SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Four Key Steps for a Successful Construction Audit Process

May 03, 2021 — Ronald L. Williams, Fox Rothschild LLP - ConsensusDocs
The implications of the audit provisions contained in construction agreements between owners and contractors owners extend far beyond post-completion bean counting, and can affect multiple aspects of a project, from project administration to relationships with key subcontractors. It is critically important that contractors give audits the attention they deserve by taking the following four steps. First, invest the time to negotiate the audit provisions that ultimately appear in contracts with the owner. Second, ensure that the project team and the owner’s project auditors engage in timely communication during construction. Third, make certain that post-completion audit administration is prompt and complete. And finally, carefully draft adequate “flow-down” provisions with subcontractors and vendors so that they understand and comply with their contractual obligations, as well as the expectations of the contractor and owner. All four aspects are critical, and if not addressed effectively can undermine the profitability of the contract, and contractors’ business relationships with both upstream and downstream parties. Negotiations At the outset of contract negotiations, a contractor must completely understand the owner’s audit process expectations. An owner’s understanding of the audit process and its potential pitfalls depends on their own experience, as well as the knowledge of their personnel, including internal audit members and external auditors. Negotiations, which like the audit itself need not be adversarial, can be educational for both the owner and any representatives involved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ronald L. Williams, Fox Rothschild LLP
Mr. Williams may be contacted at rwilliams@foxrothschild.com

---

Billionaire Row Condo Board Sues Developers Over 1,500 Building Defects

September 29, 2021 — Robert Burnson, Bloomberg
The condo board at one of New York’s tallest and toniest towers sued the building’s developers, claiming design flaws are to blame for flooding, stuck elevators and “horrible and obtrusive noise and vibration.” The residential tower at 432 Park Avenue is a 1,396-foot skyscraper overlooking Central Park that was opened in 2015 on the city’s so-called Billionaire Row. The condo board claims its engineering consultant has identified more than 1,500 construction and design defects — “many of which are described as life safety issues.” The board that represents the condo owners sued the developers, CIM Group and Macklowe Properties, and the company, also known as sponsor, that the developers formed to build the tower. The board is seeking $250 million, plus punitive damages, in the lawsuit, filed Thursday in New York Supreme Court. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Robert Burnson, Bloomberg

---

Contractor Changes Contract After Signed, Then Sues Older Woman for Breaking It

September 03, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Channel 13 Who TV reported, in Winterset, Iowa, Mary Gregory allegedly signed an estimate for hail damage repair to her home, and was later told by the contractor that it was a contract. When a crew showed up to her home to perform the work, she turned them away. Then, Gregory received a letter from an attorney demanding eight thousand dollars for breach of contract. It turns out that the contractor altered the estimate Gregory signed and submitted it to the insurance company. According to Who TV, the altered estimate “contained work that Gregory says she didn’t authorize and a price tag of $32,134.” Jim Nelle, the contractor, admitted that he added to the contract after it was signed. He claims he was only trying to help her. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Notice of Claim Sufficient to Invoke Coverage

August 06, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Indirect notice to the insurer was sufficient to trigger coverage for the additional insured under a liability policy. Spoleta Constr., LLC v. Aspen Ins. UK Ltd., 2014 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5174 (N.Y. App. Div. July 11, 2014). An employee of the subcontractor was injured at the construction project on October 20, 2008. The general contractor was named as an additional insured on the subcontractor's CGL policy with Aspen. Under the subcontract, the subcontractor also agreed to defend and indemnify the general contractor for all claims arising out of the subcontractor's work. The general contractor did not receive notice of the accident until late December 2009 in a letter from the injured employee's attorney. On January 27, 2010, the general contractor's liability carrier sent a letter to the subcontractor giving notice of the employee's claim and requesting that the subcontractor put its carrier on notice. On February 9, 2010, the subcontractor sent to Aspen a claim form with the January 2010 letter attached. 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

---

No Coverage for Roof Collapse During Hurricane

January 29, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's determination that the insured's roof collapse was not covered. Exclusive Real Estate Inv., L.L.C. v. S.G.L. No. 1, Ltd., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 29368 (5th Cir. Nov. 3, 2023). A building owned by Exclusive Real Estate partially collapsed during a rain-storm. The insurer, SGL, inspected the roof and determined that there was no coverage. Exclusive sued SGL for breach of contract and bad faith. SGL moved for summary judgment, which was granted by the district court. Exclusive appealed. The poicy covered "direct physical loss to the property" caused by windstorms. Exclusions, however, precluded coverage for losses "caused by rain, snow, sleet, sand or dust unless the direct force of wind or hail damages the building causing an opening in a roof or wall and the rain, snow, sleet, sand or dust enters through this opening." 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

---

Washington Court of Appeals Upholds Standard of Repose in Fruit Warehouse Case

August 04, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

On July 28, the Washington Court of Appeals ruled in Clasen Fruit & Cold Storage v. Frederick & Michael Construction Co., Inc. that more than six years had passed since a contractor had concluded work and so granted a summary dismissal of the suit.



Frederick & Michael Construction Co., Inc. (F&M) was contracted to construct several buildings for Clasen Fruit and Cold Storage. These were completed in March, 1999. The buildings suffered wind damage to the roofs in 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2006. In the first two incidents, F&M repaired the roofs with Clasen paying for repairs.



In 2005, Clasen hired Continuous Gutter to make repairs. The final incident was the collapse of the roof of one building. This was attributed to “excessive moisture in the roof’s vapor barriers.” At this point, Clasen demanded that F&M pay for repair and replacement costs. In 2008, Clasen sued F&M for damages for breach of contract and negligent design and construction of the roof.



The decision then covered the meanings, in Washington law, of “termination of services” and “substantial completion.” The panel concluded that construction was “substantially completed in 1997” and “relevant services” by 2001. “But Clasen did not sue until 2008, some seven years after termination of any roof related services.”



Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Construction Litigation Roundup: “Builder’s Risk Indeed”

October 24, 2023 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
A contractor for a hotel in Seattle was tasked with constructing the hotel utilizing premanufactured modular hotel rooms. The modular unit portion of the project was the subject of a $15.8 million subcontract between the general contractor and the manufacturer. The manufacturer was also responsible to the GC for shipping and installing the modular units. Shipping was to be “DDP,” or “Delivery Duty Paid” – which, according to a New York federal court, “is an international shipping term meaning that the seller assumes all responsibilities and costs for delivering property to the named place of destination, including export and import clearance, fees, duties, and taxes.” Additionally, per the subcontract, the manufacturer was responsible for “ensur[ing] all modular units [were] covered, secured[,] and protected from damage during the shipping process….” The modular units were shipped from Poland to Seattle. In the shipping process, the units spent some time in the Port of Everett in Washington state, where the units sustained water damage while sitting in port. A related damage claim made by the subcontractor against the general contractor’s builder’s risk policy. On the face of the policy, the policy covered subcontractors as “additional insured” parties, covered all manner of materials and the like to be used on the project, and would provide that coverage in the process of transporting the materials insofar as “inland or coastal waters” were concerned. Yet, the builder’s risk insurer refused to cover the claim for the damages to the modular units which occurred while sitting in port in Everett. 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

---

That’s Common Knowledge! Failure to Designate an Expert Witness in a Professional Negligence Case is Not Fatal Where “Common Knowledge” Exception Applies

June 03, 2019 — Lyndsey Torp - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In reversing summary judgment for defendants, the California Fourth District Court of Appeal recently held that homeowners suing their real estate broker for negligence did not need an expert witness to establish the elements of their causes of action. Ryan v. Real Estate of the Pacific, Inc. (2019) 32 Cal. App. 5th 637. Typically, expert witnesses are required to establish the standard of care in professional negligence cases. But in Ryan, the court of appeal held that the “common knowledge” exception applied despite this general rule, because the conduct required by the particular circumstance of the case was within the common knowledge of a layman. The conduct in question here? The broker’s failure to disclose to his client that the client’s neighbor told him that she planned extensive renovations that would obstruct the client’s property’s ocean views. Ryan and Patricia Ryan (the Ryans) hired defendant Real Estate of the Pacific, Inc., doing business as Pacific Sotheby’s International Realty (Sotheby’s) and defendant real estate broker to sell their residence in La Jolla, California. During an open house at the residence, a neighbor informed the Ryan’s real estate broker that she planned extensive renovations at her home that would, among other things, permanently obstruct the Ryan’s westerly ocean views and take several years to complete. The real estate broker never informed the Ryans of this, nor the subsequent buyer. The subsequent buyer purchased the property for $3.86 million, and defendants received $96,500 as commission for the sale. The day after escrow closed, the buyers learned of the renovations, and sought to rescind the purchase. Based on advice of defendants, the Ryans refused, and the dispute proceeded to arbitration. The buyer obtained a rescission of the purchase, with the Ryans order to pay damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs in excess of $1 million. The Ryans then sued Sotheby’s and the real estate broker to recover these amounts and damages caused by defendants’ alleged negligence. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lyndsey Torp, Snell & Wilmer
Ms. Torp may be contacted at ltorp@swlaw.com

---