Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Flawed Welding Faulted in Mexico City Subway Collapse

October 04, 2021 — Jim Parsons - Engineering News-Record
Faulty structural welds have been blamed for the deadly May 3 collapse of an elevated section of Mexico City’s Line 12 subway, according to a report issued Sept. 7 by Norwegian risk management firm DNV. Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

What to Look for in Subcontractor Warranty Endorsements

February 03, 2020 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
With increasing frequency in the construction defect cases we defend, we are seeing commercial general liability insurance policies with “subcontractor warranty” endorsements. Also known as contractor or subcontractor special conditions, these endorsements could have severe and negative consequences for builders that do not comply with their requirements. In researching for this article, I reviewed six different endorsements used by six different carriers, all of which contained some or all of the following requirements:

The builder must have signed subcontract agreements with its subcontractors that require subcontractors to hold harmless, i.e., defend and indemnify, the builder for “bodily injury” or “property damage” claims caused by their negligence.
The subcontractors must maintain their own insurance with limits equal to or greater than the limits in the builder’s own policy, with limits of at least $1 million per occurrence.
The subcontractors’ insurance must not exclude the work being performed for the builder, e.g., the excavator’s policy cannot exclude earth movement claims, the subcontractor’s policy cannot exclude residential construction.
The subcontractors must maintain their own workers’ compensation and/or employer’s liability insurance.
The subcontractors must provide the builder with an endorsement or a certificate of insurance indicating that the builder has been added to the subcontractors’ insurance as an additional insured.
The subcontractors must provide the builder with an endorsement or a certificate of insurance indicating that their insurance carriers have agreed to provide waivers of subrogation in favor of the builder.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Will They Blow It Up?

March 28, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The issues concerning the Harmon Towers building in Las Vegas continue to make their way through the courts. As we noted in a previous piece, Cook County building officials stated that the building could be a hazard if Las Vegas were struck by an earthquake. The question of whether the building will continue to stand is just one of the issues in front of a judge.

MGM Resorts International argued at a March 13 hearing for permission to implode the Harmon hotel building. They claim that more than 1,700 defects have been discovered in the building and that the building is a public safety hazard. Arguing against demolition, Perini Building Company, the general contractor for the hotel, and its subcontractors are claiming that imploding the building would destroy evidence and prejudice juries in the ongoing construction defect claims. They claim that MGM Resorts wishes to abandon the building due to the economic slowdown. Perini Corp, the contractor for the project, claims that the building can be fixed. Perini claims that MGM’s position in the construction trial would be improved if the building is demolished.

After Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez heard the four days of testimony on the Harmon Towers building and whether it should be demolished, she scheduled more testimony, with two days in April and an entire week in July. Judge Gonzalez will be deciding whether the building will be torn down, imploded, or left in place.

Read the full story…

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

Brief Overview of Rights of Unlicensed Contractors in California

September 10, 2014 — William M. Kaufman – Construction Lawyers Blog
Under California Contractor’s State License Law enumerated in Business and Professions Code Sections 7000 to 7191, a contractor may not “bring or maintain” any action for compensation for performing any act or contract for which a license is required unless the contractor was duly licensed “at all times” during performance. Bus & Prof Code Section 7031(a). What does this mean and who does it include? This is a question that often has to be answered on a case by case basis. Basically, California does not want unlicensed contractors to be able to get paid for work that should be performed by a licensed contractor. The law has set forth some general parameters. General contractors, subcontractors, and master developers must be licensed. However, suppliers, manufacturers, laborers and equipment lessors are exempt and do not need a contractor’s license. Essentially, those parties that merely furnish material or supplies without fabricating them into, or consuming them in the performance of work, do not need to be licensed. Bus & Prof Code Section 7052. There are sever fines and penalties for those who improperly perform construction work without a license. A contract between any contractor and an unlicensed subcontractor is a misdemeanor. Lack of a license bars all actions in law or in equity for collection of compensation for the performance of work requiring a license. There are very few exceptions to this rule. A “savvy” unlicensed contractor cannot simply avoid these requirements by “subbing” out all the work to licensed contractors. Any person who uses the services of an unlicensed contractor may file a court action or cross-complaint to recover all payments made to the unlicensed contractor. In addition, a person who uses the services of an unlicensed contractor is a victim of a crime and eligible for restitution of economic losses regardless of whether that person had knowledge that the contractor was unlicensed. Bus. & Prof Code Sections 7028, 7028.16. It goes without saying that performing work without a license on projects is a bad idea. Reprinted courtesy of William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Client Alert: Court of Appeal Applies Common Interest Privilege Doctrine to HOA Litigation Meetings

March 19, 2014 — David W. Evans, Steven M. Cvitanovic, and Michael C. Parme - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Seahaus La Jolla Owners Assoc. v. Superior Court (No. D064567, March 12, 2014), the California Court of Appeal held a homeowners association’s (“HOA”) litigation meetings related to the HOA’s construction defect lawsuit were subject to protection under the attorney-client privilege. Specifically, the court concluded the common interest doctrine applied to the subject litigation meetings, thereby barring the defendants in the HOA’s lawsuit from seeking discovery related to the content and disclosures made during those meetings. The plaintiff HOA initiated a construction defect lawsuit against a residential developer and builder, seeking damages for construction defects related to common areas. The defendants took the depositions of individual homeowners and inquired regarding the communications and disclosures made at informational litigation update meetings. The meetings were conducted by the HOA’s counsel with groups of homeowners, some of whom had filed their own, separate lawsuits against the same defendants. Motions to compel were filed after attorney-client privilege objections were asserted by counsel for the HOA. After the court-appointed discovery referee opined that the common interest doctrine applied and that the communications presented at the meetings were subject to the attorney-client privilege, the trial court rejected this recommendation and overruled the HOA’s privilege objections. The HOA filed a petition for a writ of mandate. The defendants argued the privilege had been waived based on the presence of persons who were not the clients of the HOA’s attorney, that the subject communications were not “confidential communications” and that the individual homeowners and the HOA did not share common interests at the time. After setting forth a comprehensive discussion of the statutory principles underlying the attorney-client privilege and the bases for waiver, as provided in California Evidence Code §§ 912 and 952, and summarizing applicable decisional law, the court specifically analyzed the question of whether the common interest doctrine applied in the context of the disputed HOA litigation meetings. The common interest doctrine protects confidential communications made by counsel to third parties if the third parties are present to further the interest of the client or are those to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for the transmission of the information or the accomplishment of the purpose for which the lawyer was consulted. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Steven M. Cvitanovic, and Michael C. Parme of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com, Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com, and Mr. Parme may be contacted at mparme@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Apartment Building Damaged by Cable Installer’s Cherry Picker

November 20, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The owners of Oceana Apartments are suing Shentel Cable Co. and their subcontractors, CCI Systems, Inc. and Big Dog Communications, over the damage caused when a cherry picker rolled downhill and smacked into the building. Kenneth Benn, an employee of Big Dog Communications, was installing utility wire when the cherry picker started moving. The suit alleges that Mr. Benn either failed to properly apply the brakes or immobilize the vehicle before staring work. Mr. Benn is also named as a defendant in the suit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Oregon Codifies Tall Wood Buildings

October 23, 2018 — Joanna Masterson - Construction Executive
Oregon is the first state to allow wood buildings to exceed six stories without special consideration under the Oregon Building Codes Division’s recent statement of alternative method (SAM), which provides prescriptive path elements for mass timber construction. The SAM establishes three new types of construction—Type IV A, B and C—that allow buildings to go as high as nine to 18 stories with varying percentages of exposed timber surfaces and sprinkler system requirements. Reprinted courtesy of Joanna Masterson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Defect Dispute Governed by Contract Disputes Act not yet Suited to being a "Suit"

June 25, 2019 — William S. Bennett - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The Southern District of California recently held that a series of demands for a general contractor to investigate and repair several construction defects at a U.S. Army facility did not constitute a “suit” within the meaning of the general contractor’s commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy. In Harper Construction Co., Inc. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., the U.S. Government hired Harper Construction Company (“Harper”) to construct a U.S. Army training facility for the Patriot Missile System in Fort Sill, Oklahoma. No. 18-cv-00471-BAS-NLS (S.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2019). During the project, Harper hired Harper Mechanical Contractors (“Harper Mechanical”), an independent company, as a subcontractor “to perform demolition, grading, and other work at the Project.” After Harper completed the project, the government informed Harper of property damage at the project, “including, but not limited to, gypsum wallboard cracks and binding doors.” Harper attempted to repair the issues, but the problems continued. The issues were apparently the result of Harper Mechanical’s grading work. Subsequently, the government sent two letters requesting an investigation and asking Harper to “propose a plan to correct the issues.” As Harper undertook an investigation spanning multiple years, the government became increasingly frustrated with the delays. The government threatened to initiate “formal administrative recourse” and to demolish the project, forcing Harper to re-build from the ground up. It also sent Harper another letter requesting Harper submit a formal proposal to correct the issues. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Bennett may be contacted at wsb@sdvlaw.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES