SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Specification Challenge; Excusable Delay; Type I Differing Site Condition; Superior Knowledge

January 02, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
An Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals dispute, Appeal of L.S. Black-Loeffel Civil Constructors JV, ASBCA No. 62402, 2023 WL 5827241 (ASBCA 2023), involved which party bore liability for delay—the federal government or the prime contractor–based on various legal theories. Without detailing the factual details, a number of interesting legal issues were raised in this dispute including (1) a defective specification challenge, (2) excusable delay, (3) Type I differing site condition, and (4) superior knowledge. These legal issues are discussed below. 1. Specification Challenge (Defective Specifications) The contractor claimed that the government’s specifications were defective in regard to a thermal control plan. The government countered that the specifications were not design specifications but performance specifications. The specifications were performance based because they did not tell the contractor how to achieve the performance-based criteria. 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

---

Claims against Broker for Insufficient Coverage Fail

May 10, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
After a coverage dispute for damage caused by Hurricane Harvey was settled, the insured's claims against its insurance broker for providing insufficient coverage were dismissed. Hitchcock Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57452 (S.D. Texas Feb. 26, 2021). The School District suffered $3.5 million in property damage after Hurricane Harvey struck. Its insurers denied coverage and the School District sued. During the litigation, the School District learned that the policies contained an arbitration clause and a New York choice of law provision. Rather than pursue its claims in arbitration, the School District settled with its insurers and sued its broker for failing to obtain insurance without arbitration or choice of law provisions. The broker moved to dismiss The School District claimed that it had to settle with the insurers for less than what it would have settled had the arbitration and choice of law provisions not been in its policies. The court found this novel theory to be based upon pure speculation 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

---

Builder Waits too Long to Dispute Contract in Construction Defect Claim

May 10, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The Louisiana Court of Appeals has affirmed the lower court’s judgment in the case of Richard v. Alleman. The Richards initiated this lawsuit under Louisiana’s New Home Warranty Act, claiming that they had entered into a construction contract with Mr. Alleman and that they quickly found that his materials and methods had been substandard. They sued for the cost of repairing the home and filing the lawsuit. Mr. Alleman countersued, claiming the Richards failed to pay for labor, materials, and services. By his claim, they owed him $12,838.80.



The trial court split the issues of liability and damages. In the first trial, the court concluded that there was a contact between Alleman and the Richards and that the New Home Warranty Act applied. Mr. Alleman did not appeal this trial.



The second trial was on the issue of damages. Under the New Home Warranty Act, the Richards were found to be entitled to $36,977.11 in damages. In a second judgment, the couple was awarded $18,355.59 in attorney’s fees. Mr. Alleman appealed both judgments.



In his appeal, Alleman contended that the trial court erred in determining that the Home Warranty Act applied. This was, however, not the subject of the trial, having been determined at the earlier trial. Nor did the court accept Alleman’s claim that the Richards failed to comply with the Act. The trial record made clear that the Richards provided Alleman with a list of problems with their home by certified mail.



The court did not establish whether the Richards told Alleman to never return to their home, or if Alleman said he would never return to the home, but one thing was clear: Alleman did not complete the repairs in the list.



A further repair was added after the original list. The Richards claimed that with a loud noise, a large crack appeared in their tile flooring. Mr. Alleman stated that he was not liable for this as he was not given a chance to repair the damage, the Richards hired the flooring subcontractors, and that the trial court rejected the claim that the slab was defective. The appeals court found no problem with the award. Alleman had already “refused to make any of the repairs.”



Finally Alleman made a claim on a retainage held by the Richards. Since Alleman did not bring forth proof at trial, the appeals court upheld the trial courts refusal to award a credit to Alleman.



Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Damage Caused by Tar Escaping From Roof

October 27, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer prevailed on summary judgment establishing it had no duty to defend the insured roofing contractor for damage caused by tar escaping from a roof. Mesa Underwriters Spec. Ins. Co. v. Myers, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108444 (W.D. Ohio Aug. 16, 2016). Myers contracted to do roofing work for Sireco III LLC. Myers removed stones from the roof, patched all bad sections, and sealed the roof. To seal the roof, Myers used a roofing-tar sealant. The substance was a skin irritant and harmful or fatal if swallowed. Myers expected the sealant to harden within twenty-four hours. When rain hit the area eleven days later, however, it washed the sealant off the roof and into the downspouts. It then flowed into the city's sewer system and eventually into Lake Erie. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

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

---

Traub Lieberman Partner Ryan Jones Provides Testimony Before Florida Senate Committees

January 09, 2023 — C. Ryan Jones - Traub Lieberman
On December 12, Traub Lieberman Partner Ryan Jones provided testimony before two Florida Senate Committees during a Special Session to address the insurance crisis in Florida. Following the Special Session, the Florida Senate passed Senate Bill 2-A, which was designed to improve the property insurance marketplace for homeowners. Among other changes, the bill eliminates the one-way attorney’s fees provision in favor of insureds for lawsuits over disputed property claims and sets pre-requisites to filing bad faith lawsuits. The bill was recently signed into law by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of C. Ryan Jones, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Jones may be contacted at rjones@tlsslaw.com

---

Retaining Wall Contractor Not Responsible for Building Damage

July 20, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Court of Appeals of Indiana ruled on July 8 in the case of Rollander Enterprises, Inc. v. H.C. Nutting Co. Judge Baily wrote the opinion affirming the decision of the trial court.



The case involved an unfinished condominium complex, the Slopes of Greendale, in Greendale, Indiana. Rollander is a real estate development company incorporated in Ohio. One of the issues in the case was whether the case should be settled in the Indiana courts or be tried in Ohio. The project was owned by a special purpose entity limited liability corporation incorporated in Indiana.



Rollander hired Nutting to determine the geological composition of the site. Nutting’s report described the site as “a medium plastic clay containing pieces of shale and limestone.” The court summarized this as corresponding with “slope instability and landslides.” Rollander then hired Nutting to design the retaining walls, which were constructed by Scherziner Drilling.



After cracking was discovered on State Route 1, the walls were discovered to be inadequate. More dirt was brought in and a system of tie-backs was designed to anchor the walls. Not only were the tie-backs unsightly, local officials would not approve the complex for occupancy. Further, the failure of the wall below one building lead to damage of that building.



The court concluded that since almost all events occurred in Indiana, they rejected Rollander’s contention that the case should be tried in Ohio. Further, the court notes “the last event making Nutting potentially liable on both claims was an injury that occurred in Indiana and consequently, under the lex loci delicti analysis, Indiana law applies.”



Nor did the court find that Nutting was responsible for the damage to the rest of the project, citing an Indiana Supreme Court ruling, that “there is no liability in tort to the owner of a major construction project for pure economic loss caused unintentionally by contractors, subcontractors, engineers, design professionals, or others engaged in the project with whom the project owner, whether or not technically in privity of contract, is connected through a network or chain of contracts.”



The court concluded:



Because Rollander was in contractual privity with Nutting, and Indy was connected to Nutting through a chain of contracts and no exception applies, the economic loss rule precludes their recovery in tort. Damage to Building B was not damage to "other property," and the negligent misrepresentation exception to the economic loss rule is inapplicable on these facts. The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion by entering judgment on the evidence in favor of Nutting on the Appellants' negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims.



Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Subcontract Requiring Arbitration Outside of Florida

August 07, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Have you entered into a subcontract that requires you to arbitrate disputes? If so, does the arbitration provision require you to arbitrate your dispute outside of Florida? If so, the case of Sachse Construction and Development Corp. v. Affirmed Drywall, Corp., 43 Fla. L. Weekly D1622e (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) applies and reinforces the notion: Read and consider what you sign! In Sachse Construction, a drywall subcontractor entered into a subcontract for a construction project in Miami with an arbitration provision. The subcontract provided that it shall be construed in accordance with Michigan law and required that arbitration shall take pace in Michigan per the Construction Industry Rules of the American Arbitration Association. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---