Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

PSA: Latest Updates from AGC-VA on COVID Rules (UPDATED)

June 14, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
The recent changes in masking requirements and COVID-related restrictions have prompted questions and concerns throughout the construction industry. We understand your questions and continue to work closely with the Department of Labor and Industry (DOLI) and the Safety and Health Codes Board. Here is what we know at this point:

The Governor’s second order terminates the state of public emergency as of May 28, 2021. At that point, the DOLI Safety and Health Codes Board will have 2 weeks to meet and decide whether to rescind, modify, or continue the Final Permanent Standard for Prevention of Covid-19. Companies should continue to follow the standard until further notice.
UPDATE: At present, the emergency order does not expire before June 30, unless amended or otherwise changed. Therefore, the two-week period to announce a meeting of the SCHB to review the permanent COVID-19 standard does not begin until July 1, though the meeting can occur after the two-week period. AGCVA has joined other groups in pushing for a meeting as soon as possible.

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

ICE Said to Seek Mortgage Role Through Talks With Data Service

August 06, 2014 — Matthew Leising, Jesse Hamilton and Jody Shenn – Bloomberg
Intercontinental Exchange Inc. (ICE), best known for energy trading and its control of the New York Stock Exchange, is engaged in negotiations that would give it a foothold in the $9.4 trillion U.S. mortgage market. ICE is in early stage talks to form a partnership with Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc., which documents the ownership and resale of about half of U.S. home loans, according to a person familiar with the matter, who asked to not be identified because the discussions are private. The Atlanta-based exchange owner has been gauging demand for derivatives that enable investors to bet on defaults by U.S. homeowners, Bloomberg News reported in May. ICE, which earns most of its revenue by owning one of the world’s largest derivatives markets, has recently expanded into new businesses such as equity trading with its 2013 purchase of NYSE Euronext and the administration of interest-rate benchmarks. Mr. Leising may be contacted at mleising@bloomberg.net; Mr. Hamilton may be contacted at jhamilton33@bloomberg.net; Ms. Shenn may be contacted at jshenn@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Matthew Leising, Jesse Hamilton and Jody Shenn, Bloomberg

“Other Insurance” and Indemnity Provisions Determine Which Insurer Must Cover

September 01, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

A policy’s “other insurance” clause and a contractual indemnity provision were at the root for determining which of two insurers had to cover for injuries at a construction site. Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 2011 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 76061 (N.D. Calif. July 14, 2011).

Hathaway was the general contractor at a demolition and construction project. Hathaway was insured by Zurich. Reinhardt Roofing was the roofing subcontractor. Reinhardt was insured by Valley Forge under a policy which named Hathaway as an additional insured. The subcontract also required Reinhardt to indemnify Hathaway for acts or omissions arising from Reinhardt’s work unless Hathaway was solely negligent.

Four of Reinhardt’s workers were injured when a canopy roof on which they were working collapsed. At the time of the accident, Hathaway’s on-site supervisor was inspecting a gap in the canopy roof, but did not order Reinhardt’s workers to stop working.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

COVID-19 and Mutual Responsibility Clauses

June 01, 2020 — Joseph M. Leone - ConsensusDocs
As everyone knows, there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty in the construction industry due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Schedules, productivity, safety processes, and seemingly everything else are being affected. In these difficult times, most contractors are making every effort to work together to solve the problems caused by COVID-19. But what happens when differences arise between project owners, contractors, and subcontractors as to the effect of COVID-19 on a project? One party may want to continue pushing the schedule, others may want to slow down, or, more likely, not be able to keep up with the original schedule because of some reason related to COVID-19. As between a prime contractor and a subcontractor, a mutual responsibility clause can provide some clarity or, unfortunately, depending on how the subcontract is written, confusion. Almost all subcontracts have a clause which flows down the prime contractor’s obligations on a project to the subcontractor as applicable to the subcontractor’s work. Known as “flow-down” clauses, this clause works in one direction; obligations of the prime contractor “flow-down” to the Subcontractor. A mutual responsibility clause, in essence, works in both directions. The subcontractor is required to perform its obligations consistent with the prime contractor’s obligations to the owner and the subcontractor is granted the same rights against the prime contractor which the prime contractor has against the owner. Obligations flow down and rights flow up. The rights and obligations flowing through the prime contractor include, the obligation to perform the work in accordance with the plans and specifications, the obligation to meet the schedule constraints in the prime agreement, and the right to extensions of time and change orders to the extent the prime contractor obtains the same. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Joseph M. Leone, Drewry Simmons Vornehm, LLP
Mr. Leone may be contacted at jleone@dsvlaw.com

Definitions Matter in Illinois: Tenant Held Liable Only for Damage to Apartment Unit

September 09, 2024 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Phila. Indem. Ins. Co. v. Gonzalez, No. 1-23-0833, 2024 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1372, the Appellate Court of Illinois considered whether the terms of a lease agreement limited a tenant’s liability for fire damages, a fire caused by her negligence, to her apartment unit only. The plaintiff insured the subject apartment building, which incurred damage to several units as result of a fire in the tenant’s unit. The lease defined “Premises” as the specific apartment unit occupied by the tenant and held the tenant responsible for damage caused to the Premises. While the court found that the lease permitted the plaintiff to subrogate against the tenant, it held that the lease terms limited the damages to the tenant’s apartment unit only. In Gonzalez, the plaintiff’s insured owned a multi-unit apartment building in Chicago. In September 2019, the building owner entered into a lease agreement with the defendant for apartment Unit 601. The lease stated that Unit 601 was the “Leased Address (Premises).” Another provision stated that building owner “hereby leases to Tenant(s) and Tenant(s) hereby leases from Landlord(s) for use as a private dwelling only, the Premises, together with the fixtures and appliances (if any) in the premises…” The lease also stated that “Tenant shall be liable for any damage done to the premises as a result of Tenant’s or Tenant’s invitees, guests or others authorized to reside in the Premises [sic] direct action, negligence, or failure to inform Landlord of repairs necessary to prevent damage to the Premises.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

City Wonders Who’s to Blame for Defective Wall

February 14, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A wall along a beach trail in Treasure Island, Florida is cracking, and opinions are divided over it. One city commissioner, Alan Bildz, said “it looks like somebody was doing their first concrete job.” An engineer from the design firm described it as a “cosmetic issue.” Bildz was overruled on his suggestion that the wall be torn down and rebuilt. In later sections of the wall, expansion joints seem to have remedied the problem. But while the architect has offered to pay for filling the cracks with epoxy and polyurethane caulk, there’s still the question of adding expansion joints to the project. City Commissioner Phil Collins noted that the city has allocated more than $50,000 to add expansion joints, yet he feels the city should not be responsible for the expense, noting that the design could be considered defective, and under the terms of the contract, “the contractor shall bear the cost.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California Limits Indemnification Obligations of Design Professionals

August 24, 2017 — William L. Doerler - White and Williams LLP
The California legislature recently enacted legislation – SB 496 – limiting a design professional’s indemnification obligations in private contracts related to design services. The term “design professional” refers to licensed architects, landscape architects and professional land surveyors, and registered professional engineers. As revised, Cal. Civ. Code § 2782.8 states that, for all contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2018 for design professional services, all provisions that purport to have the design professional indemnify the indemnitee for claims against the indemnitee – or require the design professional to provide a defense to the indemnitee – are unenforceable except to the extent that the claims against the indemnitee arise out of, or relate to, the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the design professional. In addition, as revised, § 2782.8 limits a design professional’s liability for the cost of defense to the design professional’s percentage of fault. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

Supreme Court Declines to Address CDC Eviction Moratorium

August 04, 2021 — Zachary Kessler, Amanda G. Halter & Adam Weaver - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
In a closely watched 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court sided against the challengers to the eviction moratorium issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), keeping a stay in place that leaves the eviction ban in effect through July 31. The CDC has indicated it will not renew the eviction moratorium when it expires at the end of the month. The CDC’s eviction moratorium was first adopted at the expiration of the CARES Act’s limited eviction protection for federally funded rental properties. The more broadly applicable order, extended under both the Trump and Biden administrations, prohibited landlords from evicting tenants unable to pay due to the financial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, when the tenant confirmed in writing that they had done their best to make any partial payment, were at risk of becoming homeless or having to move into unsafe group housing, and earn below a set income limit. The CDC extended the order most recently on June 24. In announcing that one-month extension, CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky indicated that it would be the order’s final extension. Reprinted courtesy of Zachary Kessler, Pillsbury, Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury and Adam Weaver, Pillsbury Mr. Kessler may be contacted at zachary.kessler@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Weaver may be contacted at adam.weaver@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES