Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

UPDATE: ACS Obtains Additional $13.6 Million for General Contractor Client After $19.2 Million Jury Trial Victory

June 27, 2022 — Kristina Southwell - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
In March 2022, ACS obtained a $19.2 million jury verdict in favor of its general contractor client after a lengthy trial against the project owner. Since that time, ACS has successfully obtained awards through post-trial motion practice for an additional $13.6 million in favor of the general contractor. These awards increased to total judgment to more than $32 million. When moving to enter judgment on the jury verdict, ACS successfully argued for and obtained more than $5 million in prejudgment interest on the jury verdict to compensate the general contractor for having to go years without payment for work performed. ACS also successfully obtained a decree of foreclosure on its construction lien and incorporated language in the judgment requiring the owner to pay an additional $1.9 million in Washington State sales tax on the jury award. Finally, under the authority of the Washington construction lien statute (RCW 60.04.181), ACS sought to recover the attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses incurred by the general contractor client during the course of litigation. ACS succeeded in obtaining an award for more than $6.6 million for various expenses and costs including ACS’s attorney fees, all the costs of hiring expert witnesses, costs and expenses related to subcontractors’ presentation of pass-through claims against the owner, and other litigation costs and expenses. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kristina Southwell, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ms. Southwell may be contacted at wendy.wheatmccoy@acslawyers.com

Restaurant Wants SCOTUS to Dust Off Eleventh Circuit’s “Physical Loss” Ruling

February 01, 2021 — Michael S. Levine & Geoffrey B. Fehling - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
A South Florida restaurant has asked the US Supreme Court to overturn a federal district court’s ruling that the restaurant is not entitled to coverage under an “all risk” commercial property insurance policy for lost income and extra expenses resulting from nearby road construction. In the underlying coverage action, the policyholder, Mama Jo’s (operating as Berries in the Grove), sought coverage under its all-risk policy for business income losses and expenses caused by construction dust and debris that migrated into the restaurant. Should the Supreme Court grant certiorari, the case will be closely watched by insurers and policyholders alike as an indicator of the scope of coverage available under all-risk policies and whether the principles pertinent to construction dust and debris (at issue in Mama Jo’s claim) have any application to the thousands of pending claims for COVID-19-related business interruption losses pending in the state and federal court systems. As previously discussed on this blog, the Eleventh Circuit’s decision deviates from Florida precedent on the issue of “direct physical loss” and even its own understanding of that term as described in the August 18, 2020 decision now at issue before the Supreme Court. Mama Jo’s points to this in its petition along with several other errors arguing, for example, that the appellate court’s ruling renders entire areas of coverage nonexistent by requiring “tangible destruction” of property under all-risk policies that expressly afford coverage for types of clean-up costs required to remove debris from covered property. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

How AI Can Become a Design Adviser

October 02, 2018 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
Parametrized design software is not a recent invention. This software is based on predetermined, fixed algorithms, leaving most of the work to the designer. Sweco, a leading engineering consultancy, is now exploring how artificial intelligence (AI) could take design automation in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction industry to the next level. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

Do Construction Contracts and Fraud Mix After All?

October 27, 2016 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
On several occasions here at Construction Law Musings, I’ve discussed the fact that, with a few exceptions, fraud claims and written construction contract based claims do not mix. One of the exceptions to the so called “economic loss rule” that would seem to preclude both fraud and contract claims in the same lawsuit is where fraud is used to induce the contract in the first place. This exception would only apply where an independent duty, wholly outside of the duties created by the contract, is properly plead and proven to the court. For the same reason, namely a separate duty outside of the contract, the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (“VCPA”) may allow for an exception that would allow a cause of action under this statute. Up until recently, the courts of Virginia have used these exceptions sparingly. However, the recent Loudoun County, VA Circuit Court opinion in Interbuild, Inc. v. Sayers (opinion also found at Virginia Lawyers Weekly) may signal a broadening of these exceptions. In the Interbuild case, the Court considered a claim for fraud in the inducement and breach of the VCPA. The basic facts plead by the plaintiffs were that Interbuild induced them into the contract through statements that it had been an established business since 1981, the project did not require a building permit, it had obtained all necessary subcontractor prices and would provide full-time project supervision, the project would be completed within 16 weeks, 4000 PSI concrete would be used for the project and that the project would be located in the agreed-upon area depicted and that they reasonably relied on these representations in deciding to enter into the contract to build their recreational facility. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Plaintiff’s Mere Presence in Area Where Asbestos is Present Insufficient to Establish Bystander Exposure

October 21, 2015 — R. Bryan Martin & Laura C. Williams – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Schiffer v. CBS Corporation (filed 9/9/15; modified 9/30/15), the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendant asbestos insulation manufacturer finding plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence of bystander exposure. Plaintiff James Schiffer (“Schiffer”) alleged that while working at the Ginna Gas & Electric power plant in the summer of 1969, he was exposed to asbestos-containing materials during installation of equipment and insulation manufactured by CBS Corporation’s predecessor-in-interest, Westinghouse. After developing mesothelioma, Schiffer and his wife sued numerous entities, including CBS, which successfully moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Schiffer failed to submit evidence that he was exposed to asbestos-containing materials. Reprinted courtesy R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Laura C. Williams, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Ms. Williams may be contacted at lwilliams@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Repairs Could Destroy Evidence in Construction Defect Suit

June 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Repair work is underway on the Palladium concert hall in Carmel, Indiana, a suburb of Indianapolis, a contractor for the project says that the repairs will destroy evidence that they need to defect against additional construction defect allegations. Work stopped in 2009 for three months of repairs after problems were found in the steel roof supports. Steel Supply & Engineering Co. has claimed that the column failures are due to errors in the design. They say that if the repair work continues, it “would result in the spoliation of evidence, and will irreparably harm the defendants, and ultimately adversely affect their ability to protect their rights in the action.” They have asked the court to bring repairs to a stop until they are able to inspect the steel. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Limitations: There is a Point of No Return

September 06, 2023 — Amy Anderson - ConsensusDocs
After nearly any event that causes inefficiency, delay, or extra cost on a project, there are some things you should always do: review the contract and document the inefficiency, delay, or cost. However, how you document the particular issue likely changes depending on what is in your contract, your position on the project, and the outcome you hope to reach. In reviewing the inefficiency, delay, or cost, one thing to always consider is how long you have to actually recoup damages you may incur if they were caused by another party on the project. In every jurisdiction (state or federal), there is likely to be some outer limit to when you can bring litigation or arbitration against an opposing party to recover damages another party causes to you. This is generally called a statute of limitations or statute of repose, although it goes by other names depending on your state. The length of time will be specific to the locality. For example, in Texas, you have four years to bring a breach of contract claim but only two years to bring a negligence claim. Whether you fall under the two year or four year period may be highly fact intensive, depending on your claims. Do you have a contract directly with the party that is at fault? Is the claim based on your contract or some tort outside of the contract? Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Amy Anderson, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Ms. Anderson may be contacted at aanderson@joneswalker.com

The Ups and Downs of Elevator Maintenance Contractor's Policy Limits

October 03, 2022 — Richard W. Brown & Sarah J. Markham - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The December 2021 First Department decision in Nouveau Elevator Indus. v. New York Marine & General Ins. Co. is pushing some buttons in the elevator industry, given the significant implications it may have on the adequacy of policy limits for elevator service companies operating in New York state. The Court held in Nouveau that monthly elevator maintenance work performed under an ongoing service agreement is considered “completed operations” for purposes of applying policy limits. Specifically, the Court found that the per location policy limits are not implicated here, and instead held that the products-completed operations aggregate limit applies to completed work, which expressly includes “that part of the work done at a job site [that] has been put to its intended use.” Facts of the Case Nouveau provides elevator maintenance and service in the greater New York city region. Its work is done in multiple buildings and locations throughout the city. Nouveau purchased six commercial general liability (CGL) policies from New York Marine for consecutive one-year periods. Each of the CGL policies provides a liability limit of $1 million, with an aggregate limit of $2 million, per accident or occurrence. Reprinted courtesy of Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Sarah J. Markham, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Brown may be contacted at RBrown@sdvlaw.com Ms. Markham may be contacted at SMarkham@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES