Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Transportation Officials Make the Best of a Bumpy 2020

January 18, 2021 — Jim Parsons & Aileen Cho - Engineering News-Record
The year 2020 provided a bumpy budgetary ride for all modes of transportation, and some industry insiders don’t expect airport and transit ridership to return to pre-pandemic levels for years. Agencies are taking lessons learned, coupled with hopes for the new Biden administration, to carry on as best they can. Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record and Aileen Cho, Engineering News-Record Ms. Cho may be contacted at choa@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

OSHA Issues Fines for Fatal Building Collapse in Philadelphia

November 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has issued $400,000 in fines to two contactors who were involved with the collapse of a building in Philadelphia. Six people died and 14 more were injured in an adjacent building. OSHA concluded that the two firms, Campbell Construction and S&R Contracting, violated workplace safety regulations 12 times in their demolition of the building. According to OSHA, Campbell Construction removed structural supports and portions of the lower floors of the building while upper stories were still being demolished. Both firms failed to provide its workers with fall protection equipment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California Cracking down on Phony Qualifiers

July 23, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Garret Murai in his California Construction Law Blog stated that “California’s Senate Bill 862, and amended Business and Professions Code 7068.1” has given the California Contractors State License Board (CSLB) “additional enforcement authority to crack down on phony qualifiers by allowing the CLSB to take disciplinary action against a qualifier and a licensee if the qualifier is not actively involved in the construction activities of the licensee’s business.” Murai explained that “[r]enting a qualifier means that you pay an individual who holds a California contractor’s license to act as the Responsible Managing Officer (RMO) or Responsible Managing Employee (RMO) of a construction company when they have no actual involvement in the day-to-day operations of the company.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

“Time Is Money!” In Construction and This Is Why There Is a Liquidated Damages Provision

February 01, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In construction, the adage “Time is Money!” rings true for all parties involved on a project. This includes an owner of a project that wants a project completed on time, i.e., by a substantial completion date. While substantial completion is often defined as when an owner can use a project for its intended purpose, this intended purpose typically equates to beneficial occupancy (in new construction) and other factors as identified in the contract. The best mechanism for an owner to reinforce time and the substantial completion date is through a liquidated damages provision (also known as an LD provision) that includes a daily monetary rate for each day of delay to the substantial completion date. A liquidated damages provision is not designed, and should NEVER be designed, to serve as a penalty because then it would be unenforceable. Instead, it should be designed to reasonably compensate an owner for delay to the substantial completion date that cannot be ascertained with any reasonable degree of certainty at the time the contract is being negotiated and executed. (Liquidated damages are MUCH easier to prove than actual damages an owner may incur down the road.) As an owner, you don’t really want to assess liquidated damages because that means the project is not substantially completed on time. And, in reality, a timely completed and performing project should always be better and more profitable than a late and underperforming project. However, without the liquidated damages provision, there isn’t a great way to hold a contractor’s feet to the fire with respect to the substantial completion date. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

California Supreme Court Holds “Notice-Prejudice” Rule is “Fundamental Public Policy” of California, May Override Choice of Law Provisions in Policies

November 12, 2019 — Anthony L. Miscioscia & Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLP
On August 29, 2019, in Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2019 Cal. LEXIS 6240, the California Supreme Court held that, in the insurance context, the common law “notice-prejudice” rule is a “fundamental public policy” of the State of California for purposes of choice of law analysis. Thus, even though the policy in Pitzer had a choice of law provision requiring application of New York law – which does not require an insurer to prove prejudice for late notice of claims under policies delivered outside of New York – that provision can be overridden by California’s public policy of requiring insurers to prove prejudice after late notice of a claim. The Supreme Court in Pitzer also held that the notice-prejudice rule “generally applies to consent provisions in the context of first party liability policy coverage,” but not to consent provisions in the third-party liability policy context. The Pitzer case arose from a discovery of polluted soil at Pitzer College during a dormitory construction project. Facing pressure to finish the project by the start of the next school term, Pitzer officials took steps to remediate the polluted soil at a cost of $2 million. When Pitzer notified its insurer of the remediation, and made a claim for the attendant costs, the insurer “denied coverage based on Pitzer’s failure to give notice as soon as practicable and its failure to obtain [the insurer’s] consent before commencing the remediation process.” The Supreme Court observed that Pitzer did not inform its insurer of the remediation until “three months after it completed remediation and six months after it discovered the darkened soils.” In response to the denial of coverage, Pitzer sued the insurer in California state court, the insurer removed the action to federal court and the insurer moved for summary judgment “claiming that it had no obligation to indemnify Pitzer for remediation costs because Pitzer had violated the Policy’s notice and consent provisions.” Reprinted courtesy of Timothy Carroll, White and Williams and Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Miller Act: More Complex than You Think

October 07, 2016 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Keith Bremer, senior partner of Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara LLP, has a feature article in the Fall 2016 issue of Construction Claims Magazine, and discusses how the Miller Act has been slowly changing: “This is a complex piece of legislation that is evolving and has been decided differently depending on the federal district a case is heard in,” Bremer wrote. Bremer explained how the courts continue to rule differently in regards to the Miller Act. “Currently it seems jurisdictions are split on the issue of whether or not subcontractors should be allowed to bring both a federal and state cause of action stemming from payment by a Miller Act bond. Therefore, any surety writing these bonds should pay strict attention to how broad or narrow the federal district that would hear the claim has interpreted the scope of a subcontractor’s remedies for Miller Act claims.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Renee Zellweger Selling Connecticut Country Home

August 06, 2014 — Emily Heffter – Bloomberg
You had me at seven fireplaces (and a bread oven). Actress Renee Zellweger’s Connecticut country home, on the market for $1.6 million, is hardly roughing it. The luxury farmhouse, built in 1770 and updated in 2004, is a stylish and luxurious country getaway. Set on 38 acres overlooking the Quinebaug River in rural Pomfret Center, the retreat at 96 Cotton Rd is 3,463 square feet with a top-of-the-line kitchen, a bread oven in the family room and a swimming pool. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Emily Heffter, Zillow

Broken Buildings: Legal Rights and Remedies in the Wake of a Collapse

October 11, 2021 — David J. Pfeffer - Construction Executive
A tragedy transpired on June 24 in Surfside, Florida, when the Champlain Towers South suddenly fell, becoming one of the country’s most deadly unintentional building collapses. It is imperative that construction industry professionals be aware of the legal issues that are raised by such ill-fated events. Who Is Held Responsible? Who can be held responsible for such disasters lies among several possible parties:

The building’s design professionals, particularly its architects and structural engineers. They are charged with ensuring that the building’s design is safe. They must take many factors into account, including, but not limited to, the materials that are used, the foundation, the weight and the height.
General contractors and the subcontractors. General contractors implement the design created by the architects and engineers and are responsible for appropriate materials. The general contractor also supervises the subcontractors aiding with multiple areas of the building’s construction and which also share the responsibility of executing the design and maintaining the building’s structural integrity.

Reprinted courtesy of David J. Pfeffer, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Pfeffer may be contacted at dpfeffer@tarterkrinsky.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES