Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

The Project “Completion” Paradox in California

April 06, 2016 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
We’ve written before about why the date of “completion” on a California construction project is important, and why, if I may be blunt, determining that date can be as frustrating as a one-legged man in a game of kickass. You see, in California the deadline to record a mechanics lien, serve a stop payment notice, or make a payment bond claim – important construction payment remedies the California State Legislature saw fit to help you get paid – often depends on when a project is “completed.” So, for example, the deadline for direct contractors to record a mechanics lien is 90 days from completion of the project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Brenner Base Tunnelers Conquer Peaks and Valleys in the Alps

October 21, 2019 — Scott Blair - Engineering News-Record
A logistics tangle decades in the unraveling, the Brenner Base Tunnel project is having a banner year. Twin tunnel boring machines in May were released on their relentless journey to mine the main tunnels underneath the Alps between Austria and Italy, while a multinational crew of 2,400 workers armed with a toolkit of just about every mining technique is swarming four major worksites, including a particularly challenging area where workers must undercut a river and pass through the fast-flowing aquifer below it. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott Blair, ENR
Mr. Blair may be contacted at blairs@enr.com

Defending Against the Res Ipsa Loquitur Doctrine – Liability Considerations

February 14, 2022 — Rina Clemens - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
A doctrine of limited applicability, res ipsa loquitur, stands for the proposition that the “things speaks for itself.” This doctrine allows a plaintiff to shift their evidentiary burden of proof to the defendant where a court can infer negligence from the fundamental nature of an accident or injury. We’re noticing a dangerous trend of more plaintiffs seeking to apply this doctrine in liability cases and clients need to know how to defend themselves. When faced with a person claiming that they sustained injuries while on your property, ask yourself: did your business have exclusive control of the instrumentality plaintiff alleges caused their injury? Would the accident have occurred without the negligence of the one in control of the instrumentality? Reprinted courtesy of Rina Clemens, Traub Lieberman Ms. Clemens may be contacted at rclemens@tlsslaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

No Escape: California Court of Appeals Gives a Primary CGL Insurer’s “Other Insurance” Clause Two Thumbs Down

December 02, 2015 — Yas Omidi – California Construction Law Blog
“No Escape” is a 2015 action movie starring Pierce Brosnan and Owen Wilson (that’s right, Owen Wilson) and which the folks at rogerebert.com described as “a dreadful…would-be thriller” and “low-grade trash.” It’s also, in short, the California Court of Appeal’s answer to a primary insurer’s recent bid to escape its duty to defend pursuant to an “other insurance” clause in a CGL policy in Underwriters of Interest Subscribing to Policy No. A15274001 v. ProBuilders Specialty Ins. Co., Case No. D066615, California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District (October 23, 2015). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Yas Omidi, California Construction Law Blog
Ms. Omidi may be contacted at yomidi@wendel.com

Can a Non-Union Company Be Compelled to Arbitrate?

August 02, 2017 — Wally Zimolong - Supplemental Conditions
Some of the most viewed topics on this blog are those concerning double breasted company. That is a two separate firms, commonly owned, one that is a signatory to a union and the other that is merit shop. An issue frequently encountered with double breasted construction companies is an union arbitrator’s jurisdiction over the non-signatory firm. The issue usually goes something like this. A signatory employer’s collective bargaining agreement contains language prohibiting double breasting (which could be invalid). The collective bargaining agreement also contains an arbitration provision requiring all disputes concerning a breach of the agreement (a grievance) be decided by an arbitrator in private arbitration. The union files a demand for arbitration claiming that the union signatory has breached the collective bargaining agreement’s anti-dual shop provision. The union names the non-union firm as a party to the arbitration based on its status as an alleged “single employer.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

Saved By The Statute: The Economic Loss Doctrine Does Not Bar Claims Under Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law

May 10, 2021 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Earl v. NVR, Inc., No. 20-2109, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 6451, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Third Circuit) considered whether, under Pennsylvania law, the plaintiff’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) claims against the builder of her home were barred by the economic loss doctrine. The UTPCPL is a Pennsylvania statute that prohibits “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” 73 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 201-3. The Third Circuit previously addressed the impact of the economic loss doctrine on UTPCPL claims in Werwinski v. Ford Motor Co., 286 F.3d 661 (3d Cir. 2002). In Werwinski, the court held that the plaintiff’s UTPCPL claim was barred by the economic loss doctrine. The Court of Appeals overturned its decision in Werwinski and held that the economic loss doctrine does not bar UTPCPL claims since such claims are statutory, and not based in tort. In Earl, the plaintiff, Lisa Earl, entered into an agreement with defendant NVR, Inc. (NVR) for the construction and sale of a home in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Ms. Earl learned of the home through NVR’s marketing, which described the home as containing “quality architecture, timeless design, and beautiful finishes.” Ms. Earl alleged that during the construction of the home, she had further discussions with agents of NVR, who made representations that the home would be constructed in a good and workmanlike manner and that any deficiencies noted by Ms. Earl would be remedied. The defendant also assured Ms. Earl that the home would be constructed in accordance with relevant building codes and industry standards. After moving into the home, Ms. Earl discovered several material defects in the construction. She provided notice of these defects to NVR, but NVR’s attempts to repair some of the defects were inadequate. 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

California Appellate Court Holds “Minimal Causal Connection” Satisfies Causation Requirement in All Risk Policies

July 20, 2020 — Scott P. DeVries & Michael S. Levine - Hunton Andrews Kurth
On May 26, 2020, a California Court of Appeals (4th District) issued its decision in Mosley et al. v. Pacific Specialty Ins. Co. The case arose in the context of a marijuana-growing tenant who rerouted a home’s electrical system and caused an electrical fire. The issue was whether the homeowner’s policy covered the loss. The trial court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment and, in a divided decision, the Court of Appeals reversed in part. The policy excluded losses “resulting from any manufacturing, production or operation, engaged in … the growing of plants.” The parties agreed that the fire resulted from the rewiring of the electrical system, but disagreed on “whether that means the damage” “result[ed] from” “the growing of plants.” The Court held that “resulting from” “broadly links a factual situation with the event creating liability, and connotes only a minimal causal connection or incidental relationship.” In doing so, it equated the terms “results from” and “arising from.” Concluding that a “common sense” approach was to be used, it found a “minimal causal connection” to be present. This expansive standard could be beneficial to policyholders in arguing the causal connection between COVID-19 and ensuing business interruption losses; specifically, that the pandemic, a covered event, is the underlying and proximate cause of the insureds’ physical loss and/or damage and the insured’s resulting business interruption loss, and that intervening events, whether they be orders of civil authority, prevention of ingress/egress or otherwise, would not sever the chain of causation. Reprinted courtesy of Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Specific Source of Water Not Relevant in Construction Defect Claim

June 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Nebraska Court of Appeals has concluded that a lower court came to the correct conclusion in a construction defect case involving water intrusion. The Hiatts built a home in North Platte, Nebraska, in in 2004 which they sold to the Oettingers in May, 2006. Shortly thereafter, the Oettingers started experiencing problems with water intrusion and contacted the Hiatts. The Hiatts responded by replacing the septic lift. Subsequently, the Oettingers landscaped their yard, which they allege was done with the assistance of the Hiatts. The water problems continued and “the parties took substantial remedial measures, including excavating the sidewalk and inspecting the downspouts.” The water problems continued, getting worse and requiring increasingly aggressive responses. The Oettingers then had a series of inspections, and they hired the last of these inspectors to actually fix the water intrusion problem. At that point, they filed a lawsuit against the Hiatts alleging that the Hiatts “breached their contact by constructing and selling a home that was not built according to reasonable construction standards,” and that they “were negligent in the repair of the home in 2009.” During the trial, Irving Hiatt testified that they “tarred the outside of the basement and put plastic into the tar and another layer of plastic over the top of that.” He claimed that the problem was with the Oettingers’ landscaping. This was further claimed in testimony of his son, Vernon Hiatt, who said the landscaping lacked drainage. The Oettingers had three experts testify, all of whom noted that the landscaping could not have been the problem. All three experts testified as to problems with the Hiatts’ construction. The court concluded that the Hiatts had breached an implied warranty, rejecting the claim that the water intrusion was due to the landscaping. The Hiatts appealed the decision of the county court to the district court. Here, the judgment of the lowest court was confirmed, with the district court again finding a breach of the implied warranty of workmanlike performance. The Hiatts appealed again. They alleged that the district court should not have held a breach of implied warranty existed without proving the source of the water intrusion, and that damages should have been apportioned based on the degree to which the Oettingers’ landscaping and basement alterations were responsible. The appeals court dispensed with the second claim first, noting that “they do not argue this error in their brief nor do they explain how or why the trial court should have apportioned damages.” The court also noted that although the Oettingers made a negligence claim in their suit, the case had been decided on the basis of a breach of implied warranty. The appeals court upheld the Oettingers’ claim of a breach of implied warranty. In order to do this, the court noted that the Oettingers had to show that an implied warranty existed, that the Haitts breached that warranty, damage was suffered as a result, and that no express warranty limited the implied warranty. That court noted that “the record is sufficient to prove that the Hiatts breached the implied warranty in the method in which they constructed the basement” and that “this breach was the cause of the Oettingers’ damages.” The court concluded that the Oettingers “provided sufficient evidence that the Hiatts’ faulty construction allowed water, whatever its source, to infiltrate the basement.” The court rejected the Hiatts’ claim that the Oettingers’ repairs voided the warranty, as it was clear that the Hiatts were involved in carrying out these repairs. The court’s final conclusion was that “the evidence in the record supports the trial court’s factual finding that the Hiatts’ flawed construction caused water damage to the Oettingers’ basement.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES