Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Addressing Safety on the Construction Site

January 27, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
For this week’s Construction Law Musings Guest Post, we welcome a new face, Patrick Rafferty. Patrick (@ThePraff) is a consultant for Brahman Systems and has an interest in construction safety. First of all, I’d like to say that I am not an attorney. Anything I say in this article should be taken with a grain of salt. All of the information that I have written in this article comes from personal work experience on the worksite. Each year, construction sites around the nation see hundreds of thousands of injuries related to equipment operation and situations that could be avoidable with the right precautions in place. In 2011 alone, according to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, there were 4,069 workers killed on a construction site, most of which were avoidable. Though some sort of on-site problems are unavoidable, they can be minimized with simple practices that every construction site should have in place, whether it is the building of a high-rise building or a simple house renovation. Here are some of the most common issues that lead to injuries on the construction site: Lack of training Before anyone steps onto a construction site, they need to have a thorough understanding of not only what they will be doing, but also how to use the equipment involved in the building process. All operators of heavy machinery should have verifiable training on the machine or equipment they will operate. Most equipment dealers offer training as part of their customer service, such as usage manuals, videos and quizzes. Once these are complete, many will offer a certificate of completion at the end of the process. The larger and more complex the machine, the more time should be allotted for training. 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

Top Five Legal Mistakes in Construction

April 04, 2022 — Jonathan A. Cass, Nicholas F. Morello & John A. Greenhall - Construction Executive
Many contractors repeatedly make the same mistakes in negotiating contracts. Here are the most common mistakes contractors make—and how they can be avoided. 1. Not Being Careful With Force Majeure Clauses To protect themselves from liability in the event of unforeseen circumstances like fires, floods, wars, unusual delays in deliveries, strikes, pandemics or acts of God, contractors should ensure their contracts contain robust force majeure provisions. These provisions state that in the event of any extenuating circumstances outside of its control, the contractor is not liable for any damages that result from a delay to the project completion date and is entitled to a time extension. This clause has been critical in addressing COVID-19-related disruptions and the current material shortages. Contractors should be wary, however, of “no damage-for-delay” language, which often appears in conjunction with these clauses. Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan A. Cass, Nicholas F. Morello and John A. Greenhall, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Cass may be contacted at jcass@cohenseglias.com Mr. Greenhall may be contacted at jgreenhall@cohenseglias.com Mr. Morello may be contacted at nmorello@cohenseglias.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Oklahoma Finds Policy Can Be Assigned Post-Loss

April 26, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Oklahoma joined the majority of court in finding that after a loss occurs, the insured can assign the policy to another. Johnson v. CSAA Gen. Ins. Co., 2020 Okla LEXIS 118 (Okla. Dec. 15, 2020). Johnson's property was damaged in a storm. She filed a claim with her insurer. She also executed an assignment of her claim in order to repair the property with the execution of assignment to Triple Diamond Construction LLC. An appraiser retained by Triple Diamond determined the storm damage was $36,346.06. The insurer paid only $21,725.36 for the loss. Johnson and Triple Diamond sued the insurer for breach of contract, seeking $14,620.70, not inclusive of interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The insurer filed a motion to dismiss, or an alternative motion for summary judgment to dismiss Triple Diamond as a party. The insurer argued that both the policy and an Oklahoma statute barred the assignment. The district court granted the insurer's motion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

5 Ways Equipment Financing is Empowering Small Construction Businesses

August 24, 2017 — Duane Craig - Construction Informer
Small construction businesses can often get 100% equipment financing, eliminating the down payment, and freeing up cash, according to the Equipment Leasing and Finance Association (ELFA). Most small businesses need equipment in order to operate and grow, and each business must decide on an acquisition strategy that is right for it. But, a majority of businesses turn to equipment leasing and financing so they can take advantage of a range of benefits. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Duane Craig, Construction Informer
Mr. Craig may be contacted at dtcraig@constructioninformer.com

Construction Injuries Under the Privette Doctrine. An Electrifying, but Perhaps Not Particularly Shocking, Story . . .

January 05, 2017 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
We’ve talked about the Privette doctrine before (see here, here, and here). The Privette doctrine, named after the court case Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, provides in general that project owners and contractors are not responsible for worksite injuries suffered by employees of lower-tiered contractors they have hired, the rationale being that such workers should already be covered under their employers’ workers’ compensation insurance policies. In the twenty years since Privette was decided, however, several exceptions have evolved that have narrowed the doctrine. One exception, known as the retained control exception, allows a contractor’s employees to sue the “hirer” of the contractor (that is, the higher-tiered party who “hired” the lower-tiered party whose employee is injured) when the hirer retains control over any part of the work and negligently exercises that control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the employee’s injury. Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198. Another exception, known as the nondelegable duty exception, permits an injured worker to recover against a hirer when the hirer has assumed a nondelegable duty, including statutory and regulatory duties, that it breaches in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the injury. Padilla v. Pomona College (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 661. In a recently decided case, Khosh v. Staples Construction Company, Inc., Case No. B268937 (November 17, 2016), the California Court of Appeals for the Second District examined the application of the Hooker and Padilla exceptions where a general contractor was contractually responsible for overall site safety. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

“Incidental” Versus “Direct” Third Party Beneficiaries Under Insurance Policies in Which a Party is Not an Additional Insured

April 18, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
As they say, when it rains, it pours. Indemnity and insurance are the “Big Two” when it comes to risk avoidance on construction projects. The next case, LaBarbera v. Security National Security Company, 86 Cal.App.5th 1329 (2022), involves both. It’s an interesting case, which I think could have gone either way, involving claims by a higher-tiered party that they were a third party beneficiary under an insurance policy in which they were not named as an additional insured. The LaBarbera Case The Indemnity Provision and Insurance Policy In June 1016, Chris LaBarbera hired Richard Knight doing business as Knight Construction to remodel his house in Carmichael, California. The construction contract included an indemnity provision which provided that Knight would defend and indemnify LaBarbera from all claims arising out the remodeling work except for claims arising from LaBarbera’s sole negligence and willful misconduct. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Heathrow Tempts Runway Opponents With $1,200 Christmas Sweetener

December 15, 2016 — Christopher Jasper – Bloomberg
Heathrow Airport Ltd. will offer hundreds of homeowners a 1,000-pound ($1,200) festive sweetener to participate in environmental studies vital to expediting planning for its controversial 16 billion-pound third runway. The owners of houses and farmland on which the new landing strip is due to be built will qualify for the payment in return for agreeing to a handful of visits over about two years, Heathrow Chief Executive Officer John Holland-Kaye said in an interview. The surveys are required to establish the site’s wildlife value. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Jasper, Bloomberg

Nevada Senate Bill 435 is Now in Effect

February 24, 2020 — Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
ATTENTION: Nevada liability departments and auto insurance carriers! Nevada Senate Bill No. 435 was recently signed into law and there are two key points to be aware of: Disclosure of Policy Limits Demand and Voiding Releases. These both deal with pre-litigation situations. 1) Nevada law now requires a motor vehicle insurer to disclose the limits of the policy if the claimant provides a HIPAA authorization which allows the carrier to “receive all medical reports, records and bills related to the claim from the providers of health care.” This is a change from the previous Nevada statute which required the disclosure of policy limits only after litigation was commenced. However, it appears from the language of the statute that there are limits to this new mandate. Section 4 of the new law is written in such a way to allow the argument that the new law applies only to accidents that occurred after 10/1/19, and that the insurance company has to request the HIPAA waiver from the claimant in order for the disclosure requirement to apply. The plaintiff’s bar is already attempting to address this language in the legislature. As written, subsection (4) is governed by subsection (1) which states that the insurance company “may require the claimant … to provide … a written authorization.” The following subparts all appear to be triggered only by the act of the insurance company requesting a HIPAA waiver. The plaintiff’s bar is pushing for clarifying language that would make it clear that once the claimant sent a HIPAA waiver, irrespective of whether the document was requested by the insurance company or not, the insurance company is required to disclose policy limits. This is not how the law reads on its face, and the change would make a significant difference from a practical perspective. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES