Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Double-Wide World Cup Seats Available to 6-Foot, 221-Pound Fans

June 18, 2014 — Tariq Panja – Bloomberg
Some of the double-wide seats that Brazilian law guarantees for obese World Cup fans are being occupied by people who don’t need that much extra space, and FIFA said it can’t do anything to prevent that from happening. Soccer’s governing body said it is using World Health Organization and official Brazil Ministry of Health guidelines on who can be classified as obese. Those with a body mass index, or BMI, of 30 or higher can purchase a special-needs ticket at half price and get one of the special seats. Someone who is 6 feet tall and weighs 221 pounds (1.8 meters, 100 kilograms) would qualify. “There are cases where a person doesn’t look obese but meets the guidelines,” Federico Addiechi, head of corporate hospitality, said after a briefing yesterday at Rio de Janeiro’s Maracana stadium, where the World Cup’s July 13 final will be held. “We cannot decide you are not obese if the law says you are obese.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tariq Panja, Bloomberg
Mr. Panja may be contacted at tpanja@bloomberg.net

N.J. Appellate Court Applies Continuous Trigger Theory in Property Damage Case and Determines “Last Pull” for Coverage

November 15, 2017 — K. Alexandra Byrd – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, published an important decision addressing several fundamental issues regarding how a commercial general liability (CGL) policy applies to long-term property damage. The court held that: (1) a continuous trigger theory of coverage may be applied to third-party liability claims involving progressive property damage caused by an insured’s allegedly defective work; (2) the “last pull” (i.e., the cutoff point) of the continuous trigger is when the “essential nature and scope” of the property damage first becomes known or could reasonably be known; and (3) the “last pull” is not when the property damage is “attributed” to the insured’s faulty work. The underlying action in Air Master & Cooling Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co., et al. 1 concerned property damage arising out of the construction of a seven-story, 101-unit condominium building in Montclair, New Jersey. The project’s construction manager hired Air Master & Cooling, Inc. (Air Master) to perform HVAC work on the project, including installing individual HVAC equipment in each resident’s unit from 2005 to 2008. In early 2008, unit owners began complaining about water infiltration and damage to their windows, ceilings, and other portions of their units. The general contractor and developer began assessing the damage and making repairs. Eventually, in April 2010, an expert consultant performed a moisture survey of the roof and discovered 111 areas that were damaged by water infiltration. The expert report indicated that “it [was] impossible to determine when [the] moisture infiltration occurred.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of K. Alexandra Byrd, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Byrd may be contacted at kab@sdvlaw.com

BHA has a Nice Swing: Firm Supports CDCCF Charity at 2014 WCC Seminar

April 29, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Stop by the Bert L. Howe & Associates (BHA) booth at the 2014 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar at the Disneyland Hotel on May 15th and 16th, and Sink A Putt For Charity! This year, seminar attendees and would-be duffers who try their hand at the golf putting game at the Bert L. Howe & Associates booth will not only have the chance to win a free gift card, they’ll also have the opportunity to help raise funds for a very important cause, the Construction Defect Community Charitable Foundation (CDCCF). Throughout this year’s seminar, with every hole-in-one made at their booth, BHA will make a $25.00 cash donation in the golfer’s name to the CDCCF. Bert L. Howe & Associates strongly supports the goals and principles of the CDCCF, and is honored to assist the foundation in fulfilling its mandate of assisting those in the construction defect community who are in need. Read how the CDCCF assists the construction defect community... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Constructive Suspension (Suspension Outside of an Express Order)

December 13, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In the federal procurement arena, there is a concept known as “constructive suspension.” Constructive suspension, while known in the federal arena, should reasonably apply to all projects when work is stopped outside of an express order to stop the work based on the law below. An unreasonable suspension is an unreasonable suspension and an express order to stop the work does not negate the effects of what really amounts to a suspension. “Constructive suspension occurs when work is stopped absent an express order by the contracting officer and the government is found to be responsible for the work stoppage.” P.R. Burke Corp. v. U.S., 277 F.3d 1346, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The government delay must be unreasonable to support a constructive acceleration claim. Id. “To demonstrate such a constructive suspension of work, the contractor must show that the delay (1) was for an ‘unreasonable length of time,’ (2) was proximately caused by the government’s actions, and (3) resulted in some injury to the contractor.” Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. U.S., 2001 WL 36415627, *6 (Fed.Cl. 2001) (citation omitted). “Relative to proving that the delay was directly caused by the government, the contractor must concomitantly show that it was not delayed by any concurrent cause that would have independently generated the delay during the same time period even if it does not predominate over the government’s action as the cause of the delay.” Beauchamp Const. Co. v. U.S., 14 Cl.Ct. 430, 437 (Cl.Ct. 1988). 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

Another Guilty Plea in Las Vegas HOA Scandal

December 20, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
A twenty-eighth person has plead guilty in the ongoing Las Vegas HOA scandal. Dax Louderman, who had been a construction company manager had acknowledged that he stole more than $495,000 from his former employers, Alpha 1 Construction and the Stone Canyon Homeowners Association, and further that he did not report this improper income on his tax returns. He has agreed to work with prosecutors and to pay $134,860 to the IRS. His actual sentencing will happen on June 24. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Chutes and Ladders...and Contracts.

November 25, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
A contractor which designed and constructed a hydroelectric plant in Guatemala sued under the Federal Arbitration Act in federal court in Florida to overturn a project-related arbitration decision, “on the basis that the Tribunal had exceeded its powers.” That petition was denied based upon Eleventh Circuit precedent which foreclosed that challenge under the FAA for an arbitration conducted “under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards,” a.k.a., the “New York Convention.” The U. S. 11th Circuit initially affirmed the lower court decision, but then upon an en banc rehearing reversed: holding that in a New York Convention case where the arbitration seat is in the U. S., or where United States law governs the arbitration conduct, “Chapter 1 of the FAA provides the grounds for vacatur of the arbitral award. … § 208 of the FAA provides that ‘Chapter 1 applies to actions and proceedings brought under [Chapter 2] to the extent that chapter is not in conflict with [Chapter 2] or the [New York] Convention as ratified by the United States.’ …Chapter 1 of the FAA… thus acts as a gapfiller and provides the vacatur grounds for an international arbitration award otherwise governed by Chapter 2.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

The Murky Waters Between "Good Faith" and "Bad Faith"

September 30, 2019 — Theresa A. Guertin - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
In honor of Shark Week, that annual television-event where we eagerly flip on the Discovery Channel to get our fix of these magnificent (and terrifying!) creatures, I was inspired to write about the “predatory” practices we’ve encountered recently in our construction insurance practice. The more sophisticated the business and risk management department is, the more likely they have a sophisticated insurer writing their coverage. Although peaceful coexistence is possible, that doesn’t mean that insurers won’t use every advantage available to them – compared to even large corporate insureds, insurance companies are the apex predators of the insurance industry. In order to safeguard policyholders’ interests, most states have developed a body of law (some statutory, some based on judicial decisions) requiring insurers to act in good faith when dealing with their insureds. This is typically embodied as a requirement that the insurer act “fairly and reasonably” in processing, investigating, and handling claims. If the insurer does not meet this standard, insureds may be entitled to damages above and beyond that which they could otherwise recover for breach of contract. Proving that an insurer acted in “bad faith,” however, can be like swimming against the riptide. Most states hold that bad faith requires more than just a difference of opinion between insured and insurer over the available coverage – the policyholder must show that the insurer acted “wantonly” or “maliciously,” or, in less stringent jurisdictions, that the insurer was “unreasonable.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Ms. Guertin may be contacted at tag@sdvlaw.com

Indemnity: What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You!

September 19, 2022 — Caitlin Kicklighter & Bill Shaughnessy - ConsensusDocs
Risk allocation between the parties is a critical component of any construction contract. Indemnity obligations can be some of the important risk-shifting provisions of any design or construction contract. Indemnity provisions typically require one party, the Indemnitor, to agree to “hold harmless,” and/or reimburse another party, the indemnitee, from claims and liability arising out of the party’s work. Considering the financial consequences that an indemnity provision can have on a construction project, it is critical that all parties to a construction contract know the legal implications of the contract indemnity provisions and understand any limitations in enforcing the indemnity provisions depending on the controlling jurisdiction. While most indemnity clauses and obligations are enforceable, many states have enacted anti-indemnity statutes prohibiting or restricting specific indemnification provisions. These anti-indemnity statutes afford protection to contractors and subcontractors not generally in a position to protect themselves from overly extensive indemnity obligations. This article highlights several examples of indemnity provisions typically seen in construction contracts, the measures are taken by a growing number of states to protect parties with less bargaining power in the form of anti-indemnity statutes, and offers practical considerations when negotiating or drafting indemnity provisions.[1] Reprinted courtesy of Caitlin Kicklighter, Emory Law Student (2024 Graduate), (ConsensusDocs) and Bill Shaughnessy, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs) Mr. Shaughnessy may be contacted at bshaughnessy@joneswalker.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES