Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

New York Converting Unlikely Buildings into Condominiums

July 23, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The New York Times reported that New York has seen a boom of buildings such as power plants, churches, schools, parking garages, and theaters converted to apartment and condo spaces. Part of the reason for the surge was due to land scarcity—but the New York Times also stated that zoning on the “old-time structures are far bigger than what zoning would allow on their lots today.” Plus, “[a]daptive reuse can also be speedier.” However, Toby Moskovits, president of Heritage Equity Partners, stated that the real reason might be curb appeal: “There’s a general movement now that goes beyond real estate, a reaction to a world that’s become increasingly electronic. People are more comfortable with something that feels authentic.” Heritage Equity Partners is currently converting a church-and-school complex into apartments in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Issues to Watch Out for When Managing Remote Workers

July 13, 2020 — Melissa (Powar) Clarke - Payne & Fears
Managing remote workers comes with its share of challenges. The complexities of setting and articulating expectations in a remote work environment – and providing feedback about performance tied to those expectations - adds an additional burden to our already-crowded work lives, particularly for managers who are new to remote supervisory roles. This article highlights some key issues that arise when managing remote workers. Issue 1: Insufficient feedback Annual reviews are not enough. Data clearly reflects that employees who receive regular feedback are happier, and more productive, in their roles. Employees require a “continuous feedback loop” to grow and improve. While many companies started migrating toward continuous feedback before the pandemic, remote work further increases the need for more frequent (formal and informal) check-ins. Organizations must provide management with a toolkit for providing – and receiving – constant feedback, and this toolkit should take into account changes in work styles and modalities of communication when employees are remote. Given the ease with which we can give face-to-face feedback compared to “virtual” feedback, this toolkit becomes even more important when only some employees are remote and others have returned onsite. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa (Powar) Clarke, Payne & Fears
Ms. Clarke may be contacted at mec@paynefears.com

Lead Paint: The EPA’s Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule

September 09, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
For this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Musings, we welcome Joshua Glazov for the first time. Josh has been a construction lawyer since 1995. He practices at Much Shelist in Chicago and focuses on negotiating and preparing design and construction contracts for owners, contractors, and lenders, as well as preparing for, and confronting, construction related insolvency when a project participant goes bankrupt or a lender goes into FDIC receivership. Josh publishes on these topics at his blogs: Construction Law Today and the Bank Failure Blog. Last month the EPA finally issued their Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule (PDF), the one that sets up new requirements for work on projects that may involve lead paint. The requirements are many complex. You’ll need to become familiar with this rule if you do any renovation , repair, or painting work, especially of your work is on buildings built before lead paint was banned in 1978.

You’ll need to become a certified by the EPA as a Certified Renovation Firm

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Hawaii Federal District Court Denies Brokers' MSJ on Duties Owed In Construction Defect Case

October 19, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court for the District of Hawaii denied the brokers' motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal from claims that they inadequately advised the insured of the law regarding construction defects in Hawaii. Am Auto. Ins. Co. v. Haw. Nut & Bolt, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148571. Safeway sued Hawaii Nut & Bolt (HNB) and others for construction defects in a newly constructed store. The underlying complaint alleged products liability claims against HNB as the distributor of the "VersaFlex Coating System." HSB had represented that the coating system was adequate for its intended use. The underlying complaint alleged failure of the VersaFlex Coating System in waterproofing the roof deck of the store. After the store opened, water leaks from the roof deck appeared. Safeway alleged they were caused by the cracks and failures in the waterproof membrane in the roof deck. HNB notified its insurers of the claims. The insurers defended HNB during the litigation subject to reservation of rights letters. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Georgia Passes Solar CUVA Bill

April 20, 2017 — David R. Cook Jr. - Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Georgia House Bill 238 authorizes the withdrawal of property from a conservation use covenant for purposes of developing a solar generation plant. Before the law was passed, subject to certain limited exceptions, properties under a conservation use covenant generally could not be developed without breaching the covenant. The new law permits the removal of a portion of the property to be used for solar development without breaching the covenant for the rest of the property. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

Sometimes you Need to Consider the Coblentz Agreement

January 19, 2017 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
Since insurance, particularly liability insurance, is such an important component when it comes a construction project, understanding certain nuances such as a Coblentz Agreement (a what kind of agreement agreement?!?—keep reading) becomes helpful. If there is a construction defect claim / lawsuit, the implicated parties (e.g., contractor, design professional, subcontractor, sub-consultants) are going to tender the claim / lawsuit to their respective liability insurer. This is what they should be doing – notifying the insurer so that the insurer can defend them from the claim / lawsuit and indemnify them from covered damages associated with the claim / lawsuit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

An Additional Insured’s Reasonable Expectations may be Different from the Named Insured’s and Must be Considered to Determine whether the Additional Insured is Entitled to Defense from the Insurer of a Commercial Excess & Umbrella Liability Policy

June 12, 2014 — Richard H. Glucksman, Esq., Jon A. Turigliatto, Esq. and Kacey R. Riccomini, Esq. – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
The Second District Court of Appeal’s recent decision, Transport Insurance Company v. Superior Court (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1216, immediately affects builders and contractors (collectively “builders”) who are often named as additional insureds (AIs) to contractors’ general liability policies. The decision is an important tool for builders’ counsel because the builder’s reasonable expectations can alter the interpretation of ambiguous terms in policies issued to subcontractors. Essentially, the builder’s intent is relevant to the interpretation of policy terms because the subcontractor’s intent in requesting additional coverage depends on the agreement it made with the builder. The salient aspects of the facts, the Appellate Court’s reasoning, and practical considerations are discussed below. Transport Insurance Company (Transport) issued a commercial excess and umbrella liability policy (Policy) to Vulcan Materials Company (Vulcan), naming R.R. Street & Co., Inc. (Street) as an AI for its distribution of a solvent. The Policy provided that Transport would indemnify and defend the insured for loss caused by property damage if (1) it was not covered by “underlying insurance” but was within the terms of coverage of the Policy, or (2) if the limits of liability of the “underlying insurance” were exhausted during the Policy period due to property damage. The Policy included a Schedule of Underlying Insurance (Schedule) that listed policies issued to Vulcan. Thereafter, Vulcan and Street were named as defendants in several environmental contamination actions (Underlying Actions). Transport brought a declaratory relief action against Vulcan regarding Transport’s duty to defend. (Legacy Vulcan Corp. v. Superior Court (Legacy Vulcan) (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 677). The trial court found the term “underlying insurance” ambiguous as it was not expressly defined to include only the policies on the Schedule and could be interpreted to include all primary policies in effect. Vulcan challenged the trial court’s decision by petition for writ of mandate, contending “underlying insurance” only included policies listed on the Schedule. The Court of Appeal found “underlying insurance” ambiguous because it was an expressly qualified term under other Policy provisions but not in the umbrella coverage provision and, thus, it was a generic term that was not limited to policies listed in the Schedule or inclusive of all primary insurance. Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys Richard H. Glucksman, Jon A. Turigliatto and Kacey R. Riccomini Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com; Mr. Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com, and Ms. Riccomini may be contacted at kriccomini@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Contract Void Ab Initio: Key Insights into the KBR vs. Corps of Engineers Affirmative Defense

February 12, 2024 — Matthew DeVries - Best Practices Construction Law
In a recent Board decision dated December 13, 2023, the United States Army Corps of Engineers sought to amend its answer in the case of APPEALS OF – KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT SERVICES, INC., under Contract No. W912GB-13-C-0011. The proposed amendment introduces an affirmative defense, contending that Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. (KBR) made material misrepresentations in its proposal, rendering the fully-performed contract void ab initio. Background: The contract in question, executed on July 9, 2013, was for the construction of an Aegis Ashore Missile Defense System site in Deveselu, Romania, with a firm, fixed-price amount of $134,211,592. The Corps moved to amend its answer to allege that KBR’s material misrepresentations induced the Corps to enter the contract, justifying the voiding of the contract. The alleged misrepresentations include issues related to subcontractor quotes, firm fixed prices, subcontracting plans, and more. Motion to Amend and Legal Defense: The Corps, despite delays in formally amending its answer, argued that KBR was aware of the potential affirmative defense before the conclusion of fact discovery. The proposed affirmative defense asserts that KBR made eight material misrepresentations in its proposal, upon which the Corps relied in awarding the contract and defending against a GAO protest. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Matthew DeVries, Burr & Forman LLP
Mr. DeVries may be contacted at mdevries@burr.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES