott Thorson,” according to Big Builder. According to a UCP press statement, as quoted by Big Builder, “[t]he purchase price, estimated to be approximately $15 million, is based on the total assets of Citizens at the closing of the acquisition, less cash and cash equivalents, and less certain assumed trade payables. In addition, Citizens is eligible to receive earnout payments from UCP of up to $6 million in the aggregate based on performance over the next five years.” The acquisition is expected to close during the second quarter of 2014. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Biggest Trials Coming to Courts Around the World in 2021

January 04, 2021 — Anthony Lin - Bloomberg
Several former world leaders, a Hong Kong media tycoon, the CEO of Theranos and Jeffrey Epstein’s confidante — all are scheduled to have their day in court next year. With vaccinations heralding a return to normalcy, the next year should see courtrooms around the world coming back to life. Ghislaine Maxwell, China critic Jimmy Lai and Samsung heir Jay Y. Lee are among those facing high-profile criminal cases in 2021. Some proceedings, including the fraud trial of Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes, are resuming after being postponed by the pandemic. Another delayed case, UBS’s appeal of its $4.9 billion French government tax penalty, is among the many that will be heard by higher-level and supreme courts. There are also a number of cases against former world leaders, including France’s Nicolas Sarkozy, Malaysia’s Najib Razak and South Africa’s Jacob Zuma. One of the most tantalizing questions will be whether a certain former U.S. president could find himself facing trial as well. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony Lin, Bloomberg

Not Everything is a Pollutant: A Summary of Recent Cases Supporting a Common Sense and Narrow Interpretation of the CGL's Pollution Exclusion

October 26, 2020 — Philip B. Wilusz & Jeffrey J. Vita - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Those of us who suffered through law school are familiar with the argument that there are fundamental rules applicable to contract interpretation and that a certain contract language interpretation would “swallow the rule.” However, insurance companies have long advocated for an interpretation of the CGL policy’s pollution exclusion that would “swallow the coverage” that the insureds thought they were purchasing. Insurers have successfully argued in several states that the pollution exclusion’s definition of “pollutant” should be read literally, and be applied to any “solid, liquid, gaseous, or thermal irritant or contaminant including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals, and waste.” As anyone with children can attest to, the range of items and substances that can be considered an “irritant” is limitless. The logical extent of the insurer’s interpretation brings to mind the high school student who, for his science fair project, convinced his fellow students to ban “dihydrogen monoxide.”1 Citing evidence such as the fact that everyone who has ever died was found to have consumed “dihydrogen monoxide,” he convinced them of the dangers of . . . water. Similarly, an overly expansive reading of the definition of “pollutant” could lead to the absurd result of even applying it to ubiquitous harmless substances such as water. The pollution exclusion, therefore, has run amok in many states and has allowed insurers to avoid liability for otherwise covered claims. Fortunately, insureds in many states have successfully argued that the pollution exclusion is subject to a more limited interpretation based on several different theories. For example, some courts have agreed that the pollution exclusion, as initially introduced by the insurance industry, should be limited to instances of traditional environmental pollution. Others have held that the exclusion is ambiguous as to its interpretation. The reasonable expectations of the insureds do not support a broad reading of the defined term “pollutant.” Below, this article addresses a number of recent decisions that have adopted a pro policyholder interpretation of the pollution exclusion. As with most insurance coverage issues, choice of law clearly matters. Reprinted courtesy of Philip B. Wilusz, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Mr. Wilusz may be contacted at pbw@sdvlaw.com Mr. Vita may be contacted at jjv@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Statute of Limitations Upheld in Construction Defect Case

September 30, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Missouri Court of Appeals has ruled in Ball v. Friese Construction Co., finding that Mr. Ball’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations.

Mr. Ball hired Friese Construction Company to build a single-family home. The sale was completed on March 29, 2001. That December, Mr. Ball complained of cracks in the basement floor. SCI Engineering, n engineering firm, hired by Friese, determined that the home’s footing had settled and recommended that Mr. Ball hire a structural engineer to determine if the footings were properly designed and sized. In September 2002, the structural engineer, Strain Engineering, determined that the cracks were due to slab movement, caused in part by water beneath the slab, recommending measures to move water away from the foundation. In 2005, Mr. Ball sent Friese correspondence “detailing issues he was having with the home, including problems with the basement slab, chimney structure, drywall tape, and doors.” All of these were attributed to the foundation problems. In 2006, Friese stated that the slab movement was due to Ball’s failure to maintain the storm water drains.

In 2009, Ball received a report from GeoTest “stating the house was resting on highly plastic clay soils.” He sued Friese in May, 2010. Friese was granted a summary judgment dismissing the suit, as the Missouri has a five-year statute of limitations. Ball appealed on the grounds that the extent of the damage could not be determined until after the third expert report. The appeals court rejected this claim, noting that a reasonable person would have concluded that after the conclusion of SCI and Strain Engineering that “injury and substantial damages may have occurred.”

The court concluded that as there were not “continuing wrongs causing new and distinct damages,” he should have filed his lawsuit after the first two expert reports, not waiting seven years for a third expert to opine.

Read the court’s decision…

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

Be Proactive, Not Reactive, To Preserve Force Majeure Rights Regarding The Coronavirus

March 30, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
If you are involved in construction, NOW is the time to consider the potential force majeure impacts associated with the pandemic Coronavirus. Things are beginning to drastically change on a minute-by-minute basis. From travel restrictions, to the suspension or cancellation of events on an international level, to company-wide policies and restrictions, the global uncertainty has led to the possibility that a force majeure delay will occur. Thinking otherwise is not being proactive. The Coronavirus, and the impacts / delays associated therewith, is beyond anyone’s control. Due to the uncertainty, it is hard to fathom at this time a reasonable challenge to someone’s reaction to this concern or their companywide response to the concern.

Revisit your contracts and see what type of force majeure language it has – anything relating to delays beyond your control or epidemics;
Examine to see whether you have a basis for additional compensation AND additional time;
Examine what type of notice you are required to provide for force majeure events;
Be proactive – send notice now of the potentiality that this pandemic can impact / delay the job –no one should take offense to this letter as this pandemic has impacted all walks of life;
If an impact occurs, send follow-up notice accordingly to ensure rights under the contract are preserved; and
For future contracts, incorporate language that specifically addresses epidemics and pandemics now that the occurrence of this issue has become real.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Travelers v. Larimer County and the Concept of Covered Cause of Loss

May 10, 2013 — Brady Iandiorio
Travelers Indemnity Company (“Travelers”) recently won a decision against Larimer County regarding a claim for damage caused to the roofs of several buildings at the County Fairgrounds. Travelers Indemnity Company v. Board of County Commissioners for Larimer County, Slip Copy, 2013 WL 238865, p. 1 (10th Cir. 2013). Larimer County alleged, in district court, that snowstorms and the weight of the snow build-up caused damage to the roof structures. Id. After the district court found for Travelers on a motion for summary judgment, Larimer County appealed the ruling, claiming that Traveler’s was obligated under the insurance policy to pay for repair costs to portions of the roofing structure. Id. The underlying claim for repairs originates with several snowstorms that caused damage to several buildings on the County Fairgrounds. The damage claimed was widespread to the roof structures, evidenced by rolling and buckling purlins (horizontal beams running along the length of the roof, resting upon the principal rafters at right angles and supporting the ordinary rafters). Travelers denied the claim based on its own investigation which concluded the damage was caused by design and construction defects, and therefore excluded from coverage under the insurance policy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brady Iandiorio
Mr. Iandiorio can be contacted at iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES